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

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 142 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 26, 2007 

Received and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and 

Forestry 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the Congress that there should be 

established a National Pet Week. 

Whereas this year marks the 26th anniversary of ‘‘National 

Pet Week’’, sponsored by the American Veterinary Medical Association and the Auxiliary to the American Veterinary Medical Association; 

Whereas animals and pets give companionship and pleasure 

in daily living, share the homes of nearly 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with BILLS
2 

HCON 142 RFS 

69,000,000 individuals or families in the United States, 

and provide special benefits to elderly persons and children; 

Whereas the people of the United States have a firm commitment to promote responsible care of animals and pets 

and guard against cruel and irresponsible treatment; 

Whereas teaching kindness and respect for all living animals 

through education in schools and communities is essential 

to the basic values of a humane and civilized society; 

Whereas the people of the United States are grateful to the 

veterinary medical profession for providing preventive 

and emergency medical care and assistance to animals, 

spaying and neutering animals to combat overpopulation, 

and contributing to the education of animal owners; and 

Whereas the people of the United States are indebted to animal protection organizations, State humane organizations, and local animal care and control agencies for promoting respect for animals and pets, educating children 

about humane attitudes, and caring for lost, unwanted, 

abused, and abandoned animals: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress— 

3 (1) that there should be established an annual 

4 National Pet Week; and 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with BILLS
3 

HCON 142 RFS 

1 (2) the goals and ideals expressed during Na2 tional Pet Week should be guides for the people of 

3 the United States to observe in the care of pets. 

Passed the House of Representatives June 25, 2007. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with BILLS
EXHIBIT 32.2
------------

                              UNITED-GUARDIAN, INC.
                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  United-Guardian,  Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the quarter  ended March 31, 2006,  as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Kenneth H. Globus,  President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby
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; and

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


Date:  May 10, 2006                       /s/ Kenneth H. Globus
                                          --------------------------
                                          Kenneth H. Globus
                                          President and Chief Financial Officer
Case Tío. 5,434.

#### GILLESPIE v. CUMMINGS.

[3 Sawy. 259; 1 Ban. & A. 587.] 1

Circuit Court, D. California.

Dec. 21, 1874.

Patents — Multi famousness.

1. Where two separate patents for improvements in the manufacture of brooms owned by the complainant are alleged to have been infringed by the defendant, and the broom manufactured by the defendant appears to be an infringement of both patents, the bill is not bad for multifariousness.

[Cited in Hayes v. Dayton, S Fed. 705; Deer-ing Y. AViuona Harvester AA7orks, 24 Fed. 00.]

2. AA'liere the right to both patents alleged to be infringed for the state of California, lias been assigned to complainant, the bill is not bad for mullifariousness. because the assignment of one of the patents also embraces other territory than the state of California.

Tin equity. Bill by Janies Gillespie against Janies H. Cummings. Heard on demurrer to the bill.]

J. A*. O'Brien, for complainant.

Tully It. AA7ise, for defendant.

SAAVYER, Circuit Judge.

This is a suit in equity to restrain the infringement of two certain patents for improvements in the manufacture of brooms, one [No. 102,930] dated May 10, 1S70, issued to William S. Hancock, and the other [No. 100,021] dated August 2,1S70, issued to James H. Anderson, the right to one of which for the Pacific coast, and to the other for the state of Cali-ma, have been assigned to complainants. Defendant demurs for multifariousness: Firstly, on the ground that the infringement of each patent is a separate and distinct cause of action and that the two cannot be joined in the same bill. Secondly, that the assignment of the patent right to the two patents is not for the same territory. Although it might be more directly and specifically alleged, I think it sufficiently appears that the same broom made by the defendant, if an infringement at all, must be an infringement of both patents. There is, therefore. a common point to be litigated, and much of the testimony must, from the nature of things, be applicable to both patents. So, also, the assignment of both patents embraces the state of California. AA7hatever the rule might be, if the several assignments covered no part of the same territory, these assignments do cover the state of California. I think the bill not bad for multifariousness on either ground. The principles laid down in Nourse v. Allen [Case No. 10,367], and Central Pac. R. Co. v. Dyer [Id. 2,552], appear to me applicable.

Demurrer overruled, with leave to answer upon the usual terms.
RandallJ. Richert, P.E., QEP Consultant- Air Billings Refinery
PO. Box 30198 Bi:lings, MT 59107-0198 phone 406.255.2580 fax 406.255.2621

CERTIFIED MAIL#7004-2510-0006-5598-6224 RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

July26, 2005 Ms. Trista Glazier 

## ()If Montana Departmentof Environmental Quality 

# /, ;·nn.5 P.O. Box200901 Helena, MT 59620

Dear Ms. Glazier: Re: Response to Requestfor Information, Regional Haze Rule and Best Available Retrofit .Technology

In response to your requestfor information relative to the Regional Haze Rule and Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART), the ConocoPhillips Billings Refinery is submitting the attachedtable. Thetable liststhe emission sources atthe refinerythat were constructed or reconstructed during the time period specified in your letter (between August7, 1962and August 7, 1977). Sources such as storage vessels (storage tanks) that emit only VOCs have not been includedwith this submittal. Thetable lists the Potential to Emit (PTE) for NOx, 802, and PM-10 for each source. Actual emissions 

### ,wo!**,~c;s** th;:mthese, hpc"l'i<:,P the ;.omission**s()ur~9S** I)ften operate at less than capacity andlordo [jot operatefor periods of timb during the year. Actual emissionsdata can be provided, and is also 5UUlnlti5j on an annual basisto the DEQ.

__ _ :.l
.._

- I: J

- ­ Sincerely,

Randall Richert

Attachment

cc

### wiatt.: Mr. Jim Hughes Montana Department of Environmental Quality Airport Industrial Park IP-9 1371 Rimtop Drive Billings, MT 59105

### 7/26/2005 

### ConocoPhillips Billings Refinery Billings, MT Responseto 5/26/05 DEQ request for BART-related informationfor Regional Haze 

### Design S02 NOx 

### PM-10 S02 NOx 

### PM-10

Duty, Mfr. Emission Emission Emission PTE, PTE, PTE, Currently Source Service Type Fuel CFthr Date Factor Factor Factor Ttyr Ttyr Ttyr Active?
Fuel Gas/Nat. NoB-5 Steam Boiler Boiler Gas 144,000 1969 160 ppm 271.3 7.6 Note 1 171.1 4.8 dismantled Fuel j 

### Gas/Nat. NoB-6 Steam

### ~oiterl Boiler Gas 144,000 1969 160 ppm 271.3 7.6 Note 1 171.1 4.8 dismantled Fuel Gas/Nat. H-10 NO.2 HDS ... 

### Heater' Gas 19,000 1963 116.5 ppm 100 7.6 Note 2 8.3 0.6 Yes Fuel Gas/Nat. H-11 Debut Reboiler Heater Gas 30,000 1963 116.5 ppm 100 7.6 Note 2 13.1 1.0 Yes Fuel Gas/Nat. H-12 Main Fract Reboiler Heater Gas 55,000 1963116.5ppm 100 7.6 Note 2 24.1 1.8 Yes Fuel Gas/Nat. H-13 NO.2 Reformer Heater Gas 25,600 1963 116.5 ppm 100 7.6 Note 2 11.2 0.9 Yes Fuel Gas/Nat. H-14 No.2 Reformer Heater Gas 16,500 1963 116.5 ppm 100 7.6 Note 2· 7.2 0.5 Yes Fuel Gas/Nat. H-15 NO.1 Reformer Heater Gas 6,200 1963 160ppm 100 7.6 Note2 2.7 0.2 Yes Fuel Gas/Nat. H-16 Stabilizer Reboiler Heater Gas 16,910 1963 116.5 ppm 100 7.6 Note2 7.4 

### 0.6 Yes

### PTE= Potential to Emit S02=Sulfur Dioxide NOx= Nitrogen Oxides PM-10= Particulate Matter lessthan 10 microns

'­
| *Communicating Health: Prioritiesand Strategies for Progress*Action Plans To Achieve the Health Communication Objectives in Healthy People 2010July 2003Contents
Background on the Health Communication               Focus Area in *Healthy People 2010*

Introduction to the Health Communication Action Plans

Objective 11-1. Internet Access in the               Home

Objective 11-2. Improvement of Health               Literacy

Objective 11-3. Research and Evaluation               of Health Communication Programs 

Objective 11-4. Disclosure of Information               To Assess the Quality of Health Web Sites

Objective 11-5. Centers for Excellence               in Health Communication

Objective 11-6. Healthcare Providers'               Communication Skills 

Acknowledgments/Credits

Appendix. Examples of Stakeholders Involved               in Technology Diffusion and Internet Access Initiatives

Back to Top |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| U.S. Department of Health             and Human Services            Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   |
No. 48731.

Suit 4423.

#### Balfour, *Guthrie & Co.*v. *United States.*

C. D. 703 affirmed. C. A. D. 249.
No. 47534.

#### Protests 981345-G, etc., of Accordion Corporation of Amer. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
<PAGE> 1

EXHIBIT 32b

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 Twin Disc, Incorporated (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ending March 31, 2004,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission as of the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Christopher J. Eperjesy, Vice President - Finance, Treasurer
and Chief Financial Officer 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 the best of my knowledge:

(3)    the Report fully complies with Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, and

(4)    the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


/s/ CHRISTOPHER J. EPERJESY
Christopher J. Eperjesy
Vice President - Finance, Treasurer,
Chief Financial Officer

November 12, 2004
Case No. 13,323a.

#### STATE v. MILLER et al.

[7 Cin. Law Bul. 219.]

Circuit Court, D. Indiana.

April Term, 1882.

Land Graxts — Bed of Lake —Act of Congress —Swamp Land — Estoppel.

[This was an action by the state of Indiana against Jane A. Miller and others.]

Before •

GRESHAM, District Judge.

' The United States ceded to the state, in 1850, all the lands known as swamp lands bordering on the lake. The state swamp land commissioner of Jasper county projected a ditch to the Kankakee-river, the lake being forty feet higher than the-river. Messrs. Dunn & Con-duitt purchased the whole rim of land bordering on the lake. They subsequently conveyed the same to M. B. Bright, and aided *1137in carrying the ditch into the lake and constructing thirty miles of lateral ditches. Before that was done Bright platted the hed of the lake, by extending the government lines, and recorded the same in .Jasper county. They went on perfecting the system of drainage, and, in 1859 Bright conveyed the odd-numbered lots to A. Jones, who recon-veyed them to the state. In 1805 the state passed an act authorizing the sale, and ihe same were sold under Bright’s title; the people getting farms by purchasing alternately from Bright and the state. In 1878 some squatters from Chicago pre-empted the old bed of the lake under the soldiers’ bounty act, whereupon Milk went to congress and asked congress to quitclaim to the state. This was done. Two years ago the state began suit in Newton county to recover the even-numbered lots; and that was the real question in the present case.

Held, that the state swamp law of 1850 carried the title to the bed of the lake; further, that the state, by its contract under the Bright title, has stopped itself from claiming under the swamp land donation. Milk, the defendant, claims 2,688 acres, but there are several others equally interested.
# C_2016462EN.01000302.xml

| 12.12.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 462/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.12.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 462/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rīgas apgabaltiesas Krimināllietu tiesu kolēģija — Latvia) — Criminal proceedings against Aleksandrs Ranks, Jurijs Vasiļevičs

(Case C-166/15) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual property - Copyright and related rights - Directive 91/250/EEC - Article 4(a) and (c) - Article 5(1) and (2) - Directive 2009/24/EC - Article 4(1) and (2) - Article 5(1) and (2) - Legal protection of computer programs - Resale of ‘used’ licensed copies of computer programs on non-original material media - Exhaustion of the distribution right - Exclusive right of reproduction))

(2016/C 462/04)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Referring court

Rīgas apgabaltiesas Krimināllietu tiesu kolēģija

Parties in the main proceedings

Parties in the main proceedings

Aleksandrs Ranks, Jurijs Vasiļevičs

The other parties to the proceedings: Finanšu un ekonomisko noziegumu izmeklēšanas prokoratūra, Microsoft Corp.

The other parties to the proceedings:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(a) and (c) and Article 5(1) and (2) of Council Directive 91/250/EEC of 14 May 1991 on the legal protection of computer programs must be interpreted as meaning that, although the initial acquirer of a copy of a computer program accompanied by an unlimited user licence is entitled to resell that copy and his licence to a new acquirer, he may not, however, in the case where the original material medium of the copy that was initially delivered to him has been damaged, destroyed or lost, provide his back-up copy of that program to that new acquirer without the authorisation of the rightholder.

---

(1)  OJ C 205, 22.6.2015.

1

---
March 15, 1948

No. 7567.

#### United *States*v. *F. W. Myers & Co., Inc.*

Entered at Rouses Point, N. Y. (Reap. Dec. 7539).

Motion by plaintiff.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

# FILED PR 06-0544

IN REPETITION OF PATRICIA BIK FOR REINSTATEMENT TO ACTIVE STATUS IN THE BAR OF MONTANA 

### MAY 1 9 2020

Bovven Greenwood CAerk of Supreme Court State nf Montana ORDER

Patricia Bik has petitioned this Court for reinstatement to active status in the State Bar ofMontana. Bik was placed on inactive status in January 2020 for failing to comply with the Rules for Continuing Legal Education for the reporting year ending March 31, 2019. Attached to the Petition is a letter from the State Bar stating that Bik has now completed all CLE requirements for thatreporting year. The Petition states that Bik is not currently subject to disciplinary proceedings and has not committed any acts or omissions sanctionable underthe Rules ofProfessional Conductwhile on inactive status. Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition ofPatricia Bik for reinstatement to active status in the State Bar ofMontana is GRANTED. Upon payment ofany remaining dues,fees,and the state license tax to the State Bar ofMontana,Bik shall be reinstated. The Clerk is directed to provide copies ofthis order to the Petitioner and the State Bar ofMontana. .‘" 1 S DATED this 1 day ofMay,2020.

ChiefJustic



# f „.9-1 /4 ,t1-1, 05/20/2020

Case Number: PR 06-05442
(Reap. Dec. 8293)

#### United States v. R. W. Smith & Co.

Entry No. 2219-H.

(Decided February 18, 1954)

*Warren E. Burger,*Assistant Attorney General *(Mollie Strum,*trial attorney), for the plaintiff.

*Philip Stein*for the defendant.

*596Ekwall, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted upon the following stipulation of counsel:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED subject to the approval of the court, that at the time of exportation of the merchandise involved herein, the MILD STEEL UNIVERSAL PLATES *}í",*and such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States at U. S. $135.50 per metric ton, and that as to all other sizes, the export value is represented by the entered value thereof, all less $788.82 nondutiable charges, packed.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that there was no higher foreign value for said merchandise at the time of exportation thereof.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that this case may be-submitted on the foregoing stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find that export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, is the proper basis for the determination of the value of the steel plates here involved. I further find that as to the Mild Steel Universal Plates *%"*such value is $135.50 per metric ton, and that as to all other sizes, the export value is represented by the entered value thereof, all less $788.82 nondutiable charges, packed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>  7
<RESTATED>
<CIK>  0000101115
<NAME> UNITED COMPANIES LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000
<CURRENCY>  U.S.  DOLLARS
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                  SEP-30-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                         1
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>            1,063,076
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>              50,904
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                51,867
<EQUITIES>                          1,032
<MORTGAGE>                        225,584
<REAL-ESTATE>                          40
<TOTAL-INVEST>                  1,473,787
<CASH>                                  0
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                 34,748
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>              2,194
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  1,654,984
<POLICY-LOSSES>                 1,456,675
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                   360
<POLICY-OTHER>                          0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                   0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0
<COMMON>                            8,401
<OTHER-SE>                        165,231
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    1,654,984
<PREMIUMS>                          4,766
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                89,139
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                 (1,225)
<OTHER-INCOME>                      1,906
<BENEFITS>                          7,101
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>        11,913
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>               69,296
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     6,276
<INCOME-TAX>                        2,295
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                 3,981
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                        3,981
<EPS-PRIMARY>                        0.95
<EPS-DILUTED>                        0.95
<RESERVE-OPEN>                          0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                     0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                       0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                      0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                        0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                         0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                 0
        


</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 22, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-51355

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ALEJANDRO ZALAZAR-TORRES, also known as Raul Garcia-Miranda,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. EP-03-CR-1149-ALL-PM 

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

Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Court-appointed counsel for Alejandro Zalazar-Torres has

moved for leave to withdraw and has filed two briefs pursuant to

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Zalazar-Torres has

filed a responsive brief. Our review of the briefs as well as

our review of the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue for

appeal. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities, and

the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.