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

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 391 

Recognizing the employees of Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport, the 

North Texas Commission, USO, and the people and businesses of North 

Texas for their dedication to the ‘‘Welcome Home a Hero’’ program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 9, 2007 

Mr. SESSIONS (for himself, Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. HENSARLING, 

Mr. MARCHANT, Mr. BRADY of Texas, Ms. GRANGER, Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. CONAWAY, Mr. POE, and Mr. BARTON of 

Texas) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Armed Services 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing the employees of Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport, the North Texas Commission, USO, 

and the people and businesses of North Texas for their 

dedication to the ‘‘Welcome Home a Hero’’ program. 

Whereas the residents of North Texas have greeted thousands of troops returning to the United States from Iraq 

and Afghanistan for Rest and Recuperation since the 

program’s inception in June of 2004; 

Whereas volunteers from North Texas welcome over 200 

troops each day who travel through Dallas-Fort Worth 

International Airport on their way home; 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMBILLS
2 

•HRES 391 IH 

Whereas these are the first people the troops see upon their 

return to the United States, and the support they give 

the troops on behalf of all Americans is invaluable and 

inspirational; 

Whereas citizens like Bert Brady, a veteran, spend 300 days 

a year at the airport thanking troops for their service 

and giving them a well deserved homecoming; 

Whereas thousands of young men from the Boy Scouts of 

America’s Circle Ten Council have also selflessly contributed to one of the largest and most respected community 

initiatives in North Texas; and 

Whereas these dedicated and selfless volunteers positively impact the morale and spirit of the men and women serving 

our country in Iraq and Afghanistan and demonstrate 

our appreciation for their sacrifice to the Country: Now, 

therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives honors 

2 the valuable work of the ‘‘Welcome Home a Hero’’ pro3 gram and its volunteers and expresses gratitude for their 

4 efforts to support our troops proudly serving in Iraq and 

5 Afghanistan. 

Æ 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMBILLS
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

ORDER

PAGE -1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

JOE AND LAURA SPRINKLE,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SB&C LTD, a/k/a Skagit Bonded Collectors,

et al.,

Defendants.

____________________________________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. CV05-1898-JPD

MINUTE ORDER

The parties having submitted cross motions for summary judgment in the aboveentitled matter, the Court issues the following Minute Order:

1. Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on liability pursuant to the Fair Debt

Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692-1692o, the Washington Consumer Protection Act,

Wash. Rev. Code § 19.86 et seq., and the Washington Collection Agency Act, id. § 19.16 et

seq., is GRANTED. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is DENIED. Trial in this

matter will be limited to the issue of damages. 

2. An opinion addressing these issues will follow.

3. The parties shall submit trial briefs, proposed voir dire and jury instructions not

later than 4:00 p.m. on Tuesday, September 19, 2006. A Final Pretrial Conference will be

Case 2:05-cv-01898-JPD Document 43 Filed 09/15/06 Page 1 of 2
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

ORDER

PAGE -2

conducted by telephone on Friday, September 22, 2006, commencing at 1:30 p.m. The

chambers will place the conference call. Trial in this matter will commence at 9:00 a.m. on

Monday, September 25, 2006, in Courtroom 12A.

4. The parties are urged to discuss the possible settlement of this case, and are

reminded of their obligation under the Local Rules to advise the Court immediately if a

settlement is reached.

DATED this 15th day of September, 2006.

AJAMES P. DONOHUE

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:05-cv-01898-JPD Document 43 Filed 09/15/06 Page 2 of 2
Before the First Division,

September 18, 1961

No. 66069.

#### I. B. Cohen & Sons Corp. *v.*United States,

protest 61/1651 (New York).

*312Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of beads the same in all material respects as those the subject of *United States*v. S. *H. Kress & Co.*(46 C.C.P.A. 135, C.A.D. 716), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
June 11, 2015

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

ANTHONY OBI OGBO A/K/A INTERNATIONAL GUARDIAN NEWSPAPER, 

Appellant

NO. 14-14-00570-CV V.

PIUS OKAFOR AND JOHN OKAFOR, Appellees

________________________________

Today the Court heard its own motion to dismiss the appeal from the 

judgment signed by the court below on April 17, 2014. Having considered the 

motion and found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED.

We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by 

appellant, Anthony Obi Ogbo a/k/a International Guardian Newspaper.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
From: cherichris811@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:36:08 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Cheryl Christensen

Wellington, CO 80549
<PAGE>

                                                                    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

                             Chief Financial Officer

      The undersigned, as the chief financial officer of Allied Healthcare
      Products, Inc. (the "Company") does hereby certify for purposes of 18
      U.S.C. Section.1350 that (i) the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
      for the Company's fiscal quarter ending March 31, 2005 (the "Report"), as
      filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April the 29th, 2005,
      fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) information contained in the
      periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
      condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the
      periods covered in the Report.

                                 /s/ Daniel C. Dunn
                                 -------------------------
                                     Daniel C. Dunn, Chief Financial Officer

                                     April 29, 2005

                                       29
Exhibit 10.21.1


  





 


December 29, 2017


 


Mr. James Oliviero


Checkpoint Therapeutics, Inc.


2 Gansevoort Street, 9th Floor


New York, NY 10014


 


EXTENSION OF OPTION AGREEMENT


  


Dear James:


 


As discussed, we would
like to extend the Option Period in the Option Agreement dated March 17, 2015 (the “Option Agreement”) between TG Therapeutics,
Inc. and Fortress Biotech, Inc. (“Fortress”), as previously extended on September 11, 2015, December 15, 2015, January
11, 2016, July 8, 2016 and December 30, 2016.


 


1.   
Parties. Effective March 17, 2015, Fortress and Checkpoint Therapeutics, Inc. (“Checkpoint”) entered into an
agreement pursuant to which Fortress assigned to Checkpoint all of its right and interests under the License Agreement.


 


2.   
Option Period. Pursuant to Section 1.5 of the Option Agreement, the Option Period shall mean the date that is 180 days following
the Effective Date; subject to a 3-month extension upon prior written request, not to be unreasonably withheld. The parties agree
to further extend the Option Period to December 31, 2018.


 


3.   
Terms. This Extension of Option Agreement shall be governed under all of the same terms as the Option Agreement.


 


4.   
Defined Terms. Any capitalized term not defined in this Amendment shall be defined as defined in the Option Agreement.


 


5.   
Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed by any party by PDF file signature, and on one or more counterparts, and by
different parties on separate counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original as against any party whose signature
appears thereon, all of which together shall constitute but one and the same instrument.


 


 






TG Therapeutics,
Inc.

2 Gansevoort Street, 9th Floor

New York, NY 10014




 




     


     


    

 





	 	 	Sincerely,	 
	 	 	TG Therapeutics, Inc.	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	/s/ Michael S. Weiss	 
	 	 	By: Michael S. Weiss	 
	 	 	Title: Executive Chairman, CEO	 
	 	 	 	 
	Agreed and Accepted by:	 	 	 
	Checkpoint Therapeutics, Inc.	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	/s/ James Oliviero	 	 	 
	By: Mr. James Oliviero	 	 	 
	Title: CEO and President
#### Vincent Eugene LINEBERGER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America; United States Department of Justice; Federal Bureau of Prisons; Kathleen Hawk Sawyer, Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons; Steven Dewalt, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution Butner Satellite Camp, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 00-7347.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted June 29, 2001.

Decided July 16, 2001.

Vincent Eugene Lineberger, pro se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Raliegh, NC, for appellees.

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Vincent Eugene Lineberger appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny as moot Lineberger’s motion to transmit the record from the district court, deny his motion for appointment of, and affirm on the reasoning of the district court. *Lineberger v. United States,*No. CA-00-103-5-1F (E.D.N.C. Sept. 5, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
From: timhera@msn.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:38:21 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Timoteo Aldaba

, 11220-2118
Exhibit 32.2

DIGIMARC CORPORATION

CERTIFICATION

In connection with the Annual Report of Digimarc
Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Michael McConnell, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby
certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the U.S. Code, that to the best of my knowledge:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for
the periods indicated.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Date: March 3, 2011



|    |  |                        
|--- |  | -----------------------
|By: |  | /S/ MICHAEL
MCCONNELL  
|    |  | Michael McConnell      
|    |  | Chief Financial Officer
No. P67/304.

#### William Shaland Corp. *v.*United States, protests 66/43313, etc. (New York).

Bao, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of rubber bulb horns similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Sherwin International, Inc.*v. *United States*(54 Cust. Ct. 466, Abstract 69382), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
P. 1


# OAR Box 1830 Prepped byOllie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 100 ) IV-C-66 Docket Number: 

# A-87-1 1

Printed 11/13/20087:20:56

AM Sheet 100of 232P. 2 

# > S o. VXIT V ? UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA LPROTECTIO NAGENC Y WASHINGTON

, D.C . 2046 0 

### * wt 

### ° - FE E. - i48 6

OFFIC E O F AI RAN D RADIATIO N Honorabl e D . Frenc hSlaughte r Hous e o f Representative s Washington , D . C . 2051 5 Dea r Mr . Slaughter : Thi s in respons e t o you r January26 , 1988 , lette r relaying the concern s o f Mr . Arthu r E . Hish , you r constituent , regarding EPA' s regulatoryproposa l t o requir e onboar d canister s o n ne w vehicle s t o contro l refueling emissions . T o assis t yo u wit h you r response , I hav e enclose d a cop yo f ou r proposa l fo r you r review . Sectio n E (page s 31177-31182 ) explain s EPA' s overal l rational e fo r proposing onboar d controls . I f yo u woul d lik e furthe r detail s o f ou r analysis , pleas e contac t Mr . Phili p Carlso n o f the Standard s Developmen t an d Suppor t Branc ho f th e Emissio n Contro l Technolog yDivision , 256 5 Plymout hRoad , Ann Arbor , M I 4810 5 (FTS 374-827 0 o r Commercia l (313 ) 668-4270) . Than k yo u fo r you r letter . W e wil l plac e the lette r fro m Mr . His hin ou r publi c docke t an d full yconside r hi s comment s in th e nex t phas e o f ou r rulemaking process . Sincerel yyours , Richar d D . Wilso n Director , Offic e o f Mobil e Source s Enclosur e cc : Docke t A-87-1 1
Dear Stakeholder: 

### Department of Energy Washington, DC 20585 

# MP.Y 222000

TheDepartment ofEnergy is pleased to announce revised ENERGY STAR® specifications for refrigerators, dishwashers, and washers. The newENERGY STAR qualifying levels and effective dates are summarizedbelow.

Appliance Effective January 1, 2001 Effective January 1, 2004 ENERGY STAR Refrigerators 10% above the 2001 federal 15% above the 2001 federal minimum efficiency standard minimum efficiency standard ENERGY STAR Washers Modified energy factor (MEF) of MEF of 1.42 orgreater 1.26 or greater ENERGY STAR Dishwashers 25% above existing federal Ifappropriate, to be determined minimum efficiency standard by January 2002

The efforts ofthe appliance industry and efficiency advocates were critical in helping us to set these new target levels. We look forward to working with all ofour stakeholders to educate consumers that the ENERGY STAR label is the bestwayto identifyproducts that save energy, save money, and protect the environment. Sincerely,

Assistant Secretary EnergyEfficiency and Renewable Energy
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
on Form 10-Q of Sunrise Energy Resources, Inc. (the “Company”) for the
period ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Roman Livson, 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:




(1)     The
Report 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:
August 14, 2009




By:
              /s/ Roman LivsonRoman
      LivsonChief Financial
      Officer
No. 61572.

#### Jack Richter Co. *v.*United States,

protest 304127-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with rule 5 (b) of the rules of this court, as amended, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
No. 62228.

#### D. C. Andrews & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 323648-K (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of parts of photographic cameras similar in all material respects to the merchandise involved in *Manca, Inc.*v. *United States*(38 Cust. Ct. 271, C. D. 1874), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers (PVC) Production

Other Analyses

Gasholders 

February 7, 2012

Worksheet Name Description 

Gasholder analysis Baseline emissions and BTF options for gasholders
ATTACHMENT F/F: BASELINE EMISSIONS FOR EQUIPMENT LEAKS/BEYOND THE FLOOR ANALYSIS FOR OTHER EMISSION SOURCES

02/07/2012

Gasholders - Baseline Emissions and BTF Analysis

Comment Data

15 gas holders at 7 locations1

Total annual fugitive emissions1A small gas holder's estimated fugitive emissions are approximately 0.88 tons per year VCM, while larger gas holder could emit 3.3. (Average = 2.09 TPY)

Floating Object installed Cost2$5,000 per gas holder

Estimated emission reduction from floating objects270%

Westlake Geismar cost of mats (does not include installation)2$3,000

Table B.2 Total Capital Investment and Total Annualized Cost Estimate: Flow Indicator - Gas Phase

Component Equation Cost ($)

Capital and Other Initial Costs

Total Capital Investment ($2011) TCI 5,000

Annualized Costs

Maintenance and repairs3 O&M=.07*TCI 350

Taxes, Insurance3

TI=0.04*TCI 200

Interest Rate3

i 0.07

Equipment Life3 (years) n 7

Capital Recovery Factor4 CRF=(i*(1+i)n)/((1+i)n-1) 0.19

Capital Recovery4

CR=CFR*TCI 928

Total Annualized Costs ($/yr) ($2011) TAC=O&M+TI+CR 1,478

LOW HIGH Averaeg

Total VCM Emission (ton/yr) (tons per gas holder)*(gas holders) 13.20 49.50 31.35

Total VCM Removed (ton/yr) (ton per gas holder) * (gas holders) * (% reduction ) 9.24 34.7 21.9

Removal Effectiveness ($/ton VCM) (Total VCM Removed) / ((Total Costs)* (gas holders)) 2,399 640 1,010

References

1 - Comments Of The Vinyl Institute, Inc., PVC Mact Working Group. Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

2 - Krock, Richard P. Memorandum to Ms. Jodi Howard. "Vinyl Institute Response to EPA Request for Additional Information on Work Practices for Gasholders at PVC Resin Manufacturing Facilities." September 22, 2011

3 - Peters, Timmerhaus, and West. "Plant Design and Economics for Chemical Engineers." Fifth Edition. McGraw Hill. New York, NY. 2003. pg. 268

4 - U.S. EPA. "Air Pollution Control Cost Manual." Sixth Edition (EPA/452/B-02-001). January 2002 pg 2-21

Assumed emission Redux Component Equation