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

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 704 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 704

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to provide for interest-free 
deferment on student loans for borrowers serving in a medical or dental 
                    internship or residency program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 8, 2023

Ms. Rosen (for herself and Mr. Boozman) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, 
                     Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to provide for interest-free 
deferment on student loans for borrowers serving in a medical or dental 
                    internship or residency program.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Resident Education Deferred Interest 
Act'' or the ``REDI Act''.

SEC. 2. DEFERMENT DURING A MEDICAL OR DENTAL INTERNSHIP OR RESIDENCY 
              PROGRAM.

    Section 455(f) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
1087e(f)) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1), in the matter preceding subparagraph 
        (A), by striking ``A borrower'' and inserting ``Except as 
        provided in paragraph (6), a borrower'';
            (2) in paragraph (2)(A)--
                    (A) in clause (i), by striking ``or'' after the 
                semicolon;
                    (B) by striking the matter following clause (ii);
                    (C) in clause (ii), by striking the comma at the 
                end and inserting ``; or''; and
                    (D) by adding at the end the following:
                            ``(iii) is serving in a medical or dental 
                        internship or residency program;''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(6) Special rule for certain in school deferment.--
        Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, a borrower 
        described in paragraph (2)(A)(iii) shall be eligible for a 
        deferment, during which periodic installments of principal need 
        not be paid and interest shall not accrue on any loan made to 
        the borrower under this part.''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 31(ii)
                                --------------



                                CERTIFICATIONS

      I, Steve Bailey, certify that:


            1.    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on
                  Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period
                  covered by this report on Form 10-K of Alternative Loan
                  Trust 2006-J5 (the "Exchange Act periodic reports");

            2.    Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports,
                  taken as a whole, do 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 report;

            3.    Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing
                  and other information required to be provided under Form
                  10-D for the period covered by this report is included in
                  the Exchange Act periodic reports;

            4.    I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by
                  the servicer(s) and based on my knowledge and the compliance
                  review(s) conducted in preparing the servicer compliance
                  statement(s) required in this report under Item 1123 of
                  Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act
                  periodic reports, the servicer(s) have fulfilled their
                  obligations under the servicing agreement(s) in all material
                  respects; and

            5.    All of the reports on assessment of compliance with
                  servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their
                  related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with
                  servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to
                  be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of
                  Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have
                  been included as an exhibit to this report, except as
                  otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances
                  of noncompliance described in such reports have been
                  disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

            In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on
            information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:
            The Bank of New York, as Trustee and SunTrust Mortgage
            Incorporated.

         Date: March 27, 2007


            /s/ Steve Bailey
            ---------------------------
            Steve Bailey
            Senior Managing Director, Loan Administration
#### Walter L. Wilhelm, Respondent, *v.*Fuller and Warren Company, Appellant.

*Wilhelm*v. *Fuller & Warren Co.,*120 App. Div. 904, appeal dismissed.

(Argued January 8, 1908;

decided January 14, 1908.)

Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department, entered June 28, 1907, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for anew trial.

The motion was made upon the ground that the judgment of the Appellate Division was unanimous and so unappealable, permission to appeal not having been obtained.

*John P. Curley*for motion.

*J. K. Long*opposed.

Motion granted and appeal dismissed, with costs and ten dollars costs of motion.
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**




**CERTIFICATION
      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 of Tasker Products Corp. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007 as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
      I, Stathis Kouninis, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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:




(1)
      The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) 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 as of and for
      the periods presented in the Report.




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.




August
      14, 2007




/s/
                Stathis KouninisStathis
                KouninisChief
                Financial Officer(Principal
                Financial and Accounting Officer)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         (4,846)
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,813,748
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    108,240
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               361,988
<PP&E>                                         430,914
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,805,657
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          477,616
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       233,916
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,560,904
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,805,657
<SALES>                                         53,054
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                53,054
<CGS>                                           22,673
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   22,673
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,603,544
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,215
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,572,129)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,572,129)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,572,129)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
§ 1233.1 What is the purpose of these regulations? ( a ) The regulations in this part implement Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs,” issued July 14, 1982, and amended on April 8, 1983. These regulations also implement applicable provisions of section 401 of the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968.
( b ) These regulations are intended to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened Federalism by relying on state processes and on state, areawide, regional and local coordination for review of proposed federal financial assistance.
( c ) These regulations are intended to aid the internal management of the Agency, and are not intended to create any right or benefit enforceable at law by a party against the Agency or its officers.
Name

(Last, First, Middle) Title Company/ Organization Street Address Phone 

Webinar Attendees: The Dehumidifiers Standards Pre-NOPR Meeting

City Fax State/ Prov Zip

Meeting Date: 6/13/2014

Aliff, Lacy N/A Dais Analytic 11552 Prosperous Dr Odessa FL 33556 N/A N/A Mattison, Lauren N/A Cadmus 11552 Prosperous Dr Waltham MA 02451 N/A N/A 

Technical AdvocacyCoordinator

Appliance Standards AwarenessProject (ASAP)

529 14th Street NW, 

Suite 600

Mauer, Joanna Washington DC 20045 202-507-4034 N/A

Senior Associate ICF International 1725 Eye Street, NW, 

Suite 1000

Medepalli, Sarah A Washington DC 20006 202-862-1268 202‐862‐1

N/A NRCan Canada 930 Carling Ave, Building 

3

Mortazavi, Renata Ottawa ON K1A 0Y3 N/A N/AMurrell, Thomas N/A N/A 2611 E. Pioneer Irving TX 75061 N/A N/A 

Program Manager ‐ 

Regulatory and Compliance

General Electric ‐ Appliances &Lighting

Williams, Yoolanda AP2‐121, Appliance Park Louisville KY 40225 502-452-4802 502‐452‐09

Environmental Scientist New York State Office of the

Attorney General (NYS OAG)

Wilson, Linda 120 Broadway New York NY 10271 212-416-8948 212‐416‐60Young, Daniel Project Manager Energy Solutions 1610 Harrison Street Oakland CA 94612 510-482-4420 x 246 510‐482‐44

N/A N/A 8503 E. Pleasant Valley 

Road

Zagar, Bernard Cleveland OH 44131 N/A N/A

Contacts Included: 10 

08/27/2014 08:56:52
[No. 1535.]

#### Northrop v. Jenison, Receiver.

1. Appeals.

An appeal lies only in favor of a party against whom a judgment is rendered, and not in favor of one for whom a judgment is rendered for a less amount than claimed.

2. Appellate Pbactice — Recobd — Judgments — Bills oe Exceptions.

It is essential to an appeal that the appellant lodge in the appellate court an authenticated copy of the record of the judgment appealed from. The absence of the judgment from the transcript is not cured by its incorporation in the bill of exceptions.

*Appeal from the District Court of Arapahoe County.*

*524Messrs. Carpenter & McBird, for appellant.

Mr. Wm. B. Harrison, for appellee.

Thomson, P. J.

We have before us something which we infer from the transcript and bill of exceptions, and from the argument of counsel, is intended as an appeal from a judgment rendered upon exceptions to the final report of A. H. Northrop, as receiver of the Great Western Mutual Association. Northrop appears to have been removed from the receivership, and the appellee Jenison appointed in his place. The transcript contains no authenticated copy of the record of the supposed judgment. There is in the bill of exceptions what purports to be a copy of a judgment in favor of Northrop for a less sum than he appears to have claimed. If such judgment was rendered, there could be no appeal from it by Northrop. An appeal lies only in favor of a party against whom a judgment has been rendered. *Sutton v. Jones,*9 Colo. App. 86; *Booth v. Water Co.,*9 Colo. App. 495.

But it avails nothing to incorporate into the bill of exceptions the judgment entered, or any other matter which belongs to the record proper. The purpose of the bill is to preserve matters which otherwise are not part of the record. It is essential to an appeal that the appellant lodge in the appellate court an authenticated copy of the record of the judgment appealed from. Without such copy there is nothing before the court. Civil Code, sec. 389; *Yuma Co. v. Lovell,*20 Colo. 80. A judicial record is authenticated by the certificate of the clerk or person having its legal custody, under the seal of the court. For the reason that there is no authenticated copy of the judgment here there is nothing for the court to act upon, and the case will be stricken from the docket.

*Stricken from the docket.*
§ 1603.6 How will LSC respond to a subpoena for documents? ( a ) Whenever a subpoena commanding the production of any LSC record has been served upon an employee, the employee shall refer the subpoena to the General Counsel or the OIG Legal Counsel, as appropriate. The General Counsel or the OIG Legal Counsel shall determine whether the subpoena is legally sufficient, whether the subpoena was properly served, and whether the issuing court or other tribunal has jurisdiction over LSC. If the General Counsel or the OIG Legal Counsel determines that the subpoena satisfies all three factors, LSC shall comply with the terms of the subpoena unless LSC takes affirmative action to modify or quash the subpoena in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 (c).
( b ) If a subpoena commanding the production of any record served upon an employee is determined by the General Counsel or the OIG Legal Counsel to be legally insufficient, improperly served, or from a tribunal not having jurisdiction, LSC shall deem the subpoena a request for records under the Freedom of Information Act. LSC shall handle the subpoena pursuant to the rules governing public disclosure established in 45 CFR part 1602.
( c ) If the General Counsel or the OIG Legal Counsel denies approval to comply with a subpoena for testimony or has not acted by the return date, the employee will be directed to appear at the stated time and place, unless advised by the General Counsel or the OIG Legal Counsel that responding to the subpoena would be inappropriate. The employee will be directed to produce a copy of these regulations and respectfully decline to testify or produce any documents on the basis of these regulations.
1

The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the District of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-1769

___________

United States, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Keith Brian Carter, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: September 5, 2007

 Filed: September 11, 2007

___________

Before BYE, RILEY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Keith Brian Carter appeals the sentence the district court1

 imposed after

revoking his supervised release. He also moves to supplement the record on appeal.

We grant his motion and affirm the sentence.

In 1993 Carter was sentenced to 120 months in prison; his 8-year term of

supervised release commenced in May 1999. At a March 2007 revocation hearing,

Carter admitted violating conditions of his release. Subject to an advisory Guidelines
-2-

range of 6-12 months in prison, Carter requested a sentence within that range with no

further supervision. The court imposed a sentence of 12 months and 1 day in prison,

followed by 5 years of supervised release. 

We hold that the revocation sentence is not unreasonable. See United States v.

Tyson, 413 F.3d 824, 825 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (standard of review). The

district court properly considered relevant factors, including Carter’s history and

characteristics, the need for deterrence, and the advisory Guidelines range and other

sentencing options. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a), 3583(c); United States v. Nelson, 453

F.3d 1004, 1006 (8th Cir. 2006) (in fashioning revocation sentence, district court is

to consider advisory sentencing range and policy statements found in Chapter 7 of

Guidelines, as well as certain additional § 3553(a) factors); United States v. Larison,

432 F.3d 921, 923 (8th Cir. 2006) (district court need not list every § 3553(a)

consideration when sentencing defendant upon revocation of supervised release).

Accordingly, we affirm. 

______________________________
§ 1174.21 Depositions. ( a ) If the ALJ grants a motion for deposition, the ALJ shall issue a subpoena for the deponent, which may require the deponent to produce documents. The subpoena shall specify the time and place at which the deposition will take place.
( b ) The party seeking to depose shall serve the subpoena in the manner prescribed by § 1174.8.
( c ) The deponent may file with the ALJ a motion to quash the subpoena or a motion for a protective order within ten days of service.
( d ) The party seeking to depose shall provide for the taking of a verbatim transcript of the deposition, which it shall make available to all other parties for inspection and copying.
#### § 160.522 Fees.

The party requesting a subpoena must pay the cost of the fees and mileage of any witness subpoenaed in the amounts that would be payable to a witness in a proceeding in United States District Court. A check for witness fees and mileage must accompany the subpoena when served, except that, when a subpoena is issued on behalf of the Secretary, a check for witness fees and mileage need not accompany the subpoena.
#### § 1630.4 Burden of proof.

The recipient shall have the burden of proof under this part.
##### 



Certification Pursuant to Section 302
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of MetroCorp Bancshares, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this 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 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-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the
registrant and have:
 a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, 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 report is being prepared;b)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our
conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and
procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; andc)
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the
registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth
fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,
the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit
committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):
 a)
    
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting.
  /s/ David C. ChoiDavid C. ChoiChief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 226 (Friday, November 24, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 67904]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-9405]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Parole Commission


Sunshine Act; Record of Vote of Meeting Closure (Public Law 94-
409) (5 U.S.C. Sec. 552b)

    I, Edward F. Reilly, Jr., Chairman of the United States Parole 
Commission, was present at a meeting of said Commission, which started 
at approximately 10:30 a.m., on Thursday, November 16, 2006, at the 
U.S. Parole Commission, 5550 Friendship Boulevard, 4th Floor, Chevy 
Chase, Maryland 20815. The purpose of the meeting was to decide five 
petitions for reconsideration pursuant to 28 CFR Section 2.27. Three 
Commissioners were present, and one Commissioner was available via 
telephone, constituting a quorum when the vote to close the meeting was 
submitted.
    Public announcement further describing the subject matter of the 
meeting and certifications of General Counsel that this meeting may be 
closed by vote of the Commissioners present were submitted to the 
Commissioners prior to the conduct of any other business. Upon motion 
duly made, seconded, and carried, the following Commissioners voted 
that the meeting be closed: Edward F. Reilly, Jr., Cranston J. 
Mitchell, Deborah A. Spagnoli, and Isaac Fulwood, Jr.
    In witness whereof, I make this official record of the vote taken 
to close this meeting and authorize this record to be made available to 
the public.

    Dated: November 17, 2006.
Edward F. Reilly, Jr.,
Chairman, U.S. Parole Commission.
[FR Doc. 06-9405 Filed 11-21-06; 11:55 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-01-M