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

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 955

To exempt semiconductors from the country of origin marking requirements

under the Tariff Act of 1930.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 17, 1993

Mr. ARCHER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To exempt semiconductors from the country of origin

marking requirements under the Tariff Act of 1930.

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

3 That section 304 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C.

4 1304) is amended—

5 (1) by striking out ‘‘Except as hereinafter pro6 vided,’’ at the beginning of subsection (a) and in7 serting ‘‘Except as otherwise provided in this sec8 tion,’’;

9 (2) by redesignating subsections (f), (g), and

10 (h) as subsections (g), (h), and (i), respectively; and
2

HR 955 IH

1 (3) by inserting after subsection (e) the follow2 ing new subsection:

3 ‘‘(f) EXEMPTION FROM MARKING FOR SEMICONDUC4 TORS.—Articles provided for in headings 8541 and 8542

5 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States

6 and their containers are exempt from the marking require7 ments of subsection (a).’’.

Æ
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350


ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





Certification of
CEO





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Frequency Electronics, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 31, 2010 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Martin
B. Bloch, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to 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 results of operations of the
      Company.





/s/  Martin
      Bloch
              
              September
      14, 2010Martin
      B. BlochChief
      Executive Officer




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version 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.




This
certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-Q pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by
such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange
Act”).  Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by
reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the
Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it
by reference.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 70 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 H. R. 70

 To provide for the termination of the Superconducting Super Collider 
                                project.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 5, 1993

 Mr. Hoagland introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
              Committee on Science, Space, and Technology

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide for the termination of the Superconducting Super Collider 
                                project.

    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 ``Superconducting Super Collider 
Termination Act of 1993''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

    The Congress finds that--
            (1) the Federal budget deficit was $290,000,000,000 in 
        fiscal year 1992;
            (2) outlays for net interest on the national debt have 
        grown at nearly twice the rate of the Gross Domestic Product 
        since 1986, when the Superconducting Super Collider was first 
        proposed;
            (3) reductions in Federal spending are necessary to reduce 
        the budget deficit, reduce the national debt, and improve the 
        economy;
            (4) the Department of Energy's Office of Superconducting 
        Super Collider has projected the cost of the Superconducting 
        Super Collider to be $8,250,000,000;
            (5) the Department of Energy's Energy Research Review 
        Committee has projected the cost of the Superconducting Super 
        Collider to be $8,400,000,000;
            (6) the Department of Energy's High Energy Physics Advisory 
        Panel has projected the cost of the Superconducting Super 
        Collider to be $8,900,000,000;
            (7) the Department of Energy's Independent Cost Estimate 
        Group has projected the cost of the Superconducting Super 
        Collider to be $11,800,000,000, including $1,200,000,000 for 
        detectors which were not included in the other estimates; and
            (8) the Federal Government does not have the resources at 
        this time to fund the Superconducting Super Collider.

SEC. 3. PROHIBITION.

    No Federal funds may be used or obligated for the Superconducting 
Super Collider project, except funds necessary to terminate the 
project.

                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 31.1**I, WilliamE. Crow, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Friedman Industries, Incorporated;     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:          a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;          b) [intentionally omitted per SEC release 33-8238]          c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and          d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and     5. The registrant’s other certifying officers(s) and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):          a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and          b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Dated:February 14, 2007     /s/ William E. Crow  Chief Executive Officer and President
Exhibit 13.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Pearson plc (the Company) for the fiscal year ending
December 31, 2015 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Coram Williams, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify to my knowledge, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: March 23, 2016



/s/ Coram WilliamsCoram WilliamsChief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 16


July 27, 2000


Securities and Exchange Commission
Washington, D.C.  20549

Ladies and Gentlemen:

We were previously principal accountants for  The Beard Company
and, under the  date of April 7, 2000, we  reported on the con-
solidated financial  statements of  The Beard  Company and sub-
sidiaries as of December 31, 1999 and 1998, and for each of the
years  in  the  three-year  period ended December 31, 1999.  On
July  20, 2000,  our  appointment  as principal accountants was
terminated.  We  have  read  The Beard Company's statements in-
cluded under Item 4(a) of its  Form 8-K dated July 27, 2000, and
we  agree  with  such  statements,  except  that we are not in a
position to agree or disagree with The Beard Company's statement
that the change was approved by the audit committee of the board
of directors.

Very truly yours,

KPMG LLP

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
#### T. M. HOWERTON, Jr., Appellant, v. Joseph E. HAMMOCK, Appellee.

No. J-115.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. First District.

Oct. 19, 1967.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 4, 1967.

Ervin, Pennington, Vara & Jacobs, Tallahassee, for appellant.

J. B. Hodges, Lake City, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals from a judgment entered pursuant to a jury verdict in an action for compensatory and .punitive damages arising out of an intentional tort which was found by the jury to have been maliciously committed by the appellant against the plaintiff.

The grounds for reversal urged by appellants are essentially directed to the sufficiency of the evidence as to both the commission of the tort and the amount of the damages arising therefrom. We have examined the transcript of testimony given before the jury and find that there was sufficient evidence which if believed, as it apparently was, is supportive of the jury’s verdict. It is apodictic that an appellate court will not substitute its judgment for that of the jury when it comes to the function of reconciling conflicting testimony.

Affirmed.

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and JOHNSON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: October 11, 2012 No. 12-41

MEDIA CONTACT: GARY SOMERSET 202.512.1957, 202.355.3997 cell gsomerset@gpo.gov

PRINTING INDUSTRY RECOGNIZES 

ACHIEVEMENTS OF ACTING PUBLIC PRINTER 

WASHINGTON—The U.S. Government Printing Office’s (GPO) Acting Public Printer 

Davita Vance-Cooks was named one of OutputLinks Communications Group Women of Distinction. 

The group recognizes women worldwide for their professional achievements, leadership, and 

contributions to the printing and digital industries. Vance-Cooks is the first female to lead GPO. She 

oversees GPO’s 1,900 employees in providing the public with access to Government information in 

print and digital formats. Under her guidance, GPO has established itself as the digital information 

platform for the Federal Government and provider of secure credentials. GPO has been viewed as a 

model for ‘doing more with less’ and maintaining productivity while implementing cost-cutting 

initiatives. Vance-Cooks joins more than 70 other women who have received this honor since the 

inception of the Women of Distinction award in 2002. OutputLinks Communications Group works with 

the high volume transaction output industry, which encompasses the computer, printing and internet 

industries. 

Link to photo: http://www.gpo.gov/images/news-media/management/PP_Vance-Cooks_300.jpg

Link: http://www.outputlinks.com/html/news/OutputLinks_WOD_2012_100912.aspx

“I am honored to be named a Women of Distinction by OutputLinks Communications Group and have 

GPO employees recognized for their accomplishments,” said Acting Public Printer Davita VanceCooks. “It is a pleasure to lead the men and women of GPO as we work together to embrace digital 

technologies while continuing to serve as the link between the American people and their Government.” 

GPO is the Federal Government's primary resource for producing, procuring, cataloging, indexing, 

authenticating, disseminating, and preserving the official information products of the U.S. Government 

in both digital and tangible formats. GPO is responsible for the production and distribution of 

information products and services for all three branches of the Federal Government, including U.S. 

passports for the Department of State as well as the official publications of Congress, the White House, 

and other Federal agencies. In addition to publication sales, GPO provides for permanent public access 

to Federal Government information at no charge through GPO’s Federal Digital System 

(www.fdsys.gov) and through partnerships with approximately 1,200 libraries nationwide participating 

in the Federal Depository Library Program. For more information, please visit www.gpo.gov. Follow 

GPO on Facebook, Twitter, and on YouTube. 

###
#### William SMITH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-372.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Sept. 24, 1971.

Appeal from Court of Record, Broward County; Humes T. Lasher, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                    UT
<MULTIPLIER>                                 1,000,000
<CIK>                                        0000357261
<NAME>                                       FLORIDA PROGRESS CORPORATION
       
<S>                                                    <C>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                      DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                           SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                          9-MOS
<BOOK-VALUE>                                           PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                                  3,532
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                                  880
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                                       735
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                                     181
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                               312
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                             5,640
<COMMON>                                                   1,208
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                                      0
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                                          913
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                             2,121
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                          0
<PREFERRED>                                                   34
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                                       1,727
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                             0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                                      0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                                29
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                                 35
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                                     25
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                                    0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                               0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                             1,669
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                              5,640
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                                  2,383
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                                         118
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                                 1,961
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                                 2,079
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                                      304
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                           (22)
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                               282
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      97
<NET-INCOME>                                                 185
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                                    5
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                                180
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                                     150
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                                      0
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                                       537
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                               1.86
<EPS-DILUTED>                                               1.86
        



</TABLE>
#### Jessie Lee KEY et al., Appellants, v. Lou Verta PERVIS, Appellee.

No. 73-634.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Dec. 21, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 123 (Tuesday, June 26, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 29802]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-13631]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Human Genome Research Institute; Notice of Closed 
Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Human 
Genome Research Institute.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Human Genome Research Institute 
Special Emphasis Panel.
    Date: July 10, 2018.
    Time: 12:00 p.m. to 2:30 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Human Genome Research Institute, 3rd Floor 
Conference Room, 5635 Fishers Lane Rockville, MD 20852 (Telephone 
Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Rudy O. Pozzatti, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Scientific Review Branch, National Human Genome Research 
Institute, 5635 Fishers Lane, Suite 4076, MSC 9306, Rockville, MD 
20852, (301) 402-0838, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0a7a6570706b7e7e784a676b636624646362246d657c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3f4f5045455e4b4b4d7f525e56531151565711585049">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.172, Human 
Genome Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: June 20, 2018.
Sylvia L. Neal,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-13631 Filed 6-25-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 January 9, 2019

t0108

Order 

Clerk

January 9, 2019

158881 & (21)(22)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 158881

COA: 346727

Huron CC: 18-306293-FH

JUSTIN MARK WOLSCHLAGER,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED. 

The application for leave to appeal the December 21, 2018 order of the Court of Appeals 

is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions 

presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion for stay is DENIED.
#### Nelson CLARK, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-882.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 8, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.