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

107TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 532

Commending the Los Angeles Sparks basketball team for winning the 2002 

Women’s National Basketball Association championship. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 17, 2002

Ms. WATERS submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Government Reform 

RESOLUTION

Commending the Los Angeles Sparks basketball team for 

winning the 2002 Women’s National Basketball Association championship.

Whereas in 2002, the Los Angeles Sparks basketball team 

won its second consecutive championship title, becoming 

only the 2nd team in the Women’s National Basketball 

Association (WNBA) to win multiple championships; 

Whereas the Sparks finished the season with a 25 and 7 

record and won all 6 of their playoff games, tying the 

WNBA record; 

Whereas team captain, Lisa Leslie, was named Most Valuable 

Player of both the WNBA All-Star Game and the WNBA 

finals for the 2nd straight year; 
2

•HRES 532 IH 

Whereas Mwadi Mabika and Lisa Leslie were named to the 

first All-WNBA team; 

Whereas Nikki Teasley tied her own WNBA record with 11 

assists and scored the winning basket in the final game; 

and 

Whereas each player, coach, trainer, and manager dedicated 

their time and effort to ensuring the Sparks reached the 

summit of team achievement: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives—

2 (1) congratulates— 

3 (A) the Los Angeles Sparks for winning 

4 the 2002 Women’s National Basketball Associa5 tion championships; and 

6 (B) all of the 16 teams that compose the 

7 WNBA for their hard work and dedication to 

8 the sport of basketball and for their display of 

9 sportsmanship throughout the WNBA season; 

10 (2) recognizes the achievements of all the play11 ers, coaches, support staff, and fans who were in12 strumental in helping the Sparks win the champion13 ship; and 

14 (3) directs the Clerk of the House of Represent15 atives to make available enrolled copies of this reso16 lution to the Sparks for appropriate display and to 

17 transmit an enrolled copy of this resolution to each 
3

•HRES 532 IH 

1 coach and member of the Sparks championship 

2 team.

Æ
**OMNI A IR INTERNA** **TIONA L** 

**P.O . BOX 582527**   **TULSA, OK 74158**  **918 -** **836 -** **5393**  **FAX: 918 -** **831 -** **3098** U. S. Department of Transportation 27March 2015 Docket Operations, M -30 West Building ground floor, Room W1 2- 140 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE. Washington, DC 20590 Ladies/Gentlemen: In accordance with the Code of Federal Regulations, 14 CFR §11.25, Om ni Air International petitions the Administrator for an extension of Exemption No. 9878 B (docket number FAA -2009
– 0443).This exemption is set to expire on May 31 st 201 5
. Exemption 9878 provides relief, under certain conditions and limitations, from 14 CFR 121.623(a) and (d), 121.643 and 121.645(d) to the extent necessary to allow Omni to conduct its supplemental operations within the 48 contiguous United States and the District of Columbia using the flight regulations for alternate airports as required by 121.619 and fuel reserves requirements as required by 121.639 that are applicable to domestic operations. This exemption has been used to the benefit of the traveling public for many years, with no known compromise of safety. With regard to public interest and equivalent levels of safety, the circumstances that warranted the initial grant of exemption continue to exist. The renewal of this exemption is not a controversial issue. For this reason, and the reasons stated above, Omni Air International requests that a finding of good cause be made for waiving publication in the Federal Register. Granting the request for relief will set no precedents. The existence of the exemption is well known and widely accepted. If any further information is required , please call me at (918) 831 -3067. Respectfully,
Robert E. Zeng Director of Operations Omni Air International
Order entered July 24, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-12-01143-CV

LAKEITH AMIR-SHARIF, Appellant

V.

QUICK TRIP CORPORATION, ET AL., Appellees

On Appeal from the 101st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-09-13818-E

ORDER

The Court has before it appellant’s July 2, 2013 letter complaining that the Court has not 

ruled on his motions for extension of time or filed his reply brief. The reply brief was filed on 

June 17, 2013. To the extent relator’s letter can be construed as a motion, we DENY it as moot.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE
#### Michael McCarthy, Respondent, v. James A. O’Hara, Appellant.

Order denying motion for new trial on the minutes set aside as irregular, without prejudice to the right of the respondent to move at Special Term on a case for a new trial, or to appeal from the judgment. Opinion oy

Hardin, P. J.
H. Res. 138

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

May 10, 2001.

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule

XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the

Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of

the bill (H.R. 1646) to authorize appropriations for the Department of State for fiscal years 2002 and 2003, and for

other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of the

bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill

and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled

by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on International Relations. After general debate the

bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute

rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for

the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the

amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the

Committee on International Relations now printed in the bill.

The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall
2

•HRES 138 EH

be considered as read. All points of order against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived.

No amendment to the committee amendment in the nature

of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in the

report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Except as specified in section 2 of this resolution, each

such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in

the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in

the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for

the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled

by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to

amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division

of the question in the House or in the Committee of the

Whole. All points of order against such amendments are

waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for

amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to

the House with such amendments as may have been adopted.

Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House on

any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to

the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a

substitute. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage

without intervening motion except one motion to recommit

with or without instructions.
3

•HRES 138 EH

SEC. 2. The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole

may recognize for consideration of any amendment printed in

the report of the Committee on Rules out of the order printed, but not sooner than one hour after the Majority Leader

or his designee announces from the floor a request to that

effect.

Attest:

Clerk.
EXHIBIT 99.1



                      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 Unitrend, Inc.  (The
Company)  on  Form  10-QSB  for  the period ending June 30, 2003, as
filed  with  the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date
hereof  (the  Report),  I,  Conrad  A.H.  Jelinger, Chief  Executive
Officer and Interim Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant  to 18  U.S.C. ss. 1350,  as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (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 results of
operations of the Company.

                                 /s/  Conrad A.H. Jelinger
                                 -----------------------------
                                 Conrad A.H. Jelinger
August 13, 2003
                                 Chief Executive Officer, Interim
                                 Chief Financial Officer and
                                 President
EXHIBIT 32.2



Certification of Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of the

Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



In connection with this annual report on Form 10-K of Comarco, Inc. I, Daniel
R. Lutz, Chief Financial Officer of Comarco, Inc., certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



| | 1. | This annual report on Form 10-K 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 this report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Comarco, Inc.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                   |  |  |  |                                       
|------------------ |  |  |  | --------------------------------------
|Date: May 11, 2005 |  |  |  | /s/    DANIEL R. LUTZ                 
|                   |  |  |  | Daniel R. Lutz Chief Financial Officer



A signed original copy 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.
H. Res. 332

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

January 23, 2002.

Resolved, That the Clerk of the House inform the Senate

that a quorum of the House is present and that the House

is ready to proceed with business.

Attest:

Clerk.
From: Mister No [mailto:iammisterno@gmail.com] 

Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 1:20 PM 

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA 

Subject: RE: US Labor Department seeks public comments on lifetime income options for 

retirement plans RFI

How about keep your thieving mitts off? 

D. Church
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0546.html[7/20/2015 8:29:14 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 08, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jva-osdf

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; Notice of

 proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related Proposed

 Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0546

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Brenda Hightower

General Comment

I am perfectly capable of controlling my own 401k. Albeit, it is small due to life experiences, as long as I can get

 up and fend for myself, I don't need YOU.

God is my savior - NOT YOU!!!

BAN BIG GOVERNMENT!!!!
IV 

107TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 556

Recognizing the ‘‘Code Adam’’ child safety program, commending retail business establishments that have implemented programs to protect children 

from abduction, and urging retail business establishments that have 

not implemented such program to consider doing so. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 25, 2002

Mr. PALLONE (for himself, Mr. LAMPSON, Ms. BROWN of Florida, Mr. FOLEY, 

Mr. FROST, Ms. KAPTUR, Mr. LEVIN, Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD, Mrs. 

MINK of Hawaii, Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD, Mr. SCHIFF, Mr. WEXLER, Mr. 

WILSON of South Carolina, Mr. ROTHMAN, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. 

TERRY, Mr. PAYNE, and Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́) submitted the following 

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

RESOLUTION

Recognizing the ‘‘Code Adam’’ child safety program, commending retail business establishments that have implemented programs to protect children from abduction, 

and urging retail business establishments that have not 

implemented such program to consider doing so.

Whereas protecting children is one of society’s greatest responsibilities;

Whereas child abduction, an unconscionable and horrendous 

crime, seems to be increasing in frequency;
2

•HRES 556 IH 

Whereas parents, and all other adults, must be ever vigilant 

in public places to protect children, who by their very nature are trusting and unsuspecting, from those depraved 

and vile individuals who would prey on them;

Whereas recognizing the risk of child abduction, some retail 

business establishments and libraries have developed safety procedures and programs designed to prevent abductors from using crowds of shoppers as cover for nefarious 

acts;

Whereas one of the most successful programs to prevent child 

abduction is the ‘‘Code Adam’’ alarm developed in 1994 

and implemented by Wal-Mart stores and SAM’S Clubs 

throughout the Nation; and

Whereas, named in tribute to 6-year-old Adam Walsh who 

was abducted from a shopping mall in the State of Florida and murdered in 1981, the ‘‘Code Adam’’ alarm signals that there is a missing child and alerts designated 

employees in the affected retail business establishment or 

library to abandon their normal responsibilities and, in a 

coordinated and prearranged organized manner, to begin 

searching for the child and monitoring the establishment 

exits to ensure that the child is not removed from the establishment: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives recog2 nizes the ‘‘Code Adam’’ child safety program, commends 

3 all retail business establishments that have implemented 

4 such program to protect children from abduction, and 

5 urges retail business establishments that have not imple6 mented such program to consider doing so.

Æ
§ 170.300 Definitions Terms not defined in this part have the same meaning as provided in 2 CFR part 200, subpart A. As used in this part: *Applicant* means any entity that applies for a Federal award directly from a Federal agency.
*Entity* includes: ( 1 ) Whether for profit or nonprofit: ( i ) A corporation;
( ii ) An association;
( iii ) A partnership;
( iv ) A limited liability company;
( v ) A limited liability partnership;
( vi ) A sole proprietorship;
( vii ) Any other legal business entity;
( viii ) Another grantee or contractor that is not excluded by subparagraph (2) or (3); and
( ix ) Any State or locality;
( 2 ) Does not include: ( i ) An individual recipient of Federal financial assistance; or
( ii ) A Federal employee.
*Federal Award* means an award of Federal financial assistance that an entity receives from a Federal agency.
*Executive* means an officer, managing partner, or any other employee holding a management position. Federal financial assistance: ( 1 ) Means assistance that entities receive or administer in the form of a: ( i ) Grant;
( ii ) Cooperative agreement (which does not include a cooperative research and development agreement pursuant to the Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1986, as amended (15 U.S.C. 3710a);
( iii ) Loan;
( iv ) Loan guarantee;
( v ) Subsidy;
( vi ) Insurance;
( vii ) Food commodity;
( viii ) Direct appropriation;
( ix ) Assessed or voluntary contribution; or
( x ) Any other financial assistance transaction that authorizes the entity's expenditure of Federal funds.
( 2 ) For the purposes of this part, the term “Federal financial assistance” does not include: ( i ) Technical assistance that provides services in lieu of money;
( ii ) A transfer of title to federally-owned property provided in lieu of money, even if the award is called a grant;
( iii ) Any classified Federal award; or
( iv ) Any award funded in whole or in part with Recovery funds, as defined in section 1512 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Pub. L. 111-5).
*Recipient* means an entity that receives or administers a Federal Award directly from a Federal agency.
*Total Compensation* means the cash and noncash dollar value an executive earns during an entity's preceding fiscal year. This includes all items of compensation as prescribed in 17 CFR 229.402(c)(2).
Docket: EBSA-2010-0011 

Interim Final Rules for Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers Relating to Dependent 

Coverage of Children to Age 26 Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0011-0001 

Interim Final Rules for Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers Relating to Dependent 

Coverage of Children to Age 26 Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 

Document: EBSA-2010-0011-DRAFT-0007 

Comment on FR Doc # 2010-11391 

Submitter Information 

Name: Bob Duch 

Address: Denver, 

Email: duchman221@aol.com 

General Comment 

A concern I have is unintended consequences. 

I am the benefit consultant for a group that covers children of the employee's dependent 

children. A 14 year old's pregnancy is a parent's nightmare. As the Interim Regs read all children 

would have to be treated equally. The employer does not want to pay for babies born to married 

24 year olds, yet it appears to me that we can not differentiate these two situations. May I 

suggest allowing (not requiring) children of dependent children to be covered until the dependent 

child of the employee attains age 18 (or an age selected by the employer). In other words, allow 

the employer to select age limits as applies to covering children of dependent children, which is 

not required by any law in the first place. 

PUBLIC 

SUBMISSION 

As of: July 21, 2010 

Received: June 08, 2010 

Status: Pending_Post 

Tracking No. 80afde61 

Comments Due: August 11, 2010

Submission Type: Web

Page 1 of 1

https://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/submitterInfoCoverPage?Call=... 7/21/2010
PUBLIC SUBMISSION

Received: October 12, 2017

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1k1-8z6g-26gd

Comments Due: October 27, 2017

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2015-0017

Claims Procedure for Plans Providing Disability Benefits; Extension of Applicability 

Date

Comment On: EBSA-2015-0017-0291

Claims Procedure: Plans Providing Disability Benefits

Document: EBSA-2015-0017-DRAFT-0361

Comment on FR Doc # 2017-22082

Submitter Information

Name:

General Comment

I don't agree that disability should be retroactive, if people are currently receiving 

benefits they should continue to do so. benefits should be widespread to all that we 

able to work a job prior but are unable to do so after the procedure or the illness they 

had. My mom received disability after she had brain surgery in 2004 and was unable 

to continue working after attempting to go back. While her tumor was non malignant 

and will never come back she still suffers side effects. I would fear under this current 

roll back that she would have hers taken away and my family would be reduced to one 

teachers income (which as we all know weather YOU will admit it or not get paid way 

to little). I fear that this act to save money will in turn hurt more people that need help 

and only help the upper class (the people receiving this tax break). Lets Make 

America Great Again by growing the middle class and supporting hard working 

people that lost the ability to work although they were at one time working to improve 

there lives and in turn our economy.
H. Res. 337

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

January 30, 2002.

Resolved, That the following named Member be, and he

is hereby, elected to the following standing committee of the

House of Representatives:

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES: Mr. Wilson of South

Carolina.

Attest:

Clerk.
#### In the Matter of the Estate of J. George Laffargue, Deceased. Edward Herrmann, as Executor, Appellant Laura Blakeney, Respondent.

*Matter of Laffargue,*142 App. Div. 426, affirmed.

(Argued May 31, 1911;

decided June 16, 1911.)

Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered January 20, 1911, which modified and affirmed as modified a decree of the New York County *615Surrogate’s Court directing the executor of J. George Laffargue to judicially settle his accounts.

The following questions were certified:

*“1.*Has the Surrogate’s Court jurisdiction of a proceeding commenced prior to September 1, 1910, to compel an executor to judicially settle his accounts pursuant to the provisions of section 2727 of the Code of Civil Procedure, at the instigation of one whose claim of interest in the estate is dependent upon the survivorship of a person named in the will as a legatee, the fact of such survivorship being denied by a duly verified answer in the form as prescribed by section 2722 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and interposed upon the return day of the citation by the executor?

*“2.*In such a proceeding, has the Surrogate’s Court jurisdiction to determine the disputed fact of survivor-ship, all of the interested parties having first been cited in?”

*George D. Zahm*for appellant.

*Edwin T. Taliaferro*and *E. B. Wilson*for respondent.

Order affirmed, with costs, and questions certified answered in the affirmative; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, Haight, Werner, Willard Bartlett, Chase and Collin, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   5-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-17-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                             100
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   100
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     100
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                         100
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       100
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>