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

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 5191

To amend the charter of the Veterans of Foreign Wars.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 5, 1994

Mr. MONTGOMERY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend the charter of the Veterans of Foreign Wars.

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

3 That section 5 of the Act of May 28, 1936 (36 U.S.C.

4 115), is amended to read as follows:

5 ‘‘SEC. 5. A person may not be a member of the cor6 poration created by this Act unless that person—

7 ‘‘(1) served honorably as a member of the

8 Armed Forces of the United States in a foreign war,

9 insurrection, or expedition, which service has been

10 recognized as campaign-medal service and is gov11 erned by the authorization of the award of a cam-
2

•HR 5191 IH

1 paign badge by the Government of the United

2 States; or

3 ‘‘(2) while a member of the Armed Forces of

4 the United States, served honorably on the Korean

5 peninsula or in its territorial waters for not less than

6 30 consecutive days, or a total of 60 days, after

7 June 30, 1949.’’.

Æ
#### § 87.75 Maintenance of antenna structure marking and control equipment.

The owner of each antenna structure required to be painted and/or illuminated under the provisions of Section 303(q) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, shall operate and maintain the antenna structure painting and lighting in accordance with part 17 of this chapter. In the event of default by the owner, each licensee or permittee shall be individually responsible for conforming to the requirements pertaining to antenna structure painting and lighting.

[61 FR 4368, Feb. 6, 1996]
No. 1907.

No. 1908.

No. 1909.

No. 1910.

No. 1912.

#### Louis Williams Pete Cadell J. W. Johnson J. H. Rainey Robert Bentley *v.*The State.

Practice in the Court of Appeals.— Indictments presented by grand juries composed of more persons than twelve are nullities, as heretofore held in the cases of *Lott*v. *The State,*18 Texas Ct. App., 627, and *McNeese*v. *The State, ante,*p. 48; and convictions shown by the record to be based upon sucli pretended indictments will, upon appeal to this court, be set' aside and the prosecutions dismissed.

Appeals from the District Court of Cooke. Tried below before the Hon. F. E. Finer.

The convictions in these cases, with their respective terms of imprisonment in the penitentiary, were, in the order of the case numbers, as follows: Robbery, five years; horse theft, eight years; theft, five years; murder in the second degree, eighteen years, and horse theft, fifteen years.

Briefs of counsel were filed as follows:

*Sarlls d Scott,*for appellant Louis Williams.

*Blanton <& Wright,*for appellant Pete Cadell.

IF. *F. Bowman*and *J. M. Wright,*for appellant J. W. Johnson.

*A. M. Thomason*and *W. B. Johnson,*for appellant J. H. Rainey.

*W. L. Blanton,*for appellant Robert Bentley.

*J. II. Burts,*Assistant Attorney-G-eneral, for the State.

Hurt, Judge.

In these cases it affirmatively appears from the record that the parties were each convicted of felonies upon indictments presented by a grand jury composed of more than twelve persons. The cases are from the same court, to wit: the district court of Cooke county. The judgments are reversed and the causes dismissed. (See *Lott*v. *The State,*18 Texas Ct. App., 627; and *McNeese*v. *The State,*decided at this term, *ante,*p. 48.)

*Reversed and dismissed.*

[Opinion delivered November 4, 1885.]
§ 221.46 What sanctions may the ALJ impose for failure to comply with discovery? ( a ) Upon motion of a party, the ALJ may impose sanctions under paragraph (b) of this section if any party: ( 1 ) Fails to comply with an order approving discovery; or
( 2 ) Fails to supplement or amend a response to discovery under § 221.42(a).
( b ) The ALJ may impose one or more of the following sanctions: ( 1 ) Infer that the information, testimony, document, or other evidence withheld would have been adverse to the party;
( 2 ) Order that, for the purposes of the hearing, designated facts are established;
( 3 ) Order that the party not introduce into evidence, or otherwise rely on to support its case, any information, testimony, document, or other evidence: ( i ) That the party improperly withheld; or
( ii ) That the party obtained from another party in discovery;
( 4 ) Allow another party to use secondary evidence to show what the information, testimony, document, or other evidence withheld would have shown; or
( 5 ) Take other appropriate action to remedy the party's failure to comply.
#### §§ 22.80-22.85 [Reserved]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-2086

MARIE THERESE ASSA’AD FALTAS, MD, MPH,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

THE STATE NEWSPAPER, in its corporate capacity; KATHERINE GRAY, individually and as agent

of The State Newspaper; CLAUDIA SMITH BRINSON,

individually and as agent of The State Newspaper; PATRICK BLANCHAT, individually as agent

of The State Newspaper; THOMAS N. MCLEAN,

individually and as agent of The State Newspaper; WILLIAM RHONE, individually and as

agent of The State Newspaper; CHRIS RILEY;

UNKNOWN NAMED DEFENDANTS,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District

Judge. (CA-95-3324-3-17)

Submitted: June 30, 1998 Decided: July 16, 1998

Before HAMILTON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

Marie Therese Assa’ad Faltas, Appellant Pro Se. Jerry Jay Bender,

BAKER, BARWICK, RAVENEL & BENDER, L.L.P., Columbia, South Carolina;

Peter John Tepley, TURNIPSEED & ASSOCIATES, Columbia, South

Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Dr. Marie Therese Assa’ad Faltas appeals the district court’s

orders granting summary judgment to Defendants and denying her

motion for reconsideration in this action alleging defamation,

tortious interference with an employment contract, intentional infliction of emotional distress, fraud, and reckless endangerment.

We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning

of the district court. See Assa’ad Faltas v. State Newspaper, No.

CA-95-3324-3-17 (D.S.C. July 5, 1996). We deny Appellant’s motion

for reconsideration of the denial of her motion to file a supplemental informal brief. 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.

AFFIRMED
### MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF THE ENV IRONMENT 1800 Washington Boulevard -Baltimore MD 21230 

# MD E 410-537-3000

- 1-800-633-6101 Martin O'Malle y Shari T . Wil son Gov ernor S ecret ary Robert M . Summer s , Ph .D . Anthon y G . Brown Deputy Secretary Lieutenant G overnor 

## J

UL - 

## 8 2008 Ms. Judith M. Katz Director, Air Protection Di vision EPA Region III (3APOO ) 1650 Arch Street Philadelphia , PA, 19103-2029 Dear Ms. Katz: This submittal is intended to supplement the Maryland Department of the En vironment (MDE) February 5 , 2007 State Implementation Plan ( SIP) re vision titled " Revision to Maryland' s Transportation Conformity State Implementation Pl an," SIP # 06-07 . This submittal includes the following changes to Maryland's Conformity SIP: 1. Errata correcting minor citation error s found on page 1850 of the November 13,2006 Issue of the Mar yland Register : Ori ginally Read: The purpose of this ch apter is to implement §176(c) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended (42 U .S .c. §7401 et seq.) , and . .. Now Reads: The purpose of this chapter 

### is to implement §176 (c) (4) (E) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), a s amended (42 U .S.c. §7401 et seq.), and .. The two Errata correctin g the abo ve errors were published on January 4 , 2008 and July 7 ,2008. 2. An amendment removing COMAR 26.11.26.05E(4 ) a s published in the Maryl and Register on March 28, 2 008. A public hearing regarding this amendment was held on April 30 , 2 008. The am endment was adopted on June 4 , 2 008 and became effective on June 3 0 , 2008. All administrative procedures were properl y follow ed throughout the adoption proce ss. 3. A revis ed page 9 of the SIP document (under the he ading on PM2.5 and CO Hotspots ). Originally Re ad: " This provis ion applies to fine particulate (PM 2.5 ) and carbon monoxide (CO) hot spots and to project level conformity determinations only (in accordance with 40 CFR P art 93 .125(a» , not to regional conformity determin ations. "

Recycled Paper www .mde .Slalc .md .lIs TTY Use r s 1-800-735-2258 Via Mary land Re lay ServiceJudith M . Katz Page 2 Now reads: " This provision applies to fine particulate (PM 2 .5) and carbon monoxide (CO) hot spots and to project level conformity determinations only (in accordance with 40 CFR Part 93 .125(c» , not to regional conformity determinations. " If you have any questions regarding this submittal, or require additional information, please contact Mr. George (Tad) S. Aburn, Jr. , Director of the Air and Radiation Management Administration at 410-537-3255 , toll-free at 800-633-6101, or via email gaburn@mde.state.md.us . He will be pleased to assist you.

Shari T . Wilson Secretary

Rec ycled Paper \\w w . mde . S I 3te . md . llS TTY Us ers l-8 00-735-2258 Via Maryland Rela y S ervice
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-6916

DENNIS RAY GRAVES,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

RAY W. GRUBBS, Judge,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge.

(CA-99-MC-54-7)

Submitted: September 28, 1999 Decided: October 5, 1999

Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dennis Ray Graves, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on

June 17, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was

entered on the docket sheet on June 21, 1999. Pursuant to Rules 58

and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date

that the order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as the

effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v.

Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).

2

PER CURIAM:

Dennis Ray Graves appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his “motion for review of state court decision with request for injunction order or other.” We have reviewed

the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we grant Graves’ motion for leave to proceed

in forma pauperis and affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. See Graves v. Grubbs, No. CA-99-MC-54-7 (W.D. Va. June 21,

1999).*

We further construe Graves’ letter of August 23, 1999, as a

motion to stay state proceedings pending this appeal and deny such

motion as moot. To the extent that Graves seeks to have this Court

direct an action or outcome in state court, federal courts have no

general power to compel action by state officials. See Davis v.

Lansing, 851 F.2d 72, 74 (2d Cir. 1988); Gurley v. Superior Court

of Mecklenburg County, 411 F.2d 586, 587 (4th Cir. 1969). We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
3

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
----

            DECISION No 3/2005 OF THE EC-EFTA JOINT COMMITTEE ON COMMON TRANSIT         

of 17 June 2005         

amending the Convention of 20 May 1987 on a common transit procedure

(2005/560/EC)

THE JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Convention of 20 May 1987 on a common transit procedure (1) (hereinafter referred to as the Convention), and in particular Article 15(3)(a) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

Annexes D1 and D2 to Appendix III of the Convention of 20 May 1987 on a common transit procedure are amended in accordance with the Annex to this Decision.

Article 2

1.   This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.

2.   It shall be applicable from 1 July 2005.

Done at Bern, 17 June 2005.

For the Joint Committee

The President

Rudolf DIETRICH            

----

(1)OJ L 226, 13.8.1987, p. 2. Convention as last amended by Decision No 2/2002 (OJ L 4, 9.1.2003, p. 18).

----

ANNEX

Appendix III of the Convention of 20 May 1987 on a common transit procedure is amended as follows:

----
§ 90.351 Location and Monitoring Service. These provisions authorize the licensing of systems in the Location and Monitoring Service (LMS). LMS systems utilize non-voice radio techniques to determine the location and status of mobile radio units. LMS licensees authorized to operate a system in the 902-928 MHz band may serve individuals, federal government agencies, and entities eligible for licensing in this part 90. ( a ) Each application to license an LMS system shall include the following supplemental information: ( 1 ) A detailed description of the manner in which the system will operate, including a map or diagram.
( 2 ) The necessary or occupied bandwidth of emission, whichever is greater.
( 3 ) The data transmission characteristics as follows: ( i ) The vehicle location update rates;
( ii ) Specific transmitter modulation techniques used;
( iii ) For codes and timing scheme: A table of bit sequences and their alphanumeric or indicator equivalents, and a statement of bit rise time, bit transmission rates, bit duration, and interval between bits;
( iv ) A statement of amplitude-versus-time of the interrogation and reply formats, and an example of a typical message transmission and any synchronizing pulses utilized.
( 4 ) A plan to show the implementation schedule during the initial license term.
( b ) LMS stations are exempted from the identification requirements of § 90.425; however, the Commission may impose automatic station identification requirements when determined to be necessary for monitoring and enforcement purposes.
EXHIBIT 32


              CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63
                      OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE

                             as adopted pursuant to

                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     I, Anthony F. Ciali, the chief executive officer of Can-Cal Resources Ltd.,
certify that (i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A for the quarter ended
March 31, 2005, as filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, to which this Certification is an Exhibit, fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended; and (ii) the information contained in the Form 10-QSB financial
statements fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of Can-Cal Resources Ltd.



                                               /s/  Ronald D. Sloan
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             Ronald D. Sloan,
                                             President, Chief Executive Officer
                                             and Chief Financial Officer
                                             Date:  May 26, 2005


This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Can-Cal Resources Ltd. and will be retained by Can-Cal Resources
Ltd. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
















                                       51
AMENDMENT TO 1992 STOCK OPTION PLAN



 EXHIBIT 10.26 
 MICROTEK MEDICAL HOLDINGS, INC. 
 AMENDMENT TO 
 1992 STOCK OPTION PLAN, 
 1999
LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN 
 AND 
 1999 EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN 
 Microtek Medical Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”), a corporation
organized under the laws of the State of Georgia, by resolution of its Board of Directors has adopted this amendment to its 1992 Stock Option Plan, 1999 Long-Term Incentive Plan and 1999 Employee Stock Purchase Plan (the “Plans”),
effective as of December 8, 2006. 
 1. Each of the Plans is hereby amended to the extent necessary to provide as
follows: 
 If the outstanding shares of common stock of Microtek Medical Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) are changed
into or exchanged for a different number or kind of shares or other securities of the Company by reason of any recapitalization, reclassification, stock split, stock dividend, combination or subdivision of the common stock of the Company, or similar
transaction involving the outstanding equity interests in the Company (each, a “Change in Capitalization”), then, subject to any required action by the stockholders of the Company, the number and kind of shares of Company stock underlying
each stock option, restricted stock award, or other equity award (and, where applicable, the exercise price per share) shall be proportionately and equitably adjusted for any increase or decrease in the number of issued shares of the Company
resulting from a Change in Capitalization, such adjustments to be effected in the manner reasonably determined by the Committee. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no fractional shares shall be issued in making the foregoing adjustments. This provision
shall be effective immediately upon adoption by the Board of Directors and apply to all currently outstanding equity awards under each of the Plans. 
 2. All provisions of the Plans remain in effect except to the extent superseded by the foregoing. 
 IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board has caused this Amendment to be executed by a duly authorized officer of the Company as of the date set forth above. 
  

			
	 MICROTEK MEDICAL HOLDINGS, INC.

		
	 By:
	 	 /s/ Dan R. Lee
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4883 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4883

To deny Federal benefits for 10 years to persons convicted of making a 
fraudulent representation with respect to residence in order to receive 
        benefits from 2 or more States, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             August 1, 1994

  Mr. Zimmer introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                   Committee on Government Operations

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To deny Federal benefits for 10 years to persons convicted of making a 
fraudulent representation with respect to residence in order to receive 
        benefits from 2 or more States, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. FEDERAL BENEFITS DENIED FOR 10 YEARS TO PERSONS CONVICTED OF 
              MAKING A FRAUDULENT REPRESENTATION WITH RESPECT TO 
              RESIDENCE IN ORDER TO RECEIVE BENEFITS FROM 2 OR MORE 
              STATES.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a person who has 
received benefits or services during any period under a program 
administered by a State or by a political subdivision of a State 
eligibility for which is limited to residents of the State or political 
subdivision (whether or not the program receives Federal funds), has 
received benefits or services during the period under such a program 
administered by another State or by a political subdivision of another 
State, and is convicted in Federal or State court of making a 
fraudulent statement or representation to either such program with 
respect to the place of residence of the person shall not be eligible, 
during the 10-year period that begins with the date of the conviction, 
to receive benefits or services under any program administered by the 
Federal Government eligibility for which is based on need.

SEC. 2. FEDERAL EFFORTS TO ASSIST IN PREVENTING FRAUDULENT RECEIPT OF 
              BENEFITS FROM 2 OR MORE STATES.

    (a) In General.--The Secretaries of Health and Human Services, 
Agriculture, Education, Labor, and Housing and Urban Development shall 
each design and implement a program to assist the States in preventing 
persons from engaging in conduct described in section 1.
    (b) Reports to the Congress.--Within 6 months after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, the Secretaries of Health and Human Services, 
Agriculture, Education, Labor, and Housing and Urban Development shall 
each submit to the Congress a report on the activities undertaken by 
the programs administered by such Secretaries, respectively, to assist 
the States in preventing persons from engaging in conduct described in 
section 1.
                                 <all>
```
An official website of the United States government
Here's how you know 

**The .gov means it’s official.**
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

**The site is secure.**
The **https://** ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Standard

S9

Standard

S10

Standard

S8

Standard

S7

SYNCHRONIZING

Standard

S6

SYNCHRONIZING

Standard

S5

SYNCHRONIZING

Coordinated Universal Time (UTC)

UTC is always displayed as a 24-hour clock.

Your Device's Clock UTC-0						Your clock is off by:  s

About/ContactFAQ

Clocks are corrected for network delay

        -  Privacy Statement 
        -  Privacy Policy 
        -  Security Notice 
        -  Accessibility Statement 
        -  NIST Privacy Program 
        -  NIST No Fear Act Policy 
        -  Navy No Fear Act Policy 
        -  Disclaimer 
        -  NIST FOIA 
        -  Navy FOIA 
        -  Environmental Policy Statement 
        -  Cookie Disclaimer 
        -  Scientific Integrity Summary 
        -  NIST Information Quality Standards
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 5189

To amend title 28, United States Code, to provide that a reasonable attorney’s

fee shall be awarded as a part of the cost to prevailing defendants

in Federal civil actions.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 5, 1994

Mr. LIVINGSTON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend title 28, United States Code, to provide that

a reasonable attorney’s fee shall be awarded as a part

of the cost to prevailing defendants in Federal civil actions.

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 ‘‘Frivolous Suit Reduc5 tion Act of 1994’’.
2

•HR 5198 IH

1 SEC. 2. ATTORNEYS’ FEES.

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 123 of title 28, United

3 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the follow4 ing:

5 ‘‘§ 1932. Attorneys’ fees

6 ‘‘In any civil action in a court of the United States,

7 the court shall award a prevailing defendant a reasonable

8 attorney’s fee as part of the costs.’’.

9 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections

10 at the beginning of chapter 123 of title 28, United States

11 Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new

12 item:

‘‘1932. Attorneys’ fees.’’.

Æ