alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
124 STAT. 3452 PUBLIC LAW 111–316—DEC. 18, 2010 

Public Law 111–316 

111th Congress 

An Act 

To improve certain administrative operations of the Office of the Architect of the 

Capitol, 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. CONSOLIDATION OF STAFF POSITIONS. 

(a) CONSOLIDATION.—Section 108 of the Legislative Branch 

Appropriations Act, 1991 (2 U.S.C. 1849) is amended to read as 

follows: 

‘‘SEC. 108. The Architect of the Capitol may fix the rate of 

basic pay for not more than 32 positions at a rate not to exceed 

the highest total rate of pay for the Senior Executive Service under 

subchapter VIII of chapter 53 of title 5, United States Code, for 

the locality involved.’’. 

(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 1203(e) of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2003 (2 U.S.C. 1805(e)) is amended 

by striking paragraph (3). 

(c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by this section 

shall apply with respect to pay periods beginning on or after the 

date of the enactment of this Act. 

SEC. 2. AVAILABILITY OF APPROPRIATED FUNDS TO ACQUIRE 

BUILDING. 

(a) AVAILABILITY.—The amounts described in subsection (b) 

shall be available to the Architect of the Capitol for the acquisition 

(through purchase, lease, transfer from another Federal entity, 

or otherwise) of real property for the use of the Capitol Police. 

(b) AMOUNTS DESCRIBED.—The amounts described in this subsection are amounts appropriated to, and remaining available for 

obligation by, the Architect of the Capitol under the heading 

‘‘Architect of the Capitol, Capitol Police Buildings and Grounds’’ 

or under the heading ‘‘Architect of the Capitol, Capitol Police 

2 USC 1805 note. 

Dec. 18, 2010 

[H.R. 6399] 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with PUBLAW
PUBLIC LAW 111–316—DEC. 18, 2010 124 STAT. 3453 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 6399: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 156 (2010): 

Nov. 16, considered and passed House. 

Dec. 4, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Buildings, Grounds and Security’’ in any Act making appropriations 

for the legislative branch for fiscal years 2007 through 2010. 

Approved December 18, 2010. 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with PUBLAW
Exhibit
32




PURSUANT
TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




The
undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to, and as required by, 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
the Annual Report of Vista International Technologies Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, and that information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.


VISTA
      INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.Date: April
      15, 2009
                  By:
                  /s/
      Barry J.
      KembleBarry
      J. KembleChief
      Executive
Officer
Docket No. FAA

- 2016

- 0464 Dir ID 2015

- NM

- 046

- AD

Contacts. With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed?

Org a ni z a t i on Per s on C o nta c ted Da t e Re sp on s e

Nat i onal Bus i ness Aircraft As s o ciat i o n Eli Cotti 3 /1 0 /15

R e gio n al Airline As s o ci a ti o n 3 /1 0 /15

Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association Robert Hackman 3 / 1 0 /15

Airlines for America Robert Ireland 3 / 1 0 /15
Order entered November 12, 2021

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-20-00386-CR

No. 05-20-00416-CR

BASHON ANTHONY SHULER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. F18-31754-J & F18-31753-J

ORDER

These appeals were submitted on October 27, 2021. After submission, it 

came to the Court’s attention that the bill of costs is missing from each of the 

clerk’s records. 

We ORDER Dallas County District Clerk Felicia Pitre to file, within TEN

DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS ORDER, supplemental clerk’s records 

containing the bill of costs in each case. In accordance with Texas Code of 
Criminal Procedure article 103.001, the bill of costs shall be signed by the officer 

who charged the cost or the officer who is entitled to receive payment for the costs.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order to Dallas County District 

Clerk Felicia Pitre and to counsel for all parties.

/s/ DAVID J. SCHENCK

PRESIDING JUSTICE
#### ERIC C. BAYER, *ET AL.,*PLAINTIFFS-PETITIONERS, v. AIRLIFT INTERNATIONAL, INC., *ET AL.,*DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

*Messrs. Morrison, Lloyd & Griggs*for the petitioners.

*Messrs. Milion M.*and *Adrian M. Unger, Messrs. Lum, Buinno & Tompkins*and *Mr. Charles H. Hoens, Jr.*for the respondents.

March 26, 1968.

Denied.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ciro Barone, Appellant.

[635 NYS2d 35]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Leone, J.), rendered September 15, 1994, convicting him of enterprise corruption, grand larceny in the third degree (two counts), forgery in the second degree (41 counts), scheme to defraud in the first degree (nine counts), grand larceny in the fourth degree (10 counts), petit larceny (27 counts), and conspiracy in the fifth degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Richmond County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).

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.

Further, there is no merit to the defendant’s contention that the police detective who testified about the Bonanno crime family and the defendant’s connection thereto improperly relied upon informers and other information not in evidence. When testifying, an expert may rely on out-of-court materials if they are of a kind accepted in the profession as reliable in forming a professional opinion *(see, People v Jones,*73 NY2d 427, 430). It is clear that the information relied on by the detective herein in forming his opinion is precisely the kind accepted in his profession as reliable *(see also, United States v Locascio,*6 F3d 924, *cert denied*— US —, 114 S Ct 1646). We also find that the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in qualifying this detective as an expert on organized crime *(see, People v Jones,*171 AD2d 691).

The defendant’s claim that the issuance of the eavesdropping warrant was not based on probable cause is also without merit. The District Attorney’s application was permissibly based upon his information and belief *(see,*CPL 700.20 [3]).

Finally, contrary to the defendant’s contention, the so-called "enterprise corruption” statute (Penal Law § 460.00 *et seq.)*pursuant to which he was convicted is not unconstitutionally vague since any person of ordinary intelligence would understand that his participation in a defrauding scheme for the benefit of an organized crime family is within the ambit of the statute *(see, People v Nelson,*69 NY2d 302, 308). Balletta, J. P., Thompson, Ritter and Florio, JJ., concur.
#### Madeline Somma, Appellant, v Gary Wohlberg et al., Respondents.

[634 NYS2d 401]

—Appeal by the plaintiff from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Henry, J.), dated July 20, 1994.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs, for reasons stated by Justice Henry at the Supreme Court. Balletta, J. P., Rosenblatt, Pizzuto, Joy and Altman, JJ., concur.
No. 52063.

#### Goessling, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 486870-G, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as the gloves which were the subject of *United States*v. *Julius Kayser & Co.*(33 C. C. P. A. 179, C. A. D. 333). The claim at 50 percent ad valorem under paragraph 915, plus any additional duty applicable under paragraph 924, was therefore sustained.
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 19-1981V

UNPUBLISHED

KAREN GODWIN,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Chief Special Master Corcoran 

Filed: June 28, 2021

Special Processing Unit (SPU);

Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;

Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;

Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine 

Administration (SIRVA)

Leigh Finfer, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.

Ida Nassar, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

On December 30, 2019, Karen Godwin filed a petition for compensation under the 

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.

2

(the 

“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered a left shoulder injury related to vaccine 

administration (“SIRVA”) which meets the Table definition for SIRVA or which, in the 

alternative, was caused-in-fact by the influenza vaccine she received on October 26, 

2018. Petition at 1, ¶¶ 2, 21. Petitioner further alleges that she received the vaccine in the

United States, that she suffered the residual effects of her SIRVA for more than six 

months, and that neither she nor any other party has filed a civil action or received 

compensation for her SIRVA. Id. at ¶¶ 2, 21-22. The case was assigned to the Special 

Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required 

to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the E-Government Act 

of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government 

Services). This means the ruling will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance 

with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information, 

the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that 

the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access. 

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease 

of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa 

(2012).
2

On June 25, 2021, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes that 

Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 1. 

Specifically, Respondent believes that “[P]etitioner has satisfied the criteria set forth in 

the Vaccine Injury Table (“Table”) and the Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation 

(“QAI”).” Id. at 6.

In view of Respondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that 

Petitioner is entitled to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Chief Special Master
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Carlos Guerrero, Appellant.

[634 NYS2d 125]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens *466County (Finnegan, J.), rendered October 20, 1992, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree, criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree, and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

466

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered.

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in discharging a sworn juror without first conducting "a reasonably thorough inquiry and recitation on the record of the facts and reasons for invoking the statutory authorization of discharging and replacing [the] juror based on continued unavailability” *(People v Page,*72 NY2d 69, 73; CPL 270.35). The court’s failure to conduct the requisite inquiry constitutes error as a matter of law and is not subject to harmless error analysis *(see, People v Davis,*178 AD2d 424, 425). As such, reversal is mandated and the defendant is entitled to a new trial.

We further find that under the circumstances of this case, the defendant was not entitled to a *Sandoval*hearing *(see, People v Sandoval,*34 NY2d 371).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appéllate review or without merit. Ritter, J. P., Pizzuto, Santucci and Krausman, JJ., concur.
EX 31.1



CERTIFICATION



I, Arthur Viola, certify that:



1.I have reviewed this quarterly amended report on Form 10-Q/A of INFe-Human Resources, Inc.;



2.Based on my knowledge, this amended 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 amended 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 report;



4.I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



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



b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this amened report my 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 amended 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



5.I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant'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 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.





April 22, 2008



/s/  ARTHUR VIOLA

________________________

Arthur Viola

Chief Executive Officer and Sole Director
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 Quarterly Report of American Surgical Holdings, Inc.
(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2009, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), I, James A. Longaker, Chief Financial Officer, 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 (15 U.S.C. 78 m or 78o (d));
      and2.
            The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and result of operations of American
      Surgical Holdings, Inc.




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.






AMERICAN
SURGICAL HOLDINGS, INC.




By:
            /s/
      James A. LongakerJames
      A. LongakerChief
      Financial Officer
              (Principal
      Financial and Accounting Officer)




Date:
August 14, 2009
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8215 

To exempt certain vessels transporting liquefied natural gas from certain 

coastwise endorsement requirements, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 1, 2024 

Mr. PERRY (for himself, Mr. NORMAN, and Mr. ROY) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To exempt certain vessels transporting liquefied natural gas 

from certain coastwise endorsement requirements, 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 ‘‘American LNG First 

5 Act of 2023’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 8215 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXEMPTION FROM COASTWISE LAWS FOR VESSELS 

2 TRANSPORTING LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS. 

3 (a) GENERAL ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS.—Sec4 tion 12103 of title 46, United States Code, is amended 

5 by adding at the end the following: 

6 ‘‘(d) EXCEPTION FOR VESSELS TRANSPORTING LIQ7 UEFIED NATURAL GAS.— 

8 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding subsection 

9 (a), a certificate of documentation may be issued 

10 under this chapter for any vessel transporting meth11 ane, refrigerated liquid, commonly known as lique12 fied natural gas. 

13 ‘‘(2) CERTAIN VESSELS EXCLUDED.—Para14 graph (1) shall not apply to— 

15 ‘‘(A) a vessel that is owned, in whole or in 

16 part, by— 

17 ‘‘(i) a Russian national; or 

18 ‘‘(ii) the Government of the Russian 

19 Federation; 

20 ‘‘(B) a Russian-flagged vessel; 

21 ‘‘(C) a vessel for which any crewmember is 

22 a Russian national; 

23 ‘‘(D) a vessel that is owned in whole or in 

24 part, by— 

25 ‘‘(i) a Chinese national; or 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 8215 IH

1 ‘‘(ii) the Government of the People’s 

2 Republic of China; 

3 ‘‘(E) a Chinese-flagged vessel; or 

4 ‘‘(F) a vessel for which any crewmember is 

5 a Chinese national.’’. 

6 (b) COASTWISE ENDORSEMENT.—Section 

7 12112(a)(2)(B) of title 46, United States Code, is amend8 ed— 

9 (1) in clause (ii) by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end; 

10 (2) in clause (iii) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end 

11 and inserting ‘‘or’’; and 

12 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

13 ‘‘(iv) transports methane, refrigerated liq14 uid, commonly known as liquefied natural gas; 

15 and’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 54 (Wednesday, March 21, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 13239]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-5093]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of 
information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 
U.S.C. Chapter 35).
    Agency: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
    Title: Economic Performance in the Commercial Stone Crab and 
Lobster Fisheries in Florida.
    Form Number(s): None.
    OMB Approval Number: None.
    Type of Request: Regular submission.
    Burden Hours: 58.
    Number of Respondents: 58.
    Average Hours per Response: One hour.
    Needs and Uses: The objective of the proposed collection is to 
gather data with which to establish socio-economic baselines in the 
commercial stone crab and lobster fisheries, assess the financial and 
economic performance of the industry, and develop economic models to 
evaluate future management proposals. Data will be collected from stone 
crab fishermen that land in counties along the west coast of Florida 
and from lobster/stone crab fishermen that land in the Miami River 
area. The data collection will occur between May and October 2007 when 
the stone crab fishery is closed.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations.
    Frequency: One-time only.
    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.
    OMB Desk Officer: David Rostker, (202) 395-3897.
    Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained 
by calling or writing Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance 
Officer, (202) 482-0266, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#204468594e454b60444f430e474f56"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="37537f4e59525c7753585419505841">[email protected]</span></a>).
    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information 
collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice 
to David Rostker, OMB Desk Officer, Fax number (202) 395-7285, or 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#85c1e4f3ece1dad7eaf6f1eee0f7c5eae8e7abe0eaf5abe2eaf3"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="145075627d704b467b67607f7166547b79763a717b643a737b62">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: March 14, 2007.
Gwellnar Banks,
Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
 [FR Doc. E7-5093 Filed 3-20-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### SARAH A. MANNING, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. JACOB S. KASDIN, *ET ALS.,*DEFENDANTS-PETITIONERS.

See same case below: 97 *N. J. Super.*406.

*Messrs. Friedman, Grundman & Friedman*for the petitioners.

*Messrs. Schench, Price, Smith & Hing; Mr. Stewart G. Pollock*and *Mr. John J. Harper*for the respondent.

January 16, 1968.

Denied.