alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CERTIFICATION OF				PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTING OFFICER OF				HYBRID DYNAMICS CORPORATION				PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

I, Darren Jensen, Principal Accounting Officer of Hybrid Dynamics Corporation (the "Company"), hereby certify that the accompanying report on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2007 and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Report") by the Company fully complies with the requirements of that section.				I further certify that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial operations and results of operations of the Company.

| Date:  November 14, 2007                                                                                                                                                     |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                                                                                                                         |
| By:  /s/ DARREN JENSEN                          |
| Darren Jensen                                                                                                                                                                     |
| Principal Accounting Officer                                                                                                                                                      |

----
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4937 

To require Senate approval before the United States assumes any obligation 

under a WHO pandemic agreement and to suspend funding for the 

WHO until such agreement is ratified by the Senate. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

AUGUST 1, 2024 

Mr. BARRASSO (for himself, Mr. CRAMER, Mr. CRAPO, Mr. CRUZ, Mr. 

DAINES, Mr. JOHNSON, Ms. LUMMIS, Mr. MARSHALL, Mr. PAUL, Mr. 

RICKETTS, Mr. RISCH, Mr. WICKER, and Mr. RUBIO) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations 

A BILL 

To require Senate approval before the United States assumes 

any obligation under a WHO pandemic agreement and 

to suspend funding for the WHO until such agreement 

is ratified by the Senate. 

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 ‘‘Defending American 

5 Sovereignty in Global Pandemics Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 4937 IS

1 SEC. 2. TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF UNITED STATES 

2 FUNDING FOR THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANI3 ZATION UNTIL PANDEMIC TREATY IS AP4 PROVED BY THE SENATE. 

5 (a) PROHIBITION.—The United States shall not be6 come a party to a convention, agreement, or other inter7 national instrument under the Constitution of the World 

8 Health Organization to strengthen pandemic prevention, 

9 preparedness, and response except pursuant to a treaty 

10 made under Article II, section 2, clause 2 of the Constitu11 tion of the United States on or after the date of the enact12 ment of this Act. 

13 (b) FUNDING RESTRICTION.—The Government of 

14 the United States may not obligate or expend any funds 

15 for the World Health Organization beginning on the effec16 tive date of an agreement described in subsection (a) and 

17 ending on the date on which the Senate approves a resolu18 tion of ratification with respect to such convention, agree19 ment, or instrument. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
# EUR-Lex - 52007AP0058 - EN

*|*

# 52007AP0058

**European Parliament legislative resolution of 13 March 2007 on the proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EEC) No 1883/78 laying down general rules for the financing of interventions by the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund, Guarantee Section (COM(2007)0012 - C6-0057/2007 - 2007/0005(CNS)) **

*
Official Journal 301 E , 13/12/2007 P. 0043 - 0043 *

P6_TA(2007)0058

Financing of interventions by the EAGGF, Guarantee Section *

European Parliament legislative resolution of 13 March 2007 on the proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EEC) No 1883/78 laying down general rules for the financing of interventions by the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund, Guarantee Section (COM(2007)0012 — C6-0057/2007 — 2007/0005(CNS))

(Consultation procedure)

The European Parliament,

- having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2007)0012) [1],

- having regard to Article 37 of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C6-0057/2007),

- having regard to Rules 51 and 43(1) of its Rules of Procedure,

- having regard to the report of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (A6-0038/2007),

1. Approves the Commission proposal;

2. Calls on the Council to notify Parliament if it intends to depart from the text approved by Parliament;

3. Asks the Council to consult Parliament again if it intends to amend the Commission proposal substantially;

4. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and Commission.

[1] Not yet published in OJ.

--------------------------------------------------
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v GEORGE E. LUCAS, Specialist Four, U. S. Army, Appellant

19 USCMA 172, 41 CMR 172

No. 22,301

December 24, 1969

*Colonel Daniel T. Ghent*and *Captain Lee A. Ran*were on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Colonel David T. Bryant, Major R. Kevin McHugh,*and *Captain Edward W. Hieronymus*were on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM:

As in United States v Bell, 19 USCMA 167, 41 CMR 167, the data as to pretrial restraint presented to the court-martial during the sentence proceedings indicates the nature of the restraint pending trial was changed from restriction to confinement. We pointed out in *Bell*that an increase of this kind can reasonably be attributed to some act of misconduct committed by the accused in the interim period and, therefore, requires that the court members be instructed not to draw any such inference and not to consider the increase in the form of restraint as evidence of aggravation justifying a more severe sentence than they would otherwise impose.

Here, as in the *Bell*case, the court members were not specifically instructed to disregard the change in restraint. However, other instructions relating to the matter were given. First, the law officer instructed the court members that the accused was “to be punished only for the offenses” of which he was convicted. Secondly, unlike *Bell,*the instructional reference to pretrial restraint in this case was juxtaposed between remarks on the accused’s youth, the absence of *173previous convictions, and that the accused volunteered for duty in Vietnam, and it clearly appears from the entire instruction that the data as to pretrial restraint was to be regarded by the court members as matter in mitigation, not aggravation. In our opinion, these instructions were sufficient to guard against the risk that an inference of uncharged misconduct would be used against the accused.

The decision of the board of review is affirmed.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA
F OURTH D ISTRICT

JOHN DANIEL FLANAGAN , Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee

.

No. 4D 16

- 2277

[ July 6 , 2017 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Glenn Kelley , Judge; L.T. Case No. 50

- 2013

- CF

- 011054

- AXXX

- MB

.
Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Alan T. Lipson, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Rachael Kaiman, Assistant A ttorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed.

C IKLIN , K LINGENSMITH , J J., and M ETZGER , E LIZABETH A ., Associate Judge,

concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
No. 61888.

#### Reliance International Mfg., Ltd., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 284967-K (C) (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of parakeet playpens, composed in chief value of steel, the same in all material respects as those the subject of *Reliance International Mfg., Ltd.*v. *United States*(37 Cust. Ct. 182, C. D. 1820), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 53 (Tuesday, March 20, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 12968]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-4962]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

26 CFR Part 1

[TD 9264]
RIN 1545-BG49


Guidance Necessary To Facilitate Business Electronic Filing and 
Burden Reduction; Correction

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Correction notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document contains a correction to final and temporary 
regulations (TD 9264) that were published in the Federal Register on 
Tuesday, May 30, 2006 (71 FR 30591) affecting taxpayers that file 
Federal income tax returns. They simplify, clarify, or eliminate 
reporting burdens and also eliminate regulatory impediments to the 
electronic filing of certain statements that taxpayers are required to 
include on or with their Federal income tax returns.

DATES: The correction is effective May 30, 2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Grid Glyer, (202) 622-7930 (not a 
toll-free number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The final and temporary regulations that are the subject of the 
correction are under sections 279, 302, 331, 332, 338, 351, 355, 368, 
381, 382, 1081, 1221, 1502, 1563, and 6012 of the Internal Revenue 
Code.

Need for Correction

    As published, final and temporary regulations (TD 9264) contain an 
error that may prove to be misleading and is in need of clarification.

Correction of Publication

    Accordingly, the publication of the final and temporary regulations 
(TD 9264), which were the subject of FR Doc. 06-4873, is corrected as 
follows:
    On page 30591, in the document heading, the language ``RIN 1545-
BF26'' is corrected to read ``RIN 1545-BG49''.

LaNita Van Dyke,
Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, 
Associate Chief Counsel, (Procedure and Administration).
[FR Doc. E7-4962 Filed 3-19-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 21

SUBSIDIARIES

THE FOLLOWING IS A LIST OF THE COMPANY'S SUBSIDIARIES:

                                                          PERCENTAGE OF VOTING
                                                          SECURITIES OWNED BY
NAME                            ORGANIZED UNDER LAWS OF   KEANE, INC.
-----------------------------   -----------------------   ---------------------

Dataskills, Inc.                Massachusetts             100%
Keane Federal Systems, Inc.     Delaware                  100%
Keane Canada, Inc.              Canada                    100%
169963 Canada, Inc.             Canada                    100%
Keane Securities Corporation    Massachusetts             100%
Keane UK Ltd.                   United Kingdom            100%
Keane Ltd.                      United Kingdom            100%
Keane Tech, LLC                 Delaware                  100%
Keane Business Trust            Massachusetts             100%
Keane Care, Inc.                Washington                100%
Keane Services Company          California                100%
Keane India Holdings, Inc.      Delaware                  100%
Keane Mauritius Ltd. One        Mauritius                 100%
Keane Mauritius Ltd. Two        Mauritius                 100%
Keane India Ltd.                India                     100%
(Reap. Dec. *8558)*

#### J. D. Smith Inter-Ocean, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 884601.

(Decided March 9, 1956)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

*Warren E. Burger,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Laweence, Judge:

When the above-enumerated appeal for a reappraisement was called for hearing, there was no appearance on behalf of plaintiff and the case was ordered submitted by the court.

In conformity with the requirements of the statute (28 U. S. C. § 2631), I have examined the record in the appeal before the court and find nothing therein which tends in any way to overcome the presumption of correctness which attaches to the decision of the appraiser. I find and hold, therefore, that the proper values of the merchandise are the values returned by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
#### In the Matter of DOMINICK R. RINALDI, an attorney at law.

July 16, 1962.

Name of respondent stricken from the roll of attorneys at law.
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 5050 

To prohibit the importation of certain minerals from the Russian Federation. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 12, 2024 

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

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To prohibit the importation of certain minerals from the 

Russian Federation. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON IMPORTATION OF CERTAIN 

4 MINERALS FROM THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Beginning on the date that is 90 

6 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, no min7 eral specified in subsection (b) that is produced in the 

8 Russian Federation or by a Russian entity may be im9 ported into the United States. 

10 (b) MINERALS SPECIFIED.—The minerals specified 

11 in this subsection are the following: 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 5050 IS

1 (1) Braggite. 

2 (2) Copper. 

3 (3) Nickel. 

4 (4) Palladium. 

5 (5) Platinum. 

6 (6) Rhodium. 

7 (7) Ruthenium. 

8 (8) Zinc. 

9 (c) TERMINATION.— 

10 (1) IN GENERAL.—The prohibition under sub11 section (a) shall, subject to paragraph (2), terminate 

12 on the date that is one year after the President cer13 tifies to Congress that the Government of the Rus14 sian Federation has ended all hostilities against 

15 Ukraine. 

16 (2) PROBATIONARY PERIOD.—If, at any time 

17 during the 3-year period after the President submits 

18 a certification described in paragraph (1), the Presi19 dent certifies to Congress that the Government of 

20 the Russian Federation has resumed hostilities 

21 against Ukraine, the prohibition under subsection 

22 (a) shall— 

23 (A) resume effect; 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•S 5050 IS

1 (B) remain in effect until the President 

2 submits to Congress another certification de3 scribed in paragraph (1); and 

4 (C) after the President submits such a cer5 tification, be subject to resumption as described 

6 in this paragraph. 

7 (d) NO WAIVER.—Notwithstanding any other provi8 sion of law, the President may not waive the prohibition 

9 under subsection (a). 

10 (e) RUSSIAN ENTITY DEFINED.—In this section, the 

11 term ‘‘Russian entity’’ means an entity that is organized 

12 under the laws of, or otherwise subject to the jurisdiction 

13 of, the Russian Federation. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
No. 50101.

#### Protests 32256-K, etc., of Trefousse Gloves, Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
# C_2007284EN.01000201.xml

| 27.11.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 284/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.11.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 284/2

---

State aids — Decisions to propose appropriate measures pursuant to Article 88(1) of the EC Treaty where the Member State concerned has accepted those measures

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 284/03)

| Date of adoption of the decision | 24.4.2007 |
| --- | --- |
| Reference number of the aid | E 12/05 |
| Member State | Poland |
| Region | — |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | Nieograniczona gwarancja dla Poczty Polskiej |
| Legal basis | Ustawa z dnia 28 lutego 2003 r.„Prawo upadłościowe i naprawcze” |
| Type of measure | Individual aid |
| Objective | Operating aid |
| Form of aid | Guarantee |
| Budget | — |
| Intensity | — |
| Duration | Unlimited |
| Economic sectors | Post and telecommunications |
| Name and address of the granting authority | — |
| Other information | In the light of the measures taken by the Polish authorities to abolish the unlimited State guarantee in favour of Poczta Polska by 30 June 2008 at the latest, the Commission has closed the existing aid proceedings according to Article 19 of the Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (the Procedural Regulation) |

Date of adoption of the decision

24.4.2007

Reference number of the aid

E 12/05

Member State

Poland

Region

—

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

Nieograniczona gwarancja dla Poczty Polskiej

Legal basis

Ustawa z dnia 28 lutego 2003 r.„Prawo upadłościowe i naprawcze”

Type of measure

Individual aid

Objective

Operating aid

Form of aid

Guarantee

Budget

—

Intensity

—

Duration

Unlimited

Economic sectors

Post and telecommunications

Name and address of the granting authority

—

Other information

In the light of the measures taken by the Polish authorities to abolish the unlimited State guarantee in favour of Poczta Polska by 30 June 2008 at the latest, the Commission has closed the existing aid proceedings according to Article 19 of the Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (the Procedural Regulation)

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/

---
(Reap. Dec. 9514)

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

Entry Nos. 456; 712.

(Decided September 30, 1959)

*La/wrence & Tuttle*for tbe plaintiff.

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

Oliver, Chief Judge:

These two appeals for reappraisement are before me for decision on a written stipulation, reading as follows:

> IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for tbe plaintiffs and tbe Assistant Attorney General for tbe United States concerning tbe merchandise referred to in tbe attached Schedule A, as follows:

> 1. Said merchandise consists of binoculars and leather carrying cases which, in *John P. Herber & Co., Inc.*v. *United States,*C.D. 1519, this Court held to be subject to appraisement separately according to tbe value of each class of article.

> 2. At tbe time of exportation of such merchandise to tbe United States, tbe price 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 in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States, is the unit price as shown in th.e attached Schedule A, in U,S. currency, cases and packing as shown in said Schedule A, the foreign value of such or similar merchandise being no higher.

> 3. The above appeals for reappraisement are abandoned as to all entries and merchandise not listed in the attached Schedule A, and the said appeals for reappraisement may be deemed to he submitted for decision upon this stipulation.

Oil the agreed facts, I hold that the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise in question is export value, as defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, and that such statutory value therefor is the unit price (in United States currency) as shown in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, cases and packing, as shown in said schedule “A.”

As to all other merchandise, except that hereinabove identified, the appeals for reappraisement are dismissed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
No. 58578.

protest 158517-K (New York).

#### Franklin D. Roosevelt, Jr., and Massce-Barnett Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of a motion-picture projector similar in all material respects to that the subject of *United States*v. *Milton Diamond and Massee-Barnett Co., Inc.*(42 C. C. P. A. 9, C. A. D. 561), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Deon Nelson, Appellant.

[635 NYS2d 574]

—Case held, decision reserved and matter remitted to Onondaga County Court for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: The record indicates that, as jury selection was about to begin, defendant was in court wearing a leg restraint, and was surrounded by seven Sheriffs Deputies. "While the question of securing the defendant in the courtroom rests within *946the sound discretion of the trial court, there must exist on the record testimony regarding the necessity for securing the defendant” *(People v Reingold,*44 AD2d 191, 197). The record contains no such testimony. That error may be cured, however, by a post-trial hearing *(see, People v Hope,*67 AD2d 754,755; *People v Reingold, supra; People v Williams,*36 AD2d 1018), which should address the nature of the leg restraint, the extent to which it was visible to the jury and the reasons for its necessity, as well as the number of Sheriff's Deputies present and the reasons for their presence. (Appeal from Judgment of Onondaga County Court, Burke, J.—Murder, 2nd Degree.) Present—Denman, P. J., Lawton, Wesley, Doerr and Balio, JJ.