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

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7114 

To extend and clarify relief to Federal student loan borrowers, and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 4, 2020 

Mr. STIVERS (for himself and Miss RICE of New York) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and 

Labor, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To extend and clarify relief to Federal student loan 

borrowers, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Economic and Student 

5 Loan Debt Relief Act of 2020’’. 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7114 IH

1 SEC. 2. RELIEF FOR FEDERAL STUDENT LOAN BOR2 ROWERS. 

3 (a) EXTENSION OF RELIEF.—Section 3513(a) of the 

4 CARES Act (Public Law 116–136; 134 Stat. 281) is 

5 amended by striking ‘‘September 30, 2020’’ and inserting 

6 ‘‘December 31, 2020’’. 

7 (b) NOTICE TO BORROWERS.—Section 3513(g)(2) of 

8 the CARES Act (Public Law 116–136; 134 Stat. 281) is 

9 amended by striking ‘‘August 1, 2020’’ and inserting ‘‘No10 vember 1, 2020’’. 

11 (c) RESUMING REPAYMENT.—Section 3513 of the 

12 CARES Act (Public Law 116–136; 134 Stat. 281) is fur13 ther amended by adding at the end the following: 

14 ‘‘(h) RESUMING REPAYMENT.—At the conclusion of 

15 the period in which the Secretary suspends payments on 

16 a loan under subsection (a)— 

17 ‘‘(1) the loan shall enter or resume repayment 

18 status; 

19 ‘‘(2) the borrower’s normal payment obligations 

20 shall resume; 

21 ‘‘(3) beginning on the first day after the conclu22 sion of such period of suspension, interest shall ac23 crue on the loan at the applicable rate of interest in 

24 accordance with the terms and conditions of the 

25 loan; and 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 7114 IH

1 ‘‘(4) interest that accrues on the loan after the 

2 conclusion of such period shall be paid and capital3 ized (if applicable) in accordance with the terms and 

4 conditions of the loan.’’. 

5 SEC. 3. EXCLUSION FOR CERTAIN EMPLOYER PAYMENTS 

6 OF STUDENT LOANS. 

7 Subparagraph (B) of section 127(c)(1) of the Inter8 nal Revenue Code of 1986 (as amended by section 2206(a) 

9 of the CARES Act (Public Law 116–136; 134 Stat. 281)) 

10 is amended by striking ‘‘in the case of payments made 

11 before January 1, 2021,’’. 

Æ 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with BILLS
#### James Allen MITCHELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. FF-284.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Nov. 21, 1977.

Salvatore D. Mollica, Asst. Public Defender, Gainesville, for appellant.

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

SMITH, Judge.

An appeal from a judgment of conviction entered on a plea of guilty to possession of more than five grams of marijuana. Appellant, a juvenile, complains of the hearsay character of the evidence adduced against him in the circuit court waiver hearing which resulted in an order transferring appellant for this criminal prosecu*1143tion. Section 39.09(2), Florida Statutes (1975). The State urges that the asserted error was waived by appellant’s failure to appeal from the transfer order within 30 days. Section 39.14(1), Florida Statutes (1975); *O’Brien v. Juvenile & Dom. Rel. Court of Dade Co.,*161 So.2d 220 (Fla.3d DCA 1964) (involving a dependency adjudication). But a transfer order such as this contemplates further prosecution and is interlocutory. We need not decide whether the appeal apparently afforded from such an order by Section 39.14(1) is one of which we have jurisdiction, notwithstanding the absence of constitutional and rule provisions granting this court jurisdiction; but we do hold that any error in the antecedent juvenile proceedings may be complained of on proper appeal from an ensuing judgment of conviction. Here, however, appellant’s plea of guilty waived reliance on any such error. *Williams v. State,*259 So.2d 753 (Fla.1st DCA 1972). There was no error in the trial court’s refusal to permit withdrawal of the guilty plea on account of the asserted ineffective assistance of counsel.

AFFIRMED.

MILLS, Acting C. J., and ERVIN, J., concur.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7453 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to permit members of the Armed 

Forces to continue to participate in Skillbridge programs after their 

date of discharge or separation from active duty in the Armed Forces. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 1, 2020 

Mrs. FLETCHER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to permit members 

of the Armed Forces to continue to participate in 

Skillbridge programs after their date of discharge or 

separation from active duty in the Armed Forces. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. CONTINUED PARTICIPATION OF SEPARATED 

4 MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES IN 

5 SKILLBRIDGE PROGRAMS. 

6 Section 1143(e) of title 10, United States Code, is 

7 amended— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7453 IH

1 (1) by redesignating paragraph (3) as para2 graph (4); and 

3 (2) by inserting after paragraph (2) the fol4 lowing new paragraph (3): 

5 ‘‘(3) In the case of an eligible member who en6 rolls in a program under this subsection and who is 

7 discharged or released from active duty in the armed 

8 forces before the completion of the program, such 

9 member may continue to participate in the program 

10 until the completion of the program. The continued 

11 participation of such a member in such a program 

12 shall have no effect on the discharge or separation 

13 date of the member or the eligibility of the member 

14 for any pay or benefits.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 32 (Tuesday, February 18, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7222-7223]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-3859]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP91-143-041]


Great Lakes Gas Transmission Limited Partnership; Notice of 
Revenue Sharing Report; Past Period Charges

February 11, 1997.
    Take notice that on February 6, 1997, Great Lakes Gas Transmission 
Limited Partnership (Great Lakes) filed its Third Interruptible/Overrun 
(I/O) Revenue Sharing Report related to past period charges with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission),

[[Page 7223]]

in accordance with the Stipulation and Agreement (Settlement) filed on 
September 24, 1992, and approved by the Commission's February 3, 1993 
order issued in Docket No. RP91-143-000, et al.
    Great Lakes states that this report was prepared and submitted in 
accordance with Article IV of the Settlement, as modified by Commission 
order issued in Great Lakes' restructuring proceeding in Docket No. 
RS92-63 on October 1, 1993. This third report reflects application of 
the revenue sharing mechanism and further remittances made to firm 
shippers for I/O revenue related to past period charges collected for 
I/O shippers resulting from the return to rolled-in pricing for the 
period November 1, 1991 through September 30, 1995. Such remittances 
were made to Great Lakes; firm shippers on January 9, 1997.
    Great Lakes states that copies of this third report were sent to 
its firm customers, parties to this proceeding and the Public Service 
Commission of the States of Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed on 
or before February 19, 1997. Protests will be considered by the 
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will 
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Copies of this 
filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public 
inspection in the Commission's Public Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-3859 Filed 2-14-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Exhibit 32.1







                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                               ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





       In connection with the Quarterly Report of Del Laboratories, Inc. (the
       "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2006 as filed
       with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
       "Report"), I, Charles J. Hinkaty, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
       certify, pursuant to Section 18 U.S.C. 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/ Charles J. Hinkaty
       ----------------------
       Charles J. Hinkaty
       Chief Executive Officer
       November 6, 2006
Exhibit
32.1




CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. 1350


(SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)




In
connection with the quarterly report of Del Global Technologies Corp. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended May 2, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, James
A. Risher, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
that to my knowledge:




1.
            The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section
      15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
      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/
      James A. RisherName:James A. RisherTitle:Chief Executive OfficerDate:June 9,
2009







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.




The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure
document.
#### James Albert RAMSEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-626.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 10, 1970.

Walter R. Talley, Public Defender and D. Turner Matthews, Asst. Public Defender, Bradenton, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Morton J. Hanlon, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lakeland, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on authority of Steinhauser v. State, Fla.App.1969, 228 So.2d 446.

LILES, Acting C. J., and PIERCE and MANN, JJ., concur.
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 5 (Wednesday, January 8, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 1141]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-409]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice No. 2501]

Significant Projects Which Have Been Tendered in the Oil and Gas 
Sector in Iran

    Pursuant to section 5(e) of the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act of 
1996 (Public Law 104-172), the Department of State is presenting the 
following list of significant projects which have been publicly 
tendered in the oil and gas sector in Iran. We have made no 
determinations with respect to the imposition of sanctions in 
connection with the projects on the list. A project's inclusion on or 
absence from the list should not be seen as relevant to a determination 
on the imposition of sanctions.

--South Pars Gasfield Development Project
--AMAK Gas Processing Facility
--Doroud Oilfield Expansion Project
--Salman Field Khuff Gas Reservoir (Dalan Formation) Development
--Bandar Abbas Condensate Refinery (Number 9 Refinery)
--Shiraz Refinery Expansion
--NGL-1200 Facility
--NGL-1300 Facility
--Lavan Island LPG Facility
--Balal Oilfield Development Project
--Soroush Oilfield Development Project.

    Dated; January 2, 1997.
William Weingarten,
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Acting, Energy, Sanctions, and Commodities.
[FR Doc. 97-409 Filed 1-7-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-07-M
```
<PAGE>   1




EXHIBIT 24

                               POWER OF ATTORNEY



KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS, that the persons whose signatures appear
below, constitute and appoint Robert L. Smialek, Kenneth H. Koch, and Philip K.
Woodlief, and each of them as their true and lawful attorneys-in-fact and
agents, with full power of substitution and resubstitution, for them and in
their names, places, and steads, in any and all capacities, to sign the the
Insilco Corporation Annual Report on Form 10-K, pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 1997, and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto, and the
other documents in connection therewith, with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, granting unto said attorneys-in-fact and agents and each of them,
full power and authority to do and perform each and every act and thing
requisite and necessary to be done in connection therewith, as fully to all
intents and purposes as they might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and
confirming all that said attorneys-in-fact and agents, or any of them, or their
or his or her substitute or substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be done by
virtue hereof.


DATED: January 26, 1998



/s/ Robert L. Smialek                    /s/ Philip K. Woodlief
----------------------                   ----------------------
Robert L. Smialek                        Philip K. Woodlief


/s/ Terence M. O'Toole                   /s/ Barry S. Volpert
----------------------                   ----------------------
Terence M. O'Toole                       Barry S. Volpert


/s/ Thomas E. Petry                      /s/ James J. Gaffney
----------------------                   ----------------------
Thomas E. Petry                          James J. Gaffney
#### Roosevelt HOWARD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-547.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Dec. 6, 1973.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Broward County; Robert W. Tyson, Jr., Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 34 (Thursday, February 20, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7784-7785]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-4155]


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


FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

Notice of Proposals to Engage in Permissible Nonbanking 
Activities or to Acquire Companies that are Engaged in Permissible 
Nonbanking Activities

    The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 
4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and 
Regulation      Y, (12 CFR Part 225) to engage de novo, or to acquire 
or control voting securities or assets of a company that engages either 
directly or through a subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking 
activity that is listed in Sec.  225.25 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.25) 
or that the Board has determined by Order to be closely related to 
banking and permissible for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise 
noted, these activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
    Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank 
indicated. Once the notice has been accepted for processing, it will 
also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of 
Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the 
question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 
of the BHC Act.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be 
received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of 
Governors not later than March 5, 1997.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond (Lloyd W. Bostian, Jr., Senior 
Vice President) 701 East Byrd Street, Richmond, Virginia 23261-4528:
    1. Crestar Financial Corporation, Richmond, Virginia; to engage de 
novo through its subsidiary, Crestar Securities Corporation, Richmond, 
Virginia, in underwriting and dealing in certain bank-ineligible 
securities. See Citicorp 73 Fed. Res. Bull. 473 (1987) and Chemical 73 
Fed. Res. Bull. 731 (1987); in acting as agent in the private placement 
of all types of securities. See Bankers Trust 75 Fed. Res. Bull. 829 
(1989) and J.P. Morgan 76 Fed. Res. Bull. 26 (1990); and in buying and 
selling all types of securities on the order of customers as riskless 
principal. See 82 Fed. Res. Bull. 759 (1996).
    B. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (James A. Bluemle, Vice 
President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1413:

[[Page 7785]]

    1. HPK Financial Corporation, Chicago, Illinois; to acquire 
Mortgage Service America, Inc., Lombard, Illinois, and thereby engage 
in making and servicing loans, pursuant to Sec.  225.25(b)(1) of the 
Board's Regulation Y.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, February 13, 
1997.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 97-4155 Filed 2-19-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-F
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


The Board of Directors and
Shareholders of
Santa Barbara Restaurant Group, Inc.:

     We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(No. 333-64191) on Form S-8 of Santa Barbara Restaurant Group, Inc. of our
report dated February 18, 1999, except for Note 18 which is as of March 30,
1999, relating to the consolidated balance sheet of Santa Barbara Restaurant
Group, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1998 and the related
consolidated statements of operations, shareholders' equity and cash flows
and related financial statement schedule for the year ended December 31, 1998
which report appears in the December 31, 1998 annual report on Form 10-K of
Santa Barbara Restaurant Group, Inc.


/s/ KPMG LLP


Orange County, California
March 31, 1999
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>            THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
                    EXTRACTED FROM THE REGISTRANT'S CONSOLIDATED BALANCE
                    SHEET AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE
                    SIX MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED 
                    IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
                    STATEMENTS.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                             845
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,570
<ALLOWANCES>                                       311
<INVENTORY>                                     13,421
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                32,860
<PP&E>                                          26,043
<DEPRECIATION>                                  16,280
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  48,648
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           13,329
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            31
<OTHER-SE>                                      30,162
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    48,648
<SALES>                                         29,018
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                29,064
<CGS>                                           20,872
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   20,872
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,065
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 212
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    915
<INCOME-TAX>                                       373
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                542
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       542
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.20
        

</TABLE>
#### Pearl B. SHUFF, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Perry PITRE, d/b/a Perry Pitre Ford Company, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 4345.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

Sept. 21, 1973.

John E. Demoruelle, Kinder, for plaintiff-appellant.

Young & Burson by J. Nilas Young, Eunice, for defendant-appellee.

Before CULPEPPER, MILLER and PONDER, JJ.

PONDER, Judge.

The appellant did not appear in person or through counsel when this case was called for argument on the date it had been regularly docketed for hearing, and no brief has been filed in her behalf. The appeal thus is considered as having been abandoned, and accordingly the appeal is hereby dismissed. Rule VII, Section 5(b), Uniform Rules of the Courts of Appeal. The costs of this appeal are assessed to plaintiff-appellant.

Appeal dismissed.
256 La. 226

#### CITY OF NEW ORLEANS v. Charles EHRLICH.

No. 50276.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 4, 1970.

Rehearing Denied June 8, 1970.

Gibbons Burke, New Orleans, for defendant-appellant.

Alvin J. Liska, City Atty., Antoine M. Trudeau, Jr., Asst. City Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

FOURNET, Chief Justice.

Defendant, Charles Ehrlich, prosecutes this appeal from his conviction and sentence to a fine of $25 or 30 days in jail on a charge of violating Articles 5407 and 5420 of Ordinance No. 17525 C.C.S.,1 rely*578ing here for reversal thereof on the argument, as presented in the trial court, that the ordinance violates Articles I and II of the Constitution of the United States.

This appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. In setting forth the basis for jurisdiction of this court, counsel for defendant evidently overlooked that the case of City of New Orleans v. New Orleans Butchers’ Co-op Abattoir, 153 La. 536, 96 So. 113, upon which he relied, was decided under the provisions of Article 7, Section 10 of the Constitution prior to its amendment by Act No. 561 of 1958 which now provides, “The following cases only shall be appealable to the Supreme Court: * * * (2) Cases in which an ordinance of a parish, municipal corporation, board or subdivision of the state, or a law of this state *has been declared unconstitutional; * * **and (5) Criminal cases in which the penalty of death or imprisonment at hard labor may be imposed, or in which *a fine exceeding three hundred dollars*or imprisonment exceeding six months has been actually imposed. * * * ” (Emphasis added.)

For the reasons assigned, the appeal is dismissed.

1

. The ordinance is relative to the requirement that there be constant and continued presence of a Second Class Operating Engineer on the premises of all plants using air-conditioning with a horsepower in excess of seventy-five.