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

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 296 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide an additional tool to 

prevent certain frauds against veterans, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 7, 2023 

Mr. RUBIO (for himself, Ms. CORTEZ MASTO, and Mr. SCOTT of Florida) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide an additional tool to prevent certain frauds against veterans, 

and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Preventing Crimes 

5 Against Veterans Act of 2023’’. 


pbinns on DSKBC47HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 296 IS

1 SEC. 2. ADDITIONAL TOOL TO PREVENT CERTAIN FRAUDS 

2 AGAINST VETERANS. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 63 of title 18, United 

4 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol5 lowing: 

6 ‘‘§ 1352. Fraud regarding veterans’ benefits 

7 ‘‘(a) Whoever knowingly executes, or attempts to exe8 cute, any scheme or artifice to defraud an individual of 

9 veterans’ benefits, or in connection with obtaining vet10 eran’s benefits for that individual, shall be fined under this 

11 title, imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both. 

12 ‘‘(b) In this section— 

13 ‘‘(1) the term ‘veteran’ has the meaning given 

14 that term in section 101 of title 38; and 

15 ‘‘(2) the term ‘veterans’ benefits’ means any 

16 benefit provided by Federal law for a veteran or a 

17 dependent or survivor of a veteran.’’. 

18 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

19 for chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code, is amended 

20 by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘1352. Fraud regarding veterans’ benefits.’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKBC47HB2PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3000 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 3000

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To repeal Freedom Support Act section 907 waiver authority with respect 
                      to assistance to Azerbaijan.

    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 ``Armenian Protection Act of 2023''.

SEC. 2. FREEDOM SUPPORT ACT SECTION 907 WAIVER REPEAL.

    The President may not exercise the waiver authority provided 
pursuant to title II of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and 
Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2002 (Public Law 107-115) (22 
U.S.C. 5812 note), under the heading ``assistance for the independent 
states of the former soviet union'' under subsection (g), with respect 
to amounts appropriated or otherwise made available for fiscal years 
2024 or 2025.

            Passed the Senate November 15, 2023.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
118th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                S. 3000

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To repeal Freedom Support Act section 907 waiver authority with respect 
                      to assistance to Azerbaijan.
```
#### George KING, Petitioner, v. CITY OF ORLANDO, Respondent.

No. 2266.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

April 24, 1969.

Rehearing Denied May 14, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Certiorari denied.
EXHIBIT 32.1


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


        In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of RPM Advantage.
(the "Registrant") for the period ended March 31, 2006, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, David R. Pressler, Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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.


Date:   July 15, 2011


By:

/s/ DAVID R. PRESSLER


David R. Pressler
Chief Executive Officer
(principal executive officer)
#### Henry L. JOHNSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-19.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 31, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard Y. GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 76-4255

Summary Calendar.*

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 2, 1977.

James A. Moore, Ray B. Martin, Robert C. Hunt, Houston, Tex., for defendant-appellant.

Edward B. McDonough, Jr., U. S. Atty., James R. Gough, George A. Kelt, Jr., Asst. U. S. Attys., Houston, Tex., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before THORNBERRY, RONEY and HILL, Circuit Judges.

*

 Rule 18, 5 Cir., see *Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al.,*5 Cir. 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.

PER CURIAM:

Defendant’s convictions for making false statements on his tax returns are affirmed. 26 U.S.C.A. § 7206(1).

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to dismiss the indictment because the trial took place a year after arraignment, rather than within 120 days as required by the District Court’s Rule 50(b) Plan for Achieving Prompt Disposition of Criminal Cases of the Southern District of Texas. *United States*v. *Clendening,*526 F.2d 842 (5th Cir. 1976) and *United States v. Maizumi,*526 F.2d 848 (5th Cir. 1976). Where the four-pronged test of *Barker v. Wingo,*407 U.S. 514, 92 S.Ct. 2182, 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972), is not met, dismissal is not required.

The refusal to permit defendant to introduce evidence as to what tax, if any, would be owing on the unreported income was not error. *Schepps v. United States,*395 F.2d 749 (5th Cir. 1968).

AFFIRMED.
p. 1 

# OAR Box 1384 Prepped by Charmelle Mathews



### Document

Number: 

# ^251 ) ll-E-21 1 Docket Number: 

# A-94-5 2

Printed 7/2/2008 8:42:12 AM

Sheet 251 of 264P. 2 

# A-9H-S2 . CONTAC T REPOR T Mr . Keit h Barnett Pag e 1 Perso n Calling :
Perso n Called :

Dat e o f Contact : Keith Barnet t

U.S . Environmental Protectio n Agenc y OAQPS/ESD/OC G 919-541-560 5 Ms . Tiffan

y Fitchle y Cor e Material s Corporatio n 80 0 Mano r

Driv e Columbus , O H 4322 8 614-870-509 2 Jul y 3 , 200 0 Contac t Summary : Thi s facilit

y use dt o foldth e edge s o f it' s SM C rolls , the y stoppe ddoin g thi s becaus e it cause d problem s wit

h th e moldin g process . Tiffan y state dtha t

the y hav e installe dasealer tha t seal s th e edge s o f th e SM C rolls . 

### JA N 

### ! 9 200 1 EP A AI R DOCKE T

Confirmation : I confir

mtha t th e informatio

n abov e i s Signature : correc t correc t wit h th e changes note

dabove.
#### Charles A. DAVIS and Paulette Davis, his wife, Appellants, v. Ernest H. GUISE and Frances C. Guise, his wife, Appellees.

No. 2547.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

Sept. 17, 1969.

Howard Reiss, Orlando, for appellants.

Robert H. Roth, of Roth, Segal & Levine, Orlando, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

The points presented on this appeal by the appellants involve factual issues which were resolved against the appellants by the trial court. The record on appeal does not contain a transcript of the testimony which was before the trial court. We are, therefore, unable on the basis of the record before this court to conclude that the appellants have demonstrated the existence of reversible error. For this reason the judgment appealed from is affirmed. See City of South Bay v. Armstrong, Fla.App. 1966, 188 So.2d 21.

Affirmed.

McCAIN, REED, and OWEN, JJ-, concur.
EXHIBIT 32.1


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. 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 RPM Advantage.
(the "Registrant") for the period ended September 30, 2009, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, David R. Pressler, Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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.


Date:   July 15, 2011


By:

/s/ DAVID R. PRESSLER


David R. Pressler
Chief Executive Officer
(principal executive officer)
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 191 (Thursday, October 2, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 51672]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-26168]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, Division 
of Extramural Activities; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to Section 10(d) of Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting:

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Neurological Disorders 
and Stroke Special Emphasis Panel (Telephone Conference Call).
    Date: October 23, 1997.
    Time: 3:30 p.m.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 7550 Wisconsin Avenue, 
Room 9C10, Bethesda, Maryland 20892.
    Contact Person: Dr. Paul Sheehy/Mr. Phillip Wiethorn, Scientific 
Review Administrator, National Institutes of Health, 7550 Wisconsin 
Avenue, Room 9C10, Bethesda, Maryland 20892, (301) 496-9223.
    Purpose/Agenda: To review and evaluate RFP Contract Proposal(s).
    The meeting will be closed in accordance with the provisions set 
forth in secs. 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5, U.S.C. 
Applications and/or proposals and the discussions could reveal 
confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable 
material and personal information concerning individuals associated 
with the applications and/or proposals, the disclosure of which 
would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.853, Clinical 
Research Related to Neurological Disorders; No. 93.854, Biological 
Basis Research in the Neurosciences)

    Dated: September 26, 1997.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Committee Management Officer, NIH.
[FR Doc. 97-26168 Filed 10-1-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
#### George Joseph SPAULDING, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-231.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 21, 1971.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Ray RIGOT, Appellant, v. Jean F. BUCCI, Appellee.

No. 69-39.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 22, 1970.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 18, 1970.

Steadman S. Stahl, Jr., of Varón & Stahl, Hollywood, and Dennis I. Holober, Miami, for appellant.

William P. Doyle, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

On the basis of the briefs, record, and oral argument, it is our opinion that the appellant has failed to demonstrate reversible error; therefore, the judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.

CROSS, C. J., and REED and OWEN, JJ-, concur.
#### Ray W. BROWN, Appellant, v. Edward STACK, Sheriff of Broward County, Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-321.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 20, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 31.2



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECURITIES

EXCHANGE ACT RULES 13a-15(e) and 15d-15 (e) AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Michael Shahbazian, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this Form 10-Q of Niku Corporation;



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



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash
flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;



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



(a) designed such disclosure controls
and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being
prepared;



(b) evaluated the effectiveness of the
registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



(c) disclosed in this quarterly report any change in the
registrants internal controls over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal controls
over financial reporting;



5. The registrants other
certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):



(a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
controls which could adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrants auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and



(b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal controls over financial reporting.



|                     |  |                        
|-------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Dated: June 14, 2004 |  | /S/ MICHAEL SHAHBAZIAN 
|                     |  | Michael Shahbazian     
|                     |  | Chief Financial Officer
#### Henry C. THOMPSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. W. C. WARMACK, d/b/a W. C. Warmack’s Used Cars, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 2857.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Third Circuit.

Oct. 17, 1969.

Thomas A. Self, Many, for plaintiff-appellant.

James L. Davis, Many, for defendant-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff-appellant, Henry C. Thompson, has moved that this court fix a return date for his appeal in the above-captioned case.

On September 16, 1969, this court upheld plaintiff’s right to maintain an appeal 229 So.2d 352. The trial court, we are told, refused to fix a return date, contending that it is without jurisdiction to extend or fix a return date after the initial sixty-day period by La.Code Civ.P. art. 2125 has expired. While such contention may have been proper under art. 2088 prior to the 1964 amendment, it is now clear that by virtue of that amendment the trial court is not divested of jurisdiction to extend or fix a return day after the initial sixty-day period has expired. Consequently, we feel that had this amendment been brought to the attention of the trial court, it would have complied with plaintiff’s request.

For the foregoing reasons the motion to fix a return date is denied.

Motion to fix return date denied.
#### William J. TURNER, Appellant, v. TRADE-MOR, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 69-485.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Feb. 9, 1970.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Orange County; Richard H. Cooper, Judge.

Appeal dismissed. See Chastain v. Embry, Fla.App.1960, 118 So.2d 33.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Roy Milton SMITH.

No. 60034.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 23, 1977.

John C. Ford, Jackson, Smith & Ford, Leesville, for defendant-appellant.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., William C. Pe-gues, III, Dist. Atty., William E. Tilley, First Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appel-lee.

*697PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 187 (Friday, September 26, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 50568]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-25563]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. OA96-171-001]


The United Illuminating Company; Notice of Filing

September 22, 1997.
    Take notice that on August 15, 1997, The United Illuminating 
Company (UI) tendered for filing proposed changes to, and 
clarifications regarding, its Open Access Transmission Tariff, FERC 
Electric Tariff, Original Volume No. 4 (Tariff), to comply with the 
Commission's order in Allegheny Power System, Inc., 80 FERC para. 
61,143 (1997).
    UI served a copy of this filing upon all persons listed on the 
official service list compiled by the Secretary in Docket No. OA96-171-
000, upon the current customers under the Tariff, and upon the 
Connecticut Department of Public Utility Control and McCallum 
Enterprises I Limited Partnership.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 18 CFR 385.214). All such 
motions or protests should be filed on or before October 2, 1997. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission to determine the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-25563 Filed 9-25-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 97-216 

________________________________________________________________________ 

INVESTMENT 

 Treaty Between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and ESTONIA 

Signed at Washington April 19, 1994 

with 

Annex 

 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
 ESTONIA 

 Investment 

Treaty signed at Washington April 19, 1994; 

Transmitted by the President of the United States of America 

 to the Senate September 27, 1994 (Treaty Doc. 103-38, 

 103d Congress, 2d Session); 

Reported favorably by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations 

 March 27, 1996 (Senate Executive Report No. 104-14, 

 104th Congress, 2d Session); 

Advice and consent to ratification by the Senate 

 June 27, 1996; 

Ratified by the President September 12, 1996; 

Exchange of instruments of ratification at Tallinn 

 January 17, 1997; 

Entered into force February 16, 1997. 

With annex.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FORM
10-Q AT MARCH 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       3,309,100
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,300,100
<ALLOWANCES>                                   150,000
<INVENTORY>                                  3,371,200
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            14,415,200
<PP&E>                                       4,826,500
<DEPRECIATION>                                 373,600
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              19,113,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,431,300
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        10,100
<OTHER-SE>                                   9,266,500
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                19,113,000
<SALES>                                     26,580,300
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            26,580,300
<CGS>                                       24,678,800
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               24,678,800
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,734,400
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              65,600
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                155,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                    62,100
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             92,900
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    92,900
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .01


</TABLE>