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

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1450 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1450

 To prohibit cell phone voice communications during passenger flights.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 28, 2017

  Mr. Alexander (for himself and Mr. Markey) introduced the following 
 bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, 
                      Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To prohibit cell phone voice communications during passenger flights.

    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 ``Commercial Flight Courtesy Act of 
2017''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON CELL PHONE VOICE COMMUNICATIONS DURING PASSENGER 
              FLIGHTS.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter I of chapter 417 of title 49, United 
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 41725. Prohibition on certain cell phone voice communications
    ``(a) Prohibition.--The Secretary of Transportation shall issue 
regulations--
            ``(1) to prohibit an individual on an aircraft from 
        engaging in voice communications using a mobile communications 
        device during a flight of that aircraft in scheduled passenger 
        interstate air transportation or intrastate air transportation; 
        and
            ``(2) that exempt from the prohibition described in 
        paragraph (1)--
                    ``(A) any member of the flight crew on duty on an 
                aircraft; and
                    ``(B) any Federal law enforcement officer acting in 
                an official capacity.
    ``(b) Definitions.--In this section:
            ``(1) Flight.--The term `flight' means, with respect to an 
        aircraft, the period beginning when the aircraft takes off and 
        ending when the aircraft lands.
            ``(2) Mobile communications device.--
                    ``(A) In general.--The term `mobile communications 
                device' means any portable wireless telecommunications 
                equipment utilized for the transmission or reception of 
                voice data.
                    ``(B) Limitation.--The term `mobile communications 
                device' does not include a phone installed on an 
                aircraft.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter 417 of 
title 49, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item 
relating to section 41724 the following new item:

``41725. Prohibition on certain cell phone voice communications.''.
                                 <all>
```
Case 2:02-cv-04440-AB Document 48-2 Filed 02/17/2004 Page 1 of 1
# C_2017277EN.01003702.xml

| 21.8.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 277/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.8.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 277/37

---

Judgment of the General Court of 29 June 2017 — United Kingdom v Commission

(Case T-27/16) (1)

1

((EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Fruit and vegetables - Error of law - Article 3(1) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 1433/2003 - Article 52(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 - Principle of legality - Legal certainty - Equal treatment - Principle of non-discrimination - Obligation to state reasons))

(2017/C 277/55)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: J. Kraehling and G. Brown, acting as Agents, and by S. Lee and M. Gray, Barristers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Sauka and K. Skelly, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the partial annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/2098 of 13 November 2015 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2015 L 303, p. 35), by which the Commission, in particular, applied to the period of 2008 to 2012 a financial correction in the amount of EUR 1 849 194,86 following the exclusion of certain expenditure relating to the operational programmes of fruit and vegetable producer organisations of the United Kingdom for the years 2008 and 2009 as a result of weaknesses in the system of key controls of those programmes.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 111, 29.3.2016.

1

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MARITRANS OPERATING COMPANY, L.P.

: CIVIL ACTION

:

v. : NO. 02-4429

:

CHRIS MARINE USA, INC. :

ORDER

AND NOW, this ____day of February, 2004, counsel having notified the Court

that the above captioned action has been settled, pursuant to the provisions of Rule 41.1(b) of the

Local Rules of Civil Procedure, it is ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED with prejudice,

pursuant to agreement of counsel without costs.

BY THE COURT:

____________________

R. Barclay Surrick, Judge

Case 2:02-cv-04429-RBS Document 13 Filed 02/19/2004 Page 1 of 1
Case 2:05-cv-05868-AB Document 1 Filed 11/08/05 Page 1 of 35
Case 2:05-cv-05868-AB Document 1 Filed 11/08/05 Page 2 of 35
Case 2:05-cv-05868-AB Document 1 Filed 11/08/05 Page 3 of 35
Case 2:05-cv-05868-AB Document 1 Filed 11/08/05 Page 4 of 35
Case 2:05-cv-05868-AB Document 1 Filed 11/08/05 Page 5 of 35
Case 2:05-cv-05868-AB Document 1 Filed 11/08/05 Page 6 of 35
Case 2:05-cv-05868-AB Document 1 Filed 11/08/05 Page 7 of 35
Case 2:05-cv-05868-AB Document 1 Filed 11/08/05 Page 8 of 35
Case 2:05-cv-05868-AB Document 1 Filed 11/08/05 Page 9 of 35
Case 2:05-cv-05868-AB Document 1 Filed 11/08/05 Page 10 of 35
Case 2:05-cv-05868-AB Document 1 Filed 11/08/05 Page 11 of 35
Case 2:05-cv-05868-AB Document 1 Filed 11/08/05 Page 12 of 35
Case 2:05-cv-05868-AB Document 1 Filed 11/08/05 Page 13 of 35
Case 2:05-cv-05868-AB Document 1 Filed 11/08/05 Page 14 of 35
Case 2:05-cv-05868-AB Document 1 Filed 11/08/05 Page 15 of 35
Case 2:05-cv-05868-AB Document 1 Filed 11/08/05 Page 16 of 35
Case 2:05-cv-05868-AB Document 1 Filed 11/08/05 Page 17 of 35
Case 2:05-cv-05868-AB Document 1 Filed 11/08/05 Page 18 of 35
Case 2:05-cv-05868-AB Document 1 Filed 11/08/05 Page 19 of 35
Case 2:05-cv-05868-AB Document 1 Filed 11/08/05 Page 20 of 35
Case 2:05-cv-05868-AB Document 1 Filed 11/08/05 Page 21 of 35
Case 2:05-cv-05868-AB Document 1 Filed 11/08/05 Page 22 of 35
Case 2:05-cv-05868-AB Document 1 Filed 11/08/05 Page 23 of 35
Case 2:05-cv-05868-AB Document 1 Filed 11/08/05 Page 24 of 35
Case 2:05-cv-05868-AB Document 1 Filed 11/08/05 Page 25 of 35
Case 2:05-cv-05868-AB Document 1 Filed 11/08/05 Page 26 of 35
Case 2:05-cv-05868-AB Document 1 Filed 11/08/05 Page 27 of 35
Case 2:05-cv-05868-AB Document 1 Filed 11/08/05 Page 28 of 35
Case 2:05-cv-05868-AB Document 1 Filed 11/08/05 Page 29 of 35
Case 2:05-cv-05868-AB Document 1 Filed 11/08/05 Page 30 of 35
Case 2:05-cv-05868-AB Document 1 Filed 11/08/05 Page 31 of 35
Case 2:05-cv-05868-AB Document 1 Filed 11/08/05 Page 32 of 35
Case 2:05-cv-05868-AB Document 1 Filed 11/08/05 Page 33 of 35
Case 2:05-cv-05868-AB Document 1 Filed 11/08/05 Page 34 of 35
Case 2:05-cv-05868-AB Document 1 Filed 11/08/05 Page 35 of 35
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JOSHUA LEE STEWART,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 256 WAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 26th day of February, 2021

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
**Exhibit 32.1**

** **

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**PURSUANTTO**

**18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Stephen K. Gartside, Jr., certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Evolving Systems, Inc.on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2005 fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-Qfairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results ofoperations of Evolving Systems, Inc.

 
| /s/ STEPHEN K. GARTSIDE, JR.          |   |
|---------------------------------------|--------|
|                                  |
| Stephen K. Gartside, Jr.         |
| President and Chief Executive Officer |
| May 16, 2005                     |

 

----
Transaction Code F336

Proposed for FY 2017

1		IRC Handout 12/03/15
118 STAT. 564 PUBLIC LAW 108–210—MAR. 31, 2004

Public Law 108–210

108th Congress

An Act

To reauthorize the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families block grant program

through June 30, 2004, and for other purposes.

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 ‘‘Welfare Reform Extension Act

of 2004’’.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF THE TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY

FAMILIES BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM THROUGH JUNE 30, 2004.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Activities authorized by part A of title IV

of the Social Security Act, and by sections 510, 1108(b), and 1925

of such Act, shall continue through June 30, 2004, in the manner

authorized for fiscal year 2002, notwithstanding section

1902(e)(1)(A) of such Act, and out of any money in the Treasury

of the United States not otherwise appropriated, there are hereby

appropriated such sums as may be necessary for such purpose.

Grants and payments may be made pursuant to this authority

through the third quarter of fiscal year 2004 at the level provided

for such activities through the third quarter of fiscal year 2002.

(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 403(a)(3)(H)(ii) of the

Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 603(a)(3)(H)(ii)) is amended by

striking ‘‘March 31’’ and inserting ‘‘June 30’’.

SEC. 3. EXTENSION OF THE NATIONAL RANDOM SAMPLE STUDY OF

CHILD WELFARE AND CHILD WELFARE WAIVER AUTHORITY

THROUGH JUNE 30, 2004.

Activities authorized by sections 429A and 1130(a) of the Social

Security Act shall continue through June 30, 2004, in the manner

authorized for fiscal year 2002, and out of any money in the

Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated, there

are hereby appropriated such sums as may be necessary for such

purpose. Grants and payments may be made pursuant to this

authority through the third quarter of fiscal year 2004 at the

Welfare Reform

Extension Act

of 2004.

42 USC 1305

note.

Mar. 31, 2004

[S. 2231]

PUBLIC LAW 108–210—MAR. 31, 2004 118 STAT. 565

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—S. 2231:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 150 (2004):

Mar. 25, considered and passed Senate.

Mar. 30, considered and passed House.

Æ

level provided for such activities through the third quarter of fiscal

year 2002.

Approved March 31, 2004.
# Sheet1

&"Arial,Bold"Part 1SUPPLEMENT	&"Arial,Bold"&16&KFF0000DRAFT	&"Arial,Bold"Fiscal Year 2022 ReportingSection VII

&"Arial,Bold"Bulletin No. 2022-16	&"Arial,Bold"&KFF0000DRAFT&K000000 VII CER - &P	&"Arial,Bold"IRC Handout 8/17/22
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 Independence Lead Mines Company (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB/A No. 2 for the period ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Wayne L. Schoonmaker, Principal Accounting 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; 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/ Wayne L. Schoonmaker Principal Accounting Officer  Dated: December 13, 2007
Searched for **https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/ES-05-10984.pdf**

 

19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024

*Note:* This calendar view maps the number of captures of **https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/ES-05-10984.pdf**, *not* how many times the site was actually updated.

Look Up URL in general Internet Archive web collection.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

SANDRA PARADISE

: CIVIL ACTION

:

vs. :

: NO. 02-4331

ALLSTATE INSURANCE CORP.

O R D E R

AND NOW, TO WIT: This 28th day of August, 2002,

it having been reported that the issues between the parties in the above action has been settled

and upon Order of the Court pursuant to the provisions of Rule 41.1(b) of the Local Rules of

Civil Procedure of this Court , it is

ORDERED that the above action is DISMISSED with prejudice, pursuant to

agreement of counsel without costs.

MICHAEL E. KUNZ, Clerk of Court

BY: 

Eileen Adler 

 Deputy Clerk

Civ 2 (8/2000)

41(b).frm 

Case 2:02-cv-04331-SD Document 6 Filed 08/28/2002 Page 1 of 1
p120854.eng INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT PMN: 12-0584 Focus Ready Draft 10/18/2012
ENGINEER: Choudhary \ EV PV (kg/yr):

SUBMITTER:

USE:

OTHER USES:

Page 1p120854.eng CRSS :

Consumer Use:
SAT (concerns) (10/10/2012): Related Cases and Related Cases and Misc SAT Info: Ecotox Related Cases:
Migration to groundwater: U PBT rating: P1B1T2 . Health: 1-2 Dermal, Drinking Water, Inhalation Eco: 3 Water (All releases to water with a CC = 1 ppb)

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE RATING: 2-3C

NOTES & KEY ASSUMPTIONS: Generated by the 06/07/2005 version of ChemSTEER.

POLLUTION PREVENTION CONSIDERATIONS:

EXPOSURE-BASED REVIEW:

Page 2p120854.eng

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT PMN: 12-0584

Page 3p120854.eng

Page 4p120854.eng

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT PMN: 12-0584

Page 5p120854.eng

Page 6p120854.eng

Page 7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENJ'l"SYLVANIA
 

GORDON ROY PARKER, CIVIL ACTION NO. 05-CV-2752 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

LEARN THE SKILLS CORP., et al.,J 

Defendants. CH E M\ . By' I--~

DEFENDANT THOMAS GEIGER'S PPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION 

TO CONDUCT JURISDICTIONAL 

Defendant Thomas Geiger joins in Defendant Learn the Skills Corp.'s Opposition to the 

Plaintiffs Motion to Conduct Jurisdictional Discovery and reserves his right to file a 

motion to limit the scope of discovery should this court grant the Plaintiffs request for 

jurisdictional discovery. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Thomas Geiger 

Defendant Pro se 

817 N. McCrary Rd. 

Columbus, MS. 39702 

(662) 328-3630 

19th day of January 2006 

Case 2:05-cv-02752-HB Document 39 Filed 01/23/06 Page 1 of 2
r::;~~~~~~"L , hereby certify that on this 19th day of January 

2006, I caused the foregoing Defendant Thomas Geiger's Opposition to the Plaintiffs 

Motion to Conduct Jurisdictional Discovery, to be served by first-class U.S. mail, postage 

prepaid, upon the following: 

Gordon Roy Parker, pro se Plaintiff 

4247 Locust Street, #806 

Philadelphia, PA 19104 

Dennis G. Young, Jr., Esquire 

Montgomery, McCracken, Walker & Rhoads, LLP 

123 South Broad Street 

Philadelphia, PAl 91 09 

Matthew S. Wolf, Esquire,pro se Defendant 

241 Kings Highway East 

Haddonfield, NJ 08033 

Mary Kay Brown 

Shernese V. Woodbine 

Pa. LD. Nos. 54327 and 91209 

1835 Market Street, 14th Floor 

Philadelphia, PA 19103 

Case 2:05-cv-02752-HB Document 39 Filed 01/23/06 Page 2 of 2
Case lío. 6,700.

#### Ex parte HOPPOCK.

[The ease reported under above title in 2 Ben. 478, is the same as Case No. 1,912.]
# C_2017402EN.01003101.xml

| 27.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 402/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 402/31

---

Judgment of the General Court of 3 October 2017 — PM v ECHA

(Case T-656/16) (1)

1

((REACH - Fee due for the registration of a substance - Reduction granted to SMEs - Determination of the size of the undertaking - ECHA’s verification of the undertaking’s declaration - Request for evidence demonstrating the status of a SME - Decision imposing an administrative charge))

(2017/C 402/40)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: PM (represented by: C Zambrano Almero, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented by: initially E. Maurage, J.-P. Trnka and M. Heikkilä, then J.-P. Trnka and M. Heikkilä, acting as Agents, and by C. Garcia Molyneux, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of ECHA Decision EMS (2016) 3198 of 12 July 2016 finding that the applicant has not adduced the evidence necessary to benefit from the reduction of the fee for medium-sized enterprises and imposing an administrative charge.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1)

Dismisses the action;

| 2) | Order PM to bear, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). |
| --- | --- |

2)

Order PM to bear, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA).

---

(1)  OJ C 402, 31.10.2016.

1

---
**EXHIBIT 31(i)****CERTIFICATION**I, Patrick Q. McGeeney, CEO do hereby certify that:     1. I have reviewed this annual report onForm 10-KSB ofLocal Telecom Systems, Inc.     2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to statea material fact necessary to make the statements made, in lightof the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this annualreport;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, andother financial information included in this annual report,fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of,and for, the periods presented in this annual report.     4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and Iare responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosurecontrols and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-14 and15d-14) for theregistrant and have:          a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to    ensure that material information relating to the registrant,    including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by    others within those entities, particularly during the period in    which this annual report is being prepared;           b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s    disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within    90 days prior to the filing date of this annual report (the    “Evaluation Date”); and           c) presented in this annual report our conclusions about    the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures    based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date:     5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and Ihave disclosed, base on our most recent evaluation, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):          a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation    of internal controls which could adversely affect the    registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and    report financial data and have identified for the    registrant’s auditors any material weaknesses in internal    controls; and           b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves    management or other employees who have a significant role in    the registrant’s internal controls; and     6. The registrant’s other certifying officers and Ihave indicated in this annual report whether there weresignificant changes in internal controls or in other factorsthat could significantly affect internal controls subsequent tothe date of our most recent evaluation, including any correctiveactions with regard to significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses.
Date February 16, 2005              /s/ Patrick Q. McGeeney       Patrick Q. McGeeney, Chief     Executive Officer
# C_2016251EN.01005002.xml

| 11.7.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 251/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.7.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/50

---

Action brought on 29 April 2016 — ZZ v CPVO

(Case F-22/16)

(2016/C 251/58)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO)

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the decision not to renew the applicant’s temporary staff contract and an application seeking that she be awarded compensation in respect of the material and non-material harm allegedly suffered.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

| — | annul the decision of the AECE of 24 June 2015 not to renew the applicant’s temporary staff contract beyond 31 December 2015; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the AECE of 24 June 2015 not to renew the applicant’s temporary staff contract beyond 31 December 2015;

| — | annul the AECE’s decision of 20 January 2016 rejecting the applicant’s complaint dated 15 September 2015 against that decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the AECE’s decision of 20 January 2016 rejecting the applicant’s complaint dated 15 September 2015 against that decision;

| — | pay compensation for the material harm suffered as a result of the above, evaluated provisionally, ex aequo et bono, at EUR 119 767; |
| --- | --- |

—

pay compensation for the material harm suffered as a result of the above, evaluated provisionally, ex aequo et bono, at EUR 119 767;

ex aequo et bono

| — | award the applicant damages of EUR 30 000 in respect of the non-material harm suffered; |
| --- | --- |

—

award the applicant damages of EUR 30 000 in respect of the non-material harm suffered;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

---