alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 60 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. CON. RES. 60

 Expressing the sense of Congress relating to negotiating a free trade 
            agreement between the United States and Taiwan.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           December 18, 2007

Mr. Baucus (for himself and Mr. Kyl) submitted the following concurrent 
       resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
 Expressing the sense of Congress relating to negotiating a free trade 
            agreement between the United States and Taiwan.

Whereas for more than 50 years a close bilateral relationship has existed 
        between the United States and Taiwan as evidenced by the Taiwan 
        Relations Act;
Whereas on January 1, 2002, Taiwan was admitted to the World Trade Organization, 
        which has resulted in a reduction in duties for foreign goods and an 
        increase in market access for foreign investment;
Whereas a 2002 United States International Trade Commission report found that 
        exports by some sectors of the United States economy would increase 
        significantly if the United States entered into a free trade agreement 
        with Taiwan;
Whereas bilateral trade between Taiwan and the United States was $57,000,000,000 
        in 2005 and $61,000,000,000 in 2006;
Whereas Taiwan ranks as the 9th largest trading partner of the United States and 
        the 11th largest export market for United States goods;
Whereas Taiwan is the 6th largest market for United States agricultural 
        products, the 3rd largest buyer of United States corn, the 4th largest 
        buyer of United States soybeans, the 5th largest buyer of United States 
        beef, and the 6th largest buyer of United States wheat;
Whereas the United States is an important supplier of electrical machinery and 
        appliances, aircraft, scientific instruments, and chemical products to 
        Taiwan;
Whereas increasing exports to large and commercially significant economies in 
        Asia is a critical part of reducing the United States trade deficit;
Whereas Taiwan, as a democracy and free market economy, shares with the United 
        States principles and values that provide a strong foundation for open, 
        fair, and mutually beneficial trade relations; and
Whereas maintaining and strengthening a robust trade relationship with Taiwan is 
        of economic significance to the United States: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That it is the sense of Congress that the United States should increase 
trade opportunities with Taiwan and should launch negotiations for a 
free trade agreement with Taiwan.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 99.1

                       CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

William R. Fairbanks, the chief executive officer of American Sports Development
Group, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certifies that to the best of his knowledge:

     1.   The  Quarterly  Report on Form  10-QSB  for the fiscal  quarter  ended
          September 30, 2002 of the Company (the  "Report")  fully complies with
          the  requirements  of section 13(a) or 15(d),  as  applicable,  of the
          Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

     2.   The  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
          material respects,  the financial  condition and results of operations
          of the Company at the dates and for the periods indicated.

The foregoing certification is made solely for the purpose of complying with the
requirements  of Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.  ss.
1350)  and  may not be  relied  upon  by  anyone  for  any  other  purpose.  The
undersigned  expressly  disclaims any undertaking to update such  certifications
except as required by law.


Date:  November 5, 2002.


                                        /s/ William R. Fairbanks
                                        ------------------------------------
                                        William R. Fairbanks,
                                        President and Chief Executive Officer
###### Editorial Note on Part 4

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 4 appear at 61 FR 19984, May 3, 1996.

#### § 4.2 Payment of minimum wage specified in section 6(a)(1) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 under all service contracts.

Section 2(b)(1) of the Service Contract Act of 1965 provides in effect that, regardless of contract amount, no contractor or subcontractor performing work under any Federal contract the principal purpose of which is to furnish services through the use of service employees shall pay any employees engaged in such work less than the minimum wage specified in section 6(a)(1) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended.

[61 FR 68663, Dec. 30, 1996]
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      Exhibit 24


                           SPECIAL POWERS OF ATTORNEY



         KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS that I, William B. Timmerman, Director
of The Liberty Corporation, do hereby appoint Martha G. Williams and R. David
Black, or either of them, Special Attorney for me and in my name and on my
behalf to sign the Annual Report on Form 10-K and any amendments thereto for The
Liberty Corporation to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, for each fiscal year ended December
31, and generally to do and to perform all things necessary to be done in the
premises as fully and effectually in all respects as I could do if personally
present.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 6th day
of May, 1997.




                            /s/ William B. Timmerman
                            ------------------------
                            William B. Timmerman
                            Director, The Liberty Corporation
                            A South Carolina Corporation




                                       65
#### § 2570.140 Scope of review.

The review of the Secretary shall not be a de novo proceeding but rather a review of the record established before the administrative law judge. There shall be no opportunity for oral argument.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 32

              CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                     AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                      OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of The Kellwood Company (the Company)
on Form 10-K for the period ended January 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of
the undersigned hereby individually certify that, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
         or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
         and

         (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
         material respects, the financial condition and result of operations
         of the Company as of and for the period covered in the Report.

       /s/ Hal J. Upbin
       --------------------------------------------------
       Hal J. Upbin, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

       March 18, 2004


       /s/ W. Lee Capps, III
       -------------------------------------------------------------
       W. Lee Capps, III, Executive Vice President Finance and Chief
       Financial Officer

       March 18, 2004

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or
other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Kellwood
Company and will be retained by Kellwood Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

The foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Form 10-K and shall not be
considered filed as part of the Form 10-K.

                                     64
#### Michael A. Crage, Appellant, *v.*City of Buffalo, Respondent.

Argued January 11, 1937;

decided January 26, 1937.

*518
      *Frank A. Miceli*for appellant.

*Gregory U. Harmon, Corporation Counsel (Bart J. Shanahan*of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Loughran and Rippet, JJ. Taking no part: Finch, J.
IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 104 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 26, 2008 

Referred to the Committee on Education and Labor 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Supporting ‘‘Lights On Afterschool!’’, a national celebration 

of after school programs. 

Whereas high quality after school programs provide safe, 

challenging, engaging, and fun learning experiences to 

help children and youth develop their social, emotional, 

physical, cultural, and academic skills; 

Whereas high quality after school programs support working 

families by ensuring that the children in such families are 

safe and productive after the regular school day ends; 

Whereas high quality after school programs build stronger 

communities by involving the Nation’s students, parents, 

business leaders, and adult volunteers in the lives of the 

Nation’s youth, thereby promoting positive relationships 

among children, youth, families, and adults; 

Whereas high quality after school programs engage families, 

schools, and diverse community partners in advancing the 

well-being of the Nation’s children; 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
2 

SCON 104 RFH 

Whereas ‘‘Lights On Afterschool!’’, a national celebration of 

after school programs held on October 16, 2008, promotes the critical importance of high quality after school 

programs in the lives of children, their families, and their 

communities; 

Whereas more than 28,000,000 children in the United States 

have parents who work outside the home and 14,300,000 

children in the United States have no place to go after 

school; and 

Whereas many after school programs across the United 

States are struggling to keep their doors open and their 

lights on: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring), That Congress supports the goals and ideals 

3 of ‘‘Lights On Afterschool!’’ a national celebration of after 

4 school programs. 

Passed the Senate September 26 (legislative day, 

September 17), 2008. 

Attest: NANCY ERICKSON, 

Secretary. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
#### Mary B. SCHENK, Administratrix of the Estate of Robert F. Schenk, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PACKAGING CORPORATION OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee. William E. LOEHR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PACKAGING CORPORATION OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee.

Nos. 17387, 17388.

United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.

May 19, 1967.

William G. Reamon, Grand Rapids, Mich., Marcus, McCroskey, Libner, Reamon, Williams & Dilley, by Michael 0. Barron, Grand Rapids, Mich., on brief, for appellants.

Douglas W. Hillman, Grand Rapids, Mich., Hillman, Baxter & Hammond, by .Robert N. Hammond, Grand Rapids, Mich., on brief, for appellee.

Before O’SULLIVAN, Circuit Judge, and WILBUR K. MILLER * and CECIL, Senior Circuit Judges.

*

 Of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM.

These appeals are from summary judgments granted to Packaging Corporation of America in actions brought against it and others to recover damages for the death of Robert F. Schenk and injuries to William E. Loehr, which resulted from an automobile accident in Michigan. The car in which they were riding came in contact with a tractor-truck loaded with pulpwood, or with some portion 0f the load, and the death and injuries followed.

The Packaging Corporation’s motion for summary judgment was based on the fact that the pulpwood was being delivered to one of its plants by an independent contractor over whom it had no sort of control, nor had it exercised or attempted to exercise control over him. The District Court granted the motions and directed the entry of final judgments in favor of Packaging Corporation, as he expressly determined under Rule 54(b), Fed.R.Civ.P., that in these multiple party actions there was no just reason for de*368lay. Thus the appeals are properly before us even though the claims against the other defendants have not been adjudicated.

We affirm the judgments of the District Court on the opinion of District Judge Noel P. Fox in Schenk, Admr. v. Packaging Corporation of America (our number 17,387), which is reported in 267 F.Supp. 439 (1966).

Affirmed.
#### Herman M. Albert, Appellant and Respondent, *v.*City of New York, Respondent and Appellant.

Argued June 4, 1937;

decided July 13, 1937.

*485
      *Paul Windels, Corporation Counsel (William S. Gaud, Jr., Paxton Blair*and *Robert H. Shaffer*of counsel), for defendant, respondent and appellant.

*Sidney Sugarman*for plaintiff, appellant and respondent.

Judgment affirmed, without costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, Hubbs, Loughran, Finch and Rippey, JJ. Taking no part: O’Brien, J.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                      14,619,271
<SECURITIES>                                14,410,101
<RECEIVABLES>                               23,659,774
<ALLOWANCES>                                   496,000
<INVENTORY>                                    201,871
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            54,338,136
<PP&E>                                      18,953,333
<DEPRECIATION>                              11,859,543
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              69,509,267
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       27,539,540
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        48,548
<OTHER-SE>                                  38,227,646
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                69,509,267
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           100,627,292
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               69,383,846
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            17,905,852
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               119,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             443,642
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             12,422,659
<INCOME-TAX>                                 5,436,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          6,986,659
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 6,986,659
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.37
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.35
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           1,621,002
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   19,319,039
<ALLOWANCES>                                       389,000
<INVENTORY>                                     13,149,649
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                35,872,314
<PP&E>                                          66,656,411
<DEPRECIATION>                                  31,357,471
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  75,059,989
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           17,573,799
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                         8,622,750
<OTHER-SE>                                      23,136,035
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    75,059,989
<SALES>                                        150,259,355
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               150,259,355
<CGS>                                          114,167,251
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  114,167,251
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                25,630,133
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   336,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 802,202
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  9,323,769
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,162,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,161,769
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,161,769
<EPS-BASIC>                                         1.25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         1.24



</TABLE>
#### Genevieve W. Greene, Appellant, *v.*Lockport Exchange Trust Company et al., Respondents.

Argued June 1, 1937;

decided July 13, 1937.

*464
      *John B. Doyle, W. Alfred Brim, Emmett McLoughlin, Jr.,*and *Jerome H. Shapiro*for appellant.

*Noel S. Symons, Henry D. Warren*and *Franklin R. Brown*for Lockport Exchange Trust Company et al., respondents.

*J. Carl Fogle*for Niagara County National Bank & Trust Company et al., respondents.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Loughran and Finch, JJ. Dissenting: Rippey, J.
**EXHIBIT32.1**

 

**WRITTEN STATEMENTPURSUANT TO18****U.S.C.****SECTION****1350**

 

 

The undersigned, RONALDG. LEE, the Chief Executive Officer/Chief Financial Officer, of LEEPHARMACEUTICALS (the “Company”), pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, herebycertifies that:

 

(i)  the FORM10-KSB of the Company for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2003 (the“Report”) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(ii)  theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

Dated: December 22, 2003

 

 
|   | RONALD G. LEE |   |
|--------|---------------|--------|
|   | Ronald G. Lee |

 

----
#### NEWBURGH HEIGHTS (village) v TEGG etc.

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

No 9592.

Decided April 29, 1929

Locher, Green & Woods, Cleveland, for Village.

Morgenstern & Morgenstern, Clevland, for Tegg.

*317LEVINE. J.

Were we to grant the contention of plaintiff to the effect that the mayor and his boxing commission are without power to issue permits because of the provisions of the ordinance, we would be led to but one conclusion, namely, that the granting of the permit by the mayor ,and his boxing, commission, to hold boxing exhibitions, is of no legal válidity and amounts to nothing. We would then have the situation that the mayor permits or sanctions the holding of boxing exhibitions in the village of New-burgh Heights without compliance with the provisions of its ordinance and that he fails in the performance of his duties to use the police power vested in him to stop boxing exhibitions held in violation of law. The question then arises, can a court of equity by the exercise of the injunction process, compel the chief executive of a village or a city to enforce a criminal law? It would be idle for this court to decree that the mayor and his boxing, commission are without power to issue permits to hold boxing or wrestling exhibitions in New-burgh Heights since if the contention of plaintiff is correct, the issuance of the permit means nothing whatsoever. Should this court decree that the mayor of New-burgh Heights shall not permit the holding of boxing exhibitions unless a permit was first obtained from the boxing commission, which consists of the members of the village council? Were this court to so decree it would amount to supervisory powers over the acts of the executive and would aim to compel the executive to perform his legal duty. The process of injunction was at no time employed in such a course. There are other remedies to be applied against officers who fail in the performance of their duty but whatever they may be the process of government by injunction must be excluded.

The entire controversy is of a political character, where one branch of the government seeks to clothe itself with power of authority formerly and usually exercised by another branch of the government. Disputes of this character must be settled by the electorate and not by the courts.

The demurrer to the petition will therefore be sustained. A decree will be drawn accordingly.

Vickery, PJ and Sullivan, J, concur.
§ 1981.106 Objections to the findings and the preliminary order and request for a hearing. ( a ) Any party who desires review, including judicial review, of the findings and preliminary order, or a named person alleging that the complaint was frivolous or brought in bad faith who seeks an award of attorney's fees, must file any objections and/or a request for a hearing on the record within 60 days of receipt of the findings and preliminary order pursuant to § 1981.105(b). The objection or request for attorney's fees and request for a hearing must be in writing and state whether the objection is to the findings, the preliminary order, and/or whether there should be an award of attorney's fees. The date of the postmark, facsimile transmittal, or electronic transmittal will be considered to be the date of filing; if the objection is filed in person, by hand-delivery or other means, the objection is filed upon receipt. Objections must be filed with the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. Department of Labor, in accordance with 29 CFR part 18, and copies of the objections must be served at the same time on the other parties of record, the OSHA official who issued the findings and order, and the Associate Solicitor, Division of Fair Labor Standards, U.S. Department of Labor.
( b ) ( 1 ) If a timely objection is filed, all provisions of the preliminary order will be stayed, except for the portion requiring preliminary reinstatement, which shall not be automatically stayed. The portion of the preliminary order requiring reinstatement will be effective immediately upon the named person's receipt of the findings and preliminary order, regardless of any objections to the order. The named person may file a motion with the Office of Administrative Law Judges for stay of the Assistant Secretary's preliminary order.
( 2 ) If no timely objection is filed with respect to either the findings or the preliminary order, the findings or preliminary order, as the case may be, shall become the final decision of the Secretary, not subject to judicial review.
[69 FR 17591, Apr. 5, 2004, as amended at 86 FR 1790, Jan. 11, 2021]