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

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3126 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 3126

 To amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary of 
    Veterans Affairs to furnish or replace a headstone, marker, or 
    medallion for the grave of an eligible Medal of Honor recipient 
regardless of the recipient's dates of service in the Armed Forces, and 
                          for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 25, 2023

   Mr. Braun (for himself, Mr. Brown, and Mr. Tester) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                           Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary of 
    Veterans Affairs to furnish or replace a headstone, marker, or 
    medallion for the grave of an eligible Medal of Honor recipient 
regardless of the recipient's dates of service in the Armed Forces, 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. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Mark Our Place Act''.

SEC. 2. EXPANSION OF ELIGIBILITY FOR GOVERNMENT-FURNISHED HEADSTONE, 
              MARKER, OR MEDALLION FOR MEDAL OF HONOR RECIPIENTS.

    (a) In General.--Section 2306(d)(5)(C) of title 38, United States 
Code, is amended--
            (1) by striking clause (i);
            (2) in clause (ii), by inserting ``(except that 
        subparagraph (B)(i) of such paragraph shall not apply)'' after 
        ``paragraph (4)''; and
            (3) by redesignating clauses (ii) and (iii) as clauses (i) 
        and (ii), respectively.
    (b) Technical Correction.--Section 2306(d)(5) of such title is 
amended by striking ``section 491'' both places it appears and 
inserting ``section 2732''.
                                 <all>
```
5 / 17 /2015

U. S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

Washington, DC 20590

Re: Amendment to Vision Pictures , LLC Exemption #11541 in Regulatory Docket No. FAA

2015

- 0423

Dear Sir or Madam:

Vision Pictures LLC hereby requests an amendment to e xemption #11541 to allow for three

( 3 ) additional type s of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) that fully comply with the conditions of the

Petition for Exemption

.

Vision Pictures wishes to operate the DJI Phantom 3, DJI S 900 and the Aerigon under the

same terms and conditions contained in e xemption #11541 . Attached hereto, and submitted as highly

proprietary and confidential documents , are the Flight Operations and Procedures Manuals

(FOPM) for the three ( 3 ) additional UAS. All operations of the additional UAS will be in full

compliance with the terms of e xemption #11541

.

As this is an amendment to an existing e xemption asking for only the addition of other type s

of unmanned aerial vehicle s

, Vision Pictures respectfully submi ts that good cause exists so that

notice does not need to be published in the Federal Register for the requested amendment.

Please contact the undersigned should you have any questions concerning this request for an

amendment to e xemption #11541

.

Sincerely yours,

Joel S Petersen

Vision Pictures LLC

6844 Cahuenga P ark T rail

, Los Angeles CA 90068

(323) 484

- 4022



### cc:

Jonathan B. Rupprecht, Esq.
Case 1:06-cv-00081-DWA-FXC   Document 6   Filed 06/12/06   Page 1 of 1

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2014-03-10T20:28:52-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

GREGORY GARRETT BROWN, )

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) Civil Action No. 06-204 ERIE

)

U.S. GOVERNMENT )

Defendant. )

)

ORDER

AND NOW this 5th day of October, 2006, after consideration of the 

Plaintiff’s Appeal to the Magistrate Judges Order

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that said appeal is DENIED 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Order of September 26, 2006 

is hereby AFFIRMED. 

 S/Sean J. McLaughlin 

Sean J. McLaughlin

United States District Judge

cc: counsel/parties of record NK 

Case 1:06-cv-00204-SJM-SPB Document 4 Filed 10/05/06 Page 1 of 1
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

Exhibit 10.1    
  


 
 
 

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 TPG N.V. (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the period
ended 31 December 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, M.P. Bakker, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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 result of operations of the Company. 





	

19 February 2003	
 	

 
	 	 	 
	

/s/  M.P. BAKKER      
 M.P. Bakker

Chief Executive Officer

	
 	

 











QuickLinks


Exhibit 10.1

CERTIFICATION – M.P. Bakker, CEO, TPG N.V.
#### Nathan Niel ADAMS v. T. Edward AUSTIN, Prosecuting Attorney for Duval County, Jacksonville, Florida.

No. 38972.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Oct. 1969.

Mandamus denied without opinion.
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Timothy R. Price, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this amended annual report on Form 10-K/A of Hollywood
Entertainment Corporation;

2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this 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 report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) 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 we have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, 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 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 report any change in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent
fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

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

Date: April 13, 2004



                            /s/ Timothy R. Price
                            -----------------------
                            Timothy R. Price
                            Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION

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)



In connection with the Annual Report of Rural/Metro Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended
June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael S. Zarriello, Senior Vice President 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 my knowledge:



| | (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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated: September 22, 2006



|                                                                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                    
|/S/    MICHAEL S.
ZARRIELLO                                                                         
|Michael S. Zarriello Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial
Officer)
#### Christine WHITE, Appellant, v. SEABOARD COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, a corporation, Appellee.

No. 68-572.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

July 9, 1969.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 22, 1969.

Bill Wagner, of Wagner, Cunningham & Vaughan, Tampa, for appellant.

Richard W. Reeves, of Allen, Dell, Frank & Trinkle, Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

LILES, Acting C. J., and MANN and McNULTY, JJ., concur.

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

MANN, Judge.

Appellant asks us to reconsider our affirmance without opinion, suggesting that we have applied here a different standard from that applied in Barry v. Greyhound Lines, Fla.App.1968, 216 So.2d 775. There we upheld the sound judgment of a trial judge who admitted testimony of measure*228ments of speed of vehicles passing through an intersection marked by a caution signal and to which no specific statutory standard applied. That the trial judge best knows whether proffered testimony of this sort tends to clarify or obscure the issues is a factor too little regarded by appellate counsel, and often lost when a court’s language is excerpted into headnotes. See Continental Casualty Co. v. McClure, Fla.App. 1969, 225 So.2d 590. Here the trial judge excluded tabulations of speeds at which motorists crossed the railroad tracks at which plaintiff’s husband was fatally injured when defendant’s train struck his truck.

There is one major difference. In *Barry,*the bus had the right of way and the average speed was suggested as a standard which the jury might attribute to a reasonable man. In this case, White was under a duty to yield to the train. Plaintiff’s able counsel, perceiving this difference, sought to introduce the testimony as bearing on the railroad’s knowledge of the speeds at which motorists cross the tracks. We think that exclusion for this purpose was sound. Certainly there is no continuing legal duty on the railroad to make such measurements as the plaintiff did in order to determine whether the crossing is sufficiently dangerous as to require an automatic signal. This argument was otherwise raised and determined against the plaintiff.

Furthermore, the statistical method employed in this case was erroneous. The data were tabulated within ranges of speed, including a range from 30 to 50 miles per hour which embraces the 42 miles per hour plaintiff contended White was traveling, but included an indeterminate number of considerably more prudent drivers.

While in *Barry*the incidence of specific speeds clocked across the intersection was not in evidence, there was no apparent statistical fallacy. We repeat that the sound judgment of the trial judge is the primary factor to which appellate courts must look in evaluating testimony peripheral to the main issues and tending to prove them indirectly. In the absence of a showing that the trial judge’s judgment is demonstrably wrong, we are obligated to affirm.

The petition for rehearing is denied.

LILES, Acting C. J., and McNULTY, J., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<RESTATED> 
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1996
<CASH>                                             475
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                            4317
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                       6906
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           24836
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             24951
<LOANS>                                         204897
<ALLOWANCE>                                       1075
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  255660
<DEPOSITS>                                      151115
<SHORT-TERM>                                     22500
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                               5453
<LONG-TERM>                                      29400
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            29
<OTHER-SE>                                       47163
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  255660
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  15965
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                 2294
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    60
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 18319
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                7703
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               10081
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                             8238
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      200
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                   4579
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   4224
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                        4224
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      2557
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.01
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.47
<LOANS-NON>                                        234
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   875
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                 1075
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                           1075
        

</TABLE>
#### In re GUARDIANSHIP OF Elizabeth W. REID. Erma MACREADY, Appellant, v. Laura RUSSELL and A. Morgan Williams, Jr., Appellees.

No. O-150.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 22, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### BOUCHE APPLIANCES, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. Leonard SUSSMAN, Appellee.

No. 69-624.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Nov. 4, 1969.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 26, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
****

 

 

 

**President**

**Section 906 Certification under Sarbanes Oxley Act**

 

 

 

I, Michael G. Clark, certify that: 

 

| 1. | I have reviewed this report, filed on behalf of DWS Global High Income Fund, Inc., on Form N-CSR; |
|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| 2. | Based on my knowledge and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the periodic report on Form N-CSR (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of § 13 (a) or §15 (d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

 

| December 31, 2007 | /s/Michael G. Clark               |
|-------------------|-----------------------------------|
|              | Michael G. Clark                  |
|              | President                         |
|              | DWS Global High Income Fund, Inc. |

 

 

----
EXHIBIT 10.3

                             CERTIFICATE OF OFFICERS


         In connection with that certain Investment Agreement dated as of August
5th, 2003, by and between Cyber Holdings Co., Ltd., a corporation organized and
existing under the laws of Japan ("Cyber") and IA Global, Inc., a corporation
organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware ("IAG") (the
"Investment Agreement"); and that certain Indemnification Agreement dated as of
August 5th, 2003, by and among Fan Club Entertainment Co., Ltd. ("Fan Club"),
Fan Club and IAG (the "Indemnification Agreement"), the undersigned officers of
Cyber hereby certify to IAG as follows:


1)    All representations and warranties made by Cyber in the Investment
      Agreement are true and correct as of the date thereof, to the best
      knowledge of the undersigned officers.

2)    Attached hereto is a true and complete copy of all resolutions adopted by
      the Board of Directors of the Company authorizing the execution, delivery
      and performance of the Investment Agreement and the Indemnification
      Agreement.

3)    Attached hereto are true and complete copies of all documents filed with
      the Japanese Ministry of Legal Affairs in connection performance of the
      Investment Agreement and the issuance of the Purchased Shares (as such
      term is defined in the Investment Agreement).





_____/S/ Kazunori Ito________________
KAZUNORI ITO



                                                                  August 5, 2003
                                   Page 1 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 181 (Thursday, September 18, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 49032]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-24802]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Special Emphasis Panel in Materials Research; Notice of Meetings

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub L.92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces that the 
Special Emphasis Panel in Materials Research (1203) will be holding 
panel meetings for the purpose of reviewing preproposals submitted to 
the Integrative Graduate Education and Research Training Program. These 
preproposals reflect multidisciplinary research themes that draw from 
all areas of science, engineering, and education supported by the 
National Science Foundation. In order to review the large volume of 
proposals, panel meetings will be held on October 6-8, 1997 (2). All 
meetings will be closed to the public and will be held at the National 
Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia, from 
8:00 AM to 5:00 PM each day.

    Contact person: Dr. Henry Blount, Head, Office of 
Multidisciplinary Activities, Office of the Assistant Director for 
Mathematical and Physical Sciences, National Science Foundation, 
Room 1005, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230, (703) 306-
1946.
    Reason For Closing: The preproposals being reviewed include 
information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including 
technical information, financial data such as salaries, and personal 
information concerning individuals associated with the proposals. 
These matters are exempt under 5 USC 552b(c) (4) and (6) of the 
Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: September 12, 1997.
M. Rebecca Winkler,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 97-24802 Filed 9-17-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

GARY P. CARPENTER, ) 

Plaintiff, ) 

1 

v. 1 C.A. No. 05-360 Erie 

1 

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

) Defendant. 1 

ORDER 

AND NOW, to wit, this 28th day of March, the Plaintiff having filed a document 

captioned "Plaintiff's Requests Court of Common Pleas Docket No. 14250-050 Notice 

to Remove Terminated and Reversal of Memorandum Order be Reversed," which this 

Court construes as a motion for reconsideration of its Order dated March 13, 2006 

[Doc. # 131 andlor a motion to recuse, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that said motion is DENIED. 

sl Sean J. McLauahlin 

ean 

EnitedJSEtes cLa# strict hlin Judge 

cm: all parties of record f& 

U.S. Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise Baxter 

Case 1:05-cv-00360-SJM-SPB Document 15 Filed 03/28/06 Page 1 of 1
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-50803 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus CHRISTOPHER MATTHEW LAMPRECHT, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. A-95-CR-10-ALL

- - - - - - - - - - August 14, 1997 Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Christopher Matthew Lamprecht, # 61153-080, appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to proceed in forma pauperis filed in connection with his motion for transcripts of his sentencing hearings at Government expense. Assuming arguendo that the court has jurisdiction of this appeal, see United States v. Miramontez , 995 F.2d 56, 58 (5th Cir. 1993), despite the lack of a pending 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion with which these motions should have been filed, we hold that the appeal is moot.No. 96-50803 -2- Lamprecht received the relief he requested when the district court granted permission to appeal in forma pauperis and ordered the transcripts prepared, as Lamprecht recognized in his reply brief.
APPEAL DISMISSED.