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

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1659 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1659

To amend the Equal Credit Opportunity Act to require the collection of 
      small business loan data related to LGBTQ-owned businesses.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 8, 2021

 Mr. Torres of New York (for himself, Mr. Auchincloss, Mr. Blumenauer, 
 Ms. Bonamici, Ms. Castor of Florida, Mr. Cicilline, Ms. Clarke of New 
 York, Ms. DelBene, Ms. Eshoo, Mr. Espaillat, Ms. Garcia of Texas, Mr. 
Garcia of Illinois, Mr. Grijalva, Mr. Hastings, Mrs. Hayes, Mr. Johnson 
of Georgia, Mr. Jones, Mr. Khanna, Ms. Leger Fernandez, Mr. Lowenthal, 
    Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney of New York, Mr. McGovern, Ms. Moore of 
 Wisconsin, Mr. Nadler, Ms. Norton, Mr. Pappas, Mr. Payne, Mr. Raskin, 
Ms. Scanlon, Ms. Schakowsky, Ms. Strickland, Ms. Velazquez, Mrs. Watson 
 Coleman, Ms. Titus, Mr. Meeks, Mr. Tonko, and Ms. Chu) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial 
                                Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Equal Credit Opportunity Act to require the collection of 
      small business loan data related to LGBTQ-owned businesses.

    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 ``LGBTQ Business Equal Credit 
Enforcement and Investment Act''.

SEC. 2. SMALL BUSINESS LOAN DATA COLLECTION.

    Section 704B of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (15 U.S.C. 1691c-
2) is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``LGBTQ-owned,'' after ``minority-owned,'' 
        each place such term appears;
            (2) in subsection (e)(2)(G), by inserting ``(including 
        sexual orientation and gender identity),'' after ``sex''; and
            (3) in subsection (h), by adding at the end the following:
            ``(7) LGBTQ-owned business.--The term `LGBTQ-owned 
        business' means a business--
                    ``(A) more than 50 percent of the ownership or 
                control of which is held by 1 or more individuals self-
                identifying as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or 
                queer; and
                    ``(B) more than 50 percent of the net profit or 
                loss of which accrues to 1 or more individuals self-
                identifying as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or 
                queer.''.
                                 <all>
```
# L_2005240EN.01004301.xml

| 16.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 240/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 240/43

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1501/2005

of 15 September 2005

concerning tenders notified in response to the invitation to tender for the export of oats issued in Regulation (EC) No 1438/2005

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 of 29 September 2003 on the common organisation of the market in cereals (1), and in particular Article 7 thereof,

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 of 29 June 1995 laying down certain detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 on the granting of export refunds on cereals and the measures to be taken in the event of disturbance on the market for cereals (2), and in particular Article 7 thereof,

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1438/2005 of 2 September 2005 on a special intervention measure for cereals in Finland and Sweden for the 2005/2006 marketing year (3),

Whereas:

| (1) | An invitation to tender for the refund for the export of oats produced in Finland and Sweden for export from Finland and Sweden to all third countries, with the exception of Bulgaria, Norway, Romania and Switzerland was opened pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1438/2005. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

An invitation to tender for the refund for the export of oats produced in Finland and Sweden for export from Finland and Sweden to all third countries, with the exception of Bulgaria, Norway, Romania and Switzerland was opened pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1438/2005.

| (2) | On the basis of the criteria laid down in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1501/95, a maximum refund should not be fixed. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

On the basis of the criteria laid down in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1501/95, a maximum refund should not be fixed.

| (3) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

No action shall be taken on the tenders notified from 9 to 15 September 2005 in response to the invitation to tender for the refund for the export of oats issued in Regulation (EC) No 1438/2005.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 16 September 2005.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States

Done at Brussels, 15 September 2005.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, p. 78.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 147, 30.6.1995, p. 7. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1431/2003 (OJ L 203, 12.8.2003, p. 16).

2

(3)  
  OJ L 228, 3.9.2005, p. 5.

3

---
#### OSCEOLA v. GREENE.

No. 38303.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 217 So.2d 609.
# L_2005249EN.01000401.xml

| 24.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 249/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 249/4

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1557/2005

of 23 September 2005

determining the extent to which applications lodged in September 2005 for import licences under the regime provided for by tariff quotas for certain products in the pigmeat sector for the period 1 October to 31 December 2005 can be accepted

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1458/2003 of 18 August 2003 opening and providing for the administration of tariff quotas for certain products in the pigmeat sector (1), and in particular Article 5(6) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | The applications for import licences lodged for the fourth quarter of 2005 are for quantities less than the quantities available and can therefore be met in full. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

The applications for import licences lodged for the fourth quarter of 2005 are for quantities less than the quantities available and can therefore be met in full.

| (2) | The surplus to be added to the quantity available for the following period should be determined, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The surplus to be added to the quantity available for the following period should be determined,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

1.   Applications for import licences for the period 1 October to 31 December 2005 submitted pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1458/2003 shall be met as referred to in Annex I.

2.   For the period 1 January to 31 March 2006, applications may be lodged pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1458/2003 for import licences for a total quantity as referred to in Annex II.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 1 October 2005.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 23 September 2005.

For the Commission

J. M. SILVA RODRÍGUEZ

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 208, 19.8.2003, p. 3. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC) No 341/2005 (OJ L 53, 26.2.2005, p. 28).

1

---

ANNEX I

| Group | Percentage of acceptance of import licences submitted for the period 1 October to 31 December 2005 |
| --- | --- |
| G2 | 100 |
| G3 | — |
| G4 | — |
| G5 | — |
| G6 | — |
| G7 | — |

Group

Percentage of acceptance of import licences submitted for the period 1 October to 31 December 2005

G2

100

G3

—

G4

—

G5

—

G6

—

G7

—

---

ANNEX II

| (t) |
| --- |
| Group No | Total quantity available for the period 1 January to 31 March 2006 |
| G2 | 23 071,5 |
| G3 | 3 750,0 |
| G4 | 2 250,0 |
| G5 | 4 575,0 |
| G6 | 11 250,0 |
| G7 | 4 125,0 |

(t)

Group No

Total quantity available for the period 1 January to 31 March 2006

G2

23 071,5

G3

3 750,0

G4

2 250,0

G5

4 575,0

G6

11 250,0

G7

4 125,0

---
STEPHEN J. BECKER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FORTHE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Plaintiff, V. Civil ActionNo. SHELITA N. PARHAM, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION 

# FILED APR 302012 Clerk, U.S. District &Bankruptcy Courts for the District of Columbia 

# 12 0680

This matter is before the Court on consideration ofthe plaintiffs application to proceed informapauperis and hisprose "Notice ofRemoval," which is construed as a Complaint. The application will be granted, and the complaint will be dismissed. On the defendant's petition, the Superior Court ofthe District ofColumbiaissued a civil protection order against the plaintiff. See Compl. (unnumbered cover page); see id., Ex. (Petition and Affidavit for Civil Protection Order, Parham v. Becker, No. 2011 CPO 184 (D.C. Super. Ct. filed Jan. 18, 2011)). A hearing on the extension ofthe civil protection order was to be held on February 6, 2012 at which the plaintiffintended to represent himselfwithout the assistance ofcounsel. 1 Id. According to the plaintiff, he "could not be heard during the hearing because of [the presidingjudge's] emotional outburst, rants, and constant threats ofcontempt of court withjail time for failing to accept counsel." Id. at 1. The plaintiffhas concluded that the he "can'tbe heard in the Superior Court," and thus is denied "the right ofdue process." Id. at 7. He demands that this matter be removed to federal court, that the civil protection order be vacated, and that "aProhibitory Injunction Order [be] issued against the Defendant." Id. at 8.

The plaintiffalso was to be arraigned on a charge ofcriminal contempt. See Compl., Ex. (Transcript ofproceedings on February 6, 2012) at 9:12-14, 22:24-23:7.protection order be vacated, and that "aProhibitory Injunction Order [be] issued against the Defendant." !d. at 8. Notwithstanding the plaintiffs characterization ofhis pleading as a notice for removal, in essence, the plaintiffasks this Court to review and reverse the decision ofa Superior Court judge. This Court has no suchjurisdiction, and declines to intervene in a matter pending before the Superior Court. 

### See, e.g., Mooreman v. US. Bank, NA., No. 10-1219, 2010 WL 2884661, at *1 (D.D.C. July 10, 2010); 

### Fleming v. UnitedStates, 847 F. Supp. 170, 172 (D.D.C. 1994), 

### aff'd, 1994 WL 474995 (D.C. Cir. 1994), 

### cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1150 (1995). Accordingly, the Court will dismiss this action without prejudice for lack ofsubject matterjurisdiction. An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.

DATE:

# t1p.J**~ ~**  J.u/2.
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


AS
REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002.





In
connection with the quarterly report of Diversified Product Inspections, Inc.
(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2009, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Jan Telander,
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:





1.
            The
      quarterly 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 quarterly report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      the Company.





Date: May
15, 2009





/s/ Jan
Telander





Jan
Telander


Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer


(Principal
Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3841 

To require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to submit a report on the 

impact of a proposed rule submitted by the Centers for Medicare & 

Medicaid Services on access of veterans to long-term care facilities. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 29, 2024 

Mr. KING (for himself and Mr. CRAMER) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to submit a 

report on the impact of a proposed rule submitted by 

the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services on access 

of veterans to long-term care facilities. 

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 ‘‘VA Report on Pro5 posed CMS Staffing Ratios Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 3841 IS

1 SEC. 2. REPORT ON IMPACT OF PROPOSED RULE ON AC2 CESS OF VETERANS TO LONG-TERM CARE FA3 CILITIES. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 60 days after the 

5 date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Vet6 erans Affairs shall submit to the Committee on Veterans’ 

7 Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on Veterans’ Af8 fairs of the House of Representatives a report on the im9 pact of the proposed rule submitted by the Centers for 

10 Medicare & Medicaid Services relating to ‘‘Medicare and 

11 Medicaid programs; minimum staffing standards for long12 term care facilities and Medicaid institutional payment 

13 transparency reporting’’ (88 Fed. Reg. 61352; published 

14 September 6, 2023) on the access of veterans to long-term 

15 care facilities under the laws administered by the Sec16 retary, which shall include the following: 

17 (1) The number of State homes at which cur18 rent staffing would not meet the threshold for min19 imum staffing outlined in such proposed rule. 

20 (2) The number of veterans who reside in a 

21 State home described in paragraph (1). 

22 (3) The number of community nursing homes 

23 currently contracted with the Department of Vet24 erans Affairs that would not meet the threshold for 

25 minimum staffing outlined in such proposed rule. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•S 3841 IS

1 (4) The number of veterans who reside in a 

2 community nursing home described in paragraph 

3 (3). 

4 (5) An assessment of whether or not such pro5 posed rule would have any impact on community liv6 ing centers of the Department. 

7 (6) An analysis of whether the Department will 

8 be able to adequately meet the long-term care needs 

9 of veterans after the full implementation of such 

10 proposed rule, including veterans in— 

11 (A) rural and highly rural areas; 

12 (B) medically underserved areas; 

13 (C) territories of the United States; or 

14 (D) Tribal areas. 

15 (7) Such other matters as the Secretary con16 siders appropriate. 

17 (b) STATE HOME DEFINED.—In this section, the 

18 term ‘‘State home’’ has the meaning given that term in 

19 section 101(19) of title 38, United States Code. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
#### Christopher J. MULLE, Appellant, v. Earl R. STIEFEL and Gertrude M. Stiefel, his wife, Appellees.

No. 71-1101.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Sept. 20, 1972.

A. N. Spence, Miami, for appellant.

James A. Scott, of Saunders, Curtis, Ginestra, & Gore, Fort Lauderdale, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Our review of this appeal leads us to conclude that in the interest of justice, the final judgment should be reversed and the appellant accorded a new trial in light of Hutchison v. Tompkins, Fla.App.1972, 259 So.2d 129 — which was decided after the final judgment was rendered. On remand, the trial court shall permit the parties to make such amendments to their pleadings as they may be advised.

Reversed and remanded with instructions.

REED, C. J., and WALDEN and MA-GER, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.56


                       EIGHTEENTH AMENDMENT TO LICENSE AND
                           OEM MANUFACTURING AGREEMENT


         The License and OEM Manufacturing Agreement ("LOEMMA") with an
effective date of July 1, 2002, by and among EchoStar Satellite Corporation,
EchoStar Technologies Corporation and Thomson multimedia Inc. is hereby amended
as follows:

         1.   Section 11.16 is amended to read:

         The Parties shall mutually agree to a trademark agreement (the
         "Trademark Agreement") to be attached as Exhibit E hereto on or before
         December 16, 2002.

         2.   Unless specifically defined herein, all defined terms will have
              the meaning ascribed to such terms in the LOEMMA. The LOEMMA shall
              remain in all other respects unchanged.



EchoStar Satellite Corporation              EchoStar Technologies Corporation

By:                                         By:
       ---------------------------                 -----------------------------

Title:                                      Title:
       ---------------------------                 -----------------------------

Date:                                       Date:
       ---------------------------                 -----------------------------


Thomson multimedia Inc.

By:
       ---------------------------

Title:
       ---------------------------

Date:
       ---------------------------
Exhibit 31.3





CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER





I, Gregg Buckbinder, hereby certify that:





1.  I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K of Millburn Multi-Markets Fund L.P.;





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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and 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:  March 30, 2011





/s/ Gregg BuckbinderGregg BuckbinderChief Financial and Operating OfficerMillburn Ridgefield CorporationGeneral Partner, Millburn Multi-Markets Fund L.P.
# L_2005322EN.01001101.xml

| 9.12.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 322/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.12.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 322/11

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2006/2005

of 8 December 2005

fixing the maximum export refund for white sugar to certain third countries for the 14th partial invitation to tender issued within the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1138/2005

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (1) and in particular the second indent of Article 27(5) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Regulation (EC) No 1138/2005 of 15 July 2005 on a standing invitation to tender to determine levies and/or refunds on exports of white sugar (2), for the 2005/2006 marketing year, requires partial invitations to tender to be issued for the export of this sugar to certain third countries. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1138/2005 of 15 July 2005 on a standing invitation to tender to determine levies and/or refunds on exports of white sugar (2), for the 2005/2006 marketing year, requires partial invitations to tender to be issued for the export of this sugar to certain third countries.

| (2) | Pursuant to Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1138/2005 a maximum export refund shall be fixed, as the case may be, account being taken in particular of the state and foreseeable development of the Community and world markets in sugar, for the partial invitation to tender in question. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Pursuant to Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1138/2005 a maximum export refund shall be fixed, as the case may be, account being taken in particular of the state and foreseeable development of the Community and world markets in sugar, for the partial invitation to tender in question.

| (3) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Sugar, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Sugar,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For the 14th partial invitation to tender for white sugar issued pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1138/2005 the maximum amount of the export refund shall be 37,360 EUR/100 kg.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 9 December 2005.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 8 December 2005.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 178, 30.6.2001, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 39/2004 (OJ L 6, 10.1.2004, p. 16).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 185, 16.7.2005, p. 3.

2

---