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

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 387 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                 House Calendar No. 140

103d CONGRESS

  2d Session

                              H. RES. 387

                          [Report No. 103-434]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

Providing amounts from the contingent fund of the House for continuing 
  expenses of investigations and studies by certain committees of the 
            House from April 1, 1994, through May 31, 1994.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             March 15, 1994

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

                                                 House Calendar No. 140
103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 387

                          [Report No. 103-434]

Providing amounts from the contingent fund of the House for continuing 
  expenses of investigations and studies by certain committees of the 
            House from April 1, 1994, through May 31, 1994.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 15, 1994

  Mr. Frost, from the Committee on House Administration, reported the 
  following resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and 
                         ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Providing amounts from the contingent fund of the House for continuing 
  expenses of investigations and studies by certain committees of the 
            House from April 1, 1994, through May 31, 1994.

    Resolved, That there shall be available from the contingent fund of 
the House such amounts as may be necessary for continuance of 
investigations and studies by the standing committees of the House and 
the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, for the period 
beginning immediately after midnight on March 31, 1994, and ending at 
midnight on May 31, 1994, on the same terms and conditions as amounts 
were available to such committees for the period beginning at noon on 
January 3, 1994, and ending at midnight on March 31, 1994, pursuant to 
clause 5(f) of rule XI of the Rules of the House, except that the 
entitlement percentage shall be 8.33 percent.
```
# C_2021297EN.01002401.xml

| 26.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/24

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 12 May 2021 — VT v Ministero dell’Interno, Ministero dell’Interno — Dipartimento della Pubblica Sicurezza — Direzione centrale per le risorse umane

(Case C-304/21)

(2021/C 297/27)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: VT

Respondents: Ministero dell’Interno, Ministero dell’Interno — Dipartimento della Pubblica Sicurezza — Direzione centrale per le risorse umane

Question referred

Must Council Directive 2000/78/EC (1) of 27 November 2000, Article 3 TEU, Article 10 TFEU and Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as precluding the national legislation contained in Legislative Decree No 334/2000, as subsequently amended and supplemented, and in the secondary sources adopted by the Ministry of the Interior, which lays down an age limit of 30 years for participation in a selection procedure for posts of commissioner in the career bracket of State Police officers?

---

(1)  Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16).

---
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,

J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk February 24, 2009

s0217 

# Order

February 24, 2009

137743

TONI LANETT JAMISON, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 137743 COA: 285061 Muskegon CC: 76-001227-DP ANTHONY CRAIG WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 8, 2008 order of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-2211
LAWRENCE VERLINE WILDER, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GLASS HEALTH ASSOCIATION; BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF MARYLAND, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA97-2103-S) Submitted: December 18, 1997 Decided: January 7, 1998 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lawrence Verline Wilder, Appellant Pro Se. Michael E. Glass, Pikesville, Maryland; Philip Vito Tamburello, Owings Mills, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's orders granting summaryjudgment for the Appellees and denying his motion for reconsideration of the grant of summary judgment to Appellee Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Maryland and motion to amend his complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Wilder v. Glass Health Ass’n , No. CA-97-2103-S (D. Md. Aug. 19, 1997; Aug. 22, 1997; Aug. 27, 1997). We dispense withoral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
EX-10.6.4





 Exhibit 10.6.4 

FOURTH AMENDMENT TO LEASE 

This Fourth Amendment To Lease (“4th Amendment”) is
made this 21st day of February, 2019, and shall be effective as of January 1, 2018 (the “Effective Date”), by and between Pontiac
Center Investment, LLC, a Michigan limited liability company (the “Landlord”) and United Shore Financial Services, LLC, a Michigan limited liability company (the
“Tenant”) with respect to the Lease dated June 28, 2017, as amended pursuant to the First Amendment To Lease dated May 11, 2018, Second Amendment To Lease dated
June 20, 2018, and Third Amendment To Lease dated September 28, 2018 (collectively, the “Lease”) of the premises commonly known as 585 South Boulevard East, Pontiac,
Michigan, as more particularly described in the Lease (the “Premises”). 
 RECITALS: 

WHEREAS, following the execution and delivery of the Third Amendment To Lease, the Landlord and Tenant discovered that the monthly base rent
identified in Exhibit “B” to the Third Amendment To Lease was incorrect and the Landlord and Tenant are desirous of correcting same pursuant to this 4th Amendment and to otherwise
modify the Lease as provided in this 4th Amendment; 
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration
of the promises and covenants set forth in this 4th Amendment, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and legal sufficiency of which is hereby severally acknowledged, the Landlord
and Tenant hereby agree as follows: 
 1.    Capitalized Terms. All capitalized terms used in this 4th Amendment and not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the Lease. 

2.    Amendment of Lease. The Landlord and Tenant hereby agree that the Lease shall be amended by striking and deleting
Exhibit “B” in its entirety and replacing same with the Exhibit “B” attached to this 4th Amendment which shall supersede the Exhibit “B” attached
to the Third Amendment To Lease. 
 3.    Counterparts and Execution. This 4th Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. Facsimile signatures and
electronically transmitted copies of signatures (e.g., in an Adobe PDF file) shall be deemed valid and binding to the same extent as original signatures. 

  
 Page 1 of
2 













 4.    Ratification of Lease. Except as expressly amended hereby,
the Lease shall remain in full force and effect between the Landlord and Tenant and is hereby ratified and affirmed by each of them. 

WHEREFOR, the Landlord and Tenant have executed this 4th Amendment to the Lease as
of the date first set forth above. 
  

			
	LANDLORD:
	
	Pontiac Center Investment, LLC,
	a Michigan limited liability company
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Jeffrey A. Ishbia

		 	Jeffrey A. Ishbia
	Its:	 	Manager
	
	TENANT:
	
	United Shore Financial Services, LLC,
	a Michigan limited liability company
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Mathew Ishbia

		 	Mathew Ishbia
	Its:	 	Chief Executive Officer


  
 Page 2 of 2
**Exhibit31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONOF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**PURSUANTTO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, James T. Engen, certify that:

 

1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of LOUDTechnologies Inc.;

 

2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;

 

3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.  The registrant’s other certifying officer and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand have:

 

(a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;

 

(b)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

(c)  Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and

 

5.  The registrant’s other certifying officer and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofthe registrant’s board of directors:

 

(a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

(b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.

 
| Dated: May 16, 2005 | By:    | /s/ James T. Engen                       |
|--------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------|
|                     |   | James T. Engen                           |
|                     |   | *President and Chief Executive  Officer* |

 

1

----
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-15-00049-CR

John Jeffrey Ramon

v.

The State of Texas

On Appeal from the

206th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas

Trial Cause No. CR-3179-08-D

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal 

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

March 5, 2015
Exhibit 32



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



Solely
in connection with the filing of the Quarterly Report of Retractable Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2005, as filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), the undersigned Thomas J. Shaw, Chief Executive Officer, and Douglas W. Cowan, Chief Financial Officer, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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 issuer.



November 14, 2005



/S/    THOMAS J.
SHAWTHOMAS J. SHAWPRESIDENT, CHAIRMAN, ANDCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER/S/    DOUGLAS W.
COWANDOUGLAS W. COWANVICE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Quarterly Report of Ambassadors International, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the
undersigned, Joseph J. Ueberroth, Chief Executive Officer of the Company
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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), 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/ Joseph J. UeberrothJoseph J. UeberrothChief Executive OfficerNovember 5, 2004
 The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany this 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.
Exhibit 23.1
**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**
We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No.333-112093) of Wheeling-Pittsburgh Corporation of our report dated March 9, 2005 relating to thefinancial statements, management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control overfinancial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of theReorganized Company and of our report dated March 9, 2004 relating to the financial statements ofthe Predecessor Company, which appears in this Form 10-K. We also consent to the reference to usunder the heading “Selected Financial Data” in this Form 10-K.
/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Pittsburgh, PA
# C_2022011EN.01001801.xml

| 10.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 11/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 11/18

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Szegedi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 4 October 2021 — Napfény-Toll Kft. v Nemzeti Adó — és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

(Case C-615/21)

(2022/C 11/24)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Szegedi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Napfény-Toll Kft.

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó — és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

Question referred

Are the principles of legal certainty and of effectiveness, which form part of Community law, to be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State which does not allow the courts to exercise any discretion, such as Paragraph 164(5) of the az adózás rendjéről szóló 2003. évi XCII. törvény (Law XCII of 2003 establishing a code of tax procedure; ‘the former Code of Tax Procedure’), and the practice based on that legislation, under which, in matters of value added tax, the limitation period in respect of the right of the tax authorities to make a tax assessment is to be suspended for the whole duration of judicial review, regardless of the number of repeat administrative tax procedures, with no ceiling on the cumulative duration of the suspensions where there are several rounds of judicial review, one after another, including in cases where the court ruling on a decision of a tax authority taken as part of a repeat procedure following on from an earlier court decision finds that the tax authority failed to comply with the guidance contained in that court decision, that is to say, where it is due to the fault of that authority that the new court proceedings took place?

---
260 La. 692

#### STATE of Louisiana v. Ramond EAMES.

No. 52149.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 8, 1972.

In re: Ramond Eames applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus and habeas corpus.

Writ refused. It does not appear that the time granted on the continuance involves an abuse of discretion.

BARHAM, J., is of the opinion the writ should be granted. There is no discretion vested in the trial court in the matter of preliminary examination right before indictment or bill of information is filed — as here. See C.Cr.P. articles 292 and 293.

TATE, J.,

concurs in denial. The hearing on the motion for preliminary examination was continued to February 17, 1972 at 9:00 A. M. The majority holds that, under the exceptional circumstances (witnesses hospitalized, etc.), the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting this limited continuance. Our denial at this time is of course without prejudice to the relator’s right to renew the application if the hearing is not held on the date fixed.

DIXON, J.,

concurs in the reasons assigned by Justice TATE.
#### Edwin V. HAMMER, Appellant, v. Lavonia A. HAMMER, Appellee.

No. 73-312.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 7, 1973.

Appeal dismissed.
Exhibit   32.1

CERTIFICATION  PURSUANT TO18 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 COMC, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB  for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  (S)1350, as adopted pursuant to (S)906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I,  Janice B. Fuellhart, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, 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 results of operations of the Company. |
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                           |
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                           |

| /s/ Janice B. Fuellhart                              |   |
|------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                                      |   |
| Janice B. Fuellhart                                  |   |
| Chairman, Chief Executive      Officer and President |   |
| April 12, 2004                                       |   |

 

_______________________

A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS  WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO COMC, INC. AND  WILL BE RETAINED BY COMC, INC. AND FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE  COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.

----
H. Res. 465

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

June 28, 1994.

Resolved, That during consideration of the bill (H.R.

4624) making appropriations for the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and for

sundry independent agencies, boards, commissions, corporations, and offices for the fiscal year ending September 30,

1995, and for other purposes, all points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 or 6 of

rule XXI are waived. The amendment numbered 1 in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution

may be offered only by a Member designated in the report,

may amend portions of the bill not yet read for amendment,

shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for two hours

equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be

subject to a demand for division of the question in the House

or in the Committee of the Whole. Points of order against the
2

HRES 465 EH

amendments printed in the report of the Committee on Rules

for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived.

Attest:

Clerk.
304(m) CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE OW-200 8 -0 517 DCN 10031 THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION (CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.
To whom it may concern,

I Michael O’Connor would like and exemption for the ability to use and fly small unmanned aircraft (commonly referred to as a drone but specifically a DJI Phantom quadcopter) for the sole purpose of video production. I will follow all FAA guidelines and r ules to include current statutes and/or any updated new rulings.

I am a reasonable and responsible operator and do not exceed height or distance limits. I also am very considerate and cautious of the general public as not to endanger anyone.

The use wo uld include real estate listings, weddings, graduations , and contracted need.

My utmost concern has been and will always be public safety.

I do not anticipate a large presents in the industry as this is just a part time endeavor.

Cordially

,

Michael J O’ Connor

michaelnstaci@gmail.com
505

- 401

- 6307