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

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8346 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

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.

    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 ``Return to Work Awareness Act''.

SEC. 2. ASSISTING SURVIVORS OF STROKE AND OTHER DEBILITATING HEALTH 
              OCCURRENCES IN RETURNING TO WORK.

    The Secretary of Labor, acting through the Job Accommodation 
Network, may disseminate information and promote awareness among 
survivors of stroke and other debilitating health occurrences, such as 
traumatic brain injury and heart attack, and the families of such 
survivors, as well as among private employers, government agencies, 
employee representatives, and service providers to--
            (1) assist survivors of stroke and such other debilitating 
        health occurrences in returning to work;
            (2) improve survivor's employability and demonstrate to 
        employers the most effective ways to capitalize on the value 
        and talent that these survivors add to the workplace; and
            (3) enhance self-employment and entrepreneurship options 
        for survivors.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANTTO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C.1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q forthe period ended JUNE 30, 2005 (the "Report")of TECHNOLOGY INVESTMENT CAPITAL CORP. (the"Registrant"), as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, JONATHAN H. COHEN, theChief Executive Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the bestof my knowledge, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934, as amended; and

(2) The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Registrant.

|  | /s/ Jonathan H.Cohen                Name: Jonathan H. CohenDate: August 8, 2005 |
|--|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
#### Theodore L. Terry, *Respondent, v.*Stephen A. Marshall and others, *Appellants.*

Judgment and order denying new trial reversed, and new trial granted, costs to abide event. Opinion by Barnard, P. J.; Dyeman, J., not sitting.
EXHIBIT 32 - CEO AND CFO CERTIFICATION


                       Statement Furnished Pursuant to
                Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

     The undersigned are the Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer of OBN Holdings, Inc. (the "Company").  This
Certificate is made pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002.  This Certification accompanies the Quarterly Report on Form
10-QSB of the Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2005 (the
"10-QSB Report").

     The undersigned certifies that the 10-QSB Report fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the 10-
QSB Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company on the dates and
for the periods presented therein.


Date: November 14, 2005                    /s/ ROGER N. SMITH
                                          --------------------------
                                               Roger N. Smith
                                               Chief Executive Officer


Date: November 14, 2005                    /s/ LARRY TAYLOR
                                          --------------------------
                                               Larry Taylor
                                               Chief Financial Officer



<PAGE>
# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 4- 16 53

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Bi ll ie Jo e Ch ap m an
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.
Dan Crai g, Oak da le Pri so n Ward en ; Do ct orGary Kell er, Oak da le Pri so n Dr.; Jo hn Bal dwi n, Di rect or ; M arkLun d, Warde n, Cl ari nd a Pri so n; Dr. Kell er, Do ct or , Cl ari nd a Pri so n
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el le es

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e So ut he rn Dis tri ct of I owa - Des M oi ne s

__ __ __ __ __ __ Su bm it te d: Octo be r 7, 2 01 4 Fi le d: Octo be r 10 , 20 14 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re COLLOTON, BOW MAN, an d S HEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __ PER CURI AM.B i l l i e Jo e Ch ap m an ap pe al s fro m th e or de r of th e Dis tri ct Co ur t gr an t i n g 1

s u mm a r y jud gm en t to th e de fen da nt s in hi s 42 U.S.C. § 19 83 act io n in whi ch Ch ap m an ch al le n g e d th e de fen da nt s’ in vo lu nt ary ad m in is tra ti on of m ed ic at io n to hi m

. Afte r de no vo rev ie w, we affi rm

. See Green v. Dorm ire , 69 1 F.3 d 91 7, 92 1 (8 th Ci r

. 2 01 2) (s ta nd ard of rev ie w). The reco rd sh ows th at th e st at e-co ur t pr oc eed in g, whi ch oc cu rred be fo r e Ch ap m an was in vo lu nt ari ly tre at ed wit h an ti ps y ch ot ic

m ed ic at io n, sa ti sf

ie d th e req ui rem en ts of du e pr oc es s. See W as hi ng t o n v
. H a rp er, 49 4 U.S. 21 0, 22 7, 23 5– 36 (1 99 0) (h ol di ng th at th e Due Pro c e s s C la us e al lo ws an in m at e to be in vo lu nt ari ly tre at ed wit h an ti ps y ch ot ic m ed ic at io n if he “ is da ng ero us to hi ms e l f o r ot he rs an d th e tre at m en t is in th e in m at e’s m ed ic al in te res t” an d

ex pl ai ni ng th e pr oc ed ur al pr ot ect io ns req ui red ). F ur th er, th e Dis tri ct Co ur t di d no t abus e it s di sc ret io n in de nyin g Ch ap m an ’s m ot io n fo r co un se l; no ta bl y , Ch apm an w as rep res en te d by co un se l in hi s st at e-co ur t pr oc eed in g. See Ph il li ps v. Ja sp er Cn ty. Ja il , 43 7 F.3 d 79 1, 79 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ) (n ot in g th e st an da rd of rev ie w an d di sc us si ng th e

“ rel ev an t cr it eri a fo r de te rm in in g wh et he r co un se l s ho ul d b e ap po in te d” ).

Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

The Hon or ab le St ep ha ni e M. Ro se , Uni te d S t a te s Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1 So ut he rn Dis tri ct of I owa

. -2

-
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010 (the Report) of TICC Capital Corp.
(the Registrant), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Jonathan H. Cohen, the Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                           
|-------------------------------------------
|/s/ JONATHAN H. COHEN                      
|Name: Jonathan H. Cohen
Date:   May 7, 2010
No. 53623.

protest 145566-K (New York).

#### American Pistachio Corporation *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Cline, J.

When this case was called for trial there was no appearance on the part of the plaintiff. T. D. 51970 became effective on July 30, 1948, and it appeared from the official papers that the entry was made on or about July 19, 1948. The presumption of correctness attaching to the collector’s decision, not having been overcome, the protest was overruled.
#### Florence King, Respondent, v Wegmans Food Markets, Inc., Appellant.

[634 NYS2d 281]

—Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion granted and complaint dismissed. Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for injuries she allegedly sustained when she fell over a basket in defendant’s supermarket. Supreme Court erred in denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

Defendant’s submissions in support of the motion for summary judgment, which included an attorney’s affidavit annexing deposition testimony and other proof, satisfied the prima facie showing required to warrant judgment as a matter of law *(see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320, 325-326). The proof showed that the store’s front end manager, present at the time *1014of the accident, inspected the area where plaintiff fell and found no basket on the floor. A risk management department employee averred that there were no reported incidents of people tripping over baskets in that area for a two year period prior to plaintiffs accident. Plaintiff testified at an examination before trial that she thought she tripped on a red basket but was not sure and did not pay attention to what it was. We conclude that defendant established that it had no actual or constructive notice of the alleged dangerous condition of the floor and was thus entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law *(see, Benware v Big V Supermarkets,*177 AD2d 846; *see also, Monje v Wegman’s Enters.,*192 AD2d 1133). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Rath, Jr., J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Pine, J. P., Fallon, Wesley, Balio and Boehm, JJ.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8221 

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act with respect to the removability of aliens who are charged with any crime related to their participation in pro-terrorism or antisemitism rallies or demonstrations. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 1, 2024 

Ms. VAN DUYNE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act with respect 

to the removability of aliens who are charged with any 

crime related to their participation in pro-terrorism or 

antisemitism rallies or demonstrations. 

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 ‘‘Hamas Supporters 

5 Have No Home Here Act’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8221 IH

1 SEC. 2. ALIENS CHARGED WITH ANY CRIME RELATED TO 

2 THEIR PARTICIPATION IN PRO-TERRORISM 

3 OR ANTISEMITISM RALLIES OR DEMONSTRA4 TIONS. 

5 (a) PARTICIPANTS IN PRO-TERRORISM OR ANTI6 SEMITISM RALLIES OR DEMONSTRATIONS WHO ARE

7 CHARGED WITH A CRIME.—Section 212(a)(3) of the Im8 migration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)) is 

9 amended by adding at the end the following: 

10 ‘‘(H) PARTICIPANTS IN ANTISEMITISM

11 RALLIES.—Any alien who is charged with any 

12 crime related to their participation in pro-ter13 rorism or antisemitism rallies or demonstrations 

14 is inadmissible.’’. 

15 (b) INELIGIBILITY FOR RELIEF.—Section 241(b)(3) 

16 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 

17 1231(b)(3)) is amended by adding at the end the fol18 lowing: 

19 ‘‘(D) INELIGIBILITY FOR RELIEF.—Any 

20 alien who is charged with any crime related to 

21 their participation in pro-terrorism or anti22 semitism rallies or demonstrations.’’. 

23 (c) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 

24 237(a)(4)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 

25 U.S.C. 1227(a)(4)(B)) is amended by striking ‘‘subparaVerDate Sep 11 2014 19:01 Jun 03, 2024 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H8221.IH H8221

ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 8221 IH

1 graph (B) or (F)’’ and inserting ‘‘subparagraph (B), (F), 

2 or (H)’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
```

[House Document 113-42]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

113th Congress, 1st Session - - - - - - - - - - - - - House Document
113-42
 
SUSPENSION OF BANGLADESH AS A BENEFICIARY DEVELOPING COUNTRY UNDER THE 
               GENERALIZED SYSTEM OF PREFERENCES PROGRAM

                               __________

                             COMMUNICATION

                                  from

                     THEPRESIDENTOFTHEUNITEDSTATES

                              transmitting

     notification of the suspension of Bangladesh as a beneficiary 
developing country under the Generalized System of Preferences program.

June 28, 2013.--Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means and ordered 
                             to be printed.
To the Congress of the United States:
    In accordance with section 502(f)(2) of the Trade Act of 
1974, as amended (the ``1974 Act'') (19 U.S.C. 2462(f)(2)), I 
am providing notification of my intent to suspend the 
designation of Bangladesh as a beneficiary developing country 
under the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) program. 
Section 502(b)(2)(G) of the 1974 Act (19 U.S.C. 2462(b)(2)(G)) 
provides that the President shall not designate any country a 
beneficiary developing country under the GSP if such country 
has not taken or is not taking steps to afford internationally 
recognized worker rights in the country (including any 
designated zone in that country). Section 502(d)(2) of the 1974 
Act (19 U.S.C. 2462(d)(2)) provides that, after complying with 
the requirements of section 502(f)(2) of the 1974 Act, the 
President shall withdraw or suspend the designation of any 
country as a beneficiary developing country if, after such 
designation, the President determines that as the result of 
changed circumstances such country would be barred from 
designation as a beneficiary developing country under section 
502(b)(2) of the 1974 Act.
    Pursuant to section 502(d) of the 1974 Act, having 
considered the factors set forth in section 502(b)(2)(G), I 
have determined that it is appropriate to suspend Bangladesh's 
designation as a beneficiary developing country under the GSP 
program because it is not taking steps to afford 
internationally recognized worker rights to workers in the 
country.

                                                      Barack Obama.
    The White House, June 27, 2013.

                                  

```
**Exhibit32.2**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED BYSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Rockwood Specialties Group, Inc. (the “Company”) onForm10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert J. Zatta,Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1. The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

2. The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| Date: May 21, 2007              |   |
|---------------------------------|--------|
|                            |   |
| /s/ ROBERT J. ZATTA             |   |
| Robert J. Zatta                 |
| Senior Vice President and Chief |
| Financial Officer               |

 

This certificationaccompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 orany other provision of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 or other document authenticating,acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed formwithin the electronic version of this written statement required by Section906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

----
ex1087.htm


Exhibit 10.87



 


 


UNSECURED PROMISSORY NOTE


 
 



	U.S. $200,000.00 	October 9, 2014





 




FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned, Eos-Petro, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Issuer”), hereby promises to pay to the order of Ridelinks, Inc., a California corporation (the “Payee”), at such place as the Payee shall direct in writing, the principal sum of Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000.00), with interest at 2.00% on the unpaid balance.  All references to Dollars herein are to lawful currency of the United States of America.







All unpaid principal of this Note and accrued interest shall be due and payable on March 15, 2015 (the “Maturity Date”). In addition, on the Maturity Date Issuer shall pay to Payee an exit fee of $30,000.00 (the “Exit Fee”). This Note and Exit Fee may be prepaid at any time in whole or in part without penalty.  This Note is subject to a “Full Recourse Guaranty of Payment” from Nikolas Konstant of even date herewith.







In the event of default the interest rate on the note will increase to 20% annually going forward from the due date of the note but not retroactively.







In any action at law or in equity to enforce or construe any provisions or rights under this Note, the unsuccessful party or parties to such litigation, as determined by a court pursuant to a final offer, judgment or decree, shall pay to the successful party or parties all costs, expenses and reasonable attorneys' fees incurred by such successful party.







This Note and all actions arising out of or in connection with this Note shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California, without regard to the conflicts of law provisions of the State of California, or of any other state.







 

 







Eos-Petro, Inc.


A Nevada corporation












By: /s/ Nicholas Konstant


    Nicholas Konstant


    Its: Chief Financial Officer
June 25, 1958

Reap. Dec. 9179.

#### *John M. Haffert*v. *United States.*

REHEARING MOTION GRANTED

Entered at New York, N. Y. Reap. Dec. 9149. Motion by plaintiff.
#### Noah Pitts v. State.

182 So. 234.

Opinion Filed June 15, 1938.

*813A writ of error to the Circuit Court for Jackson County, Ira A. Hutchison, Judge.

Per Curiam.

An information was filed against the defendant in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Florida, charging him with manslaughter, growing out of an automobile accident in which J. A. Paul was killed on the 15th day of August, 1936. The defendant, after a trial, was found guilty by a jury and sentenced to three years in the penitentiary. Motion for a new trial was denied, and the defendant appealed to this Court for a reversal of the judgment of the lower court, contending that the evidence was insufficient to show culpable negligence on the part of the defendant.

“Generally, a crime has two elements, the overt act and 'the criminal intent; but in statutory manslaughter the element of criminal intent has been supplanted by the statutory elenient of ‘culpable negligence.’ ” See Kent v. State, 53 Fla. 51, 43 So. 7731.” Hulst v. State (Fla.), 166 So. 828.

“Culpable Negligence” must be proven to warrant a conviction of manslaughter in the present case. This Court defined “Culpable Negligence” in the case of Franklin v. *814State, 120 Fla. 686, 163 So. 55, by adopting the definition already laid down by this Court in Cannon v. State, 91 Fla. 214, 107 So. 360, 361, eighth headnote, which reads:

“The words ‘culpable negligence/ as used in Section 5039, Rev. Gen. Stats. 1920, such as is necessary under the statute to sustain proof of the crime of manslaughter, mean something more than such simple negligence as would authorize the recovery of merely compensatory damages in a civil action at law. As used in this statute culpable negligence means negligence of a gross and flagrant character, evincing reckless disregard of human life, or the safety of persons exposed to its dangerous effects, or that entire want of care which would raise the presumption of indifference to consequences, or which shows such wantonness or recklessness, or a grossly careless disregard of the safety and welfare of the public, or that reckless indifference to the rights of others which is equivalent to an intentional violation of them.”

A principle of law particularly applicable to the facts of this case, as shown by the weight of the evidence, was enunciated by Mr. Justice Buford in the case of Austin v. State, 101 Fla. 990, 132 So. 491, wherein speaking for the Court, he said:

“We do not think that criminal liability attaches where circumstances and conditions beyond the control of the accused caused him against his will to be in a position and under the. conditions which resulted in the unfortunate death of the child.”

We have carefully considered the evidence in this case and are of the opinion that the motion for new trial should have been granted.

Reversed and remanded.

Wi-iitfield, Terrell, Brown, Buford and Ci-iapman, J. J., concur.
Exhibit 10.6 Form of Deferral Election Form


Exhibit 10.6


RESTRICTED STOCK UNIT AWARD AGREEMENT
DEFERRAL ELECTION FORM
This Restricted Stock Unit Award Agreement Deferral Election Form (“Deferral Election Form”) is entered into by and between Monogram Residential Trust, Inc. (the “Company”) and the Grantee, who is an eligible employee of the Company or any of its subsidiaries and a recipient of Restricted Stock Units granted under the Monogram Residential Trust, Inc. Second Amended and Restated Incentive Award Plan (the “Plan”).
		
	1.
	Deferral of Restricted Stock Units


The Grantee hereby elects the following deferred settlement date for the Restricted Stock Units granted to him or her on January 13, 2015 (the “Grant Date”).
Select One Option Only
		
	 ̈
	Separation from Service (within the meaning of Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and the regulations promulgated thereunder (“Section 409A”).  If the Grantee is considered a Specified Employee within the meaning of Section 409A, no shares of Stock will be issued until six months and a day after his or her Separation from Service.


		
	 ̈
	___________ (specify year that is at least [three] years from the Grant Date)


In the event of the death of the Grantee or a Change of Control (as defined in the Plan) before the deferred settlement dated selected above, the shares of Stock with respect to vested Restricted Stock Units shall be issued no later than 30 days after the Grantee’s death or the Change of Control, whichever is applicable.
		
	2.
	Effective Date of Election


This Deferral Election Form must be received by the Company no later than 30 days after the Grant Date, and will become irrevocable on such date.  The Grantee may revise this Deferral Election Form with respect to the deferral period no later than such due date.  
GRANTEE
By:    ___________________________________
Name:    
Date: __________________________________