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

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2419 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2419

To amend title 38, United States Code, to expand and extend Department 
  of Veterans Affairs assistance for homeless veterans, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 8, 2021

 Mr. Mann (for himself, Mr. Pappas, Ms. Kuster, Ms. Herrell, Ms. Ross, 
 Ms. Spanberger, Ms. Strickland, Mr. McKinley, Mr. Bishop of Georgia, 
  Mr. Soto, Ms. Bush, and Mr. Kilmer) introduced the following bill; 
        which was referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 38, United States Code, to expand and extend Department 
  of Veterans Affairs assistance for homeless veterans, 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 ``Affordable Housing for Homeless 
Veterans Act of 2021''.

SEC. 2. EXPANSION AND EXTENSION OF DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 
              ASSISTANCE FOR HOMELESS VETERANS.

    (a) Expansion.--Subsection (a) of section 2041 of title 38, United 
States Code, is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1)--
                    (A) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by 
                inserting ``or permanent housing'' after ``shelter'';
                    (B) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``named in, or 
                approved by the Secretary under, section 5902 of this 
                title'' and inserting ``that is the recipient of a 
                grant under section 2011, 2013, 2044, or 2061 of this 
                title''; and
                    (C) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ``, tribal 
                entity,'' after ``State''; and
            (2) in paragraph (3)(B)--
                    (A) in clause (i), by inserting ``or to sell or 
                rent the property directly to homeless veterans or 
                veterans at-risk of homelessness'' after ``families''; 
                and
                    (B) in each of clauses (i), (ii), and (iii), by 
                striking the comma and inserting a semicolon.
    (b) Extension.--Subsection (c) of such section is amended by 
striking ``September 30, 2017'' and inserting ``September 30, 2025''.
                                 <all>
```
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 734 

To amend the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to require States 

to accept applications to register to vote in elections for Federal office 

in the State from individuals under 18 years of age at the time of 

application. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 23, 2019 

Mr. NEGUSE (for himself and Mr. SARBANES) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on House Administration 

A BILL 

To amend the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to 

require States to accept applications to register to vote 

in elections for Federal office in the State from individuals under 18 years of age at the time of application. 

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 ‘‘Next Generation Votes 

5 Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 734 IH

1 SEC. 2. ACCEPTANCE OF VOTER REGISTRATION APPLICA2 TIONS FROM INDIVIDUALS UNDER 18 YEARS 

3 OF AGE. 

4 (a) ACCEPTANCE OF APPLICATIONS.—Section 8 of 

5 the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (52 U.S.C. 

6 20507) is amended— 

7 (1) by redesignating subsection (j) as sub8 section (k); and 

9 (2) by inserting after subsection (i) the fol10 lowing new subsection: 

11 ‘‘(j) ACCEPTANCE OF APPLICATIONS FROM INDIVID12 UALS UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE.— 

13 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—A State may not refuse to 

14 accept or process an individual’s application to reg15 ister to vote in elections for Federal office on the 

16 grounds that the individual is under 18 years of age 

17 at the time the individual submits the application, so 

18 long as the individual is at least 16 years of age at 

19 such time. 

20 ‘‘(2) NO EFFECT ON STATE VOTING AGE RE21 QUIREMENTS.—Nothing in paragraph (1) may be 

22 construed to require a State to permit an individual 

23 who is under 18 years of age at the time of an elec24 tion for Federal office to vote in the election.’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•HR 734 IH

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) shall apply with respect to elections occur3 ring on or after January 1, 2020. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
<PAGE>



                                                                 Exhibit 99.2


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
            SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, as
chief financial officer of Iron Age Holdings Corporation (the "Company"), does
hereby certify that to the undersigned's knowledge:

         3)       the Company's 10-K 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 Company's 10-K fairly
                  presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
                  and results of operations of the Company.


                                   /s/ Bart R. Huchel
                                   -----------------------------------------
                                   Bart R. Huchel
                                   Chief Financial Officer, Vice President -
                                   Finance and Treasurer


Dated: May 12, 2003
For more information, visit www.ftc.gov/infosecurity.

This workshop provides a comprehensive approach to help businesses prevent identity 

theft. Businesses must implement data security practices that deter identity thieves 

from obtaining personal information to open or access accounts. Businesses also must 

pay attention to telltale signs – or red flags – suggesting that thieves may be trying to 

use personal information that they have already acquired.

FTC Free Workshops for Businesses 

* Protecting Personal Information

* Fighting Fraud with the Red Flags Rule

Protecting Personal Information: 

 Best Practices for Business, 9:30 a.m. — 1 p.m.

Fighting Fraud with the Red Flags Rule: 

 Practical Guidance for Business, 2 p.m. — 4 p.m.

April 29, 2009

On-site registration starts at 8:30 a.m.

Application for CLE credits pending; CPE credits available.

Center on Law & Information Policy of Fordham Law School

Pope Auditorium, Lincoln Center Campus

113 W. 60th Street 

New York, NY 10023

Federal Trade Commission 

Center on Law & Information Policy of Fordham Law School 

New York State Department Consumer Protection Board

New York City Department of Consumer Affairs

New York State Office of Cyber Security & Critical 

 Infrastructure Coordination

Better Business Bureau Serving Metropolitan New York

International Association of Privacy Professionals

What:

When:

wH

co-hosts:

Can’t attend

Visit www.ftc.gov/infosecurity & try our new 

interactive tutorial, with concrete ways you can 

safeguard your customer & employee information.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

 

SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of The Banker’s Store, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the fiscal quarter ended August 31, 2004 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, PaulD. Clark, President, Chief Executive Officer, and Chief Financial Officer ofthe Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that based on my knowledge:

 

(1) The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| * * | *Dated: October 14, 2005*        | */s/ PAUL D. CLARK* |   |
|----------|---------------------------------------|---------------------|--------|
|     | *Paul D. Clark*                       |
|     | *President, Chief**Executive Officer* |
| * * | *and  Chief Financial Officer*        |

 

----
#### In re Interdiction of Edna Lacroix, Widow of Walter F. POYNOT.

No. 62213.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 19, 1978.

In re: William M. Duett, Co-curator for the Interdict Edna Lacroix Poynot, apply*951ing for writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus. Parish of Orleans.

Writ denied.
#### George DINGLE, Jr., and John Calvin Lewis, Appellants, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. L-363.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. First District.

Aug. 12, 1969.

Louis O. Frost, Jr., Public Defender, and Gerald Sohn, Asst. Public Defender, for appellants.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Wallace E. Allbritton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The briefs and the record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and appellants having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the lower court hereby appealed is affirmed See United States ex rel. Catanzaro v. *553Mancusi, 404 F.2d 296 (2nd Cir. 1968); People v. Rhodes, 41 Ill.2d 494, 244 N.E.2d 145 (1969); F.S. Section 924.33, F.S.A.

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and WIGGINTON and RAWLS, JJ., concur.
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation byreference in Registration Statements No. 333-153474, No. 333-130007, No. 333-10178, and No. 333-31813 on Form S-8 and No. 333-129242, No. 333-125012, No. 333-117768, and No. 333-95235 on Form S-3 of our reports dated April 2, 2009, relating to theconsolidated financial statements of The Wet Seal, Inc. and the effectiveness of The Wet Seal, Inc.’s internal control over financial reporting appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of The Wet Seal, Inc. for the year ended January 31,2009. 

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP 

Costa Mesa, CA

April 2, 2009
#### Joseph J. GALLOPO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 76-1679.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Oct. 21, 1977.

Jack 0. Johnson, Public Defender, and David S. Bergdoll, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and William I. Munsey, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the judgment of the trial court, but we remand this case for resen-tencing of appellant. The present sentence does not specifically set forth the period of credit time to be allowed as Section 921.-161(1), Florida Statutes (1975), requires. *Smith v. State,*310 So.2d 770 (Fla.2d DCA 1975). The appellant does not have to be present at resentencing.

HOBSON, Acting C. J., and McNULTY and SCHEB, JJ., concur.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-31166 Summary Calendar

DAVID CUNNINGHAM, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus SCHLUMBERGER WELL SERVICES, A DIVISION OF SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION; DIAMOND OFFSHORE (USA), INC., DIAMOND OFFSHORE DRILLING SERVICES, INC.; HARDY OIL & GAS USA, INC.; HALLIBURTON COMPANY; JAMES E. GUIDRY; TONY VOVERS; AND MIKE ADAMS, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 96-CV-1577

- - - - - - - - - - May 27, 1997 Before DAVIS, EMILIA M. GARZA and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * David Cunningham argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to remand in his Jones Act action. The district court held that Cunningham could not possibly establish seaman status. Cunningham also appeals the granting of summaryNo. 96-31166 - 2 -

** Also dismissed on the motion for summary judgment were Tony Vovers and Mike Adam, incorrectly identified as Mike Adams. Cunningham did not appeal the dismissal of these claims. They are therefore waived on appeal. Cinel v. Connick , 15 F.3d 1338, 1345 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 513 U.S. 868 (1994). judgment in favor of Schlumberger Well Services. ** Schlumberger argued that it was entitled to summary judgment given the district court’s ruling on the motion to remand that Cunningham could not establish seaman status. We have reviewed the record and the briefs on appeal and AFFIRM the district court’s orders denying the motion to remand and granting the motion for summary judgment in favor of Schlumberger Well Services for essentially the same reasons set forth by the district court. Cunningham v. Schlumberger Well Serv., a Div. of Schlumberger Tech. Corp.; Diamond Offshore (USA), Inc., Diamond Offshore Drilling Serv., Inc.; Hardy Oil & Gas USA, Inc.; Haliburton Co.; James E. Guidry; Tony Vovers; and Mike Adams , No. 96-31166 (W.D. La. Sept, 27 1996; Oct. 11, 1996).
AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          14,116
<SECURITIES>                                    47,877
<RECEIVABLES>                                  166,662
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,857
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               263,133
<PP&E>                                          42,272
<DEPRECIATION>                                  39,409
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 745,562
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          327,393
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        12,990
<OTHER-SE>                                     189,409
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   745,562
<SALES>                                        650,794
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               660,950
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  571,426
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                22,922
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,596
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,399
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 54,607
<INCOME-TAX>                                    24,719
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             29,888
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    29,888
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.09
        

</TABLE>
No. 10078.

#### Spitzig *v.*The Osborn Engineering Co.

Decided March 17, 1908.

Error to Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.

*Messrs. Foran, McTighe, Pearson & Marvin,*for plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. Smith, Taft & Arter,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Price, Summers and Davis, JJ., concur.
#### Ann SALKAY, Appellant, v. Patricia Ann FORD, Appellee.

No. 71-136.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 29, 1972.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Broward County; Stephen R. Booher, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 38 (Wednesday, February 26, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 8776]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-4733]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation Nos. 332-350 and 332-351]


Monitoring of U.S. Imports of Tomatoes Monitoring of U.S. Imports 
of Peppers

AGENCY: United States International Trade Commission.

ACTION: Publication of monitoring reports in 1997.

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 18, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Timothy McCarty (202-205-3324) or 
Lowell Grant (202-205-3312), Agriculture and Forest Products Division, 
Office of Industries, or William Gearhart (202-205-3091), Office of the 
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission. Hearing impaired 
persons can obtain information on these studies by contacting the 
Commission's TDD terminal on (202-205-1810).

Background

    Section 316 of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) 
Implementation Act (19 U.S.C. 3381) directs the Commission to monitor 
imports of fresh or chilled tomatoes (HTS heading 0702.00) and fresh or 
chilled peppers, other than chili peppers (HTS subheading 0709.60.00), 
until January 1, 2009, as if a request for such monitoring had been 
made under section 202(d) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2252(d)), 
for purposes of expediting an investigation concerning provisional 
relief under section 202 of the Trade Act of 1974. In response, the 
Commission instituted Investigation No. 332-350, Monitoring of U.S. 
Imports of Tomatoes (59 F.R. 1763, January 12, 1994) and Investigation 
No. 332-351, Monitoring of U.S. Imports of Peppers (59 F.R. 1762, 
January 12, 1994).
    Although section 316 of the NAFTA Implementation Act does not 
require the Commission to publish reports on the results of its 
monitoring activities, the Commission has endeavored to do so in those 
years in which it was not conducting an investigation under other 
statutory authority with respect to such products. Thus, no monitoring 
reports were published in 1996 when the Commission conducted 
Investigation No. TA-201-66, Fresh Tomatoes and Bell Peppers (61 F.R. 
13875, March 28, 1996), under section 202(b) of the Trade Act of 1974 
(19 U.S.C. 2252(b)); and antidumping Investigation No. 731-TA 47 
(Preliminary), Fresh Tomatoes from Mexico (61 F.R. 15968, April 10, 
1996), under section 733(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 
1673b(a)). The Commission made a negative injury determination in the 
section 201 investigation on July 2, 1996; the Commission's antidumping 
investigation was suspended, effective November 1, 1996, following the 
signing of a suspension agreement.

    The Commission will publish monitoring reports, containing data 
for both 1996 and 1997, in September 1997.

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: February 21, 1997
Donna R. Koehnke,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-4733 Filed 2-25-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
| **CONCURRING STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONERS ROBERT PITOFSKY,     SHEILA F. ANTHONY AND MOZELLE W. THOMPSON**

*IN THE MATTER OF*

**STONE CONTAINER CORPORATION**

FILE NO. 951 0006

The Commission recognizes that in invitation to collude cases, a fundamental question    is whether the alleged "invitation" was merely legitimate business conduct. Our    colleague, Commissioner Orson Swindle, dissents in this matter on grounds that Stone    Container Corporation’s behavior in curtailing its own production, and simultaneously    purchasing excess inventory from its competitors, was conduct that did not clearly lack an    "independent legitimate business reason." As the Analysis To Aid Public Comment    emphasizes, however, it would have been more economical for Stone Container to keep its    plants open than to purchase inventory from competitors, and competitors would have    recognized that fact. This conduct and other statements by Stone Container made clear that    its goal was to manipulate industry supply conditions to invite a coordinated price    increase. It is for these reasons that we accept the consent agreement for public comment.    

While there may be some difference of view on the facts in this matter, we agree with    Commissioner Swindle that there can be no implied invitation to collude when the actions    that amount to the invitation are justified by business considerations. UBLIC "-//IETF//DTD HTML//EN"> |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|