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

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2335 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2335

   To increase the amount authorized to be appropriated for the high 
    technology pilot program of the Department of Veterans Affairs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 1, 2021

Mrs. Miller-Meeks (for herself and Mr. Kahele) introduced the following 
     bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To increase the amount authorized to be appropriated for the high 
    technology pilot program of the Department of Veterans Affairs.

    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 ``VET TEC Enhancement Act of 2021''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR HIGH TECHNOLOGY PILOT 
              PROGRAM.

    Subsection (g) of section 116 of the Harry W. Colmery Veterans 
Educational Assistance Act of 2017 (Public Law 115-48; 38 U.S.C. 3001 
note), as amended by section 4302 of the Johnny Isakson and David P. 
Roe, M.D. Veterans Health Care and Benefits Improvement Act of 2020 
(Public Law 116-315), is amended to read as follows:
    ``(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--Funds shall be made 
available for carrying out the pilot program under this section from 
funds appropriated to, or otherwise made available to, the Department 
for the payment of readjustment benefits, in the following amounts for 
a fiscal year in which the Secretary carries out the pilot program:
            ``(1) For each fiscal year preceding fiscal year 2022, 
        $45,000,000.
            ``(2) For fiscal year 2022 and each subsequent fiscal year, 
        $125,000,000.''.
                                 <all>
```
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**
MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04

- 21

- 00033

- CV
IN RE Jose Antonio ORTIZ , Relator Original Proceeding 1
PER CURIAM Sitting: Irene Rios , Justice Liza A. Rodriguez , Justice Lori I. Valenzuela , Justice
Delivered and Filed: February 10, 2021
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED Relator has filed a petition for writ of mandamus and motion for temporary relief. We have the power to issue writs of mandamus, but only when “agreeable to the principles of law regulating
those writs.” T EX

. G OV ’ T C ODE § 22.221(b). For mandamus, a relator has the burden to file a petition and record show ing “ the trial court abused its discretion and that no adequate a ppellate remedy exists .” In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., L.P. , 492 S.W.3d 300, 302 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). Having reviewed the petition and documents included in the appendix,
we conclude relator has not satisfied this burden. Accordingly, w e deny the petition and motion for temporary relief. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.8(a).
PER CURIAM

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2020

- CI

- 15726 , styled In the Interest of Z.A.O.C. and N.S.O.C., Children , pending in the 407th Judicial District Court , Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Tina Torres presiding.
U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration January 13, 2016 Mr. Richard Shepherd Airworthiness Specialist Rolls-Royce pic PO Box 31 Derby DE24 8BJ England Dear Mr. Shepherd: We Have the Petition

Engine
& Propeller Directorate 12 New England Executive Park Burlington, MA 01803 We have received your petition on behalf of Rolls-Royce for an exemption from§ 33.27 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) on December 30, 2015. This exemption,

if granted, would allow Rolls-Royce to gain relieffrom §33.27(!)(6) for the HP shaft system of the Trent XWB-84, XWB-79B, XWB-79, and XWB-75 turbofan engine models. We have added your petition to the public docket (No. FAA-2016-0072)
and we are processing

it. We will contact you if we need additional information. How We Will Process the Petition A petition for an exemption, according
to § 11.63(d), must be sent to the FAA at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. Although you requested that we not delay your petition by publishing

it in the Federal Register, we find that the petition, if granted, would set a precedent. Therefore, we will publish the petition in the Federal Register with
a 20 day public comment period.,, We will advise you of the agency

1 s fmal decision on your petition as soon as possible.
If you have any questions in the meantime, you may contact Tim Mouzakis
at (781) 238-7114. Sincerely, J 'th Watson Team Lead & Senior Technical Writer and Editor Engine
& Propeller Directorate Standards Staff Rulemaking and Policy Branch, ANE-111

2
Exhibit 32

 

 

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 Quarterly Report of USChina Taiwan Inc.(the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, Chief Executive Officer & Chief Financial Officer, certifiespursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

 

1. The report fully complies with the requirementsof Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2. The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 

Date: June 22, 2011                          /s/ Ching-Sang Hong

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

Ching-Sang Hong, CEO & CFO
#### Ann L. VAN DYCK, Appellant, v. Arthur F. VAN DYCK, Appellee.

No. 70-501.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 12, 1971.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 28, 1971.

Errol S. Willes, of Willes, Bittan & Willes, Fort Pierce, for appellant.

L. B. Vocelle, Vero Beach, and Charles E. Thomson, Cocoa Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff wife appeals a final judgment of divorce and assigns as error the amount of permanent alimony awarded.

Having examined the briefs and listened to the arguments of the parties, no clear abuse of the trial judge’s discretion has been shown. We therefore affirm. Beaty v. Beaty, Fla.App.1965, 177 So.2d 54, Lasseter v. Lasseter, Fla.App.1970, 241 So.2d 455 and Farr v. Farr, Fla.App.1964, 164 So.2d 890.

Affirmed.

CROSS, C. J., and WALDEN and REED, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                             600
<SECURITIES>                                       513
<RECEIVABLES>                                      987
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        387
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  2672
<PP&E>                                            4819
<DEPRECIATION>                                     304
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   18562
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            13663
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                          3900
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          5
<OTHER-SE>                                         869
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     18562
<SALES>                                           1482
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  2599
<CGS>                                             1345
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     1922
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   450
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   145
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   7
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (1280)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (1280)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (1280)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.20)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### LUDLUM ENTERPRISES, INC., a Florida corporation d/b/a Ramada Inn of Fort Lauderdale, and Haskell M. Liberman, Petitioners, v. DEEM INVESTMENT CORP., a Florida corporation, et al., Respondents.

No. 44518.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Dec. 17, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 31, 1974.

Certiorari denied. 282 So.2d 888.

ROBERTS, Acting C. J., and ERVIN, ADKINS, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 35.4



|         |  |                           
|-------- |  | --------------------------
|-


LOGO |  | ACS is now a Xerox company

Subservicer Compliance Statement

Sallie Mae, Inc.

11100 USA Parkway

Fishers, IN 46037

ATTN: Theresa Ouellette

Sallie Mae, Inc.

12061 Bluemont Way

Reston, VA 20190

ATTN: Trust
Administration

As an officer of ACS Education Services, Inc., a Subservicer of Sallie Mae, Inc hereby certify that:



| | a) | a review of the activities of the Subservicer during the preceding calendar year ending December 31, 2011, and its performance under the FFEL Program Omnibus
Subservicing Agreement (the Servicing Agreement) dated April 9, 2010 between ACS Education Services, Inc., and Sallie Mae, Inc. has been made under my supervision, and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | b) | to the best of my knowledge, based on such a review, the Subservicer has fulfilled all of its material obligations under the Servicing Agreement in all material
respects throughout the annual period ended December 31, 2011, and there have been no known material defaults in the fulfillment of such obligations.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                             |  |      |  |  |  |       |  |        
|---------------------------- |  | ---- |  |  |  | ----- |  | -------
|ACS Education Services, Inc. |  |      |  |  |  |      
|                             |  |      |  | 
|By:                          |  | LOGO |  |  |  | Date: |  | 2-24-12

|       |  |                         |  |  |  | 
|------ |  | ----------------------- |  |  |  | 
|       |  |                         | 
|Name:  |  | Meta Gonzalez           |  |  |  | 
|Title: |  | Chief Operating Officer |  |  |  | 

ACS Education Services, Inc., A Xerox Company

2277 East 220thStreet Long Beach, CA 90810-1690
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<CIK> 0000315256
<NAME>PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
<MULTIPLIER>1,000
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                           SEP-30-2000
<BOOK-VALUE>                              PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                1,597,191
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                 30,411
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                     458,909
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                   384,930
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                   0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           2,471,441
<COMMON>                                         1
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                  424,867
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                        326,983
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>             753,607
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                       407,285
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                               0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                        0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                   0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                    0
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                   25,000
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                566,936
<LEASES-CURRENT>                            94,645
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>             623,968
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>            2,471,441
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                  993,017
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                        29,768
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                 884,074
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                 915,161
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                     77,856
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                          11,175
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>              90,350
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                    29,934
<NET-INCOME>                                60,416
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                  3,313
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>               57,103
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                    50,000
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                        0
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                     165,983
<EPS-BASIC>                                 0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 0.00

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFnCE OF HEARINGS 

WASfflNGTON, DC 

TRAVEL GROUP, INC., D/B/A REPUBLIC AIR TRAVEL 

AND SCOT SPENCER 

AIRLIFr GROUP, INC. 

AND RICHARD BERNARD 

Unauthorized Air Transportation, Unfair and Deceptive 

Practices and Unfair Methods of Competition, and 

Violations of Public Charter Rules 

EXPRESS ONE INTERNATIONAL, INC. 

Unfair and Deceptive Practices and Unfair Methods of 

Competition, and Violations of Public Charter Rules 

Enforcement Proceeding 

DOT-OST-1995-272 

formerly 

Docket 49233 

STATUS REPORT 

The Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and 

Proceedings ("Enforcement Office"), pursuant to Your Honor's March 22, 2006, Order 

staying this proceeding, files this report detailing the current status of this proceeding and 

settlement negotiations. 

The Department has not ruled on the outstanding motions filed by Respondents 

and opposed by the Enforcement Office in Ascend Aviation Group, Docket OST-2004-

17486. 
There have been no further settlement discussions. 

Date: March 26, 2010. 

Respectfully submitted. 

Samuel Podborcsky— 

Assistant General Counsel for 

Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings 

Dayton Lehman, Jr. 

Deputy Assistant General Counsel for 

Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings 

William J. Wa^ r J 

Senior Trial'i^orney 

United States Department of Transportation 

Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Room 96-429 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

TEL: 202-366-9342 

FAX: 202-366-7152 
Docket No. DOT-OST-1995-272 

I hereby certify that on this 26th day of March, 2010, a true and correct copy of the 

foregoing Status Report was served in the following manner to the following: 

Original 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Operations, M-30 

West Building Ground Floor 

Room W12-140 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Bv Personal Service 

The Honorable Ronnie A Yoder 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

East Building Ground Floor 

Room El2-320 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

TEL: (202) 366-2142 

FAX: (202) 366-7536 

Bv First Class Mail 

Ascend Aviation Group, LLC 

Ascend Aviation Marketing and Sales, LLC 

KCP Leasing and Services, LLC 

Scot Spencer 

C/O George Spencer 

24 Eton Court 

Bedminster, NJ 07921
EXHIBIT 99.1 - CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION
               1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
               OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

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 Quarterly Report of CPI Corp. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending November 9, 2002as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, J. David Pierson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Subsection 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Subsection 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 and Exchange Act of 1934; and


(2) The information contained in the Report fairly present, in all
material respects, the financial condition and the results of operations
of the Company.



By:  /s/ J. David Pierson
     --------------------------
         J. David Pierson
         Chief Executive Officer
         December 11, 2002








                             48
OAR Box 1168 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

126) ll-C-41 

Docket Number: 

A-89-10 

Printed 4/29/2008 11:23:21 AM Sheet 126 of 131 

p.1 
A-89-10 

P.2 

II-C-41 

APR I 2 1991 

Mr. Neil Sagers 

Thiokol Corporation 

P. 0. BOX 689M/S301 

Brigham City, Utah 84302-0689 

Dear Mr. Sagers: 

Confirming your recent request, we are enclosing a copy of 

the March 6, 1991 Federal Register notice concerning the 

negotiated regulation for equipment leaks. 

Please contact us if we may be of further assistance. 

Sincerely, 

Jan Meyer 

Standards Development Branch 

Enclosure 

bcc: /Uan Meyer 

ESD:SDB:JMeyer:Stevens:FTS 629-5254:MD-13(NCMutual):04-12-91 
P.3 

Vol. 56, No. 44, March 6, 1991, National Emission Standards 

for Hazardous. Air Pollutants; Announcement of Negotiated 

Regulation for Equipment Leaks. 

THIS DOCUMENT IS IDENTICAL 

TO DOCKET ITEM: 

tf-ry/r> 3zr -j- // 

.
EXHIBIT 31.1 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO
RULE 13a-14(a) UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 I, David M. Meyer,
Chairman of the Board and Member of the Office of the Chief Executive of CPI
Corp., a Delaware Corporation, certify that: (1)
  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q
  of CPI Corp.;(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 officers and I are
  responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
  procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the
  registrant and have:(a)
  designed such disclosure controls and procedures, 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 evaluations;(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 officers 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
  registrants board of directors (or persons fulfilling 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.  /s/ David M. MeyerDavid M. MeyerChairman of the Board of Directors and Memberof the Office of the Chief Executive  Date: December 28, 2004
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6152

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

SYLVESTER CLIFFORD PHILLIPS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern

District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. David A. Faber, District

Judge. (CR-93-6, CA-95-278-1)

Submitted: March 5, 1996 Decided: March 28, 1996

Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sylvester Clifford Phillips, Appellant Pro Se. John Castle Parr,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his

28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988) motion. We have reviewed the record and the

district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on

the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Phillips,

Nos. CR-93-6; CA-95-278-1 (S.D.W. Va. Jan 12, 1996). We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### N. G. WADE INVESTMENT COMPANY, a Florida Corporation, Appellant, v. J. B. WATSON, Sr., Mima Watson, Robert C. Roland, and Marlene W. Roland, Appellees.

No. M-375.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Aug. 13, 1970.

Scruggs, Carmichael, Tomlinson & Ros-cow, Gainesville, for appellant.

Leonard E. Ireland, Jr., of Clayton, Duncan, Johnston, Clayton & Quincey, Gaines-ville, for appellees.

*307PER CURIAM.

This cause having been orally argued before the Court, the briefs and record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and the appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the lower court appealed from herein is affirmed.

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., WIGGINTON, J. and McLANE, RALPH M., Associate Judge, concur.