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

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 87

To prohibit internet and mail-order sales of ammunition without a license

to deal in firearms, and require licensed firearms dealers to record

all sales of 1,000 rounds of ammunition to a single person.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 6, 1999

Mr. BLAGOJEVICH (for himself and Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To prohibit internet and mail-order sales of ammunition

without a license to deal in firearms, and require licensed

firearms dealers to record all sales of 1,000 rounds of

ammunition to a single person.

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

3 SECTION 1. BAN ON INTERNET OR MAIL-ORDER SALE OF

4 AMMUNITION WITHOUT A FEDERAL LICENSE

5 TO DEAL IN FIREARMS.

6 Section 922(a)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is

7 amended—
2

HR 87 IH

1 (1) by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end of subparagraph

2 (A);

3 (2) by adding ‘‘or’’ at the end of subparagraph

4 (B); and

5 (3) by adding at the end the following:

6 ‘‘(C) except a licensed dealer, to ship or

7 transport ammunition in interstate or foreign

8 commerce;’’.

9 SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT TO RECORD SALES OF MORE THAN

10 1,000 ROUNDS OF AMMUNITION.

11 Section 923(g)(3)(A) of title 18, United States Code,

12 is amended by inserting after the 1st sentence the follow13 ing: ‘‘Each licensee shall prepare a report of multiple sales

14 or other dispositions whenever the licensee sells or other15 wise disposes of 1,000 or more rounds of ammunition

16 (other than .22 caliber rimfire ammunition, shotgun

17 shells, or primers) to the same person during 1 business

18 day.’’.

19 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

20 The amendments made by this Act shall apply to con21 duct engaged in after the 1-year period that begins with

22 the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
STATE OF TEXAS

VS.

SHELTON WADE MONTGOMERY,

EX PARTE

NO. WR-83,375-01

CAUSE NO. 4762A F

D I E

SEP0..?fli5

>1Vd 2fi^

u

SEVENTH COURT OF APPEALS

VIVIAN LONG, CLERK

IN THE 100TM DISTRICT COURT

IN AND FOR

CARSON COUNTY, TEXAS

ORDER

The court, after reviewing the affidavit of defense counsel Paul Herrmann, finds that the representation

ofthe defendant was not deficient. Any failure to call witnesses was a legitimate trial strategy choice.

Stuart M. Messer, District Judge Presiding

C°WT0FCTO,Wu;pB(ts C011PTnfC£,VEDW

SEP OS 2015

Abe!Acosia,Ctert,
#### § 102-37.595 When transferring donated surplus vehicles, what is the responsibility of the donee?

The donee is responsible for processing the SF 97 in accordance with state licensing and titling authorities. The donee signs the SF 97 as “transferee” upon receipt of the surplus motor vehicle. The donee is responsible for notifying the SASP if a SF 97 is not provided by the Government.
# Comments on: 18-2338: NETWORK-1 TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY [ORDER], Nonprecedential
SusGlobal Energy Corp.: Exhibit 10.16 - Filed by newsfilecorp.com






Exhibit 10.16

Summary of Terms of Oral Agreement 

The following summarizes the material
terms of an Oral Agreement between SusGlobal Energy Corp. and Travellers
International Inc. 



On August 19, 2016, Travellers International Inc. (“Travellers”), an Ontario
company controlled by the president and director of the Company, provided a
further loan in the amount of $160,104 ($210,000 CAD) which was required to
initiate a letter of credit in the amount of $152,480 ($200,000 CAD), in favour
of the Township of Georgian Bluffs and the Township of Chatsworth. The letter of
credit was a requirement of the BioGrid agreement. Fees for the letter of credit
included $7,624 ($10,000 CAD) incurred and charged by Travellers and $2,287
($3,000 CAD) charged by the Company’s chartered bank. As at September 30, 2016,
loans payable in the amount of $222,621 ($292,000 CAD) (December 31,
2015-$59,245 ($82,000 CAD)), were outstanding. There is no written agreement
evidencing this loan.
305P97-7

#### State v. Egbert Francis, Jr.

Defs *Pro Se*Petition for *Writ of Certiorari*to Review Order of COA (COAP15-255)

Dismissed
§ 60-300.24 Drugs and alcohol. ( a ) *Specific activities permitted.* The contractor: ( 1 ) May prohibit the illegal use of drugs and the use of alcohol at the workplace by all employees;
( 2 ) May require that employees not be under the influence of alcohol or be engaging in the illegal use of drugs at the workplace;
( 3 ) May require that all employees behave in conformance with the requirements established under the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988 (41 U.S.C. 701 *et seq.*);
( 4 ) May hold an employee who engages in the illegal use of drugs or who is an alcoholic to the same qualification standards for employment or job performance and behavior to which the contractor holds its other employees, even if any unsatisfactory performance or behavior is related to the employee's drug use or alcoholism;
( 5 ) May require that its employees employed in an industry subject to such regulations comply with the standards established in the regulations (if any) of the Departments of Defense and Transportation, and of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and other Federal agencies regarding alcohol and the illegal use of drugs; and
( 6 ) May require that employees employed in sensitive positions comply with the regulations (if any) of the Departments of Defense and Transportation, and of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and other Federal agencies that apply to employment in sensitive positions subject to such regulations.
( b ) *Drug testing* — ( 1 ) *General policy.* For purposes of this part, a test to determine the illegal use of drugs is not considered a medical examination. Thus, the administration of such drug tests by the contractor to its job applicants or employees is not a violation of § 60-300.23. Nothing in this part shall be construed to encourage, prohibit, or authorize the contractor to conduct drug tests of job applicants or employees to determine the illegal use of drugs or to make employment decisions based on such test results.
( 2 ) *Transportation employees.* Nothing in this part shall be construed to encourage, prohibit, or authorize the otherwise lawful exercise by contractors subject to the jurisdiction of the Department of Transportation of authority to test employees in, and applicants for, positions involving safety-sensitive duties for the illegal use of drugs or for on-duty impairment by alcohol; and remove from safety-sensitive positions persons who test positive for illegal use of drugs or on-duty impairment by alcohol pursuant to paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
( 3 ) Any information regarding the medical condition or history of any employee or applicant obtained from a test to determine the illegal use of drugs, except information regarding the illegal use of drugs, is subject to the requirements of §§ 60-300.23(b)(5) and 60-300.23(d)(2).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-2000
<CASH>                                           1,725
<SECURITIES>                                     1,974
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,890
<ALLOWANCES>                                       348
<INVENTORY>                                     21,781
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                40,566
<PP&E>                                         112,581
<DEPRECIATION>                                  27,009
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 131,857
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           15,477
<BONDS>                                         51,626
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        126
<COMMON>                                           145
<OTHER-SE>                                      60,388
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   131,857
<SALES>                                        139,203
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               139,203
<CGS>                                          118,766
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  128,944
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,522
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,330
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,298)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,628
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,628
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.68
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.68


</TABLE>
UN PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16
- 7289

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. LAMONDES WILLIAMS , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. James K. Bredar , District Judge. ( 1:11

- cr - 00162

- JKB

- 1 ; 1:15

- cv - 01436

- JKB )

Submitted : April 20, 2017 Decided: April 27, 2017

Before GREGORY , C hief Judge , and WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges

.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Lamondes Williams , Appellant Pro Se. Paul E. Budlow , OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY , Paul Michael Cunningham, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opin ions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Lamondes Williams seeks to appeal from the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The court’s denial of relief is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012 ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the dist rict court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2 000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Williams has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. W e dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
In the Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided: March 22, 2023

S 23Y0434 . IN THE MATTER OF DAVID JOHN P ETTINATO.

P ER CURIAM

.

The Court having reviewed the notice of compliance

submitted by the Office of the General Counsel of the State Bar of

Georgia, and it appearing that David John Pettinato (State Bar No.

4 26068 ) has satisfied the conditions for reinstatement as specified

by this Court, see In the Matter of Pettinato

, WL 2374205 (20 23 ), it

is hereby ordered that David John Pettinato be reinstated to practice

law in the State of Georgia.

Reinstated. All the Justices concur.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 22-24059-CIV-ALTONAGA/Damian

TANYA ALLEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

CARNIVAL CORPORATION & PLC,

Defendant.

/

JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff TANYA ALLEN, and Defendant CARNIVAL CORPORATION & PLC,

hereby stipulate pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(ii) that this action be

dismissed with prejudice as to all claims, causes ofaction, and parties, with each party bearing 

that party’s own attorney’s fees and costs. 

Dated: August 11, 2023

ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

/s/ Spencer M. Aronfeld

BY: Spencer M. Aronfeld, Esq.

Attorney for Plaintiff TANYA ALLEN

CARNIVAL CORPORATION & PLC

/s/Zachary Foreman

BY: Zachary Foreman, Esq.

Attorney for CARNIVAL CORPORATION & PLC

Case 1:22-cv-24059-CMA Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2023 Page 1 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 127 (Friday, June 30, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 40669]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16596]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Health Care Financing Administration

[Document Identifier: HCFA-0368 and HCFA-R-0144]


Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB 
Review; Comment Request

AGENCY: Health Care Financing Administration, HHS.
    In compliance with the requirement of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Health Care Financing 
Administration (HCFA), Department of Health and Human Services, is 
publishing the following summary of proposed collections for public 
comment. Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding this 
burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, 
including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility 
of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of 
the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) 
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to 
be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or 
other forms of information technology to minimize the information 
collection burden.
    Type of Information Collection Request; Extension of a currently 
approved collection; Title of Information Collection: Medicaid Drug 
Rebate; Form No.: 0938-0582; Use: Section 1927 requires State Medicaid 
agencies to report to drug manufacturers and HCFA on the drug 
utilization for their State and the amount of rebate to be paid by the 
manufacturer; Frequency: Quarterly; Affected Public: State, local, or 
tribal government; Number of Respondents: 51; Total Annual Responses: 
204; Total Annual Hours: 6,125.
    To obtain copies of the supporting statement and any related forms 
for the proposed paperwork collections referenced above, access HCFA's 
Web Site address at http://www.hcfa.gov/regs/prdact95.htm, or E-mail 
your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and 
HCFA document identifier, to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2777465742555048554c674f44414609404851"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4e1e2f3e2b3c39213c250e262d282f60292138">[email protected]</span></a>, or call the Reports 
Clearance Office on (410) 786-1326. Written comments and 
recommendations for the proposed information collections must be mailed 
within 30 days of this notice directly to the OMB desk officer: OMB 
Human Resources and Housing Branch, Attention: Allison Eydt, New 
Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, D.C. 20503.

    Dated: May 25, 2000.
John P. Burke III,
HCFA Reports Clearance Officer, HCFA Office of Information Services, 
Security and Standards Group, Division of HCFA Enterprise Standards.
[FR Doc. 00-16596 Filed 6-29-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4120-03-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 13.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002



I, Patrick Evans, Chief Executive Officer of Mountain Province
Diamonds Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certify, 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 Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2014 (the “Annual Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | the information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | By:    | /s/ Patrick Evans      
| | ------ | -----------------------
| | Name:  | Patrick Evans          
| | Title: | Chief Executive Officer
| | Date:  | March 26, 2015         



This written statement is being furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Company’s Annual Report on Form 20-F. A signed original of
this statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.



This certification accompanies this
Annual Report on Form 20-F pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required
by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
"Exchange Act"). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.
021P16

#### State v. Lee Edward Hutchens

1. Defs PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA15-275)

1. Denied

2. State’s Motion to Dismiss Appeal

2. Dismissed as moot
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

MIDDLE DISTRICT 

JAMES MITCHELL, 

 Petitioner 

 v. 

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF 

DELAWARE COUNTY, 

 Respondent 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 1 MM 2016 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 7th day of March, 2016, the Application for Leave to File Original 

Process is GRANTED, and the Petition for Writ of Mandamus and/or Extraordinary 

Relief is DENIED. 

Justice Eakin did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

           I, Floyd Warkol, as Chief Executive Officer of KSW, Inc. (the
"Company"), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss.1350, as adopted by Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

           (1) the accompanying Amendment No. 1 of the Annual Report on Form
10-K/A for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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

Dated:  March 29, 2004


                                              /s/ Floyd Warkol
                                              ----------------------------------
                                               Floyd Warkol
                                               Chief Executive Officer
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

BARBARA BORKOWSKI,

Petitioner

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,

Respondent

______________________

2023-2353

______________________

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. AT-844E-23-0369-I-1.

______________________

ON MOTION

______________________

O R D E R

Upon consideration of Barbara Borkowski’s request to 

withdraw her petition for review, which the court construes 

as a motion to voluntarily dismiss pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b), and the Merit Systems 

Protection Board’s response as to the allocation of costs,

Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

Case: 23-2353 Document: 13 Page: 1 Filed: 10/30/2023
2 BORKOWSKI v. MSPB

(1) The motion is granted to the extent that the petition for review is withdrawn.

(2) Each party shall bear its own costs. 

October 30, 2023

 Date

FOR THE COURT

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: October 30, 2023

 

Case: 23-2353 Document: 13 Page: 2 Filed: 10/30/2023
17 March 2016

033A16

#### Collin Lieberg, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Pioneer Parent, Inc., Pioneer Merger Sub, Inc., J. Eric Pike, Charles E. Bayless, James R. Helvey, III, General Peter Pace, Daniel J. Sullivan, and James L. Turner and Pike Corporation

Pit’s Motion to Dismiss Appeal

Denied 02/08/2016
No. 11-8930.

#### Segovia Cruz *v.*Salazar, Warden.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### § 0.491 Application for exemption from compulsory ship radio requirements.

Applications for exemption filed under the provisions of sections 352(b) or 383 of the Communications Act; Regulation 4, chapter I of the Safety Convention; Regulation 5, chapter IV of the Safety Convention; or subpart T of Part 80, must be filed as a waiver request using the procedures specified in § 0.482. Emergency requests must be filed via the Universal Licensing System or at the Federal Communications Commission, Office of the Secretary.

[88 FR 77219, Nov. 9, 2023]
First Amendment
                                to the
        AMP Incorporated Retirement Plan for Outside Directors
      (as Amended and Restated Effective as of October 23, 1996)


     Pursuant to an action taken by the Board of Directors of AMP Incorporated
on July 22, 1997, the AMP Incorporated Retirement Plan for Outside Directors, as
amended and restated in its entirety effective as of October 23, 1996 (the
"Plan"), is amended effective as of July 22, 1997 in the following respect:

     1.   Section 4(b)(iii) of the Plan is amended to delete the term "50%" in
          subpart (A) thereof and to substitute the term "66 2/3%" in lieu
          thereof.

     Except as provided above, all terms, conditions and provisions of the Plan
shall remain in full force and effect and without any further change or
modification whatsoever.

Executed this 25th day of September, 1997.

                                        AMP Incorporated
                                        
   Attest:___________________      By:  _________________________
          Corporate Secretary              J. E. Marley
                                           Chairman