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

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4513 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4513

To expand eligibility for Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps unit 
                             participation.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 11, 2024

  Mrs. Capito (for herself, Mrs. Shaheen, Mr. Cornyn, Mrs. Britt, Mr. 
  Cruz, Ms. Ernst, Mr. Rubio, Mr. Moran, and Mr. Budd) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                             Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To expand eligibility for Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps unit 
                             participation.

    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 ``Preserving JROTC Programs Act of 
2024''.

SEC. 2. NUMBER OF ENROLLED STUDENTS REQUIREMENT FOR JUNIOR RESERVE 
              OFFICERS' TRAINING CORPS UNIT PARTICIPATION.

    Section 2031(b)(1)(A) of title 10, United States Code, is amended 
by striking ``or (ii) 100, whichever is less'' and inserting ``or (ii) 
50, whichever is less''.
                                 <all>
```
---

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TOSECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, David Karp, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of
CounterPath Corporation

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any
untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary
to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The small business issuers other certifying officers and I
are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the
small business issuer and have:

(a) designed such disclosure controls
and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed
under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small
business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by
others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this
report is being prepared;

(b) evaluated the effectiveness of the
small business issuers disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this
report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and
procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; and

(c) disclosed in this report any change
in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting that
occurred during the small business issuers most recent fiscal quarter (the
small business issuers fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
small business issuers internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The small business issuers other certifying officers and I
have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the small business issuers auditors and the audit
committee of the small business issuers board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):

(a) all significant deficiencies and
material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over
financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small
business issuers ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; and

(b) any fraud, whether or not material,
that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the
small business issuers internal control over financial reporting.

Date: December 17, 2007.

/s/David KarpDavid Karp
  Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer 
  (Principal Financial Officer)

---
No. 57283.

protests 159816-K, etc. (New York).

#### Otto Roth & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of cheese the same in all material respects as that passed upon in Abstract 56940, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

* This motion was determined to be suitable for decision

without oral argument. L.R. 78-230(h).

1 All references to “Rules” are to the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure unless otherwise indicated. 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DOUGLAS ENGRAHM, )

) 02:04-cv-1290-GEB-GGH

Plaintiff, )

v. ) ORDER*

)

COUNTY OF COLUSA, COUNTY OF ) 

COLUSA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, )

JON S. WRYSINSKI, individually and )

in his capacity as Director of )

County of Colusa Dept. of Public )

Works, DONALD F. STANTON, )

individually and in his capacity )

as legal counsel to County of )

Colusa, DAVID J. SHOEMAKER, )

individually and in his capacity )

as CAO/Personnel Director of )

Colusa County Dept. of Public )

Works, )

)

Defendants. )

)

Plaintiff moves for sanctions against Defendants under

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, arguing that Defendants’

counterclaim is frivolous and brought for the sole purpose of

harassing Plaintiff.1 (Pl.’s P. & A. in Support of Mot. for R. 11

Case 2:04-cv-01290-GEB-GGH Document 65 Filed 10/21/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2 Although Plaintiff’s Reply states that he “submits this

reply brief in support of his motion to dismiss Counterclaim of

Defendants . . . pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

12(b)(6),” no such motion is pending. See Local Rule 78-230. 

2

Sanctions at 6-7.) Plaintiff contends that he has “respectfully

requested that Counter-Claimants voluntarily dismiss their

counterclaim” and that because Defendants “have failed to do so, it is

readily apparent that the [sic] reluctancy . . . is based solely on

their intent to harass and intimidate.” (Id. at 7.) 

Under Rule 11(c), sanctions are authorized subject to

certain conditions, including compliance with a “safe harbor”

provision. The “safe harbor” provision requires the party moving for

sanctions to serve the opposing party with the motion twenty-one days

prior to filing. Plaintiff alludes to a request by Plaintiff to

Defendants to dismiss their counterclaim; however, the record does not

reveal that Plaintiff has complied with the Rule 11 service

requirement. “It would wrench both the language and purpose of the

[safe harbor provision] to permit an informal warning to substitute

for service of a motion.” Barber v. Miller, 146 F.3d 707, 710 (9th

Cir. 1998). Since Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate compliance with

Rule 11(c), his motion for sanctions is denied.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 20, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge 

Case 2:04-cv-01290-GEB-GGH Document 65 Filed 10/21/05 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 23-b
                                                                               
                                                                               
                                                                               
                                                                               
                                                                               
                                                                               
                                                                               
                                                                               
                                                                               
                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
                                       
                                       
                                       


     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement
of  Kansas City Power & Light Company on Form S-3 (File Nos. 33-51799  and  33-
56309)  and  Form  S-8 (File Nos. 33-45618 and 33-58917) of  our  report  dated
January  31,  1996, on our audits of the consolidated financial  statements  of
Kansas  City Power & Light Company and Subsidiary as of December 31,  1995  and
1994,  and for the years ended December 31, 1995, 1994, and 1993, which  report
is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.




                                        /s/Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.
                                          COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.




Kansas City, Missouri
March 1, 1996
Order entered September 1 6 , 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 12
- 00898
- CR
BRANDON LAWRENCE COOPER, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 401st Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 401
- 81168
- 2011



### O RDER
The Court ORDERS the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine why appellant’s brief has not been filed. In this regard, the trial court shall make appropriate findings and recommendations and determine w hether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal, whether appellant is indigent, or if not indigent, whether retained counsel has abandoned the appeal. See
T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.8( b ). If the trial court cannot obtain appellant’s presence at the hearing, the trial court shall conduct the hearing in appellant’s absence. See Meza v. State , 742 S.W.2d 708 (Tex. App.

– Corpus Christi 1987, no pet.) (per curiam). If appellant is indigent, the trial court is ORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assu re effective representation, which may include appointment of new counsel.We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record of the proceedings, which shall include

written findings and recommendations, to this Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this ord er. This appeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with the above order. The appeal shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the findings are received, whichever is earlier.

/s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
No. 48508.

#### Protests 821718-G, etc., of Wm. Faehndrich, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It was stipulated that certain of the cheese in question is similar to that involved in *Scaramelli*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 270, C. D. 706, and Abstract 42146). As to this merchandise the collector was directed to reliquidate, allowing 2)4 percent in the weight thereof. Protests sustained to this extent.
**EXHIBIT      32.1 **

**Certification      Pursuant To 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,**

**As      Adopted Pursuant To**

**Section      906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

| • | the                Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30,                2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the                date                hereof (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 result of operations of the                Company                for the periods presented therein. |
|---------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----

----
(V.D. 102)

#### Herman H. Sticht & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States

Entry No. 768899, etc.

(Decided October 28, 1959)

*Strauss & Hedges*for tbe plaintiffs.

*George Goehran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for tbe defendant.

Lawrence, Judge:

The causes of action enumerated in schedule “A,” attached to and made part of this decision, are presently before the court on remand from a classification proceeding decided by the second division of this court in *Herman H. Sticht & Co., Inc., et al.*v. *United States,*38 Cust. Ct. 480, Abstract 60687, wherein the matters were remanded to a single judge sitting in reappraisement, pursuant to the provisions of title 28 U.S.C. section 2636 (d).

The parties to these proceedings have stipulated and agreed that the market value or the price of the instruments and cases involved herein at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges, and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in *454condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States, was at certain stated amounts which are set forth in schedule B, attached to and made a part of the judgment herein. It was further stipulated and agreed that there was no higher foreign value for such or similar merchandise.

Upon the agreed facts, I find that export value, as that value is defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1402(d)), is the proper basis for determining the value of tibe tachometers, tachoscopes, speed indicators, revolution counters, and cases therefor, covered by the remand of protests in issue and that such value is as indicated in schedule B referred to, *supra.*

I further find such value to be the proper dutiable values of said merchandise.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
|   | 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. |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:                November 14, 2008 | By:    |                 |   |
|----------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                   |   | John                Chen                 |   |
|                                   |   | (Chief                Financial Officer) |   |

----
**Exhibit
        32.1**
 
 
 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 m-Wise, Inc. ("the Company") on Form
        10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and
        Exchange Commission on the date hereof ("the Report"), I, Mordechai Broudo,
        Chairman of the Board and Secretary, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
        1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
        that
        to my knowledge:
 
 (1)
        the
        Report fully comply with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
        Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 (2)
        the
        information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
        the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
 
 By:
        /s/Mordechai
        Broudo
 Mordechai
        Broudo, Chairman
 
 Dated:
        May 15, 2007
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 8 (Friday, January 12, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 1561]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-342]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY


Paperwork Reduction Act; 30-Day Notice

AGENCY: Office of National Drug Control Policy.

    The Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) proposes the 
collection of information concerning arrestee drug use. ONDCP hereby 
invites interested persons to submit comments to the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) regarding any aspect of this proposed 
effort.
    Type of Information Collection: New collection.
    Title: Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM II) Program 
Questionnaire.
    Use: The information will support statistical trend analysis.
    Frequency: Ten sites will each conduct two cycles of surveys from 
250 arrestees per cycle.
    Annual Number of Respondents: 5000.
    Total Annual Responses: 5000.
    Average Burden per Response: 20 minutes.
    Total Annual Hours: 1667.
    Send comments to John Kraemer, OMB Desk Officer for ONDCP, New 
Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503. Comments 
must be received within 30 days. Request additional information by 
facsimile transmission to (202) 395-5598, attention: Robert Cohen, 
ONDCP, Office of Planning and Budget.

    Dated: January 9, 2007.
Daniel R. Petersen,
Assistant General Counsel.
 [FR Doc. E7-342 Filed 1-11-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3180-02-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995             DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1995             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995             DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                               0                  21,913
<SECURITIES>                                         0                  11,331
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0                  81,022
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0                 120,205
<PP&E>                                               0                  28,635
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                  16,209
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0                 194,398
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0                  21,594
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                             0                   1,650
<OTHER-SE>                                           0                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0                 194,398
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               101,124                 382,739
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   95,690                 351,129
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                     175
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (21)                     486
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,948                  32,585
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,160                  13,328
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,788                  19,257
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .23                    1.18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .23                    1.18
        

</TABLE>
No. 66837.

#### Lewis & Pina *v.*United States,

protests 60/27884, etc. (Laredo).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of face brick similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Bunker Hill Bride & Supply, Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(46 Cust. Ct. 95, C.D. 2240), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.