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

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1514 Engrossed in House (EH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 1514

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to 
 reauthorize the juvenile accountability block grants program through 
                           fiscal year 2014.

    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 ``Juvenile Accountability Block Grants 
Program Reauthorization Act of 2010''.

SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF JUVENILE ACCOUNTABILITY BLOCK GRANTS PROGRAM 
              THROUGH FISCAL YEAR 2014.

    Part R of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act 
of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796ee et seq.) is amended--
            (1) in section 1801A(a), by striking ``section 1810(b)'' 
        and inserting ``section 1810(c)'';
            (2) in section 1810(a), by striking ``2009'' and inserting 
        ``2014''; and
            (3) in section 1810(b), by inserting ``and each of the 
        fiscal years 2009 through 2014'' after ``2004''.

            Passed the House of Representatives May 19, 2010.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
111th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 1514

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

  To amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to 
 reauthorize the juvenile accountability block grants program through 
                           fiscal year 2014.
```
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-1599 DAVID WAYNE HALL, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus J. KEVIN O'BRIEN; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, M.J. Garbis, District Judges. (CA-95-3285-WMN) Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: August 2, 1996 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Wayne Hall, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Kaye A. Allison, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* 5 U.S.C. § 552 (1988). 2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order dismissing this civil action filed under the Freedom of Information Act. * 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. Hall v. O'Brien , No. CA-95-3285-WMN (D. Md. Apr. 16, 1996). We deny Appellant's motion for counsel and dispense withoral 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
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-16-0000335

25-SEP-2018

08:34 AM
§ 1630.6 Prior approval. ( a ) *Advance understandings.* Under any given grant award, the reasonableness and allocability of certain cost items may be difficult to determine. To avoid subsequent disallowance or dispute based on unreasonableness or nonallocability, a recipient may seek a written understanding from LSC in advance of incurring special or unusual costs. If a recipient elects not to seek an advance understanding from LSC, the absence of an advance understanding on any element of a cost will not affect the reasonableness or allocability of the cost.
( b ) *Costs requiring prior approval.* ( 1 ) Without LSC's prior written approval, a recipient may not expend $25,000 or more of LSC funds on any of the following: ( i ) A single purchase or single lease of personal property;
( ii ) A single contract for services;
( iii ) A single combined purchase or lease of personal property and contract for services; and
( iv ) Capital improvements.
( 2 ) Without LSC's prior written approval, a recipient may not expend LSC funds on a purchase of real estate.
( 3 ) For costs apportioned between LSC funds and one or more other funding sources, this requirement applies when the cost allocable to LSC funds is $25,000 or greater.
( 4 ) The process and substantive requirements for requests for prior approval are in 45 CFR part 1631—Purchasing and Property Management.
( c ) *Duration.* LSC's advance understanding or approval shall be valid for one year, or for a greater period of time which LSC may specify in its approval or advance understanding.
[82 FR 37337, Aug. 10, 2017; 82 FR 55053, Nov. 20, 2017]
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 617 

To amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to permanently prohibit 

the conduct of offshore drilling on the outer Continental Shelf in the 

Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic, North Atlantic, and Straits of Florida 

planning areas. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 1, 2023 

Mr. MENENDEZ (for himself, Mr. KING, Mr. REED, Mr. BOOKER, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. BLUMENTHAL, Mr. MARKEY, Ms. WARREN, Mr. SANDERS, Mr. CARDIN, Mr. WYDEN, Mr. MERKLEY, Mr. 

COONS, Mr. PADILLA, and Mr. VAN HOLLEN) introduced the following 

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 

Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to permanently prohibit the conduct of offshore drilling on the 

outer Continental Shelf in the Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic, North Atlantic, and Straits of Florida planning 

areas. 

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


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 617 IS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Clean Ocean And Safe 

3 Tourism Anti-Drilling Act’’ or the ‘‘COAST Anti-Drilling 

4 Act’’. 

5 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION OF OIL AND GAS LEASING IN CER6 TAIN AREAS OF THE OUTER CONTINENTAL 

7 SHELF. 

8 Section 8 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act 

9 (43 U.S.C. 1337) is amended by adding at the end the 

10 following: 

11 ‘‘(q) PROHIBITION OF OIL AND GAS LEASING IN

12 CERTAIN AREAS OF THE OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF.— 

13 Notwithstanding any other provision of this section or any 

14 other law, the Secretary of the Interior shall not issue a 

15 lease or any other authorization for the exploration, devel16 opment, or production of oil, natural gas, or any other 

17 mineral in— 

18 ‘‘(1) the Mid-Atlantic planning area; 

19 ‘‘(2) the South Atlantic planning area; 

20 ‘‘(3) the North Atlantic planning area; or 

21 ‘‘(4) the Straits of Florida planning area.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
#### Barnes v. Stoughton *et al.*

*Foreclosure—opening sale.*

In an application for a re-sale of mortgaged premises upon the ground that the premises sold did not bring their full value, the moving affidavits showed, not what was the true market, but a speculative value. *Held,*that a re-sale should not be ordered.

Appeal from an order of the special term denying a motion by one of the purchasers at a foreclosure sale, for a re-sale of the mortgaged premises.

*Wakeman & Latting,*for the purchaser.

*Otis T. Hall,*for the creditors.

*James B. Marvin,*for plaintiff.

Tappen, J.

The premises had, under the judgment of foreclosure, been sold three times, and the sale opened twice. Epon the third sale the manner of sale was agreed upon by all parties. The opinion is chiefly devoted to a consideration of facts, and the judgment of the special term was affirmed on the ground that such facts did not warrant an opening of the sale. The head-note gives all of value for publication.

*Order affirmed.*
§ 1802.3 Open meetings. ( a ) Members shall not jointly conduct or dispose of business of the Board of Trustees other than in accordance with these procedures. Every portion of every meeting of the Board of Trustees or any committees of the Board shall be open to public observation subject to the exceptions provided in § 1802.4.
( b ) Open meetings will be attended by members of the Board, certain staff, and any other individual or group desiring to observe the meeting. The public will be invited to observe and listen to the meeting but not to participate. The use of cameras and disruptive recording devices will not be permitted.
#### § 150.409 Amendment of notice of assessment or request for hearing.

The ALJ may permit CMS to amend its notice of assessment, or permit the respondent to amend a request for hearing that complies with § 150.407(a), if the ALJ finds that no undue prejudice to either party will result.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.2



 CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORTS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. Section 1350


        The undersigned hereby certifies that he is the duly appointed and
acting Chief Financial Officer of American National Financial, Inc., a
California corporation (the "Company"), and hereby further certifies as follows.

        1.     The periodic report containing financial statements to which this
               certificate is an exhibit fully complies with the requirements of
               Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

        2.     The information contained in the periodic report to which this
               certificate is an exhibit fairly presents, in all material
               respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
               the Company.

        In witness whereof, the undersigned has executed and delivered this
certificate as of the date set forth opposite his signature below.




Date:   August 9, 2002                         /s/ Carl A. Strunk
     --------------------               ----------------------------------------
                                        Carl A. Strunk
                                        Chief Financial Officer
§ 158.241 Form of rebate. ( a ) *Current enrollees.* ( 1 ) An issuer may choose to provide any rebates owing to current enrollees in the form of a premium credit, lump-sum check, or, if an enrollee paid the premium using a credit card or direct debit, by lump-sum reimbursement to the account used to pay the premium.
( 2 ) For each of the 2011, 2012, and 2013 MLR reporting years, any rebate provided in the form of a premium credit must be provided by applying the full amount due to the first month's premium that is due on or after August 1 following the MLR reporting year. If the amount of the rebate exceeds the premium due for August, then any overage shall be applied to succeeding premium payments until the full amount of the rebate has been credited. Beginning with the 2014 MLR reporting year, any rebate provided in the form of a premium credit must be provided by applying the full amount due to the first month's premium that is due on or after September 30 following the MLR reporting year. If the amount of the rebate exceeds the premium due for October, then any overage shall be applied to succeeding premium payments until the full amount of the rebate has been credited. Beginning with rebates due for the 2020 MLR reporting year, any rebate provided in the form of a premium credit must be provided by applying the full amount due to the monthly premium that is due no later than October 30 following the MLR reporting year. If the amount of the rebate exceeds the monthly premium, then any overage shall be applied to succeeding premium payments until the full amount of the rebate has been credited.
( b ) *Former enrollees in the individual market.* Rebates owing to former enrollees in the individual market must be paid in the form of lump-sum check or lump-sum reimbursement using the same method that was used for payment, such as credit card or direct debit.
[75 FR 74921, Dec. 1, 2010, as amended at 76 FR 76593, Dec. 7, 2011; 78 FR 15540, Mar. 11, 2013; 86 FR 24295, May 5, 2021]
| 1. | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of WaferGen Bio-systems, 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; |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: May 2, 2011 |                          |   |
|------------------------|-------------------------------|--------|
|                   |                          |   |
|                   | /s/ Donald Huffman            |   |
|                   | Donald Huffman                |
|                   | Chief Financial Officer       |
|                   | (principal financial officer) |
**EXHIBIT 13.2**

 

**Certification of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to**

 

**Title 18, United States Code, Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to**

 

**Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

I, Mihai Draguleasa, Chief Financial Officer of Canagold Resources Ltd. ("Canagold"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to the best of my knowledge:

 

| 1.     | The Annual Report on Form 20-F of Canagold Resources Ltd. for the year ended December 31, 2022 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  |
| 2.     | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Canagold.                                                                                                     |

 

|                              | by: | */s/ Mihai Draguleasa*                    |   |
|-----------------------------------|-----|-------------------------------------------|--------|
| Vancouver, Canada

April 28, 2023 |     | Mihai Draguleasa

Chief Financial Officer |   |

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Canagold and will be retained by Canagold and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

In the Matter of ) 

) A21-09 

Audit Division Recommendation ) 

Memorandum on the Communications ) 

Workers of America – COPE Political ) 

Contributions Committee ) 

CERTIFICATION 

I, Vicktoria J. Allen, Deputy Secretary and Clerk of the Federal Election 

Commission, do hereby certify that on June 21, 2023, the Commission decided 

by a vote of 6-0 to approve the Audit Division Recommendation Memorandum 

on the Communications Workers of America – COPE Political Contributions 

Committee, as recommended in the Memorandum from the Chief Compliance 

Officer and the Audit Division dated June 6, 2023. 

Commissioners Broussard, Cooksey, Dickerson, Lindenbaum, Trainor, and 

Weintraub voted affirmatively for the decision. 

June 22, 2023 

Date 

Attest: 

Digitally signed by Vicktoria J 

Vicktoria J Allen Allen

Date: 2023.06.22 16:47:51 -04'00' 

Vicktoria J. Allen 

Deputy Secretary of the Commission
Rockingham,

No. 5188.

#### Robert Bradsher *v.*Walter E. Stevens.

Argued January 7, 1964.

Decided January 31, 1964.

*Robert Shaw*(by brief and orally), for the plaintiff.

*Perkins, Holland & Donovan {Mr. RobertB. Donovan*orally), for the defendant.

Blandin, J.

The plaintiff’s exceptions, in the last analysis, raise the question of whether reasonable persons could return a verdict here for the defendant on the ground of the plaintiff’s contributory negligence.

The Court could find the following facts from those agreed upon and from the testimony: The parties were approaching each other from opposite directions after dark on a November night. They were traveling upon a straight stretch of dry, unlighted country road, and no other vehicles were involved in any manner. The defendant’s headlights were lit. Some sixty feet westerly of the point of collision was a “quite sharp” knoll *259or rise in the road, which was not “very high,” but which cut off the view of each party from the other. The plaintiff, who was traveling easterly, had practically stopped and then made a left-hand turn and was moving directly across the road to enter a driveway on the northerly side.

The defendant was driving west, at about thirty-five to forty miles an hour. On cresting the knoll, the defendant saw the plaintiff apparently stop, or nearly stop, directly across the road, and start toward the driveway. The defendant was unable to turn his car quickly enough to avoid hitting the plaintiff’s station wagon upon its right rear corner.

The accident happened in the plaintiff’s “home territory”; he knew the road and the danger caused by the fact that the knoll obstructed his view. He testified that because of this he “was looking all the time,” and just as he made his turn he looked and saw nothing. He remained unaware of the presence of the defendant’s car until the collision occurred.

In these circumstances, the Court’s finding in effect that the plaintiff either did not look as he claimed, or that if he did look, he did so carelessly, is clearly warranted. *Lafountaine*v. Moore, 90 N. H. 258, 260; *Bukowski*v. Buffum, 103 N. H. 544, 546.

The test of the plaintiff’s conduct is not what he saw, but what he should have seen had he kept a proper watch. *L’Heureux*v. Desmarais, 89 N. H. 237, 238. On the entire record, we cannot say that a finding of contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff was unwarranted. His exceptions are therefore overruled. *Powell*v. *Gagne,*102 N. H. 256.

The order is

*Judgment on the verdict.*

All concurred.
**EXHIBIT 3.02**

 

**ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT TO THE ARTICLES OFINCORPORATION**

 

Articles of Amendment

 

of

 

Entercom Communications Corp.

 

Anew article, Article 21st, is added to the Articles of Incorporation of Entercom CommunicationsCorp.  Such Article 21st reads in its entirety as follows:

 

TWENTYFIRST: Applicability of Pennsylvania’s Anti-Takeover Provisions.

 

(a)           The Control Transaction Provisionscontained in Sections 2541 to 2548 (Subchapter 25E) of the PennsylvaniaBusiness Corporation Law of 1988, as it may be amended, shall not be applicableto the Corporation.

 

(b)           The Business Combination provisionscontained in Sections 2551 to 2556 (Subchapter 25F) of the PennsylvaniaBusiness Corporation Law of 1988, as it may be amended, shall not be applicableto the Corporation.

 

1

----
Comments on SAC 12-01

John Livingston to: R9AirPermits 01/02/2014 01:59 PM

From: John Livingston <livingstonjohn@att.net>

To: R9AirPermits@EPA, 

Please respond to John Livingston <livingstonjohn@att.net>

Comment Letter 12-18-2013.docx
December 18, 2013

Shaheerah Kelly

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9 (AIR-3)

75 Hawthorne Street

San Francisco, CA 94105-3901

Subject: Comments on Permit Application No. SAC 12-01

The proposed PSD permit modification for Sierra Pacific Industries to build a new biomass fired power 

plant should be denied. The following are comments.

1. The Best Available Control Technology (BACT) will allow the operator to collect data on the 

performance of the system. The operator should not be allowed to collect data that is relied 

upon by the EPA to ensure permit compliance. The operator should be required to have an 

independent company do the daily monitoring or a fee should be charged by EPA to allow the 

Shasta County Air Pollution Agency to do the monitoring. There are many instances where 

owners of the facility will choose when to take the data and when it is not in their best interest 

to take the data. If the operator is allowed to take the data then a fee should be paid to the 

County to allow them to randomly check for compliance. 

2. The effect of this new facility on the air quality in the valley areas has been grossly 

underestimated. How can EPA say that the CO2 emissions from the plant will have a negligible 

effect when they are equivalent to 90,000 automobiles? This is approximately a doubling of the 

pollution from existing conditions. If there is not a comparable offset in the valley areas, this 

permit should not be allowed. If no offset is required, the air quality in Shasta County will be 

adversely affected by this facility. 

3. The air quality in Shasta County, especially in the Sacramento Valley, is slowly deteriorating due 

to pollution from agricultural burning, forest fires, and winds pushing Sacramento pollution 

north. The new cogeneration plant will significantly adversely affect the existing air quality in the 

county, especially near the plant. If the winds are from the south the poor air quality from the 

cogeneration plant will concentrate due to the northern mountains providing a barrier. The 

citizens of Shasta County will suffer the pollution from the facility and their health will be 

negatively impacted. Why should the citizens accept reductions in air quality when this facility is 

only designed to profit a privately held corporation?

Sincerely, 

John Livingston

Excom Chair, Sierra Club Shasta Group

2378 Waldon Street 

Redding, CA 96001
Exhibit 32.1

(Certification Required by 18 U.S.C. Section 1350)

(as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

I, Patrick J. McEnany, as Principal Executive Officer of Catalyst
Pharmaceutical Partners, Inc. (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 accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the annual period ended December 31, 2010 (the Report), filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                     |  |                              
|-------------------- |  | -----------------------------
|Date: March 31, 2011 |  | /s/ Patrick J. McEnany       
|                     |  | Patrick J. McEnany           
|                     |  | Chief Executive Officer      
|                     |  | (Principal Executive Officer)