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

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice 5728] 

The Shipping Coordinating Committee (SHC) will conduct an open meeting at 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, April 5, 2007, in Room 6103 of the United States Coast Guard Headquarters Building, 2100 Second Street, SW., Washington, DC 20593-0001. The primary purpose of the meeting is to prepare for the 11th session of the International Maritime Organization's Sub-Committee on Bulk Liquids and Gases (BLG) to be held at the Royal Horticultural Halls and Conference Centre, 80 Vincent Square, London, England from April 16th to April 20th, 2007. 

The primary matters to be considered include: 

—Evaluation of safety and pollution hazards of chemicals and preparation of consequential amendments 

—Development of guidelines for uniform implementation of the 2004 Ballast Water Management Convention 

                    —Review of MARPOL Annex VI and the NOX                     Technical Code                 

—Development of provisions for gas-fuelled ships 

—Amendments to MARPOL Annex I for the prevention of marine pollution during oil transfer operations between ships at sea 

—Oil tagging systems 

                    —Guidelines on other technological methods verifiable or enforceable to limit SOx                     emissions                 

—Application of requirements for the carriage of bio-fuels and bio-fuel blends 

—Consideration of IACS unified interpretations 

—Casualty analysis 

—Work program and agenda for BLG 12 

Hard copies of documents associated with the 11th session of BLG will be available at this meeting. To request further copies of documents please write to the address provided below. 

Members of the public may attend this meeting up to the seating capacity of the room. Interested persons may seek information by writing to Mr. Thomas Felleisen, Commandant (CG-3PSO-3), U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, 2100 Second Street, SW., Room 1214, Washington, DC 20593-0001 or by calling (202) 372-1424. 

Dated: 16 March 2007. 

Michael E. Tousley, 

Executive Secretary,  Shipping Coordinating Committee,  Department of State.

[FR Doc. E7-5252 Filed 3-21-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710-09-P
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice 5727] 

*Summary:*                     The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) World Radiocommunication Conference (WRC) will take place from October 22-November 16, 2007 in Geneva, Switzerland. As part of the preparations for the formation of the United States delegation to the World Radiocommunication Conference, the Department of State is requesting                           ( print page 13550)                        expressions of interest in being on this delegation.                 

                    All delegation members must be United States citizens. Expressions of interest and a description of what company or organization the interested person represents and his/her area of expertise should be sent to Anne Jillson, International Communications and Information Policy, Department of State. Her e-mail address is                     *jillsonad@state.gov*, her fax number is 202 647-5957, and her phone number is 202 647-5205.                 

Expressions of interest should be received no later than  April 10, 2007. 

Dated: March 15, 2007. 

Anne D. Jillson, 

Foreign Affairs Officer,  International Communications and  Information Policy, Department of State.

 [FR Doc. E7-5253 Filed 3-21-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710-07-P
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 828 

To direct the reinstatement of an individual involuntarily separated from 

an Armed Force solely on the basis of refusing to receive a vaccination 

against COVID–19. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 6, 2023 

Mr. DUNN of Florida (for himself, Mr. JACKSON of Texas, Mr. MILLS, Mr. 

EZELL, Mr. POSEY, Mr. CLOUD, Mr. C. SCOTT FRANKLIN of Florida, 

Mrs. HARSHBARGER, Mr. GIMENEZ, and Mr. BUCHANAN) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To direct the reinstatement of an individual involuntarily 

separated from an Armed Force solely on the basis of 

refusing to receive a vaccination against COVID–19. 

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 ‘‘Troop Return Of Over5 due Payment Act’’ or the ‘‘TROOP Act’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 828 IH

1 SEC. 2. REINSTATEMENT AND BACK PAY FOR AN INDI2 VIDUAL INVOLUNTARILY SEPARATED FROM 

3 AN ARMED FORCE SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF 

4 REFUSING TO RECEIVE A VACCINATION 

5 AGAINST COVID–19. 

6 (a) REINSTATEMENT.—At the request of a covered 

7 individual, the Secretary concerned shall— 

8 (1) reinstate the covered individual as a mem9 ber of the Armed Force concerned, in the same rank 

10 and grade the covered individual held at the time of 

11 separation from the Armed Force concerned; and 

12 (2) include, in the computation of the retired or 

13 retainer pay of such covered individual, the period 

14 between the involuntary separation and the rein15 statement of the covered individual. 

16 (b) BACK PAY.—A covered individual who was invol17 untarily discharged from an Armed Force and who makes 

18 a request under subsection (a) shall be entitled to back 

19 pay for the period between such separation and reinstate20 ment of the covered individual. 

21 (c) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

22 (1) The term ‘‘covered individual’’ means an in23 dividual who was involuntarily separated from an 

24 Armed Force solely on the basis of the refusal of 

25 such individual to receive a vaccination against 

26 COVID–19. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 828 IH

1 (2) The term ‘‘Secretary concerned’’ has the 

2 meaning given such term in section 101 of title 10, 

3 United States Code. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
No. 60918.

#### Bluefries New York, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 280264-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with rule 5 (b) of the rules of this court, as amended, effective July 1, 1955, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
*Exhibit 32.1*

**CERTIFICATION**

          In connection with the periodic report of 724 Solutions Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, John J. Sims, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:

          The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods indicated.

          This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, “filed” with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

                         Date: March 31, 2006

|   | By:    | /s/ John J.   Sims        |
|--------|--------|---------------------------|
|   |   |                           |
|   |   | John J. Sims              |
|   |   | *Chief Executive Officer* |
No. 38901.

#### Protests 928841-G, etc., of Fisher Scientific Co. et al. (Pittsburgh and St. Louis).

Opinion by

Evans, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARABANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual report of GEOPHARMA, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Mihir K. Taneja, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 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/ Mihir K. TanejaMihir K. TanejaChief Executive OfficerJune 30, 2008
No. 55302.

#### Independent Cordage Co., Inc., and Sandoz Chemical Works, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 94633-K and 150874-K (New York).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

The protests were dismissed.
#### In the Matter of Shoshana Isakov et al., Appellants, v City of New York et al., Respondents.

[634 NYS2d 394]

—In a proceeding for leave to serve a late notice of claim pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (5), the petitioners appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated May 3, 1993, which denied the application.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the application is granted, and the proposed notice of claim dated June 30, 1992, is deemed served.

In view of the minor delay (11 days) and the absence of prejudice to the defendants, the denial of the plaintiffs’ application for leave to serve a late notice of claim was an improvident exercise of discretion under the circumstances of this case *(see,*General Municipal Law § 50-e; *Matter of Ealey v City of New York,*204 AD2d 720; *Matter of D:Anjou v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp.,*196 AD2d 818; *Matter of Gandía v New York City Hous. Auth.,*173 AD2d 824). Balletta, J. P., Ritter, Copertino and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed May

21 , 2013

.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 13

- 00396

- CV

IN RE VN PRINTING CO MPANY , Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 270th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2010

- 03463



### M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

On May 7, 2013, relator V N Printing Company filed a petition for writ of
mandamus in this c ourt. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. §22.221; see also Tex. R. App.
P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this c ourt to compel the Honorable Brent2

Gamble, presiding judge of the 270th District Court of Harris County , to vacate his order requiring the plaintiffs’ depositions to be taken via the interne t

. Relator ha s not established entitlement to the extraordinary relief of writ of mandamus. Accordingly, we deny relator ’ s petition for writ of mandamus.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Brown, Christopher, and McCally.
#### In the Matter of Clara Reiss, Respondent, v Robert Reiss, Appellant.

[221 NYS2d 467]

—Order, Family Court, New York County (Mary Bednar, J.), entered September 26, 1994, which granted petitioner an order of protection, following a fact-finding determination that respondent committed a family offense by engaging in conduct that constitutes harassment in the second degree, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent’s intent to commit harassment in the second degree was properly inferred from the surrounding circumstances (see, *Kellermueller v Port Auth.,*201 AD2d 427, 429, citing *People v Collins,*178 AD2d 789), including, in particular, the 44 year old respondent lying on the living room floor of petitioner, his mother, for a day and a half. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Rubin, Kupferman, Asch and Williams, JJ.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v ROGELIO N. BOBADILLA, Stewardsman, U. S. Navy, Appellant

19 USCMA 178, 41 CMR 178

No. 22,449

January 2, 1970

*Captain Michael 1. Walling,*USMCR, was on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Lieutenant Colonel Charles J. Keever,*USMC, was on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

DARDEN, Judge:

Pursuant to his plea of guilty, the accused was tried and convicted by a special court-martial at the United States Naval Station, Subic Bay, Philippines, for absence without leave, in violation of Article 86, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 886. The single specification under the Charge reads:

> *179“In that Stewardsman Rogelio N. BOBADILLA, U. S. Navy, U. S. Naval Station, Subic Bay, Philippines, did, on or about 11 February 1969, without authority, absent himself from his unit, to wit: the USS HANCOCK (CVA-19) then located at Subic Bay, Philippines, and did remain so absent until on or about 7 April 1969, a period of about 55 days, and he, the same BOBADILLA, *as the result of said absence missed said ship when she sailed on 12 February 1969.”*[Emphasis supplied.]

We granted review to consider whether congressional enactment of Article 87, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 887, precludes the pleading of missing movement in a specification alleging the violation of Article 86.

Specifications containing a phrase identical to the one emphasized above, except for the date, caused this Court to entertain the same question in United States v Venerable, 19 USCMA 174, 41 CMR 174. In that case the presence of nonprejudicial error resulted in our affirmance of the board of review opinion. We view this case in the same way.

It does not appear that Bobadilla was misled by the erroneous addition to the pleadings. Cf. United States v Johnson, 3 USCMA 174, 11 CMR 174; United States v Venerable, supra. His conviction is therefore valid. But we do not condone the procedure followed. Unlike the length of an unauthorized absence, the value of an article stolen, or the manner in which a desertion is terminated, the *fact*of missing movement authorizes no increase in the permissible maximum punishment for absence without leave. See Table of Maximum Punishments, paragraph 127c, Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 1969 (Revised edition). Under these circumstances, the *fact*of missing movement is an erroneous addition to the pleading. Consequently, we expect the practice to cease.

The sentence imposed in this instance, unchanged by reviewing authorities, consists of a bad-conduct discharge, confinement at hard labor for three months, and reduction to the pay grade of E-l. We believe the court-martial sentence was not more severe than it would have been if there had been no reference to missing movement. Cf. United States v Venerable, supra. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the Court of Military Review.

Judge FERGUSON concurs.

Chief Judge Quinn concurs in the result.
#### Commonwealth *v.*Hilliard et al., Appellants.

Argued October 10, 1968.

Before Bell, C. J., Musmanno, Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O’Brien and Roberts, JJ.

*600reargument refused February 17, 1969.

*Lee G. McCandless,*with him *Charles T. Chew,*for appellants.

*Robert J. Stock,*Special Counsel, with him *Benjamin B. Solomon,*Assistant Attorney General, *Raymond C. Miller,*Deputy Attorney General, and *William O. Sennett,*Attorney General, for Commonwealth, appellee.

January 15, 1969:

Opinion

Pee Curiam,

Orders affirmed.

Mr. Justice Musmanno did not participate in the decision of this case.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Tyrone Battle, Appellant.

[634 NYS2d 192]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Mogil, J.), rendered September 22, 1993, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s challenge to the racial composition of the jury panel was waived by his failure to make that challenge in writing to the trial court prior to the selection of the jury *(see,*
      *649CPL 270.10 [2]; *People v Parks,*41 NY2d 36, 41; *People v Consolazio,*40 NY2d 446, 455, *cert denied*433 US 914; *People v Sloan,*202 AD2d 525; *People v Haye,*154 AD2d 392). Even in the absence of this procedural obstacle, however, the defendant’s failure to demonstrate that the claimed underrepresentation of blacks was the result of systematic exclusion, i.e., "inherent in the particular jury-selection process utilized” *(Duren v Missouri,*439 US 357, 366), requires rejection of his challenge *(see, People v Guzman,*60 NY2d 403, 411, *cert denied*466 US 951; *People v Blake,*170 AD2d 613, 614; *People v Haye, supra).*

Reversal is not warranted because of the failure to record the entire voir dire proceedings since the defendant has failed to demonstrate any prejudice *(see, People v Harrison,*85 NY2d 794, *People v Fearon,*13 NY2d 59, 61; *People v Cameron,*219 AD2d 662).

The defendant’s sentence was not excessive *(see, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Balletta, J. P., Ritter, Copertino and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.
#### Michael Morton et al., Respondents, v CIGNA Property and Casualty Insurance Company, Appellant.

[634 NYS2d 110]

—Order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered on or about June 20, 1995, which directed defendant insurer to conduct and conclude its examinations under oath on dates certain or be deemed to have waived such examinations, is unanimously modified, on the law and facts, to permit further reasonable discovery by the defendant, pursuant to the terms of the policy, and otherwise affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The court’s direction that defendant complete examinations under oath was a proper exercise of discretion given that defendant had still not concluded its investigation or determined the issue of coverage some two and one-half years after the loss. The ruling did not interfere with defendant’s contractual right to such examinations nor bar it from asserting as a defense plaintiffs’ failure to cooperate. However, since it also appears that plaintiffs have refused to comply with examinations under oath and production of some requested documents, we modify to allow defendant to conduct further reasonable discovery deemed necessary pursuant to the policy. Concur— Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Ross, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8346 

To assist survivors of stroke and other debilitating health occurrences in 

returning to work. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 10, 2024 

Mrs. BEATTY (for herself and Mr. SMITH of New Jersey) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and the 

Workforce 

A BILL 

To assist survivors of stroke and other debilitating health 

occurrences in returning to work. 

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 ‘‘Return to Work 

5 Awareness Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ASSISTING SURVIVORS OF STROKE AND OTHER DE7 BILITATING HEALTH OCCURRENCES IN RE8 TURNING TO WORK. 

9 The Secretary of Labor, acting through the Job Ac10 commodation Network, may disseminate information and 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8346 IH

1 promote awareness among survivors of stroke and other 

2 debilitating health occurrences, such as traumatic brain 

3 injury and heart attack, and the families of such survivors, 

4 as well as among private employers, government agencies, 

5 employee representatives, and service providers to— 

6 (1) assist survivors of stroke and such other de7 bilitating health occurrences in returning to work; 

8 (2) improve survivor’s employability and dem9 onstrate to employers the most effective ways to cap10 italize on the value and talent that these survivors 

11 add to the workplace; and 

12 (3) enhance self-employment and entrepreneur13 ship options for survivors. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
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 Sun Power Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Andrew Schwab, the President, Secretary and Treasurer 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 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 result of operations of the Company.

Andrew Schwab

/s/ Andrew Schwab
President, Secretary and Treasurer

April 15, 2003
No. 53052.

#### Leather Import & Mfg. Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 54480-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

It was stipulated that the issue herein is the same in all material respects as that presented in *Mamary Bros., Inc.*v. *United States*(21 Cust. Ct. 135, C. D. 1142). In accordance therewith it was held that the currency of the invoices should be converted at the buying rate in the New York market *289at noon on the day of exportation (the “free” rate of exchange for pounds sterling),, as certified by the Federal Reserve bank and set forth by the collector on each of the entries involved. The protests were sustained to this extent.