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

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Friday, August 4, 1995 (109), Para 109.45 Memorials]
[Page 1298]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.109.45  memorials

  Under clause 4 of rule XXII, memorials were presented and referred as 
follows:

       149. By the SPEAKER: Memorial of the Senate of the State of 
     Texas, relative to the Food Stamp Program; to the Committee 
     on Agriculture.
       150. Also, memorial of the Senate of the State of Texas, 
     relative to chronic fatigue and immune dysfunction syndrome; 
     to the Committee on Commerce.
       151. Also, memorial of the Senate of the State of Texas, 
     relative to the Bureau of Reclamation; to the Committee on 
     Resources.
       152. Also, memorial of the House of Representatives of the 
     State of Texas, relative to the Red River Boundry Commission; 
     to the Committee on the Judiciary.
       153. Also, memorial of the House of Representatives of the 
     State of Texas, relative to the 65-mile-per-hour speed limit; 
     to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
       154. Also, memorial of the House of Representatives of the 
     State of Texas, relative to noncorporate farmers; to the 
     Committee on Ways and Means.
```
#### § 1242.62 Clearing wrecks (account XX-51-63).

Separate common expenses according to specific circumstances.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 99-4457

MICHAEL A. SPAIN,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond.

James R. Spencer, District Judge.

(CR-99-8)

Submitted: July 25, 2000

Decided: August 11, 2000

Before WIDENER, MURNAGHAN, and WILLIAMS,

Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Beverly M. Murray, Petersburg, Virginia, for Appellant. Helen F.

Fahey, United States Attorney, S. David Schiller, Assistant United

States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Michael A. Spain pled guilty to one count of possession of cocaine

in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 844 (West 1999) and one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C.A.

§ 922(g)(1) (West 2000). The district court sentenced Spain to

twenty-four months in prison on the drug conviction and a concurrent

eighty-four months in prison on the firearm conviction. Spain appeals,

claiming that he was entitled to a downward departure due to the

quantity of drugs involved and that the district court erred by increasing his offense level for obstruction of justice. We dismiss the appeal.

In his plea agreement, Spain waived the right to appeal any sentence within the statutory maximum. The district court accepted

Spain's guilty plea at a hearing conducted in accordance with Rule 11

of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. We have reviewed

Spain's plea agreement and the Rule 11 colloquy and find that Spain

made a knowing and intelligent waiver of his right to appeal. See

United States v. Broughton-Jones, 71 F.3d 1143, 1146 (4th Cir.

1995).

Because Spain's sentence was within the statutory maximum, we

dismiss the appeal. 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

 2
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 20

- 0340 STATE OF MONTANA, ex rel., TIM F OX, Plaint iff and Appellee, v. PHILIP MORRIS, INC., et al.,

Defendants and Appellants. ORDER OF MEDIATOR APPO INTMENT

This appeal being subject to M.R.App.P. 7, and the part ies having failed to jo int ly and timely select a mediator under M.R.App.P., 7(4),(c), IT IS ORDERED THAT **Annie M.**  **Goodwin, P.O.**  **Box 1131,**  **Helena, MT**  **59624, (406)458**  **- 1199,**  **anniegoodwinlaw@gmail .com**  **,** whose name appears next on th e list of attorneys desiring appoint m ent as mediators fo r Money

J udgments appeals which is maintained pursuant to M.R.App.P., 7(4)(e), is hereby appointed to conduct th e med iat io n process required by M.R.App.P., 7(5), and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that th e time periods set fo rth in M.R.App.P., 7(5)(d) shall run fro m th e date of thi s order of appoint me nt
. A true co py of

t his order is being ma iled to counsel of r ecord fo r t he parti es, or to th e parti es individually

if not represented by

counsel , on the date hereof. DATED thi s July

29, 2020.

Bowen Greenwood , Clerk of the Supreme Court

c: Sean M. Morris, Nicho la s J. Lofing, Robert J. Phillips, Charles E. Hansberry , J enny M. Jourdonnais, Chr istopher David Abbott, David Robert Paoli, Mark W. Mattio li, Anne Winfield Yates, Paul M. Leisher, W. Scott Mi tchell , John David Sullivan, Mark A. Loyd, A. Lauren Russow Nichols, Mark Baker, Alexander Shaknes, Elli Leibenstein, Thomas E. Dutton, Gregory E. Ostfeld, Robert J. Brookhiser, Carey Busen, Annie M. GoodwinI07/29/2020Case Number: DA 20-0340
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2204

To extend and reauthorize the Defense Production Act of 1950, and for

other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

AUGUST 4, 1995

Mr. CASTLE (for himself, Mr. LEACH (both by request), Mr. GONZALEZ, and

Mr. FLAKE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Banking and Financial Services

A BILL

To extend and reauthorize the Defense Production Act of

1950, and for other purposes.

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 ‘‘Defense Production

5 Act Amendments of 1995’’.

6 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF PROGRAMS.

7 Section 717(a) of the Defense Production Act of

8 1950 (50 U.S.C. App. 2166(a)) is amended in the first

9 sentence by striking ‘‘Title I (except section 104), title III,

10 and title VII (except sections 708, 714, 719, and 721)
2

•HR 2204 IH

1 of this Act, and all authority conferred thereunder, shall

2 terminate at the close of September 30, 1995’’ and insert3 ing ‘‘Title I (except section 104), title III, and title VII

4 (except sections 708 and 721), and all authority conferred

5 thereunder, shall terminate at the close of September 30,

6 1998’’.

7 SEC. 3. AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATIONS FOR TITLE III

8 PROJECTS.

9 Section 711 of the Defense Production Act of 1950

10 (50 U.S.C. App. 2161) is amended—

11 (1) in subsection (a), by striking ‘‘(a) AUTHOR12 IZATION.—’’ and all that follows through ‘‘sub13 section (c),’’ and inserting ‘‘(a) AUTHORIZATION.—

14 Except as provided in subsection (b),’’; and

15 (2) by striking subsections (b), (c), and (d) and

16 inserting after subsection (a) the following new sub17 section:

18 ‘‘(b) TITLE III AUTHORIZATION.—There are author19 ized to be appropriated for each of the fiscal years 1996,

20 1997, and 1998, such sums as may be necessary to carry

21 out title III.’’.

Æ
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2114 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2114

  To permit voters to vote for ``None of the Above'' in elections for 
 Federal office and to require an additional election if ``None of the 
                    Above'' receives the most votes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 26, 1995

 Mr. Hoekstra introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on House Oversight

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To permit voters to vote for ``None of the Above'' in elections for 
 Federal office and to require an additional election if ``None of the 
                    Above'' receives the most votes.
    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 ``Federal None of the Above Act of 
1995''.

SEC. 2. PLACEMENT OF ``NONE OF THE ABOVE'' ON BALLOTS IN ELECTIONS FOR 
              FEDERAL OFFICE.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in 
each election for Federal office there shall be included on the ballot 
a separate line, after the names of all candidates, as follows:

``None of the Above.........................................     [ ]''.
    (b) Procedures.--Any voter may vote for ``None of the Above'' in 
the same manner as for a candidate. If ``None of the Above'' receives 
the most votes, a new election shall be held not less than 20 days and 
not more than 30 days after the results of the first election are 
certified.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT - 99.2
                                 --------------


REALMARK PROPERTY INVESTORS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP - II 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 Realmark Property Investors
Limited Partnership - II (the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the period ending
September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), I, Joseph M. Jayson, Individual General Partner and
Principal Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the
best of 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 the operations of the
Partnership.


         November 14, 2002               /s/ Joseph M. Jayson
         -----------------               --------------------
               Date                      Joseph M. Jayson,
                                         Individual General Partner and
                                         Principal Financial Officer
#### Burr B. Andrews, *Appellant, v.*The Ætna Life Insurance Company of Hartford, *Respondent*.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Opinion by

Landon, J.
-----Original Message----- 

From: hotbutteredmetalhead2@hotmail.com 

[mailto:hotbutteredmetalhead2@hotmail.com] 

Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2010 6:20 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 24, 2010 

I am writing to support the interim final rule under the Paul Wellstone 

and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

(RIN 1210-AB30). 

I support the strong rule that would forbid insurance companies from 

charging higher copayments, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket 

expenses for mental health treatment than they would for other physical 

health care. Thank you for ensuring that mental health care and 

physical health care coverage are included in a single deductible. 

Sincerely, 

Christopher Chavez 

349 Meredith 

San Antonio, TX 78228
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

                       COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                               For the Year Ended                          For the Year Ended
                                                December 31, 1997                           December 31, 1996
 
                                     Income           Shares         Per Share     Income         Shares          Per Share
                                   (Numerator)    (Denominator)       Amount     (Numerator)   (Denominator)        Amount
<S>                                <C>               <C>              <C>         <C>             <C>               <C>   
Net (loss) income                  $ (565,898)                                    $ 829,153

Basic EPS                            (565,898)       5,516,527        $ (0.10)      829,153       5,510,385         $ 0.15
                                                                      =======                                       ======

Effect of dilutive securities:
  Dilutive warrants                        -                -                            -          121,150
  Dilutive stock options                   -                -                            -          125,700
                                   ----------        ---------                    ---------       ---------                
Diluted EPS                        $ (565,898)       5,516,527        $ (0.10)    $ 829,153       5,757,235         $ 0.14
                                   ==========        =========        =======     =========       =========         ======
</TABLE>
SUPREME COURT.

#### Thomas Nolan agt. William C. Harris.

*Special Term,*

*December,*1876.

*New trial—nominal damages.*

A new trial will not be granted to enable a plaintiff to recover nominal damages, the verdict on the former trial having been for the defendant.

*Francis*Byrne, for plaintiff.

*A. M. Card,*for defendant.

Van Vorst, *J.*

— The learned counsel for the plaintiff, on the coming in of the verdict, moved that the same he set aside on the ground that there could not, by any possibility, be, a verdict for the defendant; that the plaintiff was entitled at least to nominal damages. This ground, with a specification of certain alleged errors in rulings upon the trial, is now urged for a new trial upon a case. But it was early decided that a verdict will not be set aside merely to give the plaintiff an opportunity to recover nominal damages *(Brantigham*agt. *Foy,*1 *Johns. Cas.,*256). *Randall*agt. *Butler*(10 *Wend.,*119) was an action for libel, where the jury found a verdict for the defendant. The court refused to grant a new trial, although it was a case in which the verdict should have been for the plaintiff, with at least nominal damages *(Van Slyck*agt. *Hogeboom,*6 *Johns.,*270; *McCombe*agt. *N. Y. and Erie R. R. Co.,*20 *N. Y.,*495-498). I am referred to no case in which the rule, apparently well settled, has been departed from.

I do not think that upon any ground urged I can interfere with the verdict, and the motion for a new trial must be denied;
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Biovest International, Inc. (the
Company) for the three months ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 10-Q), I, Alan Pearce, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The form 10-Q 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 Form
10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: February 14, 2008



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Alan M. Pearce     
|Alan M. Pearce         
|Chief Financial Officer

This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of Accentia Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the
date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.

End of Filing
From: e_halpern@sbcglobal.net [mailto:e_halpern@sbcglobal.net] 

Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 1:57 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 25, 2010 

I am writing to support the interim final rule under the Paul Wellstone 

and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

(RIN 1210-AB30). 

I support the strong rule that would forbid insurance companies from 

charging higher copayments, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket 

expenses for mental health treatment than they would for other physical 

health care. Thank you for ensuring that mental health care and 

physical health care coverage are included in a single deductible. 

Sincerely, 

elliot halpern 

1214 Milvia St 

berkeley, CA 94709
Release dates |     Full version (300 KB PDF)Board Actions |     Actions under delegated authority        Applications and reports received:Boston | New York | Philadelphia   | Cleveland | Richmond   | AtlantaChicago | St. Louis | Minneapolis   | Kansas City | Dallas   | San Francisco

# Board Actions

## Actions taken during the week ending January 12, 2013

----

Forms            Forms -- final Board review to revise without extension the Consolidated Financial Statements for Bank Holding Companies (FR Y-9C).            -Approved, January 11, 2013                        Forms -- initial Board review to extend without revision the Notice of Branch Closure (FR 4031) and Reports Related to Securities of State Member Banks as Required by Regulation H (Reg H-1).            -Proposed, January 11, 2013            Monetary and Financial Policy            Term Deposit Facility -- TDF auction of $3 billion in 28-day term deposits on January 14, 2013.            -Announced, January 9, 2013            Reserve Bank Operations            Board Policies on Federal Reserve Banks -- to revise or rescind several policies related to Reserve Bank operations and activities.            -Approved, December 20, 2012            (A/C)          
Release dates |     Full version (300 KB PDF)Board Actions |     Actions under delegated authority    Applications and reports received:
#### Andrew E. Williams *v.*Terence Kernan and others

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements on the opinion of the court below.
Editorial Note on Part 192
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 192 appear at 71 FR 33406, June 9, 2006.

§ 192.931 How may Confirmatory Direct Assessment (CDA) be used? An operator using the confirmatory direct assessment (CDA) method as allowed in § 192.937 must have a plan that meets the requirements of this section and of §§ 192.925 (ECDA) and § 192.927 (ICDA). ( a ) *Threats.* An operator may only use CDA on a covered segment to identify damage resulting from external corrosion or internal corrosion.
( b ) *External corrosion plan.* An operator's CDA plan for identifying external corrosion must comply with § 192.925 with the following exceptions. ( 1 ) The procedures for indirect examination may allow use of only one indirect examination tool suitable for the application.
( 2 ) The procedures for direct examination and remediation must provide that— ( i ) All immediate action indications must be excavated for each ECDA region; and
( ii ) At least one high risk indication that meets the criteria of scheduled action must be excavated in each ECDA region.
( c ) *Internal corrosion plan.* An operator's CDA plan for identifying internal corrosion must comply with § 192.927 except that the plan's procedures for identifying locations for excavation may require excavation of only one high risk location in each ICDA region.
( d ) *Defects requiring near-term remediation.* If an assessment carried out under paragraph (b) or (c) of this section reveals any defect requiring remediation prior to the next scheduled assessment, the operator must schedule the next assessment in accordance with NACE SP0502 (incorporated by reference, *see* § 192.7), section 6.2 and 6.3. If the defect requires immediate remediation, then the operator must reduce pressure consistent with § 192.933 until the operator has completed reassessment using one of the assessment techniques allowed in § 192.937.
[68 FR 69817, Dec. 15, 2003, as amended by Amdt. 192-114, 75 FR 48604, Aug. 11, 2010; Amdt. 192-119, 80 FR 178, Jan. 5, 2015]
----

----

| CLECO              POWER LLC  | EXHIBIT                32.3 |
|------------------------------------|-----------------------------|

|  Cleco                Power LLC                                        |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| CERTIFICATION                PURSUANT TO                                    |
| 18                U.S.C. SECTION 1350,                                      |
| AS                ADOPTED PURSUANT TO                                       |
| SECTION                906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF                2002 |

| (1)                The Report 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 Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Company. |

| Date:  June                26, 2007                                |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| /s/  Michael                H. Madison                                                 |
| Michael                H. Madison                    Chief Executive Officer |

----

----
§ 209.6 Requests for admission. ( a ) A party to any proceeding under subpart B, C, or D of this part may serve upon any other party written requests for the admission of the genuineness of any relevant documents identified within the request, the truth of any relevant matters of fact, and the application of law to the facts as set forth in the request.
( b ) Each matter of which an admission is requested shall be deemed to be admitted unless, within 30 days after receipt of the request, the party to whom the request is directed serves upon the party requesting the admission a written answer under oath or objection addressed to the matter, signed by the party.
( c ) The sworn answer shall specifically admit or deny the matter or set forth in detail the reasons why the answering party cannot truthfully admit or deny the matter. If an objection is made, the reasons therefor shall be stated.
( d ) Any matter admitted under this section is conclusively established unless the presiding official permits withdrawal or amendment of the admission for good cause shown.
( e ) Upon motion, the presiding officer may order any party to respond to a request for admission.
[54 FR 42906, Oct. 18, 1989]
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Friday, July 28, 1995 (104), Para 104.33 Deletions of Sponsors from Public Bills and Resolutions]
[Page 1221]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.104.33  deletions of sponsors from public bills and resolutions

  Under clause 4 of rule XXII, sponsors were deleted from public bills 
and resolutions as follows:

       H.R. 1289: Mrs. Schroeder.
```