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

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7287 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7287

     To clarify the licensure requirements for contractor medical 
   professionals to perform medical disability examinations for the 
                    Department of Veterans Affairs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 22, 2020

   Mr. Bost introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To clarify the licensure requirements for contractor medical 
   professionals to perform medical disability examinations for 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. CLARIFICATION OF LICENSURE REQUIREMENTS FOR CONTRACTOR 
              MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS TO PERFORM MEDICAL DISABILITY 
              EXAMINATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS.

    Subsection (c) of section 504 of the Veterans' Benefits 
Improvements Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-275; 38 U.S.C. 5101 note) is 
amended to read as follows:
    ``(c) Licensure of Contract Health Care Professionals.--
            ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any law regarding the 
        licensure of health care professionals, a health care 
        professional described in paragraph (2) may conduct an 
        examination pursuant to a contract entered into under 
        subsection (a) at any location in any State, the District of 
        Columbia, or a Commonwealth, territory, or possession of the 
        United States, so long as the examination is within the scope 
        of the authorized duties under such contract.
            ``(2) Health care professional described.--A health care 
        professional described in this paragraph is a physician, 
        physician assistant, nurse practitioner, audiologist, or 
        psychologist, who--
                    ``(A) has a current unrestricted license to 
                practice the health care profession of the physician, 
                physician assistant, nurse practitioner, audiologist, 
                or psychologist, as the case may be;
                    ``(B) is not barred from practicing such health 
                care profession in any State, the District of Columbia, 
                or a Commonwealth, territory, or possession of the 
                United States; and
                    ``(C) is performing authorized duties for the 
                Department of Veterans Affairs pursuant to a contract 
                entered into under subsection (a).''.
                                 <all>
```
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

THOMAS W.S. RICHEY,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

DOUGLAS THAUT,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 12-35254

D.C. No. 3:11-cv-05680-RBL

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 11, 2013** 

Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.

Washington state prisoner Thomas W.S. Richey appeals pro se from the

district court’s judgment dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action

for failure to exhaust administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation

FILED

FEB 19 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 

We review de novo the district court’s dismissal for failure to exhaust and for clear

error any underlying factual findings. Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813, 821 (9th

Cir. 2010). We affirm. 

The district court properly dismissed Richey’s action without prejudice

because Richey failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. See Woodford v.

Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 93 (2006) (requiring proper and timely exhaustion of prisoner

claims). The district court did not clearly err in finding that Richey was required to

appeal the non-grievability determination to the grievance program manager and

failed to do so. Cf. Sapp, 623 F.3d at 822-23 (exhaustion is not required where

administrative remedies are rendered “effectively unavailable”). 

AFFIRMED.

2 12-35254
Certification of CEO and CFO Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002


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

      In connection with the quarterly report of DataMetrics Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending July 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Daniel
Bertram, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Rafik Moursalien, the
Controller of the Company, does hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) 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 presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Company.

         DATAMETRICS CORPORATION

         By:   Daniel Bertram
            -------------------------------
               Daniel Bertram, CEO

         Dated: June 15, 2005


         By:   Rafik Moursalien
            -------------------------------
               Rafik Moursalien, Controller

         Dated: June 15, 2005

<PAGE>

SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, the
Registrant has duly caused this Form 10-QSB to be signed on its behalf by its
duly authorized representatives.


                                                  DATAMETRICS CORPORATION
                                                  ------------------------
                                                  /s/ Daniel Bertram
                                                  Chief Executive Officer


Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, this
report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of the
Registrant and in the capacities and on the dates indicated:

Name                              Title                 Date
-------------------       ------------------------      ---------------
/s/ Daniel Bertram        Chief Executive Officer       June 15, 2005
-------------------
    Daniel Bertram

/s/ Rafik Moursalien      Controller                    June 15, 2005
-------------------
    Rafik Moursalien
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 32

                         ARTESIAN RESOURCES CORPORATION

            FORM OF OFFICER CERTIFICATIONS REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 OF
                             THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

    Certification by the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
          Relating to a Periodic Report Containing Financial Statements

I, Dian C. Taylor, Chief Executive Officer, and David B. Spacht, Chief Financial
Officer, of Artesian Resources Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the
"Company"), hereby certify, pursuant to 18 USC Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on our knowledge:

(1) The Company's periodic report containing financial statements on Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2005 (the "Form 10-K")
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 USC Section 78m(a) or Section 78o(d)), as amended; and

(2) The information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Date: March 17, 2006


CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER:                      CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER:


/s/ DIAN C. TAYLOR                            /s/ DAVID B. SPACHT
-------------------------                     -------------------------
Dian C. Taylor                                David B. Spacht
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**





**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 NaturalNano, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
      10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kathleen A. Browne,
      Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify to the best of my knowledge,
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 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 result of operations of the Company.


Date:
                April 2,
                2007By:
              /s/ Kathleen
                A. BrowneName:
                        Kathleen A. Browne
                      Title:
                        Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.1




SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION*


(Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer)




Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officers of QSGI INC., hereby certify, to such officers’ knowledge, that:




(1) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of QSGI INC. (the “Company”) for the period ended June 30, 2009 (the “Report”) fully complies with the 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.




Date: October 26, 2011

/s/ Marc ShermanMarc Sherman

Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer





__________________


* The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 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.
**Exhibit
      32.2**




**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 on Command Security Corporation
      (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
      Barry I. Regenstein, President and Chief Financial 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, to the best of my
      knowledge:




(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 result of operations of the Company.





Date:
      June 28, 2006




By: /s/
      Barry I. Regenstein


Barry
      I.
      Regenstein


President
      and Chief Financial Officer


(Principal
      Financial Officer)
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 34 (Thursday, February 20, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 7765]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-4130]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP96-346-002]


Southern Natural Gas Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC 
Gas Tariff

February 13, 1997.
    Take notice that on February 10, 1997, Southern Natural Gas Company 
(Southern) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Seventh 
Revised Volume No. 1, (Tariff) the following tariff sheets to become 
effective February 23, 1997:

First Substitute Third Revised Sheet No. 140
First Substitute First Revised Sheet No. 140a
First Substitute Second Revised Sheet No. 141
Fourth Revised Sheet No. 142

    Southern also proposed to withdraw Second Revised Sheet No. 139a 
submitted in its August 23, 1996 filing in the instant proceeding.
    Southern states that its filing is in compliance with the 
Commission's January 30, 1997 order approving changes to its cashout 
procedure and directing Southern to file revised tariff sheets 
consistent with its order.
    Southern states that copies of the filing will be served upon all 
parties designated on the official service list compiled by the 
Secretary in these proceedings.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 first Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR Section 385.211). All such 
protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the 
Commission's Regulations. 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 Public Reference Room.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-4130 Filed 2-19-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 11

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                               FARREL CORPORATION
                 STATEMENT RE COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                 (In thousands, except per share and share data)

                                                               Three Months Ended
                                                          March 30,         March 31,
                                                             2003              2002
                                                             ----              ----
<S>                                                          <C>               <C>
Net loss applicable to common stock                            $(1,249)            $(760)
                                                        ===============   ===============
Weighted average number of common
shares outstanding -  Basic earnings per share               5,228,461         5,228,461

Effect of dilutive stock and purchase  options                     ---               ---
                                                        ---------------   ---------------

Weighted average number of common
shares outstanding - Diluted earnings per share              5,228,461         5,228,461
                                                        ===============   ===============

Net loss per common share-
  Basic                                                         $(0.24)           $(0.15)
                                                        ===============   ===============
  Diluted                                                       $(0.24)           $(0.15)
                                                        ===============   ===============
</TABLE>

Options outstanding at March 30, 2003, to purchase 240,000 shares of common
stock at prices ranging from $2 to $6 were not included in the computation of
dilutive EPS for the period ending March 30, 2003, because the options' exercise
prices were greater than the average market price of the common shares. Options
outstanding at March 30, 2003, to purchase 105,000 shares of common stock at
prices ranging from $0.60 to $0.81 were not included in the computation of
dilutive EPS for the period ending March 30, 2003, because the effect of the
options was anti-dilutive.

Options outstanding at March 31, 2002, to purchase 323,000 shares of common
stock at prices ranging from $2 to $10 were not included in the computation of
dilutive EPS for the period ending March 31, 2002, because the options' exercise
prices were greater than the average market price of the common shares. Options
outstanding at March 31, 2002, to purchase 90,000 shares of common stock at
prices ranging from $0.60 to $0.81 were not included in the computation of
dilutive EPS for the period ending March 31, 2002, because the effect of the
options was anti-dilutive.




                                                                              19
<PAGE> 1
<TABLE>
                                                                                                              EXHIBIT 11

                                            Falcon Products, Inc. and Subsidiaries
                                            --------------------------------------

                                               COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                                                           (Unaudited)
<CAPTION>
(In thousands, except share and per share               Thirteen Weeks Ended              Thirty-Nine Weeks Ended
amounts)                                             --------------------------         ---------------------------
                                                     August 1,        August 2,         August 1,         August 2,
                                                       1998             1997              1998              1997
                                                     --------         --------          --------          --------
<S>                                                  <C>              <C>               <C>               <C>
Basic Earnings Per Share:
------------------------

Average number of common shares outstanding            9,058             9,661             9,199             9,703

Net earnings                                         $   216          $  2,050          $  3,836          $  5,859
                                                     =======          ========          ========          ========

Earnings per share                                   $   .02          $    .21          $    .41          $    .59
                                                     =======          ========          ========          ========

Diluted Earnings Per Share:
--------------------------

Average number of common shares outstanding            9,058             9,661             9,199             9,703

Assumed exercise of options
     (treasury stock method)                             124               157               143               178
                                                     -------          --------          --------          --------

Shares for diluted computation                         9,182             9,818             9,342             9,881
                                                     =======          ========          ========          ========

Net earnings                                         $   216          $  2,050          $  3,836          $  5,859
                                                     =======          ========          ========          ========

Earnings per share                                   $   .02          $    .21          $    .41          $    .59
                                                     =======          ========          ========          ========
</TABLE>

                                    14
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-16-00116-CV 

LINDA LEWIS APPELLANT

V. 

WAL-MART STORES INC. AND 

BEN AZIMI 

 APPELLEES

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

FROM THE 48TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY 

TRIAL COURT NO. 048-271696-14 

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

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

On April 11, 2016, and April 25, 2016, we notified appellant in accordance 

with rule of appellate procedure 42.3(c) that we would dismiss this appeal unless 

the $205 filing fee was paid. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c). Appellant has not paid 

the $205 filing fee. See Tex. R. App. P. 5, 12.1(b). 

 1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4. 
2

Because appellant failed to comply with a requirement of the rules of 

appellate procedure and the Texas Supreme Court’s order of August 28, 2015,2

we dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c), 43.2(f). 

Appellant shall pay all costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue. 

See Tex. R. App. P. 43.4. 

PER CURIAM 

PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; DAUPHINOT and GARDNER, JJ. 

DELIVERED: May 19, 2016 

 2See Supreme Court of Tex., Fees Charged in the Supreme Court, in Civil 

Cases in the Courts of Appeals, and Before the Judicial Panel on Multi-district 

Litigation, Misc. Docket No. 15-9158 (Aug. 28, 2015) (listing courts of appeals’ 

fees).
#### David EVANS, Appellant, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections, Appellee.

No. 72-327.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Feb. 15, 1973.

David Roth, of Cone, Wagner, Nugent, Johnson & McKeown, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and William W. Herring, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner’s original direct appeal from a judgment and sentence imposed upon conviction of murder in the first degree was frustrated by an untimely filed notice of appeal by court appointed counsel.

We grant petitioner a belated review of the judgment and sentence equivalent to a direct appeal by means of this habeas corpus proceeding. Henninger v. State, 230 So.2d 149 (Fla.1970).

We dispense with oral argument pursuant to F.A.R. 3.10(e), 32 F.S.A. We have examined the briefs and record, and conclude that petitioner has failed to demonstrate reversible error. Accordingly, the judgment and sentence is affirmed and habeas corpus denied.

Habeas corpus denied.

WALDEN, CROSS and OWEN, JJ„ concur.