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

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4855

To amend title 23, United States Code, to provide for the use of certain

highway funds for improvements to railway-highway crossings.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 28, 1994

Mr. VISCLOSKY (for himself, Mr. ROEMER, Mr. MYERS of Indiana, Ms. LONG,

Mr. BUYER, Mr. MCCLOSKEY, Mr. HAMILTON, Mr. JACOBS, Mr. SHARP,

and Mr. BURTON of Indiana) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Public Works and Transportation

A BILL

To amend title 23, United States Code, to provide for the

use of certain highway funds for improvements to railway-highway crossings.

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.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Rail Grade Crossing

5 Safety Enhancement Act of 1994’’.

6 SEC. 2. AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR RAILWAY-HIGHWAY

7 CROSSING IMPROVEMENT.

8 Section 153(h) of title 23, United States Code, is

9 amended by adding at the end the following:
2

•HR 4855 IH

1 ‘‘(6) AUTHORITY FOR ALTERNATIVE APPOR2 TIONMENT.—

3 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—In lieu of a transfer of

4 a percentage of funds to the apportionment of

5 a State in a fiscal year under paragraph (1) or

6 (2), the Secretary may transfer all or a portion

7 of the percentage of funds applicable under

8 such paragraph in that fiscal year to the appor9 tionment of the State under section 130 of this

10 title.

11 ‘‘(B) CONDITION OF TRANSFER.—The Sec12 retary shall exercise the authority provided

13 under subparagraph (A) in a fiscal year only

14 upon the request of the chief executive officer

15 of the State concerned.

16 ‘‘(C) USE OF TRANSFERRED FUNDS.—

17 Funds available to a State pursuant to a trans18 fer of funds under this paragraph shall be used

19 only for the purpose set forth in the first sen20 tence of section 130(e) of this title.

21 ‘‘(D) TREATMENT OF EXERCISE OF AU22 THORITY.—Paragraphs (3), (4), and (5) shall

23 apply to a transfer under this paragraph. In the

24 administration of such paragraphs with respect

25 to such a transfer, any reference to section 402
3

•HR 4855 IH

1 of this title shall be deemed to be a reference

2 to section 130 of this title.’’.

Æ
§ 54.629 Prohibition on resale. ( a ) *Prohibition on resale.* Services purchased pursuant to universal support mechanisms under this subpart shall not be sold, resold, or transferred in consideration for money or any other thing of value.
( b ) *Permissible fees.* The prohibition on resale set forth in paragraph (a) in this section shall not prohibit a health care provider from charging normal fees for health care services, including instruction related to services purchased with support provided under this subpart.
<PAGE>

Exhibit 32.2

                        CERTIFICATION OF CFO 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 Quarterly Report MIV Therapeutics, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended November 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Patrick
McGowan, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge, that:

(1)      The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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.

/S/ PATRICK MCGOWAN
-------------------
Patrick McGowan
CFO
January 14, 2005
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4721

To prohibit the Secretary of Agriculture from transferring any national forest

system lands in the Angeles National Forest in California out of Federal

ownership for use as a solid waste landfill.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 12, 1994

Mr. MCKEON (for himself, Mr. BEILENSON, Mr. BROWN of California, Mr.

CALVERT, Mr. CONDIT, Mr. CUNNINGHAM, Mr. DOOLITTLE, Mr. HORN,

Mr. HUNTER, Mr. MOORHEAD, Mr. ROYCE, Mr. THOMAS of California,

and Mr. ROBERTS) introduced the following bill; which was referred to

the Committee on Natural Resources

A BILL

To prohibit the Secretary of Agriculture from transferring

any national forest system lands in the Angeles National

Forest in California out of Federal ownership for use

as a solid waste landfill.

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

3 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN TRANSFERS OF NA4 TIONAL FOREST LANDS.

5 After the date of the enactment of this Act the Sec6 retary of Agriculture shall not transfer (by exchange or

7 otherwise) any lands owned by the United States and
2

•HR 4721 IH

1 managed by the Secretary as part of the Angeles National

2 Forest to any person unless the instrument of conveyance

3 contains a restriction, enforceable by the Secretary, on the

4 future use of such land prohibiting the use of any portion

5 of such land as a solid waste landfill. Such restriction shall

6 be promptly enforced by the Secretary when and if a viola7 tion of the restriction occurs.

Æ
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4780 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4780

   To amend the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to make section 313 
   (relating to extraneous matter in reconciliation legislation and 
    popularly known as the Byrd rule) applicable to the Senate only.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 19, 1994

   Mr. Sabo introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                           Committee on Rules

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to make section 313 
   (relating to extraneous matter in reconciliation legislation and 
    popularly known as the Byrd rule) applicable to the Senate only.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That (a) section 313 of 
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is amended--
            (1) in the first subsection (c), by striking ``and again 
        upon the submission of a conference report on such a 
        reconciliation bill or resolution,'';
            (2) by striking the second subsection (c) (relating to 
        conference reports); and
            (3) in subsection (d), by striking ``, motion, or 
        conference report'' each place it appears and inserting ``or 
        motion''.
    (b) The first sentence of section 312 of the Congressional Budget 
Act of 1974 is amended by inserting ``, except for section 313,'' after 
``Act''.

                                 <all>
```
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markm an Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_________________________________________ Clerk December 5, 2012

d1128 

# Order

December 5, 2012

145410

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 145410

COA: 309911

Cass CC: 11

- 010094

- FH

JAMES MICHAEL WRIGHT,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 22, 2012 order

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

C AVANAGH , J., would grant leave to appeal.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Appellate case name: Jeremy Thomas v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-11-00258-CR

Trial court case number: 1284896

Trial court: 177th District Court, Harris County, Texas

Appellant, Jeremy Thomas, was convicted of murder in the above-captioned case. After 

he filed a notice of appeal concerning the judgment of conviction, the trial court granted his 

motion for new trial. Appellee, the State of Texas, appealed the order granting a new trial, and 

that appeal was assigned appellate cause number 01-11-00500-CR.

On December 20, 2012, in cause number 01-11-00500-CR, this Court reversed the order 

of the trial court granting Thomas’s motion for new trial and ordered that the judgment of 

conviction and the sentence be reinstated. We simultaneously issued an order, in the abovecaptioned cause number, ordering that if Thomas desires to pursue his appeal from the judgment 

of conviction, his appellate brief will be due 30 days from the date our mandate in cause number 

01-11-00500-CR issues, and the State’s appellate brief will be due 30 days from the date that 

Thomas’s brief is filed.

On March 8, 2013, Thomas filed a petition for discretionary review (“PDR”) with the 

Court of Criminal Appeals in cause number 01-11-00500-CR. Accordingly, we abate the appeal 

in cause number 01-11-00258-CR while Thomas’s PDR is pending in cause number 01-11-

00500-CR.

The appeal in cause number 01-11-00258-CR is abated, treated as a closed case, and 

removed from this Court’s active docket. It will be reinstated when the Court of Criminal 

Appeals finally disposes of Thomas’s PDR and our mandate in cause number 01-11-00500-CR 

issues. The Court will also consider an appropriate motion to reinstate the appeal filed by either 

party.

It is so ORDERED.
Judge’s signature: /s/ Evelyn V. Keyes

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: April 11, 2013
No. 11-5849.

#### Hines *v.*United States.

C. A. 7th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
# AGENCY:

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

This Notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for possible use to assist the homeless.

# EFFECTIVE DATES:

August 18, 2006.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kathy Ezzell, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Room 7262, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410; telephone (202) 708-1234; TTY number for the hearing- and speech-impaired (202) 708-2565, (these telephone numbers are not toll-free), or call the toll-free Title V information line at 1-800-927-7588.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    In accordance with the December 12, 1988 court order in                     *National Coalition for the Homeless*                     v.                     *Veterans Administration,*                     No. 88-2503-OG (D.D.C.), HUD publishes a Notice, on a weekly basis, identifying unutilized, underutilized, excess and surplus Federal buildings and real property that HUD has reviewed for suitability for use to assist the homeless. Today's Notice is for the purpose of announcing that no additional properties have been determined suitable or unsuitable this week.                

Dated: August 10, 2006.

Mark R. Johnston,

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Special Needs.

[FR Doc. 06-6934 Filed 8-17-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4210-67-M
Exhibit 31

CERTIFICATION

I, Barry Bennett, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Advanced ID Corporation.

2. Based on my knowledge, the annual report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual report, fairly present, in all material
respects, the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

(a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this annual report is being prepared;

(b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual
report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

(c) presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
function):

(a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

 (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

(6) The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
annual report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls
or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent
to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date:  March 29, 2005

/s/Barry Bennett
Barry Bennett, Chief Executive Officer

                                       40
Burlington WA

Corporate Office

1620 S Walnut St - 98233

800.755.9295 $ 360.757.1400 Bellingham WA

Microbiology 805 Orchard Dr Ste 4 - 98225

360.671.0688 Portland OR

Microbiology/Chemistry 9150 SW Pioneer Ct Ste W- 97070

503.682.7802

June 23, 2011 Page 1 of 1

Ms. Nicole Polarolo

Aluminum Co. of America

PO BOX 150

Massena, NY 13662

The following comments are reported for your project:

Your project: HAP Metals, Hex Chromium, was received on Friday May 27, 2011.

Dear Ms. Nicole Polarolo,

RE: 11-08082 - HAP Metals, Hex Chromium

All analytes were reported as received.

17600 liquid sample was non-detect for hexavalent chromium. The sample was diluted at a 20x dilution to confirm the 

matrix interference and the recovery to the LFM was there but low.

Respectfully Submitted,

If you have questions phone us at 800 755-9295.

Chain of Custody

QC Reports

Enclosures Data Report

Lawrence J Henderson, PhD

Director of Laboratories

FORM: COVER
V

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 487

For the relief of Ovidio Javier Morla Paredes, Maria Estrada de Morla,

Javier Alfredo Morla Estrada, and Carlos Andres Morla Estrada.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 6, 1993

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts introduced the following bill; which was referred

to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

For the relief of Ovidio Javier Morla Paredes, Maria Estrada

de Morla, Javier Alfredo Morla Estrada, and Carlos Andres Morla Estrada.

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

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENCE STATUS FOR OVIDIO

4 JAVIER MORLA PAREDES, MARIA ESTRADA

5 DE MORLA, JAVIER ALFREDO MORLA

6 ESTRADA, AND CARLOS ANDRES MORLA

7 ESTRADA.

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subject to subsection (b), for the

9 purposes of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Ovidio

10 Javier Morla Paredes, Maria Estrada de Morla, Javier
2

•HR 487 IH

1 Alfredo Morla Estrada, and Carlos Andres Morla Estrada

2 shall be considered to have been lawfully admitted to the

3 United States for permanent residence as of the date of

4 the enactment of this Act upon payment of the required

5 visa fees.

6 (b) DEADLINE FOR APPLICATION.—Subsection (a)

7 shall apply to an individual under such subsection only

8 if the individual applies to the Attorney General for per9 manent residence status under such subsection within 2

10 years after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
#### § 76.1907 Temporary bona fide trials.

The obligations and procedures as to encoding rules set forth in §§ 76.1904(b) and (c) and 76.1905(a) and (b) do not apply in the case of a temporary bona fide trial of a service.
No. 11-5557.

#### Medulan *v.*United States.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 11-5824.

#### Powell *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-1241

DANIELLE NELSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL

SECURITY,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Theresa C. Buchanan,

Magistrate Judge. (CA-03-842)

Submitted: July 30, 2004 Decided: August 18, 2004

Before WIDENER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bruce K. Billman, Fredericksburg, Virginia, for Appellant. Paul J.

McNulty, United States Attorney, Dennis E. Szybala, Assistant

United States Attorney, Lisa De Soto, General Counsel, Thomas

Crawley, Deputy General Counsel, Karen J. Aviles, OFFICE OF GENERAL

COUNSEL, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Danielle Nelson appeals the district court’s order

dismissing this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the

district court. See Nelson v. Barnhart, No. CA-03-842 (E.D. Va.

filed Dec. 19, 2003, entered Dec. 22, 2003). 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
§ 65.300 Calculations of the components and weights of the cost of capital. ( a ) Sections 65.301 through 65.303 specify the calculations that are to be performed in computing cost of debt, cost of preferred stock, and financial structure weights for prescription proceedings. The calculations shall determine, where applicable, a composite cost of debt, a composite cost of preferred stock, and a composite financial structure for all local exchange carriers with annual revenues equal to or above the indexed revenue threshold as defined in § 32.9000. The calculations shall be based on data reported to the Commission in FCC Report 43-02. (See 47 CFR 43.21). The results of the calculations shall be used in the represcription proceeding to which they relate unless the record in that proceeding shows that their use would be unreasonable.
( b ) Excluded from cost of capital calculations made pursuant to § 65.300 shall be those sources of financing that are not investor supplied, or that are otherwise subtracted from a carrier's rate base pursuant to Commission orders governing the calculation of net rate base amounts in tariff filings that are made pursuant to section 203 of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 203, or that were treated as “zero cost” sources of financing in section 450 and subpart G of this part 65. Specifically excluded are: accounts payable, accrued taxes, accrued interest, dividends payable, deferred credits and operating reserves, deferred taxes and deferred tax credits.
[60 FR 28545, June 1, 1995, as amended at 67 FR 5702, Feb. 6, 2002]
#### THE SAVINGS BANK OF UTICA, Plaintiff, *v.*NELSON O. WOOD and others, Defendants.

*Surplus moneys*— priority *of liens as to.*

Appeal from an order made on an application for the distribu, tion of the surplus moneys in this action. February 14, 1876, Nelson O. Wood and his two sisters joined in a mortgage to the *134plaintiff conveying 177 acres of land which they owned as tenants in common, and a tract of fifty acres, which Nelson O. Wood owned individually and solely.

Nelson O. Wood received all the money raised by the loan, the sisters signing for his benefit and receiving nothing. September 1, 1876, the bank of Chenango recovered a judgment against Nelson O. Wood, individually, for $6,215.61. On December 12, 1876, the two sisters mortgaged their interests in the 177 acres to John Mitchell. Upon the foreclosure of the plaintiff’s mortgage, the question was whether the judgment or the mortgage to Mitchell were entitled to priority.

The court at Special Term awarded the priority to the mortgage.

The court at General Term said : “As between Wood and his two sisters it is plain that, if the land had been sold in parcels, it would have been equitable to sell; first, his fifty acres ; next, his one undivided third of the 177 acres ; and lastly, their two-thirds of the 177 acres. As the land was not sold in parcels, but as a whole, it is equitable to treat the avails in the same manner — that is, the proportionate avails (agreed upon) of the fifty acres should be first applied to the mortgage; then Wood’s one-third of the proportionate avails of the 177 acres; and then so much as is necessary of the remaining two-thirds of the avails of the 177 acres. Whatever surplus of the proportionate avails of these two-thirds should remain, would therefore be the property of the sisters of Wood. As such, it would be subject to the mortgage executed by them, and would not be affected by the lien of the judgment against Wood.”

We think the order should be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and printing disbursements.

*Albert F.*Gladding, for the Bank of Chenango. *JR. A. Stanton,*for the respondent John Mitchell.

Opinion.

*Per Ouriavi.*

Present- — Learned, P. J., BoaedmaN and Bocees, JJ.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and printing disbursements.
§ 68.348 Changes in equipment and circuitry subject to a Supplier's Declaration of Conformity. ( a ) No change shall be made in terminal equipment or protective circuitry that would result in any material change in the information contained in the Supplier's Declaration of Conformity Statement furnished to users.
( b ) Any other changes in terminal equipment or protective circuitry which is subject to an effective Supplier's Declaration of Conformity shall be made only by the responsible party or an authorized agent thereof, and the responsible party will remain responsible for the performance of such changes.
[66 FR 7586, Jan. 24, 2001]