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

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4380

To amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States to extend

certain provisions relating to verification of wages and issuance of duty

refund certificates to insular producers in the United States Virgin

Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 10, 1994

Mr. DE LUGO introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United

States to extend certain provisions relating to verification

of wages and issuance of duty refund certificates to

insular producers in the United States Virgin Islands,

Guam, and American Samoa.

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

3 That additional U.S. Note 5(h)(i) to Chapter 91 of the

4 Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is

5 amended by striking ‘‘and before January 1, 1995,’’ and

6 inserting ‘‘and before January 1, 2007,’’.

Æ
# Comments for U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Exhibit 21.1

                                SPAR Group, Inc.
                              List of Subsidiaries


100% Owned Subsidiaries...........................State/Country of Incorporation
-----------------------                           ------------------------------
PIA Merchandising Co., Inc............................................California
PIA Merchandising Limited....................................Nova Scotia, Canada
Pacific Indoor Display Co., Inc.......................................California
Pivotal Field Services, Inc...............................................Nevada
Pivotal Sales Company.................................................California
Retail Resources, Inc.....................................................Nevada
SPAR Acquisition, Inc.....................................................Nevada
SPAR All Store Marketing Services, Inc....................................Nevada
SPAR Bert Fife, Inc.......................................................Nevada
SPAR/Burgoyne Retail Services, Inc. (f/k/a SPAR Retail
  Information, Inc.)........................................................Ohio
SPAR Canada Company..........................................Nova Scotia, Canada
SPAR Canada, Inc..........................................................Nevada
SPAR Group International, Inc.............................................Nevada
SPAR Inc., (f/k/a SPAR/Burgoyne Information Services, Inc.)...............Nevada
SPAR Incentive Marketing, Inc...........................................Delaware
SPAR International LTD............................................Cayman Islands
SPAR Marketing, Inc.......................................................Nevada
SPAR Marketing, Inc. (f/k/a SPAR Acquisition, Inc.).....................Delaware
SPAR Marketing Force, Inc.................................................Nevada
SPAR Megaforce, Inc.......................................................Nevada
SPAR/PIA Retail Services, Inc.............................................Nevada
SPAR Technology Group, Inc. (f/k/a SPARinc.com, Inc.).....................Nevada
SPAR Trademarks, Inc......................................................Nevada

51% Owned International Subsidiaries.....................................Country
------------------------------                                           -------
SGRP Meridian (Pty), Ltd............................................South Africa
SPAR Merchandising Romania, Ltd..........................................Romania
SPAR Solutions India Private Limited.......................................India
SPAR Turkey, Inc..........................................................Turkey

50% Owned International Joint Ventures...................................Country
--------------------------------                                         -------
SGRP China Ltd.............................................................China
SPAR FM Japan, Inc.........................................................Japan
No. 11-9585.

#### Harrison *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 21

                          List of Lumenis Subsidiaries


I.   Americas

     a.   Lumenis Holdings Inc.         -- DE corporation

     b.   Lumenis Inc.                  -- MA corporation

     c.   Sharplan Lasers Inc.          -- DE Corporation

     d.   FISMA Corporation             -- Utah corporation

     e.   Instruments for Surgery       -- Wyoming corporation

     f.   Instruments for Medicine
          and Diagnostics, Inc.         -- Oregon Corporation

     g.   Lumenis (Mexico) SA de CV     -- Mexico

II.  Israel

     a.   Laser Industries Ltd.

     b.   Opusdent Ltd.

III. Europe

     a.   Lumenis Holdings (Holland) BV -- Holland

     b.   Lumenis (Holland) BV          -- Holland

     c.   Lumenis (UK) Limited          -- UK

     d.   Sharplan Lasers (UK) Ltd.     -- UK

     e.   Spectron (UK) Ltd.            -- UK

     f.   Lumenis (Germany) GmbH        -- Germany

     g.   Lumenis (France) Sarl         -- France

     h.   Lumenis (Italy) Srl           -- Italy

     i.   Lumenis (Sweden) AB           -- Sweden

     j.   Lumenis (Luxembourg) Sarl     -- Luxembourg

     k.   Lumenis (Luxembourg) Sarl,
          Branch Schaffhausen           -- Swiss Branch

IV.  Asia Pacific

     a.   Lumenis (HK) Ltd.             -- Hong Kong

     b.   Lumenis Japan Co. Ltd.        -- Japan

     c.   Lumenis Star Co. Ltd.         -- Japan

     d.   Lumenis (Holland) BV
          Beijing Office                -- Dutch subsidiary has
                                           representative offices in China

     e.   Wuhan Sharplan Chutian
          Medical Laser Manufacturing
          Ltd.                          -- China
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

#### § 1.209 Identification of responsible officer in caption to pleading.

Each pleading filed in a hearing proceeding shall indicate in its caption whether it is to be acted upon by the Commission or, if the Commission is not the presiding officer, by the presiding officer. Unless it is to be acted upon by the Commission, the presiding officer shall be identified by name.

[85 FR 63174, Oct. 6, 2020]
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND 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, James R. Lavelle, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge, Cotelligent, Inc.s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Cotelligent, Inc.



|                     |  |     |  |                                                  
|-------------------- |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------------------
|Date: April 29, 2004 |  | By: |  | /s/ James R. Lavelle                             
|                     |  |     |  | James R. Lavelle                                 
|                     |  |     |  | Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Bank of Florida Corporation (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Michael L. McMullan, President, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Executive Officer of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as added by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



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



| | 2. | To my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for
the period covered by the Report.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                  |  |     |  |                            
|----------------- |  | --- |  | ---------------------------
|Date: May 1, 2007 |  | By: |  | /s/ Michael L. McMullan    
|                  |  |     |  | Michael L. McMullan,       
|                  |  |     |  | Principal Executive Officer



29
No. 11-9848.

#### Oruche *v.*United States.

C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. James Curtis JOHNSON, a/k/a Curt, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 03-7760.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted March 10, 2004.

Decided March 22, 2004.

James Curtis Johnson, Appellant pro se. Christine Witcover Dean, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM.

James Curtis Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and denying reconsideration of that order. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.

When the United States or its officer or agency is a party, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than sixty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order, Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” *Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corr.,*434 U.S. 257, 264, 98 S.Ct. 556, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978) (quoting *United States v. Robinson,*361 U.S. 220, 229, 80 S.Ct. 282, 4 L.Ed.2d 259 (1960)).

The district court’s order denying reconsideration was entered on the docket on August 15, 2003. The record reflects that the notice of appeal was delivered to prison officials for mailing on October 25, 2003. Because Johnson failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. Johnson’s “Motion to Supplement” is denied as moot. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
July 29, 2015 

Dear Mr. Medley: 

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition 

(Docket No. FAA-2015-2069). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) to process your petition. 

 Provide a copy of the Motion Picture and Television Operations Manual (MPTOM) 

which is required by Order 8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 8, Section 1. If you wish for us to 

proceed without this manual and remove closed-set filming from your proposed operation 

please inform of us of your intention by the requested response date listed below. 

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at 

www.regulations.gov and submit any proprietary information to the FAA Headquarters or 

electronically via email to 333exemptions@faa.gov. If you want us to process your request any 

further, we must receive the information described above by 8/12/15. If we do not receive the 

information, we will close the docket without notifying you further. 

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-4712. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Brenda Robeson 

Program Anaylst
446A13

#### State v. Mario Andrette McNeill

Def’s Motion to Bypass the COA

Allowed 03/08/2016
On defendants’ motion for reconsideration filed July 3,

reconsideration allowed; opinion (135 Or App 162, 897 P2d 489) adhered to September 6, 1995

#### Sharon D. PEERY, *Respondent, v.*Patrick HANLEY, M.D.; Patrick Hanley, M.D., P.C., an Oregon professional corporation; and North Pacific Orthopaedic Associates, Inc., a dissolved Oregon corporation, *Appellants.*

(9111-07301; CA A79358)

902 P2d 602

Ridgway K. Foley, Jr., and Foley & Duncan, P.C., for motion. Before Riggs, Presiding Judge, and Landau and Leeson, Judges.

LEESON, J.

*494LEESON, J.

Defendant Hanley seeks reconsideration of our opinion in Peery *v. Hanley,*135 Or App 162, 897 P2d 1189 (1995). He takes issue with the following sentence: “The jury found that defendant had sexually harassed plaintiff and had intentionally inflicted emotional distress.” *Id.*at 164-65. Defendant acknowledges that that sentence is correct, but contends that it “creates an inaccurate impression.” He points out that although the jury found for plaintiff on her sexual harassment claim, the trial court entered a judgment notwithstanding the verdict on that claim, ORCP 63, on the ground that there was insufficient evidence to prove a causal connection between plaintiffs resistance to the alleged harassment and the termination of her employment by defendant. In his motion for reconsideration, defendant argues that plaintiffs claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) was based on her sexual harassment claim and that, because plaintiff did not ultimately prevail on her sexual harassment claim, she should not have been allowed to prevail on the IIED claim.

The issues that defendant raised on appeal related to whether there was evidence of causation, whether defendant’s conduct transgressed the limits of socially tolerable conduct, whether there was evidence that plaintiffs emotional distress was severe, whether the jury’s finding of “no battery” eviscerated all but the communicative aspects of plaintiffs IIED claim, and whether the punitive damages award was therefore, unconstitutional. In his opening and reply briefs, defendant did not argue that the judgment *n.o.v.*harassment claim required the trial court to enter ajudgment *n.o.v.*or direct a verdict for defendant on plaintiffs IIED claim. Defendant did express that view to this court during oral argument, but the record shows that he did not express it to the trial court. If defendant’s theory was that the judgment *n.o.v.*ruling “devastated” plaintiffs IIED claim because her pleading on that claim used the words “sexual harassment” and the two claims were based on identical factual allegations, that theory should have been advanced at trial, not for the first time on appeal. *See Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc.,*118 Or App 517, 522-23, 848 P2d 138, *rev den*318 Or 24 (1993).

Reconsideration allowed; opinion adhered to.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 125 (Wednesday, June 28, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39925-39926]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16491]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: United States International Trade 
Commission.

TIME AND DATE: July 7, 2000 at 11 a.m.

[[Page 39926]]


PLACE: Room 101, 500 E Street S.W., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: 
(202) 205-2000.

STATUS: Open to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:   
    1. Agenda for future meeting: None.
    2. Minutes.
    3. Ratification List.
    4. Inv. Nos. 701-TA-178 and 731-TA-636-638 (Review) (Stainless 
Steel Wire Rod from Brazil, France, India, and Spain)--briefing and 
vote. (The Commission will transmit its determination to the Secretary 
of Commerce on July 18, 2000.)
    5. Inv. Nos. 731-TA-457-A-D (Review) (Heavy Forged Handtools from 
China)--briefing and vote. (The Commission will transmit its 
determination to the Secretary of Commerce on July 18, 2000.)
    6. Outstanding action jackets: None.
    In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, 
not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the 
agenda of the following meeting.

    Issued: June 26, 2000.

    By order of the Commission.
Donna R. Koehnke,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-16491 Filed 6-26-00; 2:10 pm]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Bank of Florida Corporation (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Michael L. McMullan, President, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Executive Officer of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as added by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



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



| | 2. | To my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for
the period covered by the Report.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|      |  |             |  |  |  |     |  |                            
|----- |  | ----------- |  |  |  | --- |  | ---------------------------
|Date: |  | May 6, 2008 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Michael L. McMullan    
|      |  |             |  |  |  |     |  | Michael L. McMullan,       
|      |  |             |  |  |  |     |  | Principal Executive Officer



27
#### § 24.320 [Reserved]
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 21 (Tuesday, February 1, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 4819]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-1666]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-6528-3]


Peele-Dixie Wellfield Site/Broward County, Florida; Notice of 
Proposed Settlement

AGENCY:  Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION:  Notice of proposed settlement.

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

SUMMARY:  Under sections 104, 106(a), 107 and 122 of the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), the 
City of Ft. Lauderdale entered into an Administrative Order on Consent 
(AOC) with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), whereby the City 
of Ft. Lauderdale agreed perform response activities at the Peele-Dixie 
Wellfield Site (Site) located in Broward County, Florida. Section VIII 
of the AOC provides for the reimbursement of EPA's oversight costs by 
the City of Ft. Lauderdale. Under the terms of the AOC, section VIII is 
subject to section 122(i) of CERCLA, which requires EPA to publish 
notice of the proposed settlement in the Federal Register for a thirty 
(30) day public comment period. EPA will consider public comments on 
section VIII of the AOC for thirty days. EPA may withhold consent to 
all or part of section VIII of the AOC if comments received disclose 
facts or considerations which indicate that section VIII of the AOC is 
inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. Copies of the proposed 
settlement are available from: Ms. Paula V. Batchelor, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV, CERCLA Program Services 
Branch, Waste Management Division, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, 
Georgia 30303, (404) 562-8887.
    Written comment may be submitted to Mr. Greg Armstrong at the above 
address within 30 days of the date of publication.

    Dated: December 30, 1999.
Anita Davis,
Acting Chief, CERCLA Program Services Branch, Waste Management 
Division.
[FR Doc. 00-1666 Filed 1-31-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"22-1418: CRUZ v. MSPB [ORDER], Nonprecedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"368Ie4O71m\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/04-21-2022-22-1418-cruz-v-mspb-order-22-1418-order-4-21-2022_1939567\/\">22-1418: CRUZ v. MSPB [ORDER], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/04-21-2022-22-1418-cruz-v-mspb-order-22-1418-order-4-21-2022_1939567\/embed\/#?secret=368Ie4O71m\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“22-1418: CRUZ v. MSPB [ORDER], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"368Ie4O71m\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"ORDER Posted: CRUZ v. MSPB [ORDER](pdf) Appeal Number: 22-1418 Origin: MSPB Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
§ 16.3 Digital discrimination of access prohibited. ( a ) This section provides the Commission's interpretation of actions that constitute digital discrimination of access under 47 U.S.C. 1754.
( b ) It shall be unlawful for any broadband provider, or covered entity as described in this part, to adopt, implement or utilize policies or practices, not justified by genuine issues of technical or economic feasibility, that differentially impact consumers' access to broadband internet access service based on their income level, race, ethnicity, color, religion, or national origin or are intended to have such differential impact.