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

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1102 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for an investment 

tax credit related to the production of electricity from offshore wind. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 11, 2017 

Mr. MARKEY (for himself, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, Mr. MERKLEY, Ms. WARREN, 

Mr. REED, Mr. BOOKER, and Mr. BROWN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 

for an investment tax credit related to the production 

of electricity from offshore wind. 

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 ‘‘Offshore Wind Incen5 tives for New Development Act’’ or the ‘‘Offshore WIND 

6 Act’’. 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1102 IS

1 SEC. 2. ENERGY CREDIT FOR QUALIFIED OFFSHORE WIND 

2 FACILITIES. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 48 of the Internal Rev4 enue Code is amended— 

5 (1) in subsection (a)— 

6 (A) in paragraph (2)(A)(i)— 

7 (i) in subclause (III), by striking 

8 ‘‘and’’ at the end; and 

9 (ii) by adding at the end the following 

10 new subclause: 

11 ‘‘(V) qualified offshore wind 

12 property, and’’; and 

13 (B) in paragraph (3)(A)— 

14 (i) in clause (vi), by striking ‘‘or’’ at 

15 the end; 

16 (ii) in clause (vii), by adding ‘‘or’’ at 

17 the end; and 

18 (iii) by adding at the end the fol19 lowing new clause: 

20 ‘‘(viii) qualified offshore wind prop21 erty, but only with respect to property the 

22 construction of which begins before Janu23 ary 1, 2026,’’; and 

24 (2) in subsection (c), by adding at the end the 

25 following new paragraph: 

26 ‘‘(5) QUALIFIED OFFSHORE WIND PROPERTY.— 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1102 IS

1 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘qualified 

2 offshore wind property’ means an offshore facil3 ity using wind to produce electricity. 

4 ‘‘(B) OFFSHORE FACILITY.—The term 

5 ‘offshore facility’ means any facility located in 

6 the inland navigable waters of the United 

7 States, including the Great Lakes, or in the 

8 coastal waters of the United States, including 

9 the territorial seas of the United States, the ex10 clusive economic zone of the United States, and 

11 the outer Continental Shelf of the United 

12 States. 

13 ‘‘(C) EXCEPTION FOR QUALIFIED SMALL

14 WIND ENERGY PROPERTY.—The term ‘qualified 

15 offshore wind property’ shall not include any 

16 property described in paragraph (4).’’. 

17 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

18 this section shall take effect on the date of the enactment 

19 of this Act. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 963 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
H. Res. 963

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                         June 26, 2018.
    Resolved, That the following named Member be, and is hereby, elected to the 
following standing committee of the House of Representatives:
     Committee on Veterans' Affairs: Mr. Flores, to rank immediately after Mr. 
Coffman.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
## *Otolaryngology, Respiratory, and Allergic*

### Allergic and Nonallergic Rhinitis

May 2002 

----

**Clinical Focus***

- How does one diagnose allergic and nonallergic rhinitis? What differentiates allergic from nonallergic rhinitis with respect to symptoms, signs, physical examinations, and diagnostic testing? What is the minimum level of testing necessary to differentiate allergic from nonallergic rhinitis?
- Is differentiating allergic from nonallergic rhinitis important? Are treatments different? Are outcomes different?
- How does one treat nonallergic and allergic rhinitis? 
- For nonallergic, what is the efficacy of antihistamines versus  placebo?  Nasal corticosteroids versus  placebo?   Sympathomimetics versus  placebo?  Leukotriene modifiers versus  placebo?    Anticholinergics versus  placebo?   Chromaglycate versus  placebo? What are the side effects/adverse events due to drug treatments?
- For allergic, seasonal rhinitis, what is the efficacy of antihistamines versus  nasal corticosteroids?  Antihistamines versus immunotherapy? Nasal steroids versus  immunotherapy? Sedating versus  nonsedating antihistamines? Other agents?  What are the side effects/adverse events due to drug treatments? How do efficacy and side effects of treatments vary by severity of rhinitis, patient chracteristics?
- How does the treatment of allergic rhinitis impact on the development of asthma? What is the likelihood of developing asthma with untreated allergic rhinitis?
- How does the treatment of allergic rhinitis affect the likelihood of developing asthma?
- How does treatment of allergic rhinitis affect the likelihood of developing bacterial sinusitis?

*Addressed in the summary or evidence report.

----

*Management of Allergic and Nonallergic Rhinitis*Summary (Publication No. 02-E023, May 2002)Evidence Report (Publication No. 02-E024, May 2002) (PDF Files; File Download) 

EPC: New England Medical CenterTopic Nominator: American Academy of Family Physicians

----

Return to Quick Menu: Evidence Report TopicsReturn to Evidence-based Practice
Exhibit
      32(i)





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-QSB of Dialog Group, Inc. (the
      "Company") for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, Peter
      V.
      DeCrescenzo, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies,
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, that:




(1)
      the
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(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.





Dated:
      May 15, 2007


/s/
                Peter V. DeCrescenzoPeter
                    V. DeCrescenzo, CEO
# C_2019035EN.01000201.xml

| 28.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 35/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 35/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 29 November 2018 — National Iranian Tanker Company v Council of the European Union

(Case C-600/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against the Islamic Republic of Iran - Freezing of funds and economic resources - Annulment of a listing by the General Court - Re-listing - Evidence dating from before the first listing - Facts known before the first listing - Res judicata - Scope - Legal certainty - Protection of legitimate expectations - Effective judicial protection - Reasons for the listing relating to logistical support to the Government of Iran - Scope - Activity of transporting crude oil))

(2019/C 35/02)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: National Iranian Tanker Company (represented by: T. de la Mare QC, M. Lester QC, J. Pobjoy, Barrister, and by R. Chandrasekera, S. Ashley and C. Murphy, Solicitors)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Vitro and M. Bishop, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders National Iranian Tanker Company to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders National Iranian Tanker Company to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 30, 30.1.2017.

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

TALMADGE W. TAYLOR, JR., : CIVIL ACTION

:

Plaintiff, :

:

v. :

:

NORTH AMERICAN AVIATION :

SERVICES, :

: No. 02-2748

:

Defendant. :

:

O R D E R

AND NOW, this day of December, 2002, upon

consideration of Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider (Document 5),

it is hereby ORDERED that said Motion is DENIED. The Plaintiff

has failed to include a Certificate of Service proving service of

the Motion on the Defendant. In addition, the Defendant has

failed to include a Memorandum of Law explaining how any why this

Court should grant Plaintiff’s Motion. 

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

______________________________

Clarence C. Newcomer, S.J. 

Case 2:02-cv-02748-CN Document 6 Filed 12/16/2002 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

: CIVIL ACTION NOS.

:

NOBLE : 02-3895

JACKSON, et al. : 02-3911

MENNEALY : 02-3957

RUFFALO,et al. : 02-4112

LANGSTON : 02-4157

CONSTANCE, et al. : 02-4196

RUSS, et al. : 02-4255

RAZO : 02-4269

DOLAN, et al. : 02-4306

:

VS. :

:

BAYER CORPORATION, et al. :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this day of July, 2002, the Court having been previously

advised that the above action cannot proceed to trial and disposition because of the following

reason:

[ ] - Order staying these proceedings pending disposition of a related

action.

[ ] - Order staying these proceedings pending determination of

arbitration proceedings.

[ ] - Interlocutory appeal filed.

[ X ] - Other: Case is placed into suspense pending receipt of the Case

Transfer Order from the Judicial Panel on Multi District Litigation

transferring case to District of Minnesota..

Case 2:02-cv-04196-JD Document 2 Filed 07/10/2002 Page 1 of 2
It is

ORDERED that the Clerk of Court mark this action closed for statistical purposes and

place the matter in the Civil Suspense File, and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that the Court shall retain jurisdiction; and that the case be

restored to the trial docket when the action is in a status so that it may proceed to final

disposition; this order shall not prejudice the rights of the parties to this litigation.

BY THE COURT:

________________________________________

Jan E. Dubois, Judge

Case 2:02-cv-04196-JD Document 2 Filed 07/10/2002 Page 2 of 2
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 Annual Report of RTG Ventures, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended August 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Barrington Fludgate, 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;

              The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
                  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

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

/s/ Barrongton Fludgate
----------------------------------
Name:  Barrington Fludgate
Title: Chief Financial Officer
Date:  January 13, 2005
No. 52906.

#### Joseph A. Paredes & Co. *v.*United States,

protest 133196-K (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At the trial the case was submitted upon the record, ah examination of which indicated that the merchandise is of Cuban manufacture. In view of the uncontradicted evidence before the court, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
October 29, 2012 · 

## OEPARTMENT OF {• 1 

### r\ 1

## SPORTATION

.**fiJ~I ~~.**  .

### ~.):JCKET 

## OPERATiONS ZO IZNOV -: l A II : 3 l
U.S. Department ofTransportation . Docket Operations, M-30 West Building Ground Floor Room W12-140 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE. Washington, DC 20590 Dear Sir or Madam: 

# MANSFIELoT' HELIFLIGHiT ·

This letter is a request for extension of Exemption No: 10236**f~om** 14 CFR Part 129•Subpart: D (Docket· No: FAA-2011-0287). The exemption has allowed us to maintain only one drug testing program instead of two. The result has been less non-tax revenue time spent,6n paperwork,

### employ~e training. and testing. In dosing d1e

### c~m'pany continues to meet ilie requirement/of 14 CFR Part 120 Sdbpart D for.91.147 because we are still drug tested for part 135. 

# I

Mansfield Helifught, Inc.'s contact information is: . · · 159 Catamount Dr.

. . t Milton, VT 05jo8 Ph 802-893-1-003 I Fax 802-893-0151 Air Can:i/r No: HVEA854E

President

158**CatE.~mount** Dr. Milton, Vermont**05~.6B.:.08_66** __ ·.**---~---.--.---·-.** P. 802-883-1003 F. 802-893-0151
# April

# image1.jpg
CERTIFICATION PRSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARABANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2003

In connection with the Quarterly report of Rosedale Decorative Products, Ltd.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Alan Fine, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2003, that:

     (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
          the Company.



/s/ SIDNEY ACKERMAN
    ---------------
    Sidney Ackerman
    President

December 14, 2004
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

: CIVIL ACTION NOS.

:

WEYANT : 02-3886

GOODMAN : 02-3910

MARRA, et al. : 02-3913

FREDERICKSEN : 02-3948

FRANCIS : 02-3967

SPACCAMONTI : 02-3971

STETZENBACK : 02-3978

CLEMENT, et al. : 02-4031

CLEMENT, et al. : 02-4032

HARCOURT, et al. : 02-4128

WAGE, et al. : 02-4169

NUNNERY, et al. : 02-4173

JOHNSON, et al. : 02-4216

BLAIR, et al. : 02-4223

CASTO, et al. : 02-4228

ZAMBRANO, et al. : 02-4276

FOSS, et al. : 02-4286

BURKE-SHERMAN, et al. : 02-4366

:

VS. :

:

BAYER CORPORATION, et al. :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this day of July, 2002, the Court having been previously

advised that the above action cannot proceed to trial and disposition because of the following

reason:

[ ] - Order staying these proceedings pending disposition of a related

action.

[ ] - Order staying these proceedings pending determination of

arbitration proceedings.

[ ] - Interlocutory appeal filed.

[ X ] - Other: Case is placed into suspense pending receipt of the Case

Transfer Order from the Judicial Panel on Multi District Litigation

transferring the case to the District of Minnesota.

Case 2:02-cv-04223-RB Document 2 Filed 07/10/2002 Page 1 of 2
It is

ORDERED that the Clerk of Court mark this action closed for statistical purposes and

place the matter in the Civil Suspense File, and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that the Court shall retain jurisdiction; and that the case be

restored to the trial docket when the action is in a status so that it may proceed to final

disposition; this order shall not prejudice the rights of the parties to this litigation.

BY THE COURT:

________________________________________

Ronald L. Buckwalter, Judge

Case 2:02-cv-04223-RB Document 2 Filed 07/10/2002 Page 2 of 2
# 2015_09 Pivot Table 4

&A	

# 2015_09 MTS Table 4

&F	

&P/&N
#### MOYERS v. LEOFFLER et al.

Civil Action No. 3251.

United States District Court District of Columbia.

Sept. 3, 1941.

C. L. Dawson and Paul Flaherty, both of Washington, D. C., for plaintiff.

Hogan *&*Hartson and Howard Boyd, all of Washington, D. C., for defendant.

BAILEY, Justice.

The plaintiff in opposing the motion to require security for costs does not deny that the plaintiff is a nonresident of the District of Columbia. The jurisdiction of this Court is not based on diversity of citizenship, and in any event if it were the fact of diversity of citizenship would have to be shown by the plaintiff.

The motion should be sustained and the plaintiff required to furnish an undertaking in the amount of one hundred dollars, *222with surety approved by the court, or a cash deposit of $50 within twenty days from this date.
No. 53456.

protest 126198-K (New York).

#### Nawi, Noonoo & Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protest.
Before the First Division,

March 19, 1953

No. 57173.

protests 590746-G, etc. (New York).

#### Brenner Bros. v. United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the kidskin plates are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Kung Chen Fur Corpn.*v. *United States*(29 Cust. Ct. 266, C. D. 1480), the claim for free entry under paragraph 1681 was sustained.

Ford, J., concurred.

Mollison, J., dissented for the reasons set forth in his dissenting opinion in C. D. 1480, *supra.*
No. 61243.

protests 275924-K, 275926-K, and 287193-K (Los Angeles).

#### Gordon Fabrics Co. and Frank P. Dow Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain items consist of woven fabrics in the piece, with fibers wholly of silk, dyed, valued at over $5.50 per pound, not Jacquard-figured, over 30 inches in width, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Payment Collection RIA SIA Zero Dollar Total

January 2016 18,501 71,922 2,543 83 - 93,049

February 2016 26,078 72,834 2,546 102 1 101,561

March 2016 25,874 84,437 2,929 114 31 113,385

Totals 70,453 229,193 8,018 299 32 307,995

 -

 50,000

 100,000

 150,000

 200,000

 250,000

 300,000

 350,000

# of transactions

Transaction Type

IPAC Transaction Count

January 2016

February 2016

March 2016

Totals
No. 60736.

#### The Gren Corp. *v.*United States,

protest 284201-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.
Case 2:04-cr-00295-JHS Document 128 Filed 02/02/12 Page 1 of 1
Opinion issued February 28, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-12-00978-CV

———————————

CHARISE WILSON, Appellant

V.

TIMOTHY ORTEGA, Appellee

On Appeal from the 311th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2011-03567

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant has filed an unopposed motion to dismiss the appeal. No opinion 

has issued. Accordingly, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). We dismiss all other pending motions as moot. 
2

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Sharp, and Huddle.
Exhibit 32



CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of TenFold Corporation
(the Company) for the period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Nancy M. Harvey, President, Chief Executive Officer, and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to 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 results of operations of the Company.



|                                                                                               
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                               
|/s/ Nancy M. Harvey                                                                            
|Nancy M. Harvey President, Chief Executive Officer, and Chief Financial Officer August 15,
2005
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

SHIRLEY MCNALLY and

DANIEL L. MCNALLY

:

:

: CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-CV-4159

Plaintiffs, :

:

v. :

:

BAYER CORPORATION;

BAYER AG;

GLAXOSMITHKLINE, PLC;

GLAXOSMITHKLINE;

SMITHKLINE BEECHAM

:

:

:

:

:

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

:

Defendants. :

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

To the Clerk of the Court:

Kindly enter the appearances of Hope S. Freiwald, Aline Fairweather, Erin

Brennan and Kirstin J. Miller as attorneys for defendant GlaxoSmithKline PLC.

Respectfully Submitted,

_____________________________ _____________________________

Hope S. Freiwald Aline Fairweather

_____________________________ _____________________________

Erin Brennan Kirstin J. Miller

DECHERT PRICE & RHOADS

4000 Bell Atlantic Tower

1717 Arch Street

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2793

(215) 994-4000

Case 2:02-cv-04159-HH Document 7 Filed 09/11/2002 Page 1 of 1