alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
H. R. 643

One Hundred Sixth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday,

the twenty-fourth day of January, two thousand

An Act

To redesignate the Federal building located at 10301 South Compton Avenue, in

Los Angeles, California, and known as the Watts Finance Office, as the ‘‘Augustus

F. Hawkins Post Office Building’’.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. REDESIGNATION.

The Federal building located at 10301 South Compton Avenue,

in Los Angeles, California, and known as the Watts Finance Office,

shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Augustus F. Hawkins Post

Office Building’’.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper,

or other record of the United States to the Federal building referred

to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Augustus

F. Hawkins Post Office Building’’.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
Exhibit 32.2

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

I, Philip McDermott, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
the Annual Report of AltiGen Communications, Inc. on Form 10-K for the period ended September 30, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of
operations of AltiGen Communications, Inc.

|Date: December 29, 2004 |  | By:    |  | /s/PHILIP MCDERMOTT    
|----------------------- |  | ------ |  | -----------------------
|                        |  | Name:  |  | Philip McDermott       
|                        |  | Title: |  | Chief Financial Officer

---



QuickLinks
Exhibit B

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 156-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2023 Page 1 of 2
RETURN OF SERVICE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Southern District of Florida

Copyright © 1992-2023 DreamBuilt Software, Inc. - Process Server's Toolbox V8.2n

Case Number: 22-CV-23753-KMM

Plaintiff:

EDWIN GARRISON, ET AL., ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND

ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED

vs.

Defendant:

SAM BANKMAN-FRIED, ET AL.

For:

THE MOSKOWITZ LAW FIRM, PLLC

2 ALHAMBRA PLAZA

SUITE 601

CORAL GABLES, FL 33134

Received by P.I. SERVICES on the 21st day of February, 2023 at 3:32 pm to be served on UDONIS

HASLEM, 5450 SW 192 TERRACE, SOUTHWEST RANCHES, FL 33332.

I, ALIX LUBIN, do hereby affirm that on the 28th day of February, 2023 at 8:38 am, I:

SUBSTITUTE SERVED this SUMMONS AND AMENDED COMPLAINT (21 DAYS) on FAITH HASLEM 

Spouse of the within named defendant, pursuant to F.S.48.031(2).(A). 

Description of Person Served: Age: 41, Sex: F, Race/Skin Color: BLACK, Height: N/A, Weight: 150,

Hair: BLACK, Glasses: N

Under penalty of perjury, I declare that I have read the Foregoing Verified Return of Service and that

the facts stated in it are true. F.S.92.525(2). I acknowledge that I am a Certified Process Server in good

standing in this jurisdiction. I acknowledge that I have no interest in this action.

ALIX LUBIN

S.P.S. 1212

P.I. SERVICES

1430 S. Dixie Highway

Suite 105, #157

Coral Gables, FL 33146

(305) 666-0142

Our Job Serial Number: PIS-2023000250

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 77 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/01/2023 Page 1 of 1

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 156-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2023 Page 2 of 2
§ 105-71.134 Copyrights. The Federal awarding agency reserves a royalty-free, nonexclusive, and irrevocable license to reproduce, publish or otherwise use, and to authorize others to use, for Federal Government purposes: ( a ) The copyright in any work developed under a grant, subgrant, or contract under a grant or subgrant; and
( b ) Any rights of copyright to which a grantee, subgrantee or a contractor purchases ownership with grant support.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

504 

CAF 12-02316 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, FAHEY, SCONIERS, AND VALENTINO, JJ.

 

IN THE MATTER OF BEVERLY GRIFFIN, 

PETITIONER-RESPONDENT, 

 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JESSICA GRIFFIN, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. 

 

MINDY L. MARRANCA, BUFFALO, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. 

TERRANCE C. BRENNAN, BUFFALO, FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.

MARY ANNE CONNELL, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILDREN, BUFFALO.

 

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Erie County (Paul G.

Buchanan, J.), entered September 7, 2012 in a proceeding pursuant to

Family Court Act article 6. The order granted sole custody of

respondent’s children to petitioner. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously reversed on the law without costs and the matter is

remitted to Family Court, Erie County, for further proceedings on the

petition. 

Memorandum: On appeal from an order granting sole custody of the

subject children to petitioner, a nonparent, respondent mother

contends that Family Court erred in failing to conduct an evidentiary

hearing to determine whether extraordinary circumstances exist and, if

so, to determine the best interests of the children. We agree, and we

therefore reverse the order and remit the matter to Family Court for

the requisite evidentiary hearing. It is well settled that, “as

between a parent and a nonparent, the parent has a superior right to

custody that cannot be denied unless the nonparent establishes that

the parent has relinquished that right because of ‘surrender,

abandonment, persisting neglect, unfitness or other like extraordinary

circumstances’ ” (Matter of Gary G. v Roslyn P., 248 AD2d 980, 981,

quoting Matter of Bennett v Jeffreys, 40 NY2d 543, 544). “ ‘[T]he

nonparent has the burden of proving that extraordinary circumstances

exist, and until such circumstances are shown, the court does not

reach the issue of the best interests of the child[ren]’ ” (Matter of

Ruggieri v Bryan, 23 AD3d 991, 992). Here, the court “deprived a

biological parent of custody of [her] child[ren] without the . . .

[requisite evidentiary] hearing” on the issues of extraordinary

circumstances and best interests (Matter of Stiles v Orshal, 290 AD2d

824, 825). Instead of conducting the hearing on the date it was to
-2- 504 

CAF 12-02316 

begin, the court asked the parents what witnesses would be called on

their behalf. When the parents responded that they would be

testifying but had no other witnesses, the court stated that it found

no triable issues of fact and granted the nonparent’s petition for

custody. Thus, the court failed to place the burden of proof on the

nonparent to prove that extraordinary circumstances exist. Finally,

we note that the home study on which the court relied was potentially

out of date when the court granted the petition. 

Entered: May 9, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Computer Manpower Outlook

              																	United States. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 						*Computer Manpower Outlook : Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, No. 1826*,												Washington, D.C: 								U.S. Dept. of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 										1974,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/4683,			accessed on September 22, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
I

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 5501

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to preserve and provide

for uniform coverage of drugs and biologicals under part B of the

Medicare Program.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 19, 2000

Mr. DEMINT (for himself, Mr. SPENCE, Mr. SPRATT, Mr. CLYBURN, Mr. SANFORD, and Mr. GRAHAM) introduced the following bill; which was referred

to the Committee on Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on

Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the

Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within

the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

A BILL

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to preserve

and provide for uniform coverage of drugs and biologicals

under part B of the Medicare Program.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; FINDINGS.

4 (a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the

5 ‘‘Medicare Drug Uniform Coverage Act of 2000’’.

6 (b) FINDINGS.—The Congress finds as follows:
2

•HR 5501 IH

1 (1) The medicare program provides for coverage

2 of certain outpatient drugs and biologicals adminis3 tered through subcutaneous injections.

4 (2) Carriers in the majority of States and terri5 tories have made local coverage determinations that

6 interferon, enoxaparin, deltaparin, and pre-operative

7 use of epoetin alpha (four of such outpatient drugs

8 or biologicals) are reasonable and necessary and cov9 ered under part B of the medicare program.

10 (3) The carrier in South Carolina has made a

11 local coverage determination that does not provide

12 coverage for interferon, enoxaparin, deltaparin, and

13 pre-operative use of epoetin alpha under such part.

14 (4) Medicare beneficiaries should have equal ac15 cess to care, treatment, and coverage under the

16 medicare program in all 50 States and territories.

17 SEC. 2. PRESERVATION OF COVERAGE OF DRUGS AND

18 BIOLOGICALS UNDER PART B OF THE MEDI19 CARE PROGRAM.

20 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1861(s)(2) of the Social

21 Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(s)(2)) is amended, in each

22 of subparagraphs (A) and (B), by striking ‘‘(including

23 drugs and biologicals which cannot, as determined in ac24 cordance with regulations, be self-administered)’’ and in25 serting ‘‘(including drugs and biologicals which are not
3

•HR 5501 IH

1 usually self-administered by intravenous infusion or sub2 cutaneous injection by the patient)’’.

3 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

4 subsection (a) applies to drugs and biologicals adminis5 tered on or after October 1, 2000.

Æ
§ 105-55.030 Discharge of indebtedness; reporting requirements. ( a ) Before discharging a delinquent debt (also referred to as a close out of the debt), the General Services Administration (GSA) will take all appropriate steps to collect the debt in accordance with 31 U.S.C. 3711(g), including, as applicable, administrative offset, tax refund offset, Federal salary offset, referral to Treasury, Treasury-designated debt collection centers or private collection contractors, credit bureau reporting, wage garnishment, litigation, and foreclosure. Discharge of indebtedness is distinct from termination or suspension of collection activity and is governed by the Internal Revenue Code. When collection action on a debt is suspended or terminated, the debt remains delinquent and further collection action may be pursued at a later date in accordance with the standards set forth in this part. When GSA discharges a debt in full or in part, further collection action is prohibited. Therefore, GSA will make the determination that collection action is no longer warranted before discharging a debt. Before discharging a debt, GSA will terminate debt collection action.
( b ) Section 3711(i), Title 31, United States Code, requires GSA to sell a delinquent non-tax debt upon termination of collection action if the Secretary determines such a sale is in the best interests of the United States. Since the discharge of a debt precludes any further collection action (including the sale of a delinquent debt), GSA may not discharge a debt until the requirements of 31 U.S.C. 3711(i) have been met.
( c ) Upon discharge of a debt of more than $600, GSA must report the discharge to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in accordance with the requirements of 26 U.S.C. 6050P and 26 CFR 1.6050P-1. GSA may request Treasury or Treasury-designated debt collection centers to file such a discharge report to the IRS on the Agency's behalf.
( d ) When discharging a debt, GSA will request the GSA Office of General Counsel to release any liens of record securing the debt.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

 

 

                     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned officer of Alcan Inc. (the "Company"),hereby certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that the Company's QuarterlyReport on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 (the "Report") fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 

 

Date:9 November 2006                                                                    

                                                                                               /s/ Richard B. Evans                                        

                                                                                               Richard B. Evans

President and ChiefExecutive Officer
REGULATORY EVALUATION

Directorate Identifier: 2012-NM-097-AD

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific 

requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of 

transportation?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)
#### § 105-64.305 What is my recourse to an appeal denial?

You may file a civil action to have the GSA administrative decision overturned within two years after the decision is made. You may file in a Federal District Court where you live or have a principal place of business, where the records are maintained, or in the District of Columbia.
From: McKaughan, Colleen

Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 5:47:16 PM

To: jgarrity@asarco.com

Cc: Nudd, Gregory; GLASS, GEOFFREY; Chen, Eugene; Kelly, Shaheerah; Webb, Thomas; 

ecm@azdeq.gov

Subject: New Court-Ordered Deadline for Arizona Regional Haze FIP

Dear Jack,

I’m writing to let you know that the court-ordered deadline for EPA to propose a Federal 

Implementation Plan (FIP) addressing regional haze in Arizona has been extended to September 

6, 2013. Our deadline for final action on Arizona’s State Implementation Plan (SIP) remains July 

15, 2013. The deadline for commenting on our December 20, 2012 proposed action on 

Arizona’s SIP is March 6, 2013.

If EPA finalizes disapproval of any aspect of the Arizona Regional Haze SIP, we are obligated to 

propose and later finalize a FIP to address these disapproved portions. The deadlines for these 

proposed and final actions are set in a consent decree. The parties to the consent decree 

recently agreed to extend these deadlines and the United States District Court for the District of 

Columbia issued an order granting a motion to amend the consent decree to reflect these new 

deadlines. The new deadlines of September 6, 2013 for the proposed action and February 6, 

2014 for the final action provide the agency more time for the technical work that will form the 

basis of the FIP. 

If you are planning to provide technical information that you think would be helpful to EPA in 

preparing our FIP proposal, please provide that information no later than May 10, 2013. This 

will allow us enough time to review and consider the information in preparing the proposal.

In the case of the equipment you identified as BART-eligible (anode furnaces 1 and 2 and 

converters 1, 3, 4, and 5) in Hayden, Arizona, we are particularly interested in getting your 

feedback regarding the effectiveness of existing SO2 and PM controls and the estimated costs of 

installing more effective SO2 and PM controls and increasing the effectiveness of existing 

controls. You may also propose your own five factor BART analyses for SO2 and PM for the 

BART-eligible units.

If you have any questions, please let me know. We look forward to hearing from you soon.

Colleen McKaughan
Exhibit 32.1

Certification

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned officer of Alcan Inc. (the"Company"), hereby certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that the Company'sQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2003 (the "Report")fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, inall material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

| Date:    November 11,****2003 | /s/ Travis Engen |
|-------------------------------|------------------|
|                          |             | Travis Engen                            President and Chief Executive Officer |
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Cigna Healthcare of Texas, Inc. Connecticut General Life Insurance 

Company and Cigna Health and Life Insurance Company v. S J 

Associated Pathologists, PLLC

Appellate case number: 01-20-00025-CV

Trial court case number: 2019-79138

Trial court: 190th District Court of Harris County

This interlocutory appeal was abated on March 26, 2020 because the underlying lawsuit 

had been removed to federal court. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 

subsequently held that the federal court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and ordered the case 

remanded back to state court. Accordingly, on August 4, 2020, the federal district court issued an 

order remanding the case back to state court.

Appellants have filed an opposed motion requesting that this Court (1) lift the abatement

and (2) allow appellants to supplement the appellate record and amend appellants’ brief. Appellee 

filed a response that did not object to lifting the abatement but opposed appellants’ requests to 

supplement the record and file an amended brief. Appellants’ motion to lift the abatement, 

supplement the appellate record, and file an amended brief is GRANTED. 

The supplemental record shall be filed within 10 days of this order. Appellants’ amended 

brief shall be filed within 30 days of this order.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: ___/s/ Sarah B. Landau_____

Acting individually 

Date: ___October 6, 2020____
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                      5
<LEGEND>
                               FDS - 1ST QUARTER
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                          0000006207
<NAME>                         AMREP CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER>                      1,000
<CURRENCY>                     U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              APR-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                 MAY-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                   JUL-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                       1
<CASH>                           12,292
<SECURITIES>                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                    63,984
<ALLOWANCES>                          0
<INVENTORY>                      77,145
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                      0
<PP&E>                           32,226
<DEPRECIATION>                   14,216
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  190,528
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                 0
<BONDS>                          40,178
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                 0
<PREFERRED>                           0
<COMMON>                            740
<OTHER-SE>                       90,837
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    190,528
<SALES>                          26,937
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                 42,035
<CGS>                            22,356
<TOTAL-COSTS>                    35,423
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                      0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  913
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   2,188
<INCOME-TAX>                        875
<INCOME-CONTINUING>               1,313
<DISCONTINUED>                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                       0
<CHANGES>                             0
<NET-INCOME>                      1,313
<EPS-BASIC>                      0.18
<EPS-DILUTED>                         0



</TABLE>