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

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2169 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2169

 To prohibit certain business concerns from receiving assistance from 
       the Small Business Administration, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 23, 2021

Mr. Smith of Missouri introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                   to the Committee on Small Business

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To prohibit certain business concerns from receiving assistance from 
       the Small Business Administration, 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 ``Preventing SBA Assistance from Going 
to China Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON AFFILIATION WITH THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA.

    (a) In General.--Section 3(a) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 
632(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
            ``(10) Prohibition on affiliation with the people's 
        republic of china.--For purposes of this Act, a small business 
        concern may not--
                    ``(A) be headquartered in the People's Republic of 
                China; or
                    ``(B) have more than 25 percent of the voting stock 
                of the small business concern owned by affiliates that 
                are citizens of the People's Republic of China.''.
    (b) Regulations and Guidance.--The Administrator of the Small 
Business Administration shall amend the regulations and guidance of the 
Administration, including sections 120.100, 120.110, and 121.105 of 
title 13, Code of Federal Regulations, to carry out the amendment made 
by this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Plan 

Item #6

6.0 

The assumptions used in item #5. See section 3.01. 

The information is provided in document number 5.1 (Actuarial Certification of Plan Status as of 

January 1, 2015 under IRC Section 432) and document number 5.2 (Supplemental Information to 

Actuarial Certification of Plan Status as of January 1, 2015 under IRC Section 432). 

Document number 5.3 (Actuarial Valuation and Review as of January 1, 2014) is the January 1, 2014 

Actuarial Valuation Certificate document referenced in document number 5.1.
#### Andree STAYMAN, Appellant, v. Harold W. STAYMAN, Jr., Appellee.

No. 72-1516.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 26, 1974.

Rehearing Denied March 25, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 218 (Wednesday, November 12, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60697-60698]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-29680]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. CP98-54-000]


Conoco, Inc. v. Williams Natural Gas Company; Notice of Complaint

November 5, 1997.
    Take notice that on October 29, 1997, Conoco, Inc. (Conoco), 600 N. 
Dairy Ashford, ML-1034, Houston, Texas 77079, filed a complaint against 
Williams Natural Gas Company (WNG), pursuant to Rule 206 of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.206), alleging 
violations by WNG of Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act, all as more 
fully set forth in the complaint on file with the Commission and open 
to public inspection.
    Conoco states its belief that WNG has constructed and is about to 
begin operating an expansion of its pipeline facilities in Hemphill 
County, Texas, consisting of 13.5 miles of pipeline extending from the 
Williams Field Service Hobart Ranch plant to WNG's 26-inch Canadian-
Blackwell mainline. Conoco also states its belief that WNG will abandon 
its Pampa outlet line, which also runs from the WFS Hobart Ranch plant 
to WNG's Canadian-Blackwell line, as well as the Higgins compression 
facility, a 1,200 horsepower compressor located at the intersection of 
the Pampa and Canadian-Blackwell lines. Conoco requests that the 
Commission issue a cease and desist order to stop WNG from operating 
the facilities installed, to stop WNG from constructing additional 
facilities and from abandoning existing facilities. Conoco further 
requests that WNG be compelled to file applications for the certificate 
and abandonment authorizations for its activities.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to make any protest with 
reference to said complaint should file with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20426, a motion to intervene or 
a protest in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules 
of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the 
Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.10). All such

[[Page 60698]]

motions, together with the answer of Respondent to the complaint and 
motions filed with the Commission should be filed on or before November 
26, 1997. Any person wishing to become a party to a proceeding or to 
participate as a party in any hearing therein must file a motion to 
intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-29680 Filed 11-10-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### GULF NATIONAL BANK OF LAKE CHARLES v. COMPUTER ANALYSIS, INC., et al.

No. 53814.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 7, 1973.

In re: Frank H. Marek applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Calcasieu. 278 So.2d 827.

Not considered. Not timely filed.
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">The People of the State of New York, Respondent, <br><br>against<br><br>Akhtar Sheikh, Defendant-Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (John Cataldo, J.H.O.), rendered September 18, 2014, convicting him, after a nonjury trial, of disorderly conduct, and imposing sentence.</p><p>Per Curiam.</p><p>Judgment of conviction, (John Cataldo, J.H.O.), rendered September 18, 2014, affirmed.</p><p>The verdict convicting defendant of disorderly conduct (<i>see</i> Penal Law ยง 240.20[7]) was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the court's determinations concerning credibility. </p><p>Defendant's present contention that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel is not reviewable on direct appeal because it involves matters outside the record regarding counsel's strategy (see People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705, 709 [1988]). On the existing record, to the extent it permits review, we find that defendant received effective assistance. In any event, dismissal of the accusatory instrument, the only relief defendant requests on appeal, would not be the appropriate corrective action in this particular case.</p><p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p><br>I concur I concur I concurDecision Date: February 22, 2018<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
12/27/2010 12:14 FAX 202 2675106 121002/002 

& 

U.S. Deporiment 

of Tronaporfotkjfi 

Federal AvioHon 

AdminlstfoMon 

U.S. CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED 

Office of Chief Counsel, AGC-300 

800 Independence Avenue SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

Telephone: (202)267-5158 

Fax (202)267-6106 

t

ember20,2010 

Laurence E. Rohl, 

President, Air Z Flying Service, Inc. 

355 Richmond Road, Hangar 5 

Richmond Heights, OH 44143 

The Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Office of Hearings, M-20, Room E12-320 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, D.C., 20590 

RE: In the Matter of Air Z Flying Service, Inc, FAA Docket No. CPIOSWOOIO, Case No. 

2009SW910051 

Dear Sirs: 

This letter is to inform you of my appearance in this case as the attorney of record representing 

the A dministrator of the Federal Aviation Administration, Please serve all filings and other 

docuients in this case on me at the address below. 

Sincerely, 

Nicholas R Milliard 

Attorney 

Enforcement Division, AGC-300 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Av^ue, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Telephone: (202) 267-3452 

Facsimile: (202) 267-5106 

cole.milliard@&a.gov
#### STANDARD GUARANTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Douglas Wayne GEETING and V. E. Anderson Mfg. Co., and Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., Appellees.

No. 76-2050.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Feb. 3, 1978.

W. M. Carson and Ellen M. Condon of Carson & Guemmer, Tampa, for appellant.

Daniel A. Carlton of Dart, Dickinson, O’Riorden, Gibbons & Quale, Sarasota, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is brought from an order awarding costs in favor of appellees as an adjunct to a judgment in favor of appellees and against appellant’s insured. The main judgment herein has been recently reversed by a decision of this court1 and the cause remanded for a new trial. As is conceded by the appellees in this appeal, the cost judgment cannot stand when the judgment upon which it is predicated has been reversed. Therefore, the cost judgment is hereby reversed and the cause remanded for further consideration by the trial court.

HOBSON, A. C. J., and OTT and DAN-AHY, JJ., concur.

1

. *Clooney v. Geeting (Saumell v. Geeting),*352 So.2d 1216, Second District Court of Appeal, opinion filed November 23, 1977. That decision also reversed other judgments, not relevant here, arising out of the same accident.
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

WASHINGTON, D. C. 

 

TREASURY ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON RACIAL EQUITY (TACRE) – June 8, 2023

Agenda*

Call to Order/Roll Call 1:00 – 1:05 Snider Page, DFO 

Opening Remarks 1:05 – 1:12 Michael Nutter, Chair & 

 Felicia Wong, Vice Chair

Treasury Opening Remarks 1:12 – 1:15 Janis Bowdler, Counselor for

Racial Equity

Briefing on EO 14091 and Q&A 1:15 – 1:45 Jenny Yang, Deputy Assistant

 to the President for Racial 

Justice and Equity, White 

House Domestic Policy 

Council

Break 1:45 – 2:00 All 

Secretary Remarks and Q&A 2:00 – 2:30 Secretary Janet Yellen 

 

Briefing on IRS Direct File Report and Q&A 2:30 – 3:05 Merici Vinton, Deputy, Direct 

File & Laurel Blatchford, 

Chief Implementation 

Officer, IRA

Subcommittee Briefings 3:05 – 4:05 Michael Nutter, Chair

• Research and Data Equity 3:05 – 3:20 Dr. Dorothy Brown & 

Dr. John Friedman 

• IRA Implementation 3:20 – 3:35 Amanda Renteria 

• Financial Health & Capital Access 3:35 – 3:50 Bulbul Gupta & 

Valerie Red-Horse Mohl

• Internal Staffing and Culture 3:50 – 4:05 Michael McAfee

Committee Discussions/Recommendations 4:05 – 4:30 All 

Review/Discussion on Public Comments 4:30 – 4:55 Michael Nutter, Chair &

Felicia Wong, Vice Chair 

New Business/Next Meeting (September 19th) 4:55 – 5:00 Felicia Wong, Vice Chair

Adjourn 5:00 Michael Nutter, Chair

*Times and Presenters Subject to Change
* 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.
1

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-51075 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus TINA McDANIEL BOLTON, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. MO-96-CR-132-ALL

- - - - - - - - - - September 15, 1998 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges
PER CURIAM: * Tina McDaniel Bolton appeals the district court’s denial of her motion to suppress evidence seized during an inventory search
of her vehicle by state officers. Bolton contends her detention while an officer drove to the scene and her arrest were pretextual, that the search was unconstitutional under Texas law, and that the inventory search was a ruse for an investigatory search. Her claim that the arrest and detention were pretextual is without merit.No. 97-51075 -2-

2 United States v. Causey , 834 F.2d 1179, 1185 (5th Cir. 1987) ( e n banc ). In determining the admissibility of evidence in a federal court, the violation of state law in obtaining such evidence is irrelevant. United States v. Walker , 960 F.2d 409, 415 (5th Cir. 1992). Finally, as the inventory search was conducted according to
the established procedure of the Odessa Police Department, officer did not run afoul of the Fourth Amendment. Florida v. Wells , 495 U.S. 1, 4-5 (1990).
AFFIRMED.
#### The STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Walter T. JONES, Appellee.

No. 70-221.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 26, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
Exhibit 32.1

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 accompanying Annual Report of iGambit Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the twelve months
ended December 31, 2018, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
I, John Salerno, Principal Executive 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, to the best of my knowledge, 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 fully presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company.







|Date: April 16, 2019 |  | /s/ John Salerno             
|-------------------- |  | -----------------------------
|                     |  | John Salerno                 
|                     |  | Chief Executive Officer      
|                     |  | (Principal Executive Officer)
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

ERNEST S. MARSHALL and PATRICIA K. )

MARSHALL, Former Permanent )

Guardians; and JILL P. ZINK, )

)

Appellants, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D18-1603

)

BRYAN T. ZINK, )

)

Appellee. )

___________________________________)

Opinion filed March 6, 2019.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Manatee

County; Brian A. Iten, Judge.

Ernest S. Marshall, Patricia K. Marshall, 

and Jill P. Zink, Bradenton, pro se.

Bryan T. Zink, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

SILBERMAN, SALARIO, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
255 La. 912

#### Florence HARPER v. MUTUAL OF OMAHA (MUTUAL HEALTH & ACCIDENT ASSOCIATION).

No. 50480.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 20, 1970.

In re: Mutual Health & Accident Association applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Parish of Richland. 232 So.2d 96.

Writ refused. We find no error of law in the judgment complained of.
EXHIBIT 32.1





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 Citadel Exploration, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Armen Nahabedian, Chief Executive Officer  and Principal Executive 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:





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.














/S/ Armen Nahabedian


Armen Nahabedian


Chief Executive Officer


Principal Executive Officer


April 1, 2013
254 La. 747

#### STATE of Louisiana v. Edward WARD.

No. 50072.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 24, 1969.

In re: Edward Ward applying for certi-orari (review), prohibition and mandamus.

Writ refused. The showing made does not warrant the exercise of our supervisory jurisdiction.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 224 (Thursday, November 20, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 62062]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-30481]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration
[Docket No. 97F-0428]


Amoco Corp.; Filing of Food Additive Petition

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that 
Amoco Corp. has filed a petition proposing that the food additive 
regulations be amended to include dimethyl-2,6-naphthalene 
dicarboxylate and 2,6-naphthalene dicarboxylic acid as polybasic acids 
intended for use as components of resinous and polymeric coatings that 
contact food.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark A. Hepp, Center for Food Safety 
and Applied Nutrition (HFS-215), Food and Drug Administration, 200 C 
St. SW., Washington, DC 20204, 202-418-3098.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 
Act (sec. 409(b)(5) (21 U.S.C. 348(b)(5))), notice is given that a food 
additive petition (FAP 7B4555) has been filed by Amoco Corp., One 
Prudential Plaza, 130 East Randolph St., Chicago, IL 60601-6207. The 
petition proposes to amend the food additive regulations in 
Sec. 175.300 Resinous and polymeric coatings (21 CFR 175.300) to 
include dimethyl-2,6-naphthalene dicarboxylate and 2,6-naphthalene 
dicarboxylic acid as polybasic acids intended for use as components of 
resinous and polymeric coatings that contact food.
    The agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.32(i) and (j) that this 
action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a 
significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an 
environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is 
required.

    Dated: October 21, 1997.
Alan M. Rulis,
Director, Office of Premarket Approval, Center for Food Safety and 
Applied Nutrition.
[FR Doc. 97-30481 Filed 11-19-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-F
----

----

| 1.   | the annual report on Form 20-F of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2014 (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. |
|----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----

| 3.   | the annual report on Form 20-F of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2014 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 4.   | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----

----
#### ST. FRANCIS HOSPITAL, INC., et al., Appellants, v. TRANSAMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY et al., Appellees.

No. 73-177.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nov. 6, 1973.

Taylor, Brion, Buker, Hames, Greene & Whitworth, Miami, and Amoldo Velez, Hialeah, for appellants.

Bolles, Goodwin, Ryskamp & Ware, Blackwell, Walker & Gray, Miami, for ap-pellees.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and PEARSON and CHARLES CARROLL, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed upon the rule stated in Florida East Coast Railway Company v. Martin County, Fla.1965, 171 So.2d 873, 883. See also Johnson v. Kruglak, Fla.App.1971, 246 So.2d 617.
# L_2013255EN.01S00302.xml

| 27.9.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 255/s3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.9.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 255/s3

---

NOTE TO READERS — WAY OF REFERRING TO ACTS

As of 1 July 2013 the way of referring to acts has changed.

During a transitional period this new practice will coexist with the previous one.

---
##### 



Exhibit 32

Certification Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. 1350

The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial
Officer of CT Communications, Inc. (the Company), each hereby
certifies that, to his knowledge on the date hereof:



|(a) |  | the Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended
September 30, 2003, filed on the date hereof with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|--- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   
|(b) |  | information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.                                                                                                                     

| |  |                        
| |  | -----------------------
| |  | /s/ Michael R. Coltrane
| |  |                        
| |  | Michael R. Coltrane    
| |  | Chief Executive Officer
| |  | November 6, 2003       
| |  |                        
| |  | /s/ James E. Hausman   
| |  |                        
| |  | James E. Hausman       
| |  | Chief Financial Officer
| |  | November 6, 2003       

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906
has been provided to CT Communications, Inc. and will be retained by
CT Communications, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
#### John Charles HENDERSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. FF-216.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Dec. 14, 1977.

Frank E. Sheffield, Tallahassee, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Richard W. Prospect, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Five points have been presented on this appeal from a final judgment by which appellant was adjudicated guilty of second degree murder and use of a firearm in the commission of a felony in accordance with a jury verdict finding him guilty of those crimes.

Although well briefed and argued we find each point to be without merit. While not frivolous, none of the points are novel and each has been sufficiently addressed by prior opinions of this and the other appellate courts of Florida. Accordingly, no useful purpose will be accomplished by repetition here.

Finding that appellant has failed to demonstrate reversible error the judgment and sentence are

AFFIRMED.

McCORD, C. J., and BOYER and MILLS, JJ., concur.