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

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4772 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4772

          To reauthorize the National Flood Insurance Program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 25, 2024

  Mr. Kennedy introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
    referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
          To reauthorize the National Flood Insurance Program.

    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 ``NFIP Extension Act of 2024''.

SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION.

    (a) Financing.--Section 1309(a) of the National Flood Insurance Act 
of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4016(a)) is amended by striking ``September 30, 
2023'' and inserting ``September 30, 2025''.
    (b) Program Expiration.--Section 1319 of the National Flood 
Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4026) is amended by striking 
``September 30, 2023'' and inserting ``September 30, 2025''.
    (c) Retroactive Effective Date.--If this Act is enacted after 
September 30, 2024, the amendments made by subsections (a) and (b) 
shall take effect as if enacted on September 30, 2024.
                                 <all>
```
<pre>
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 on Form 10-KSB of RPM Technologies, Inc.
(the "Company") for the year ended December 31. 2003 (the "Report"),
the undersigned hereby certify in their capacities as Chief Executive Officer
and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, respectively, 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, 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
Company.



Dated: March 23, 2004

By:  /S/ RANDY ZYCH
-------------------------
RANDY ZYCH
Chief Executive Officer
(principal executive officer)



Dated: March 23, 2004


By:  /S/ DAVID LADE
---------------------------
David Lade
Chief Financial Officer
(principal financial officer)


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signatures
that appear in typed form within the electronic version 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.
Archive

**ContentsQuality First: Better Health Care for All Americans**
Preface/Acknowledgments
Executive Summary
Summary of RecommendationsImproving Quality in a Changing Health Care Industry- Chapter One:  The State of Health Care Quality: How Good Is Care? Chapter Two:
 Improving Health Care Quality in an Industry in Transition
Establishing Health Care Quality as a National Priority
Chapter Three:
 Providing Strong Leadership and Clear Aims for Improvement
Chapter Four:
 Advancing Quality Measurement and Reporting
Chapter Five:
 Creating Public-Private Partnerships
Strengthening the Market to Improve Quality
Chapter Six:
 Encouraging Action by Group Purchasers
Chapter Seven:
 Strengthening the Hand of Consumers
Chapter Eight:
 Focusing on Vulnerable Populations
Chapter Nine:
 Promoting Accountability
Chapter Ten:
 Reducing Errors and Increasing Safety in Health Care
Building the Capacity to Improve Quality
Chapter Eleven:
 Fostering Evidence-Based Practice and Innovation
Chapter Twelve:
 Adapting Organizations for Change
Chapter Thirteen:
 Engaging the Health Care Workforce
Chapter Fourteen:
 Investing in Information Systems
**Appendix A: Consumer Bill of Rights and Responsibilities**Entire Report
 (161K)
by Chapters

Appendix B: Commission Charter, Executive Orders
Appendix C: Subcommittee Membership
Appendix D: Commission Staff Biographies[ About the Commission | Charter | Commission Membership | Press Releases | Meetings  ]Last Revised: Saturday, July 18, 1998
#### In the Matter of Ronald Anglehart, Petitioner, v H. Carl McCall, as Comptroller of the State of New York, Respondent.

[633 NYS2d 431]

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which denied petitioner’s application for accidental disability retirement benefits.

Petitioner, a police officer, applied for accidental disability retirement benefits after being involved in two motor vehicle accidents while on duty. Respondent denied petitioner’s application upon the ground that petitioner was not permanently incapacitated from the performance of his duties as a police officer. Petitioner contends that insofar as medical evidence was adduced at the hearing establishing that the injuries suffered by petitioner rendered him unable to perform the duties of a police officer, this determination is not supported by substantial evidence. We disagree. There was conflicting medical testimony presented at the hearing regarding petitioner’s disability. It was for respondent to evaluate this testimony and, inasmuch as at least one physician opined that petitioner had no objective signs of a disability which would preclude him from performing his duties as a police officer, substantial evidence supports respondent’s determination.

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Mercure, Casey and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
No. 76-634.

#### Manning *v.*United States.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 58640.

protest 229919-K (New York).

#### Wm. M. Allison & Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

An examination of the record failing to disclose any evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the collector’s action, the protest was overruled.
No. 42965.

#### Petition 5532-R of Sears, Roebuck & Co. (Memphis).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

It appeared that the party who made the entry unintentionally failed to follow instructions and through inadvertence deducted certain items. Being satisfied of the good faith of the importer and that the entry was without any intention to defraud the revenue of the United States, the court granted the petition.
No. 56032.

protest 156963-K (New York).

#### British West Indies Corp. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At the trial it was stipulated that the issue herein is similar in all material respects to that involved in *United States*v. *Browne Vintners Co., Inc.*(34 C. C. P. A. 112, C. A. D. 351) and that the merchandise, consisting of a total of 62 pairs of sisal shoes from cases 554, 557, 562,'566, 572, 575, and 578, was not in fact imported. In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the decision cited it was held that duty is not assessable upon the said 62 pairs of sisal shoes missing from cases 554, 557, 562, 566, 572, 575, and 578. The protest was sustained to this extent.
CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE

EPA

- HQ

- OW -2014-0598

DCN: SGE00 27 4 .A 01

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION

(CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

I, Seifi Ghasemi, certifythat:

1.             I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Qof Rockwood Specialties Group, Inc.;

2.             Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;

3.             Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.             The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:

(a)           Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

(b)           Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

(c)           Disclosed in this report any changein the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurredduring the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

5.             The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofthe registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

(a)           All significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and

(b)           Any fraud, whether or not material,that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
| Date: November 14, 2006               |   |
|---------------------------------------|--------|
| /s/ SEIFI  GHASEMI                    |   |
| Seifi Ghasemi                         |
| Chairman and  Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
JAMES DOUG MCCRAY,

Petitioner,

v.

FLORIDA COMMISSION ON 

OFFENDER REVIEW,

Respondent.

___________________________/

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-2521

Opinion filed December 8, 2016.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari -- Original Jurisdiction.

Seth E. Miller, Tallahassee, for Petitioner.

Rana Wallace, General Counsel, and Mark J. Hiers, Assistant General Counsel, Florida 

Commission on Offender Review, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of certiorari is denied on the merits.

ROBERTS, C.J., ROWE and WINSOR, JJ., CONCUR.
Exhibit 32



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 on Form 10-Q of Distributed Energy Systems Corp. (the Company) for the period ended
September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned officers of the Company, hereby certifies, 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; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                        |  |                          
|----------------------- |  | -------------------------
|Dated: November 5, 2004 |  | /s/ Walter W. Schroeder  
|                        |  | Walter W. Schroeder      
|                        |  | President                
|                        | 
|Dated: November 5, 2004 |  | /s/ John A. Glidden      
|                        |  | John A. Glidden          
|                        |  | Vice President of Finance



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. The foregoing certification is accompanying the Form 10-Q
solely pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure document.
#### STEPHEN RIGGI AND CARMELLA RIGGI, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v. COUNTRY CLUB TOWERS, INC., SUBURBAN MANAGEMENT CO., GEORGE FULLER AND TERESA PASSARELLA, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

Argued March 6 and 7, 1967

Decided March 20, 1967.

*Mr. Charles II. Hoens, Jr.,*argued the cause for the appellant *(Messrs. Lum, Biunno & Tompicins,*attorneys; *Mr. William J. McGee,*on the brief).

*Mr. William F. Bellinger*argued the cause for the respondents *(Messrs. Bellinger & Chester,*attorneys).

Pee Cubiam.

The Appellate Division affirmed a judgment entered in favor of the plaintiffs upon a jury verdict. We granted defendants’ petition for certification 47 *N. J.*82 (1966). We are satisfied that the judgment under review is correct. It is accordingly affirmed.

*For affirmance*— Chief Justice Weinteatjb and Justices Jacobs, Francis, Peootoe, Hall, Scbettino and HaneMAN-7.

*For reversal*— None.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 16, 2014

N o. 04

- 14

- 00844

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF N.R.V., A.M.A.F. AND I.I.F., CHILDREN,

From the 38th Judicial District Court, Real County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013

- 3094

- DC

The Honorable Cathy O. Morris, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

The District Clerk's Notification of Late Record is hereby GRANTED. Time is extended

to December 22, 2014.

_________________________________ Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WIT NESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 16th day of December, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
```

[108th Congress Public Law 6]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[DOCID: f:publ006.108]

[[Page 117 STAT. 10]]

Public Law 108-6
108th Congress

                                 An Act

 
 To authorize salary adjustments for Justices and judges of the United 
   States for fiscal year 2003. <<NOTE: Feb. 13, 2003 -  [H.R. 16]>> 

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

SECTION <<NOTE: 28 USC 461 note.>> 1. AUTHORIZATION OF SALARY 
            ADJUSTMENTS FOR FEDERAL JUSTICES AND JUDGES.

    Pursuant to section 140 of Public Law 97-92, Justices and judges of 
the United States are authorized during fiscal year 2003 to receive a 
salary adjustment in accordance with section 461 of title 28, United 
States Code.

    Approved February 13, 2003.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 16 (S. 101):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 149 (2003):
            Jan. 8, considered and passed House.
            Jan. 30, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
Ground-Water Quality in the Santa Ana Watershed, California: Overview and Data Summary

***By*Scott N. Hamlin,Kenneth Belitz, Sarah Kraja, andBarbara Dawson**

 

 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

 Water-Resources Investigations Report 02-4243
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM LUMENON
INNOVATIVE  LIGHTWAVE  TECHNOLOGY INC.  CONSOLIDATED  FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF
JUNE 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH CONSOLIDATED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CURRENCY>                     US

<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                      JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                         JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                           JUN-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                             1.4786
<CASH>                                                     761,113
<SECURITIES>                                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                    0
<ALLOWANCES>                                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                         3,284,368
<PP&E>                                                   3,112,865
<DEPRECIATION>                                                   0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                           8,250,978
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                    1,086,645
<BONDS>                                                          0
<COMMON>                                                    33,239
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                            0
<PREFERRED>                                                      0
<OTHER-SE>                                               6,942,614
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                             8,250,978
<SALES>                                                          0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                           216,301
<CGS>                                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                    0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       151,414,811
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                               0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                       (151,198,510)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                   (151,198,510)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                  0
<CHANGES>                                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                          (151,198,510)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                  (5.95)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                (3.94)


</TABLE>
No. 65578.

#### Rohner Gehrig *&*Co., Inc., and The Graber Company et al. *v.*United States,

protests 60/9036, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of brass pole rings similar in all material respects .to those the subject of *Kroder Reubel Co., Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(44 Cust. Ct. 274, C.D. 2186), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. 49741.

#### Protests 983395-G, etc., of Baron & Arnof, Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P, J,

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
(November 22, 1995)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ramon Perez, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 685]

—White, J.

Appeal *799from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung County (Danaher, Jr., J.), rendered November 23, 1992, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crime of promoting prison contraband in the first degree.

Defendant, a prison inmate who was observed pulling out a "shank” from the pocket of his coat and dropping it, was indicted and charged with one count of promoting prison contraband in the first degree. Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of the charged crime and this appeal ensued.

We affirm. Defendant’s claim that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to question prospective jurors concerning their possible prejudice against Hispanics during jury selection is rejected. Our review indicates that defense counsel made a thorough inquiry of prospective jurors and asked appropriate questions concerning their ability to be fair and impartial *(cf., People v Langlois,*192 AD2d 877, 878). There is no constitutional presumption of juror bias for or against any race or ethnic group, and defendant’s claim is meritless as there are no "substantial indications” in the record that defendant’s jury would likely have been biased by racial or ethnic prejudice *(Rosales-Lopez v United States,*451 US 182, 190-191; *United States v Kyles,*40 F3d 519, 524, *cert denied*— US —, 115 S Ct 1419).

As for defendant’s contention that certain remarks made by the prosecutor during summation constituted reversible error, we are similarly unpersuaded. Notably, defense counsel failed to object to the remarks and thereby preserve the issue for appellate review *(see, People v Dexheimer,*214 AD2d 898, 901). Moreover, the analogy employed by the prosecutor was clearly a fair response to comments made by defense counsel in his closing remarks *(see, People v Luciano,*213 AD2d 729, 732).

Mercure, J. P., Casey, Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
#### The City of Rochester, Respondent, *v.*Samuel Pierce, *Appel*lant.

Judgment affirmed. Opinion by Hardin, J.; Smith, P. J., not sitting.
No. 50512.

#### Protest 94688-K of Wing Lee Quon, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of an alcoholic medicinal preparation similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Wing Duck Co.*v. *United States*(6 Cust. Ct. 133, C. D. 446), which record was admitted in evidence herein. A memorandum by the collector in the official papers indicates that under section 514 recovery is limited to the item noted on page 11 of the invoice described as 10 cases Gai Jaw Nagan (37.23 gallons). It was held that the merchandise described above is not subject to assessment under the Internal Revenue Act of 1941. The protest was sustained to this extent*