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

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4623 

To clarify rules regarding the display of the United States flag for patriotic 

and military observances for purposes of promoting military recruitment. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 20, 2024 

Mr. CRUZ introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to 

the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To clarify rules regarding the display of the United States 

flag for patriotic and military observances for purposes 

of promoting military recruitment. 

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 ‘‘Updating National 

5 Flag Use to Reaffirm Liberty Act of 2024’’ or the 

6 ‘‘UNFURL Act of 2024’’. 

7 SEC. 2. DISPLAY OF UNITED STATES FLAG FOR PATRIOTIC 

8 AND MILITARY OBSERVANCES. 

9 (a) AMENDMENT TO FLAG CODE.—Section 8(c) of 

10 title 4, United States Code, is amended by inserting ‘‘, 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4623 IS

1 except as may be necessary in limited circumstances and 

2 done in a respectful manner as part of a military or patri3 otic observance involving members of the Armed Forces’’ 

4 after ‘‘aloft and free’’. 

5 (b) MODIFICATION OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

6 POLICY.—The Secretary of Defense shall— 

7 (1) rescind the February 10, 2023, Department 

8 of Defense memorandum entitled, ‘‘Clarification of 

9 Department of Defense Community Engagement 

10 Policy on Showing Proper Respect to the United 

11 States Flag’’; and 

12 (2) support military recruitment through public 

13 outreach events during patriotic and military observ14 ances, including the display of the United States 

15 flag regardless of size and position, including hori16 zontally, provided that, in accordance with section 

17 8(b) of title 4, United States Code, the flag never 

18 touch anything beneath it, such as the ground, the 

19 floor, water, or merchandise. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 07-822 

________________________________________________________________________ 

DEFENSE 

Research and Development 

 Memorandum of Understanding 

Between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and the UNITED KINGDOM OF 

GREAT BRITAIN AND 

NORTHERN IRELAND 

Signed at Arlington and Bristol 

August 13 and 22, 2007 

with 

Annexes 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN 

AND NORTHERN IRELAND 

 Defense: Research and Development 

 Memorandum of understanding signed 

 at Arlington and Bristol 

 August 13 and 22, 2007; 

 Entered into force August 22, 2007. 

 With annexes. 







































NOTE: It is noted that the numerbing of subsection 13.6 on this page is out of sequence.














NOTE: It is noted that the title for Section VI is not in the Table of Contents for this Annex. As a result, the following Section titles and numbers differ from what is listed in the Table of Contents for this Annex.

NOTE: It is noted that the section titled "PRINCIPAL ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED" is missing a section number.
**EXHIBIT 31.02**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I,David C. Clark, certify that:

 

1.                       I have reviewedthis Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on Form 10-K/A of AllosTherapeutics, Inc.; and

 

2.                       Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report.

 

 
| Date: September 1,  2010 | /s/ DAVID C. CLARK                         |
|-------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------|
|                          | David  C. Clark                                 |
| * *                      | *Vice  President, Finance and Treasurer*        |
| * *                      | *(Principal  Financial and Accounting Officer)* |

 

----
Exhibit 21.1

Subsidiaries of OpenTV Corp.

As of December 31, 2008

A table of the direct and indirect subsidiaries of OpenTV Corp. is set forth below, indicating as to each the state or jurisdiction of organization and
the names under which such subsidiaries do business. Subsidiaries not included in the table are inactive or, considered in the aggregate as a single subsidiary, would not constitute a significant subsidiary.



|                                               |  |                             
|---------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------------
|Name of the Subsidiary                         |  | Jurisdiction of Organization
|ACTV, Inc.                                     |  | United States (Delaware)    
|ACTV Entertainment, Inc.                       |  | United States (New York)    
|Advision Systems, LLC                          |  | United States (Delaware)    
|Digital Adco, Inc.                             |  | United States (Delaware)    
|Intellocity USA, Inc.                          |  | United States (Delaware)    
|Media Online Services, Inc.                    |  | United States (Delaware)    
|OpenTV (Israel) Ltd.                           |  | Israel                      
|OpenPlay (BVI) Ltd.                            |  | British Virgin Islands      
|OpenTV GmbH                                    |  | Switzerland                 
|OpenTV Japan KK                                |  | Japan                       
|OpenTV Australia Holdings Pty Ltd              |  | Australia (New South Wales) 
|OpenTV Australia Pty Ltd                       |  | Australia (New South Wales) 
|OpenTV Europe S.A.S                            |  | France                      
|OpenTV Holding N.V.                            |  | Netherlands Antilles        
|OpenTV Holdings B.V.                           |  | The Netherlands             
|OpenTV, Inc.                                   |  | United States (Delaware)    
|OpenTV India Private Limited                   |  | India                       
|OpenTV Interactive Software (Beijing) Co. Ltd. |  | China                       
|OpenTV Netherlands B.V.                        |  | Netherlands Antilles        
|OpenTV UK Limited                              |  | United Kingdom              
|OpenTV US Holdings, Inc.                       |  | United States (Delaware)    
|OpenTV US Investments, Inc.                    |  | United States (Delaware)    
|Ruzz TV Pty Ltd                                |  | Australia (Victoria)        
|Spyglass Integration, Inc.                     |  | United States (Delaware)    
|Wink Communications, Inc.                      |  | United States (Delaware)
Before the Third Division,

November 25, 1957

No. 61380.

protests 142107-K, etc. (New York).

#### A. Jaller & Co. et al. *v.*United States,

*513Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of earthenware articles composed of a nonvitrified absorbent body, not artificially colored and composed wholly of clay, provided that if the body of such ware is covered wholly or in part with an engobe or body slip, the engobe or body slip shall be considered a part of the body, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained. (Abstract 51831 followed.)
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BILLY THOMAS WOLFINGTON, JR.,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2482 GEB KJM

P

vs.

J. SHELTON, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a previous state prisoner proceeding pro se,

has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General

Order No. 262.

On April 8, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings

and recommendations herein which were served on plaintiff and

which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the

findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. 

Case 2:04-cv-02482-GEB -KJM Document 8 Filed 06/09/05 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

2

Plaintiff has not filed objections to the findings and

recommendations.

Although it appears from the file that plaintiff’s copy

of the findings and recommendations was returned, plaintiff was

properly served. It is the plaintiff’s responsibility to keep

the court apprised of his current address at all times. Pursuant

to Local Rule 83-182(f), service of documents at the record

address of the party is fully effective.

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings

and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the

magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED

that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed April 8,

2005, are adopted in full; and

2. This action is dismissed for plaintiff’s failure to

keep the court apprised of his current address. See Local Rules

83-182(f) and 11-110.

Dated: June 9, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02482-GEB -KJM Document 8 Filed 06/09/05 Page 2 of 2
Before the Third Division,

November 20, 1946

No. 51427.

#### Protest 114453-K (A) of W. F. Mackay (Pembina).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as that passed upon in *Tower & Sons*v. *United States*(14 Cust. Ct. 94, C. D. 919). In accordance therewith the claim for free entry was sustained.
EXHIBIT 13.1

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 annual report of i-CABLE Communications Limited (the Company) on Form
20-F for the year ended December 31, 2007,as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned officers of the Company certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to such officers 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 as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.



By:

/s/ Stephen T. H. NgName:

Stephen T. H. NgTitle:

Chief Executive OfficerBy:

/s/ William J. H. KwanName:

William J. H. KwanTitle:

Chief Financial Officer


Date: June 30, 2008

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4577 

To amend the Older Americans Act of 1965 to require the Assistant Secretary 

for Aging to publish on an online portal information on national resource 

centers authorized or supported under such Act, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 18, 2024 

Mr. BRAUN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To amend the Older Americans Act of 1965 to require the 

Assistant Secretary for Aging to publish on an online 

portal information on national resource centers authorized or supported under such Act, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Senior Resource Cen5 ter Transparency Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 4577 IS

1 SEC. 2. ONLINE PORTAL ON NATIONAL RESOURCE CEN2 TERS. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 202 of the Older Ameri4 cans Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3012) is amended by adding 

5 at the end the following: 

6 ‘‘(j) Not later than 180 days after the date of enact7 ment of this subsection, and every 180 days thereafter, 

8 the Assistant Secretary shall publish on an online portal— 

9 ‘‘(1) a list of all national resource centers au10 thorized or supported under this Act; 

11 ‘‘(2) a description of each such resource center, 

12 including— 

13 ‘‘(A) the goals of the center; 

14 ‘‘(B) the population served by the center, 

15 including the location of that population, by 

16 State; 

17 ‘‘(C) the number of older individuals 

18 served by the center each year; and 

19 ‘‘(D) the amount and source of Federal 

20 and non-Federal funding the center receives 

21 each year; and 

22 ‘‘(3) a description of quantitative and quali23 tative metrics, including measures of effectiveness, 

24 that demonstrate how each such center has advanced 

25 the goals described in paragraph (2)(A).’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•S 4577 IS

1 (b) GAO EVALUATION.—Not later than 180 days 

2 after the date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller 

3 General of the United States shall evaluate all national 

4 resource centers authorized or supported under the Older 

5 Americans Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3001 et seq.) for func6 tions to streamline, as appropriate, and to improve the ef7 ficiencies of taxpayer funds. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
No. 50495.

#### Protests 50902-K, etc., of Foster Canning Co., Inc. (Norfolk).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of dog food similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Corporacion Argentina de Productores de Carnes*v. *United States*(32 C. C. P. A. 175, C. A. D. 304), which record was incorporated herein, the protests were sustained as claimed.
PC054,,,A 

Parraguirre 

W.7.=aketrAWM 

probation, see NRS 176A.100(1)(c); NRS 193.140; NRS 199.480(3)(a); 

Houk v. State, 103 Nev. 659, 664, 747 P.2d 1376, 1379 (1987), and we 

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.' 

cc: Hon. Michael Montero, District Judge 

Humboldt County Public Defender 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Humboldt County District Attorney 

Humboldt County Clerk 

1Pineda's fast track statement does not comply with NRAP 3C(h)(1) 

and NRAP 32(a)(4) because it does not have margins of at least one inch 

on all four sides. We caution appellant's counsel, Matt Stermitz, that 

future failure to comply with the applicable rules when filing briefs in this 

court may result in the imposition of sanctions. See NRAP 3C(n). 

2
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Frank McKithen, Appellant.

[634 NYS2d 128]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Finnegan, J.), rendered May 19, 1993, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree, intimidating a victim or witness in the first degree, assault in the first degree, reckless endangerment in the first degree, resisting arrest, and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

*477Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof providing that the terms of imprisonment imposed for attempted murder in the first degree and intimidating a victim or witness in the first degree are to run consecutively to one another and substituting therefor a provision providing that those terms of imprisonment shall run concurrently with each other; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s claim, the counts of the indictment relating to crimes committed on August 21, 1992, and September 1, 1992, were properly joined under CPL 200.20 (2) (b) as the proof relating to each offense was material and admissible as evidence-in-chief upon the trial of the other *(see,*CPL 200.20 [2] [b]; *People v Bongarzone,*69 NY2d 892, 895; *People v Lane,*56 NY2d 1, 7; *People v Brennin,*184 AD2d 715; *People v Quartieri,*171 AD2d 889, 892).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]).

As the People correctly concede, since the same act formed the underlying basis for the convictions of attempted murder in the second degree and intimidating a victim or witness in the first degree, the terms of imprisonment imposed for those crimes should be modified to run concurrently with one another *(see,*Penal Law § 70.25 [2]; *People v Brown,*80 NY2d 361).

In a footnote in his brief, the defendant seeks reargument of his motion to expand the judgment roll to include the Grand Jury minutes, which was denied by decision and order on motion of this Court dated October 26, 1994. This application is not in proper form, and we decline to consider it. Accordingly, his contention with respect to the instructions to the Grand Jury is not properly before us.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]), without merit, or concern errors which are harmless. Sullivan, J. P., Thompson, Hart and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 31.1
 Certification
      (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 registrant, 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)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such
internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to
provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the
preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles;(c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant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(d)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
(the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and
  (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 registrant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 registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
 /s/ Paul A. LangPaul A. LangPresident
No. 54699.

#### Herman Hollander, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 141508-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of raw ostrich skins similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 54236, the claim for free entry under paragraph 1765 was sustained.
No. 63132.

#### H. A. Gogarty, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 58/14518 (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

An examination of the protest disclosing that it was untimely filed under section 514, Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.O. § 1514), the motion to dismiss was granted.
No. 62582.

#### Jas. M. McCunn & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 123978-K and 123995-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

It was stipulated that the facts and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *Browne Vintners Co., Inc.*(34 C. C. P. A. 112, C. A. D. 351) and that the quantities reported by the inspector as manifested, not found, were not in fact received by the importer. In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the decision cited, it was held that duty and internal revenue tax are not assessable upon such portions of the merchandise as were reported by the inspector as manifested, not found. The protests were sustained to this extent.