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

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 426 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 426

    Expressing the sense of Congress regarding the awareness of and 
                     treatment for kidney disease.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 25, 2002

 Mr. Cummings submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
            referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
    Expressing the sense of Congress regarding the awareness of and 
                     treatment for kidney disease.

Whereas nearly 20,000,000 people in the United States are estimated to be at 
        risk for chronic kidney disease;
Whereas people of African, Native American, Hispanic, Asian, and Pacific Island 
        descent are more at risk for kidney disease;
Whereas kidney disease is a silent killer because most people with kidney 
        disease are unaware of their illness;
Whereas diabetes and hypertension are the leading causes of kidney disease;
Whereas end-stage renal disease is a condition that causes permanent kidney 
        failure requiring dialysis or kidney transplant;
Whereas dialysis can slow down chronic renal failure and is a life saving 
        process that helps patients perform many normal activities;
Whereas nearly 51,000 people in the United States are awaiting a kidney 
        transplant; and
Whereas there is no cure for kidney disease and treatment involves regular 
        checkups, proper eating, and regular exercise: Now, therefore, be it

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That it is the sense of Congress that--
            (1) national and community organizations should be 
        recognized and applauded for their work in promoting awareness 
        of kidney disease and for providing information about the 
        disease;
            (2) health care providers should continue to increase their 
        efforts to diagnose kidney disease in its earliest stages;
            (3) the Federal Government has the responsibility to--
                    (A) increase awareness about the importance of 
                detection and proper treatment of kidney disease;
                    (B) work to increase research funding so that all 
                the causes of and a cure for kidney disease may be 
                discovered, and new treatments for kidney disease may 
                be developed; and
                    (C) consider ways to improve access to, and the 
                quality of, health care services for detecting and 
                treating kidney disease.
                                 <all>
```
#### STATE OF ALABAMA and Alabama Air Pollution Control Commission ex rel. William J. Baxley, Attorney General, Plaintiffs-Appellants. v. Lynn SEEBER, General Manager of Tennessee Valley Authority, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 73-2766.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Sept. 3, 1976.

*97William J. Baxley, Atty. Gen., Myron H. Thompson, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Henry H. Caddell, Asst. Atty. Gen., Chief Environmental Protection Dir., Frederick S. Middleton, III, Montgomery, Ala., for plaintiffs-appellants.

Philip K. Maxwell, Asst. Atty. Gen., Austin, Tex., amicus curiae for State of Tex.

David C. Short, David D. Beals, Asst. Attys. Gen., Frankfort, Ky., amicus curiae for Com. of Ky.

Jan E. Chatten, Deputy Atty. Gen., Los Angeles, Cal., amicus curiae for State of Cal.

Wayman G. Sherrer, U. S. Atty., Charles D. Stewart, William D. Mallard, Jr., Asst. U. S. Attys., Birmingham, Ala., Kent Frizzell, Asst. Atty. Gen., Martin Green, Chief, Pollution Control Sec., James R. Walpole, Atty., Land & Nat’l Resources Div., Dept. of Justice, Washington D. C., Robert H. Marquis, Gen. Counsel, Tenn. Valley Auth., Herbert S. Sanger, Jr., Assoc. Gen. Counsel, Beauchamp E. Brogan, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Justin M. Schwamm, Atty., Knoxville, Tenn., Wallace H. Johnson, Jacques B. Gelin, Larry G. Gutterridge, Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., for defendants-appellees.

Before GODBOLD, SIMPSON and IN-GRAHAM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Following grant of certiorari, - U.S. -, 96 S.Ct. 2643, 49 L.Ed.2d 384, the judgment of the District Court, which was reversed by the Court of Appeals, 502 F.2d 1238, is AFFIRMED, in light of *Hancock v. Train,*425 U.S. -, 96 S.Ct. 2006, 48 L.Ed.2d 555 (1976).
#### John C. L’Engle, Appellant, v. Mary A. DeCottes, Appellee.

(Supreme Court of Florida, *Bn. Banc.,*

April 18, 1905.)

Appeal from Circuit Court, Duval County; Rhydon M. Call, Judge.

*E. J. L’Engle,*for Appellant.

*Jno. L. Doggett,*for Appellee.

*401Per Curiam.

The bill in this cause was filed by the appellee against the appellant. There was interlocutory order in favor of the complainant and the defendant appeals. The order is affirmed.

Decision
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 Quarterly Report of Solo Cup Company (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the thirteen weeks ended April 1, 2007 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert D. Koney, Jr., as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to
§ 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 results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        
|------------------------
|/s/ Robert D. Koney, Jr.
|Robert D. Koney, Jr.    
|Chief Financial Officer 
|May 15, 2007
IV

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 131

Congratulating the Baltic nations of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania on the

tenth anniversary of the reestablishment of their full independence.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 10, 2001

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey (for himself, Mr. HOYER, Mr. PITTS, Mr. CARDIN,

Mr. WAMP, and Mr. HASTINGS of Florida) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on International

Relations

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Congratulating the Baltic nations of Estonia, Latvia, and

Lithuania on the tenth anniversary of the reestablishment of their full independence.

Whereas the Baltic nations of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania

were forcibly and illegally incorporated into the Soviet

Union from 1940 until 1991;

Whereas from 1940 to 1991, thousands of Estonians,

Latvians, and Lithuanians were executed, imprisoned, or

exiled by Soviet authorities through a regime of brutal repression, Sovietization, and Russification in their respective nations;

Whereas despite the efforts of the Soviet Union to eradicate

the memory of independence, the Baltic people never lost
2

•HCON 131 IH

their hope for freedom and their long-held dream of full

independence;

Whereas during the period of ‘‘glasnost’’ and ‘‘perestroika’’

in the Soviet Union, the Baltic people led the struggle for

democratic reform and national independence; and

Whereas, in the years following the restoration of full independence, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania have demonstrated their commitment to democracy, human rights,

and the rule of law, and have actively participated in a

wide range of international structures, pursuing further

integration with European political, economic, and security organizations: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives

2 concurring), That Congress—

3 (1) congratulates Estonia, Latvia, and Lith4 uania on the tenth anniversary of the restoration of

5 their full independence; and

6 (2) calls on the President to continue to build

7 the close and mutually beneficial relations the

8 United States has enjoyed with Estonia, Latvia, and

9 Lithuania since the restoration of the full independ10 ence of those nations.

Æ
Exhibit 10.2


AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE 
 FIRST NATIONAL BANCSHARES, INC.
 2000 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN


          WHEREAS, the board of directors of First National Bancshares, Inc. (the “Company”) deemed it desirable and in the best interests of the shareholders and the Company to amend the First National Bancshares, Inc. 2000 Stock Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) to eliminate the provision which provided that the number of shares of common stock issuable under the Plan would at all times equal 15% of the then outstanding shares of stock of the Company.


          NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:


          Section 1.  Amendment of the Plan.  The first paragraph of Section 5.1 of the Plan is hereby deleted and replaced in its entirety with the following:


          5.1          Limitations.  Subject to any antidilution adjustment pursuant to the provisions of Section 5.2 hereof, the maximum number of shares that may be issued hereunder shall initially be 180,000.  The total number of shares of Stock issuable pursuant to Incentive Stock Options may not be increased to more than 180,000 (other than pursuant to antidilution adjustments) without shareholder approval.  Any or all shares of Stock subject to the Plan may be issued in any combination of Incentive Stock Options or non-Incentive Stock Options.  Shares subject to an Option may be either authorized and unissued shares or shares issued and later acquired by the Company.  The shares covered by any unexercised portion of an Option that has terminated for any reason (except as set forth in the following paragraph) may again be
optioned under the Plan, and such shares shall not be considered as having been optioned or issued in computing the number of shares of Stock remaining available for option hereunder.


          Section 2.  Effect on Plan.  Except as otherwise specifically provided herein, the Plan shall not be amended but shall remain in full force and effect.  


          Section 3.  Headings.  The Section headings contained in this Amendment are for reference purposes only and will not affect in any way the meaning or interpretation of this Amendment.


          IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be executed as of August 15, 2005, in accordance with the authority provided by the Board of Directors.


	
   
  	
  FIRST   NATIONAL BANCSHARES, INC.
  
	
   
  	
   
  	
   
  
	
   
  	
  By:
  	
  /s/ Jerry L.   Calvert
  
	
   
  	
   
  	
  


  
	
   
  	
  Name: 
  	
  Jerry L.   Calvert
  
	
   
  	
  Title: 
  	
  President   and Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 10.8



 Exhibit 10.8 
  
 TRANSLATION 
 OF 
 SHARE TRANSFER AGREEMENT OF HAINAN E-FUTURE COMPUTER CO., LTD. 
  
 Transferor: Qicheng Yang 
 Transferee: Ling Zhang 
  
 Based on principal of voluntariness and equality, the Transferor agrees to transfer his 25% equity interests, or capital contribution of RMB375,000, of Hainan E-Future Computer Co., Ltd. to the Transferee at the price of RMB75,000. All
rights and obligations of the Transferor as the shareholder shall be rescinded, while the transferee shall undertake such rights and obligations as of today. 
  
 This Agreement shall enter into effect as of the date of signatures of both parties. 
  

			
		
	 Transferor:
	 	 /s/ Qicheng Yang

	 	 	 Qicheng Yang

		
	 Transferee: 
	 	 /s/ Ling Zhang

	 	 	 Ling Zhang


  
 Date: May 18, 2005
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 469 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  2d Session

                            H. CON. RES. 469

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

  Authorizing the Rotunda of the Capitol to be used on September 19, 
2002, for a ceremony to present the Congressional Gold Medal to General 
                     Henry H. Shelton (USA, Ret.).
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
107th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 469

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That the Rotunda of the Capitol is authorized to be used on September 
19, 2002, for a ceremony to present the Congressional Gold Medal to 
General Henry H. Shelton (USA, Ret.). Physical preparations for the 
ceremony shall be carried out in accordance with such conditions as the 
Architect of the Capitol may prescribe.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 17, 2002.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
National UAS Solutions, LLC

104 Raphael Drive

Lafayette, LA 70508

June 3, 2015

Exemption No. 11570

Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2015-0347

U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Operations

West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, DC 20590

Re: Request to amend Exemption No. 11570 to allow National UAS Solutions, LLC 

to add the DJI Phantom 3, DJI Inspire and the DJI S1000 sUAS platforms under 

the same direction and limitations as provided within Exemption No. 11570, docket 

#FAA-2015-0347, approved on May 13, 2015.

Dear Sir or Madam,

National UAS Solutions, LLC was issued an exemption under Section 333 of the “FAA 

Modernization and Reform Act of 2012” numbered 11570 for the purpose of gathering aerial 

data using the DJI Phantom 2 Vision+ sUAS. Since the exemption was granted, National UAS 

Solutions, LLC has determined the need to add the DJI Phantom 3, DJI Inspire and the DJI 

S1000 quadcopter in order to remain competitive and enhance services afforded our customers.

The airworthiness of the DJI S1000 was previously determined by the FAA in Exemption No. 

11156 (Total Safety U.S. Inc.), Exemption No 11158 (Team 5, LLC), and Exemption No. 11184 

(Low Country RC). The airworthiness of the DJI Inspire was previously determined by the FAA 

in exemption #11301 (Gulf Coast Unmanned Aerial Services, LLC). Since the Phantom 3 is 

essentially the Phantom 2 Vision+ upgraded with a more professional camera system, it is 

National UAS Solutions, LLC’s belief that they are materially alike.

The DJI Phantom 3, Inspire and S1000 will all have a gross weight under 55 pounds, forward 

speeds of less than 50 knots and an altitude restriction of under 400 feet. These sUAS’s will be 

operated in accordance with the limitations and restrictions enumerated in Exemption No. 11570 

already granted National UAS Solutions, LLC.
Because the requested amendment would not set any precedent or otherwise raise any novel 

issue, and because the addition of these sUAS platforms to our fleet will not materially affect our 

already granted petition No. 11570 in any way, and because National UAS Solutions, LLC seeks 

to begin these operations without delay, National UAS Solutions, LLC respectfully requests the 

FAA to determine that good cause exists to dispense with publication of the summary of this 

petition in the Federal Register and grant the requested amendment expeditiously by summary 

means.

Thank you for your kind consideration in the granting of this amendment.

Best regards,

Charles R. O’Neal, Jr.

President/CEO

National UAS Solutions, LLC

Lafayette, Louisiana 70508

337.288.1793

coneal@nationaluassolutions.com
**Hawaii Meeting** August 13 from 1:00

– 2:00 P.M. (pacific)

Teleconference: **866**

**- 299** 

**- 3188 Code: 202** 

**- 343** 

**- 9113#** 

**Discussion Questions** First, I wanted to discuss if EPA would be open to Hawaii exploring a carbon trading or carbon credit system with another separate region like Alaska since we both are our own regions. This would be the only viable way we could pursue a cross state solutio n since we are both physically remote from other states on the continental US. It also makes sense since Alaska has far less renewable resources deployed like wind and solar. They appear to be pursuing natural gas and LNG options. By contrast, Hawaii ha s extensive renewable energy power resources with solar, wind, geothermal and biomass power plants to share carbon trading credits with Alaska. We currently have no LNG resources in our state. Hawaii was at one time interested in carbon trading but abse nt federal legislation or rules there was no opportunity until now for us to pursue it. I have had some preliminary discussions with some of the Alaska PUC commissioners about this.

Secondly, I wanted to also know whether EPA would be open to different a pproaches and actions to increase methane recovery from solid waste facilities like landfills and WWTPs for GHG emission reductions even though they are not included in the existing plant facilities under Section 111(d). We have also been looking at increa sing waste to energy power on various islands. Under Hawaii's state statutes waste to energy is deemed to be biomass for RPS credits. If landfills can harness some of the methane to sell as electric power or to power their own facility operations instead of oil and diesel source generation, this would have overall beneficial effects for systemwide GHG reductions.

Is Kapaia Power Station an affected source? (HDOH)

Other questions as time allows.

**Anticipated Attendees**

**Hawaii Officials :**  Lorraine Akiba Commisioner, PUC Veronica Rocha Renewable Energy Project Manager, DBEDT Robert Mould DBEDT Thomas Gorak Chief Counsel, PUC Michael Madsen Engineer, Clean Air Branch, HDOH Keith McFall HDOH**EPA**

Kevin Culligan Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Jeremy Mark OAP, Clean Air Markets Division Joe Bryson OAP, Climate Protection Partnership Division Matt Clouse OAP, Climate Protection Partnership Division Jim Ketcham

- Colwill Office of Policy Analysis and Review Beth Conlin OAp, Clean Ai r Markets Division Misha Adamantiades Advisor Nate Topham Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Debra D alcher Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Elineth Torres Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Amy Vasu Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards David Solomon Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Nicholas Swanson Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Colin Boswell Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Kerry Drake Associate Director, R9 Air Division Amy Zimpfer Associate Director, R9 Air Division Ben Machol Chief, Clean Energy & Climate Change Office Anita Lee R9 Ray Saracino R9
#### STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Severin Lawrence MUNGER, Defendant and Appellant.

No. 17703.

Supreme Court of Utah.

Feb. 17, 1982.

Severin Lawrence Munger, pro se.

David L. Wilkinson, Atty. Gen., Salt Lake City, for plaintiff and respondent.

DURHAM, Justice:

Appellant seeks review by this Court of a conviction in district court after appeal from the justice court and a trial *de novo.*His *pro se*arguments appear to be, first, that Section 41-6-46, U.C.A. (1953)1 is in*722valid on its face by reason of vagueness and, second, that the trial judge in district court erroneously construed the statute as creating an irrebutable presumption of guilt based on the statutory speed limits. This Court’s recent decision in *State v. Pilcher*
      *2*
      **determined that the statute is not unconstitutionally vague but is sufficiently explicit to inform the ordinary reader what conduct is prohibited.

Appellant’s second point, that the court below applied the statute to him in an erroneous fashion, cannot be reviewed by this Court. Article VIII, Section 9 of the Constitution of Utah, provides in pertinent part as follows:

> ... Appeals shall also lie from the final judgment of justices of the peace in civil and criminal cases to the District Courts on both questions of law and fact, with such limitations and restrictions as shall be provided by law; *and the decision of the District Courts on such appeals shall be final except in cases involving the validity or constitutionality of a statute.*[Emphasis added.]

While the language of Section 78-3-5, U.C.A. (1953) appears somewhat broader in referring to an exception for “cases involving a constitutional issue,” the more narrowly drawn restrictions of Article VIII, Section 9 are controlling. The rule set forth in *State v. Olsen,*
      *3*
      **interpreting that Section of the Constitution, is still applicable:

> ... The alleged error relates solely to construction, and therefore, however erroneous the interpretation of that court may be, it confers no right of appeal, because it does not fall within the exception contained in Sec. 9, Art. 8, Const.

Therefore, it appears that this Court has no jurisdiction to review the application of the statute to appellant by the trial court. There is jurisdiction on the vagueness issue, but our ruling in *State v. Pilcher, supra,*is controlling on the question of the validity of the law. Consequently, appellant’s conviction in the district court must be affirmed solely as to the latter ground.

HALL, C. J., and STEWART, OAKS, and HOWE, JJ., concur.

. Providing for prima facie speed limits.

. Utah, 636 P.2d 470 (1981).

. 18 Utah 484, 485, 56 P. 22 (1899).
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 Quarterly Report of SmartPros Ltd. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Stanley P. Wirtheim, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuanT to ss. 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.

            A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the
Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its
staff upon request.



/S/  STANLEY P. WIRTHEIM
------------------------
     Stanley P. Wirtheim
Chief Financial Officer

November 15, 2004