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

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3419 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3419

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 1765 Camp Hill Bypass in Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, as the ``John 
                      Charles Traub Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. JOHN CHARLES TRAUB POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 1765 Camp Hill Bypass in Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, shall be 
known and designated as the ``John Charles Traub Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``John 
Charles Traub Post Office''.

            Passed the Senate April 23, 2024.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
118th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 3419

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 1765 Camp Hill Bypass in Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, as the ``John 
                      Charles Traub Post Office''.
```
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION**

The undersigned hereby certifies, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his capacity as an officer of International Fuel Technology Inc. (“IFT”), that, to his knowledge, the Quarterly Report of IFT on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the report fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of IFT. 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to IFT and will be retained by IFT and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

| By:    | /s/ MICHAEL F. OBERTOP        | Date:   | July 23, 2004 |
|--------|-------------------------------|-------------------|---------------|
|   |                               |              |          |
|   | **Michael F.   Obertop**      |              |          |
|   | **Chief   Financial Officer** |              |          |

17
<PAGE>     E-16
                                                                  EXHIBIT 12.1
                             CHATWINS GROUP, INC.
                      RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
              (In thousands, except ratios and interest factor)

                                             YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31,
                                  -------------------------------------------
                                     1994     1995     1996     1997     1998
                                  -------  -------  -------  -------  -------
     EARNINGS:
Income (loss) from continuing
  operations before income taxes  $   (32) $ 3,691  $(1,931) $ 3,288  $    77
Interest expense                    6,792    7,630    7,378    7,402    7,462
Equity in loss of continuing
  operations of affiliate           4,056      373      915        -        -
Amortization of debt issuance
  expense                             444      564      632      550      671
Interest portion of rent
  expense (1)                         212      251      331      588      668
                                  -------  -------  -------  -------  -------
     Earnings                     $11,028  $11,945  $ 6,693  $11,828  $ 8,878
                                  =======  =======  =======  =======  =======

     FIXED CHARGES:
Interest expense                  $ 6,792  $ 7,630  $ 7,378  $ 7,402  $ 7,462
Amortization of debt issuance
  expense                             444      564      632      550      671
Interest portion of rent
  expense (1)                         212      251      331      588      668
                                  -------  -------  -------  -------  -------
     Fixed charges                $ 7,448  $ 8,445  $ 8,341  $ 8,540  $ 8,801
                                  =======  =======  =======  =======  =======

RATIO (2)                            1.48     1.41        -     1.39     1.01
                                  =======  =======  =======  =======  =======

(1) - Interest portion of rent expense is calculated as follows:

Rent expense                      $   635  $   754  $   994  $ 1,765  $ 2,003
Portion deemed representative
   of interest                       33.3%    33.3%    33.3%    33.3%    33.3%
                                  -------  -------  -------  -------  -------
Interest portion of rent expense  $   212  $   251  $   331  $   588  $   668
                                  =======  =======  =======  =======  =======
#### DADE DRYDOCK CORP., d/b/a Port Everglades Shipyard, a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. BROWARD COUNTY et al., Appellees.

No. 70-1061.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 20, *1971.*

David W. Walters and Sarino R. Cos-tanzo, Miami, for appellant.

Gaylord A. Wood, Jr., Fort Lauderdale, for appellee Markham.

*287PER CURIAM.

Appellant’s suit challenged a tax assessment levied against certain real property leased by it from Port Everglades Authority. The final judgment dismissing the amended complaint with prejudice set forth several bases, but we find that the first is wholly adequate to sustain the judgment without discussing the others. The suit was filed more than sixty (60) days from the time the assessment roll was certified, and thus under Section 194.151, F.S.1969, F.S.A., the court lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter. Harvey W. Seeds Post No. 29, American Legion v. Dade County, Fla.App.1970, 230 So.2d 696; Henry v. Dade County, Fla.App.1963, 149 So.2d 89.

The judgment appealed is therefore affirmed.

REED, C. J., WALDEN and OWEN, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 24 (Wednesday, February 5, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 5355]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-2756]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

26 CFR Part 1

[REG-209817-96]
RIN 1545-AU19


Treatment of Obligation-Shifting Transactions; Hearing

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service, Treasury.

ACTION: Proposed rule; change of date and location of public hearing.

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

SUMMARY: This document changes the date and location of the public 
hearing on proposed regulations relating to the treatment of certain 
multiple-party financing transactions in which one party realizes 
income from leases or similar agreements and another party claims 
deductions related to that income.

DATES: The public hearing is being held on Wednesday, May 14, 1997, 
beginning at 10:00 a.m. Requests to speak and outlines of oral comments 
must be received by April 23, 1997.

ADDRESSES: The public hearing originally scheduled in the IRS 
Auditorium, Internal Revenue Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, 
Washington, DC is changed to room 2615, Internal Revenue Building, 1111 
Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christina Vasquez of the Regulations 
Unit, Assistant Chief Counsel (Corporate), (202) 622-7180 (not a toll-
free number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A notice of proposed rulemaking and notice 
of public hearing appearing in the Federal Register on Friday, December 
27, 1996 (61 FR 68175), announced that a public hearing on proposed 
regulations relating to the treatment of certain multiple-party 
financing transactions in which one party realizes income from leases 
or similar agreements and another party claims deductions related to 
that income would be held on Tuesday, April 29, 1997, beginning at 
10:00 a.m. in the IRS Auditorium, Internal Revenue Building, 1111 
Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC and that requests to speak and 
outlines of oral comments should be received by Tuesday, April 8, 1997.
    The date and location of the pubic hearing has changed. The hearing 
is scheduled for Wednesday, May 14, 1997, beginning at 10:00 a.m. in 
room 2615, Internal Revenue Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, 
Washington, DC. We must receive the requests to speak and outlines of 
oral comments by Wednesday, April 23, 1997. Because of controlled 
access restrictions, attenders are not admitted beyond the lobby of the 
Internal Revenue Building until 9:45 a.m.
    The Service will prepare an agenda showing the scheduling of the 
speakers after the outlines are received from the persons testifying 
and make copies available free of charge at the hearing.
Cynthia E. Grigsby,
Chief, Regulations Unit, Assistant Chief Counsel (Corporate).
[FR Doc. 97-2756 Filed 2-4-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
**Exhibit 31.1**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Vincent D. Kelly, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this amendment to the annual report on Form 10-K/A ofMetrocall Holdings, Inc.;
2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this annual report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15e and 15d-15e) for the registrant and have:
a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;
b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and
c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s fourth fiscalquarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely 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 otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.
Date: April 29, 2004
/s/ Vincent D. KellyVincent D. Kelly
#### Raymond SPELL, Petitioner, v. TOMPKINS-BECKWITH, INC. and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Respondents.

No. 38627.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 9, 1969.

Angus W. Harriett, Palatka, for petitioner.

Robert C. Gobelman and Mathews, Osborne & Ehrlich, Jacksonville, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

By petition for a writ of certiorari we have for review an order of the Florida Industrial Commission bearing date May 2, 1969.

We find that oral argument would serve no useful purpose and it is therefore dispensed with pursuant to Florida Appellate Rule 3.10, subd. e, 32 F.S.A.

Our consideration of the petition, the record and briefs leads us to conclude that there has been no deviation from the essential requirements of law.

The petition is therefore denied.

ERVIN, C. J., and ROBERTS, DREW, CARLTON and BOYD, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit
      32.1**







**Certification
      of Principal Executive Officer**


**Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,**


**as
      Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
      2002**








I,
      Nigel
      P. Ekern, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
      to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of
      Net
      Perceptions, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2005, fully
      complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report
      on
      Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition
      and
      results of operations of Net Perceptions, Inc.







Date:  November
      9, 2005      By: /s/
      Nigel P.
      Ekern


Name: Nigel
      P.
      Ekern


Title:  Chief
      Administrative Officer


*(Principal
      Executive Officer)*





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
      and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
April 12, 2013

Department of Transportation Essential Air Service To whom it may concern: As a major employer in the Lewistown and Central Montana region, we consider the Essential Air Service to be a program of significant importance to our business partners and customers, employees, local families and their extended families. Living in such a remote area provides a number of special challenges, one of the greatest being the inability to readily and cost

- effectively obtain transportation in and out o f the region. The Essential Air Service, if operated efficiently and with the correct connection options, would maintain a traveler’s ability to connect to our nation’s air

-transport system. Unfortunately, the decision to move the Lewistown connection to Billings, MT, has almost single

- handedly killed the potential for success of this EAS station. Century , its associates and their families regularly used the Lewistown
– Denver connection when it existed, as it provided a fairly reliable and convenient me ans of entering the air

- traffic system and the many carriers using DIA. We need it back! The Billings connection has failed on several fronts. The reliability of the flights simply never materialized as promised. Add to this problem the unreasonable ti metable, which ensured not just a late flight, but a cancelled trip if the Lewistown departure time was missed. We simply quit using the local airline due to its problems. In addition, Silver Airlines apparently did not provide the IFR approach equipmen t required for the new LVP approaches, and its pilots were either not trained for, or were prohibited by internal airlines rules from using, these very capable approaches in inclement weather. Combined, these factors simply killed ridership. The Lewistow n EAS program simply could not succeed with the most recent combination of route and carrier. Lewistown should NOT be removed from the EAS system. Rather, a LWT

- DIA route should be re

established and the bidding airlines should be required to provide pil ots and aircraft capable of using all of Lewistown’s IFR approaches. Given these two changes, the ridership would grow substantially and effectiveness of the EAS program in Lewistown would be achieved. Sincerely, Tim Robertson President & CEO Century Co mpanies, Inc., Lewistown, MT
Order entered December 19, 2018

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-01183-CV

IN RE JAMES DONDERO, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 256th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DF-11-16417

ORDER

Before Justices Lang-Miers, Fillmore, and Stoddart

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DENY relator’s petition for writ of 

mandamus. We LIFT the Court’s October 15, 2018 stay of the trial court’s July 23, 2018 

“Temporary Order During Appeal.”

/s/ CRAIG STODDART 

JUSTICE
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

39–011 2013

113th Congress, 1st Session – – – – – – – – – – – – – House Document 113–72 

CONTINUATION OF THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY 

WITH RESPECT TO IRAN 

MESSAGE 

FROM

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 

TRANSMITTING

NOTIFICATION THAT THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY WITH RESPECT 

TO IRAN ORIGINALLY DECLARED ON NOVEMBER 14, 1979, BY 

EXECUTIVE ORDER 12170, IS TO CONTINUE IN EFFECT BEYOND 

NOVEMBER 14, 2013, PURSUANT TO 50 U.S.C. 1622(d) 

NOVEMBER 12, 2013.—Message and accompanying papers referred to the 

Committee on Foreign Affairs and ordered to be printed 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSE:\Seals\Congress.#13

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(1) 

To the Congress of the United States: 

Section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 

1622(d)) provides for the automatic termination of a national emergency unless, within the 90-day period prior to the anniversary 

date of its declaration, the President publishes in the Federal Register and transmits to the Congress a notice stating that the emergency is to continue in effect beyond the anniversary date. In accordance with this provision, I have sent to the Federal Register for 

publication the enclosed notice stating that the national emergency 

with respect to Iran that was declared in Executive Order 12170 

of November 14, 1979, is to continue in effect beyond November 14, 

2013. 

Because our relations with Iran have not yet returned to normal, 

and the process of implementing the agreements with Iran, dated 

January 19, 1981, is still under way, I have determined that it is 

necessary to continue the national emergency declared in Executive 

Order 12170 with respect to Iran. 

BARACK OBAMA. 

THE WHITE HOUSE, November 12, 2013. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(3) 

NOTICE

CONTINUATION OF THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY WITH RESPECT

TO IRAN

On November 14, 1979, by Executive Order 12170, the President 

declared a national emergency with respect to Iran and, pursuant 

to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 

1701–1706), took related steps to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States constituted by the situation in Iran. Because our relations with Iran have not yet returned to normal, and 

the process of implementing the agreements with Iran, dated January 19, 1981, is still under way, the national emergency declared 

on November 14, 1979, must continue in effect beyond November 

14, 2013. Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 

year the national emergency with respect to Iran declared in Executive Order 12170. 

This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress. 

BARACK OBAMA. 

THE WHITE HOUSE, November 12, 2013. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
#### CARYL OF HOLLYWOOD, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. GEIGER PROPERTIES, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 69-934.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nov. 3, 1970.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 25, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
---

Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
  18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AND 
  RULE 13a-14(b)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Sense Technologies
  Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the fiscal quarter ended August 31,
  2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), each
  of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby
  certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and Rule 13a-14(b), that to his
  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 the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|                         | By: /s/ Bruce E. Schreiner                
|------------------------ | ------------------------------------------
|                         | Bruce E. Schreiner                        
|Dated:  October 22, 2004 | President and Principal Accounting Officer

---
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 11-118 

________________________________________________________________________ 

SCIENTIFIC COOPERATION 

Energy Sciences 

 Protocol Between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and CHINA 

Signed at Washington January 18, 2011 
 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.” 
CHINA 

Scientific Cooperation: Energy Sciences 

 Protocol signed at Washington January 18, 2011; 

 Entered into force January 18, 2011.