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

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1962 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1962

 To make the internal control reporting and assessment requirements of 
 the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 optional for certain smaller companies.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            December 7, 2011

  Mr. DeMint (for himself and Mr. Barrasso) introduced the following 
 bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, 
                       Housing, and Urban Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To make the internal control reporting and assessment requirements of 
 the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 optional for certain smaller companies.

    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 ``Startup Expansion and Investment 
Act''.

SEC. 2. EXEMPTION FROM THE INTERNAL CONTROL REPORTING AND ASSESSMENT 
              REQUIREMENTS.

    Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (15 U.S.C. 7262) is 
amended by striking subsection (c) and inserting the following:
    ``(c) Exemption.--The Commission's rules under subsection (a) shall 
permit an issuer to elect not to provide the assessment described in 
subsection (a)(2) and the attestation thereof described in subsection 
(b) if the issuer--
            ``(1) has a total market capitalization for the relevant 
        reporting period of less than $1,000,000,000; and
            ``(2) is not subject to the annual reporting requirement 
        under section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 
        1934.
    ``(d) Disclosure.--An issuer that, pursuant to subsection (c), 
elects not to provide the assessment described in subsection (a)(2) and 
the attestation described in subsection (b), shall disclose that 
decision in the next report required under section 13(a) or 15(d) of 
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.''.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.0

                           Section 1350 CERTIFICATION

                       Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

Each of, Ronald B. Geib, Chief Executive Officer and Brendan J. McGill, Senior
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, of Harleysville Savings Financial
Corporation (the "Company"), hereby certify that:

(1)   The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the fiscal quarter
      ended March 31, 2007 (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. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and

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

                                        By:    /s/ Ronald B. Geib
                                               ------------------
                                               Ronald B. Geib
                                               Chief Executive Officer

                                        By:    /s/ Brendan J. McGill
                                               ---------------------
                                               Brendan J. McGill
                                               Senior Vice President and
                                               Chief Financial Officer

Date: May 14, 2007


Note: A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act has been provided to Harleysville Savings Financial
      Corporation and will be retained by Harleysville Savings Financial
      Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
      staff upon request.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLANewsNews Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# Fairchild Airman finds error in ICODES, increasing mission efficiency

By : Airman 1st Class Lawrence Sena92nd Air Refueling Wing Public Affairs

                FAIRCHILD AIR FORCE BASE, Wash.   –              *Editor's note: The original story can be viewed on the Fairchild Air Force Base website.*

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

Fairchild Air Force Basepalletizingpalletstransportationcargo92nd Logistics Readiness Squadron
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2174 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2174

   To exempt natural gas vehicles from certain maximum fuel economy 
              increase standards, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 8, 2012

  Mr. Inhofe introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
   referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To exempt natural gas vehicles from certain maximum fuel economy 
              increase standards, 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. NATURAL GAS VEHICLES.

    (a) Maximum Fuel Economy Increase for Alternative Fuel 
Automobiles.--Section 32906(a) of title 49, United States Code, is 
amended by striking ``(except an electric automobile)'' and inserting 
``(except an electric or natural gas automobile)''.
    (b) Automobile Fuel Economy Definitions.--Section 32901(a)(8) of 
title 49, United States Code, is amended by inserting ``, but the 
inclusion of a reserve gasoline tank for incidental or emergency use in 
the event of alternative fuel depletion shall not detract from the 
dedicated nature of the automobile'' before the period at the end.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2015065EN.01000801.xml

| 23.2.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 December 2014 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf and the Amtsgericht Karlsruhe — Germany) — Sophia Marie Nicole Sanders represented by Marianne Sanders v David Verhaegen (C-400/13), Barbara Huber v Manfred Huber (C-408/13)

(Joined Cases C-400/13 and C-408/13) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Cooperation in civil matters - Regulation No 4/2009 - Article 3 - Jurisdiction to rule on an action relating to a maintenance obligation in respect of a person resident in another Member State - National legislation establishing a centralisation of jurisdiction))

(2015/C 065/11)

Language of the case: German

Referring courts

Referring courts

Amtsgericht Düsseldorf, Amtsgericht Karlsruhe

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Sophia Marie Nicole Sanders represented by Marianne Sanders (C-400/13), Barbara Huber (C-408/13)

Applicants:

Defendants: David Verhaegen (C-400/13), Manfred Huber (C-408/13)

Defendants:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 of 18 December 2008 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings which establishes a centralisation of judicial jurisdiction in matters relating to cross-border maintenance obligations in favour of a first instance court which has jurisdiction for the seat of the appeal court, except where that rule helps to achieve the objective of a proper administration of justice and protects the interests of maintenance creditors while promoting the effective recovery of such claims, which is, however, a matter for the referring courts to verify.

---

(1)  OJ C 274, 21.9.2013.

1

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ernest Dockery, Appellant.

[612 NYS2d 608]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Douglass, J.), rendered September 16, 1991, convicting him of assault in the first degree (two counts), robbery in the first degree (two counts), and robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

*478Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that a new trial is warranted because he was not personally present during the trial court’s sidebar interview with a prospective juror is without merit. This argument is based on the rule of law announced by the Court of Appeals in *People v Antommarchi*(80 NY2d 247). Since this case was decided after the defendant’s trial had been completed, the *Antommarchi*rule, which is not retroactive, does not apply *(see, People v Toal,*197 AD2d 650; *People v Mitchell,*80 NY2d 519; *People v Hannigan,*193 AD2d 8).

We further find that the trial court properly disqualified for cause a prospective juror whose brother was being prosecuted by the Kings County District Attorney’s office in the same court and at the same time as the defendant’s trial. On the day she was questioned, the juror indicated that she couldn’t be present for her brother’s case because of the instant case. Under these circumstances, we find that the trial court properly determined that the juror fell within the scope of CPL 270.20 (1) (c) in such a manner as would likely preclude her from rendering an impartial verdict *(see, People v Sellers,*73 AD2d 697; *People v Purcell,*103 AD2d 938; *People v Provenzano,*50 NY2d 420, 424; *People v Branch,*46 NY2d 645, 649).

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. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]). Balletta, J. P., Miller, Hart and Krausman, JJ., concur.
(Reap. Dec. 9718)

#### John P. Herber & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States

Entry No. 2249, etc.

(Decided May 31, 1960)

*Lawrenee*<£ *Tuttle*for the plaintiffs.

*George OochranDoub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant. ■

Wilson, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the respective parties herein:

> *742IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the plaintiffs and the Assistant Attorney General for the United States concerning the merchandise referred to in the attached Schedule “A”, as follows:

> 1. Said merchandise consists of binoculars and leather carrying eases which, in *John P. Herber & Co., Inc.*v. *United States,*C.D. 1519, this court held to be subject to appraisement separately according to the value of each class of article.

> 2. At the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, the prices at which 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 in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States, are the unit prices shown in attached Schedule “A”, in U.S. currency, net, including the cost of cases and packing; the foreign value of such or similar merchandise being no higher.

> 3. The above appeals for reappraisement are abandoned as to all entries and merchandise not listed in the attached Schedule “A”, and the said appeals for re-appraisement may be deemed to be submitted for decision upon this stipulation.

On the agreed facts, I find and hold export value, as that value is defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise herein involved, and that such values for the involved items were the unit prices as shown in schedule “A,” attached hereto and made part of my decision herein, in United States currency, net, including the cost of cases and packing.

The appeals having been abandoned insofar as they relate to all other merchandise, to that extent, the appeals are hereby dismissed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
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 Annual Report of Caprius, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
      10-KSB for the period ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jonathan Joels,
      Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350,
      as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, that:





(1) To
      the best
      of my knowledge, the report fully complies with the requirements of Section
      13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)           To
      the best of my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly
      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of
      operations of the Company.








/s/Jonathan
                JoelsJonathan
                JoelsTreasurer
                and CFODecember
                18, 2007
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           6,049
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           1,090
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 8,105
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     31,423
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           2,800
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             2,772
<LOANS>                                         28,832
<ALLOWANCE>                                        579
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  80,232
<DEPOSITS>                                      70,434
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                292
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           600
<OTHER-SE>                                       8,906
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  80,232
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  2,433
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,895
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   491
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 4,819
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               1,512
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,512
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            3,308
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                    739
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,488
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,488
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,086
<EPS-BASIC>                                       9.21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    5.00
<LOANS-NON>                                         70
<LOANS-PAST>                                         8
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   596
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       20
<RECOVERIES>                                         3
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  579
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            579


</TABLE>
# C_2014112EN.01001801.xml

| 14.4.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/18

---

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 30 January 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 17 de Barcelona — Spain) — France Telecom España, SA v Organismo de Gestión Tributaria de la Diputación de Barcelona

(Case C-25/13) (1)

1

((Request for a preliminary ruling - Electronic communications networks and services - Directive 2002/20/EC - Fee for the private use or the special right of use for the area under and on local public land imposed on operators supplying electronic communications services - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Answer able clearly to be deduced from the case-law))

2014/C 112/21

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 17 de Barcelona — Spain

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: France Telecom Espana, SA

Applicant:

Defendant: Organismo de Gestión Tributaria de la Diputación de Barcelona

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Juzgado de lo Contencioso Administrativo de Barcelona — Interpretation of Article 13 of Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (‘the Authorisation Directive’) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 21) — Fees for rights to use and to install facilities — Municipal public land — Transfer of rights and transfer of management of use.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

European Union law must be interpreted, in the light of the judgment in Joined Cases C-55/11, C-57/11 and C-58/11 Vodafone España and France Telecom España [2012] ECR, as precluding the application of a fee for the use and operation of resources installed on or under public or private property, within the meaning of Article 13 of Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (the Authorisation Directive), to operators supplying electronic communications services which are not the owners of those resources.

---

(1)  OJ C 108, 13.4.2013.

1

---
Identification of Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials as Solid Waste 

Application to Foundry Sand Processed in Thermal Reclamation Units 

• EPA indicated that foundry sand processed in thermal reclamation units for re-use at the 

foundry is a solid waste because the contaminants in the sand are being burned for 

discard 

• Accordingly, foundry sand thermal reclamation units would be subject to the new 

commercial and industrial solid waste incinerator (CISWI) standards 

• EPA acknowledged that foundry sand that is re-used on-site in the primary production 

process on a continuous basis in the sand loop is not a solid waste 

• Foundry sand processed in the thermal reclamation units, (i.e., the nonhazardous 

secondary material) has not been discarded because it is processed to be re-used in the 

mold and core making process at the foundry (i.e., in the primary production process on a 

continuous basis in the sand loop) 

• Based on EPA’s interpretation, any thermal processing (reclamation) of nonhazardous 

secondary materials would involve burning for discard and would, therefore, subject all 

of those units to CISWI standards

• EPA claims that the foundry sand is not processed as a fuel or an ingredient, so it is a 

solid waste, but the foundry sand is not discarded and is processed to be re-used as 

foundry sand

• Thermal reclamation units used for processing foundry sand are already subject to 

existing federal and state air permitting requirements

• Facilities have invested significant capital expenses to install thermal sand reclamation 

units to re-use foundry sand, conserve natural resources (i.e., virgin sand), and minimize 

the use of landfill capacity for foundry sand

• Imposing CISWI standards would have significant negative impacts on the beneficial reuse of foundry sand due to additional regulatory burdens and costs, raise the stigma 

associated with permitting incinerators for these reclamation units, and substantial 

increase the amount of foundry sand that would have to be landfilled. 

• EPA clearly did not contemplate foundry sand thermal reclamation units being subject to 

the new CISWI standards because EPA estimated that only 88 facilities would be 

impacted by the new standards. Based on EPA’s interpretation for foundry sands 

processed in thermal reclamation units, as many as 100 foundries could be impacted by 

the new standards. 

• Based on the broader scope of CISWI, EPA needs to conduct a revised economic impact 

analysis for the rule and assess the potential impacts on small business.