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

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 57 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 57

    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
   relating to the authority of Congress and the States to regulate 
  contributions and expenditures in political campaigns and to enact 
              public financing systems for such campaigns.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 8, 2019

 Mr. Schiff (for himself, Ms. Norton, Mr. Carbajal, Ms. McCollum, Mr. 
  Blumenauer, Mr. Welch, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Cohen, and Mr. Serrano) 
  submitted the following joint resolution; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
   relating to the authority of Congress and the States to regulate 
  contributions and expenditures in political campaigns and to enact 
              public financing systems for such campaigns.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled   (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

                              ``Article--

    ``Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to forbid 
Congress or the States from imposing reasonable content-neutral 
limitations on private campaign contributions or independent election 
expenditures, or from enacting systems of public campaign financing, 
including those designed to restrict the influence of private wealth by 
offsetting campaign spending or independent expenditures with increased 
public funding.''.
                                 <all>
```
PROMISSORY NOTE


December  31,  2001                 $120,822


     This  agreement  is being made between APC Export, Inc. (hereafter referred
to  as  the  Company  or  the  Borrower) and Alaska Freightways, Inc. (hereafter
referred to as the Lender).  For value received, the undersigned promises to pay
to  the  order of Alaska Freightways, Inc. the sum of One Hundred Thousand Eight
Hundred  and Twenty Two Dollars ($120,822) together with interest at the rate of
8%  per annum on the unpaid balance from date until paid, principal and interest
payable  as  follows:

     Principal  and  interest  shall  be  paid in full within (12) twelve months
which  will  be  on  or  before  December  31,  2002.

     If default be made in the payment of any installment under this note and if
such  default  is not made good within 10 days, the entire principal sum and any
outstanding  interest shall at once become due and payable without notice at the
option  of  the  holder of this note.  Failure to exercise this option shall not
constitute  a  waiver  of  the  right  to  exercise the same in the event of any
subsequent default.  Presentment for payment, notice of non-payment, protest and
notice  of  protest are each hereby expressly and severally waived by the makers
and  all endorsers hereof and in case the payment shall not be made at maturity,
it is agreed by all parties hereto that all costs of collection and a reasonable
attorney's  fee  may  be  collected  as  a  part  hereof.



By  Borrower:__/s/  Ray  Smith
------------------------------
Ray  Smith,
APC  Export,  Inc.


<PAGE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

IN THE MATTER OF THE 

PETITION OF BRAD D. 

GREENSPAN FOR A WRIT OF 

MANDAMUS

§

§ No. 102, 2015

§

§

Submitted: March 23, 2015

 Decided: April 13, 2015

Before STRINE, Chief Justice; HOLLAND, and VAUGHN, Justices.

O R D E R

This 13th day of April 2015, upon consideration of the petition of 

Brad Greenspan for a writ of mandamus, it appears to the Court that:

(1) The petitioner, Brad Greenspan, seeks to invoke the original 

jurisdiction of this Court under Supreme Court Rule 43. He requests that 

this Court issue a writ of mandamus directing a Master of the Court of 

Chancery to: (i) grant his “Motion to Expedite Summary Judgment;” (ii) 

declare that he is immediately entitled to advancement of his legal fees; (iii) 

grant his “Motion Rule 54(b) or Rule 55(b);” (iv) grant his “Motion for 

Partial Summary Judgment;” (v) order a hearing on his “Motion 70b;” (vi) 

order an independent accounting of legal fees paid by defendants to the 

Master’s former employer; (vii) transfer his case to Vice Chancellor Laster; 

(viii) disqualify the law firm of Richards Layton & Finger from appearing 
2

his case; (ix) join certain people as codefendants; and (x) set a new hearing 

date on his “Motion to Expedite Summary Judgment.”

(2) Defendants below, News Corporation and Intermix Media LLC, 

as well as defendants, Sony Entertainment, Inc., Sony Music Holdings, Inc., 

and 550 Digital Media Ventures, Inc., have filed motions seeking to dismiss 

Greenspan’s writ of mandamus. After careful consideration of the parties’ 

respective positions, we find that Greenspan’s petition manifestly fails to 

invoke this Court’s original jurisdiction to issue an extraordinary writ. 

Accordingly, his petition must be dismissed.

(3) A writ of mandamus is designed to compel a lower court to 

perform a duty if it is shown that: the complainant has a clear right to the 

performance of the duty; that no other adequate remedy is available; and that 

the trial court has arbitrarily failed or refused to perform its duty.1 A writ of 

mandamus will not be issued “to compel a trial court to perform a particular 

judicial function, to decide a matter in a particular way, or to dictate the 

control of its docket.”2 A writ of mandamus is not warranted under the 

present circumstances because the pending motions below are within the 

discretion of the Master in Chancery.

3

 This Court will not compel the Court 

 

1

In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988). 

2

Id.

3

Id.
3

of Chancery to rule in Greenspan’s favor on the substantive issues below. 

These are matters Greenspan may raise in any appeal from a final order 

issued by the Court of Chancery in the proceedings below. 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for the 

issuance of an extraordinary writ of mandamus is DISMISSED. 

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr.

Chief Justice
I support vote hemp in keeping costs and restrictions down. I believe that farmers across the USA can have a new (and take back) industry that can support our economy and our growth as a nation. It’s exciting to me to see how we can support our own and grow out of an old belief as we mature as a nation. Maturing is essential for us. it takes honest conversations amongst ourselves and in politics. most importantly we need to take care for anti corruption strategies so we can all prosper. It makes no sense to all work so hard for only a few to prosper.

I have been following and support vote hemp’s initiatives for many years. It is a smart crop that can empower many of our farmers and help them succeed. Thank you for reading. 

Nicole Whitney

Paloma pottery 

Bow WA
---

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TOSECTION 302 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Mark Lana, of HS3 Technologies, Inc., certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of HS3
Technologies, Inc.;

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

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and
I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the
small business issuer and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls
and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed
under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small
business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by
others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this
report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the
small business issuer's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this
report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and
procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change
in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting that
occurred during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the
small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and
I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit
committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and
material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over
financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small
business issuer's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material,
that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the
small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting.

Dated: April 29, 2009

*/s/ Mark Lana*Mark Lana Chief Executive
Officer and Director(Principal Executive Officer, Principal Financial
Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)

---
OMB No. 0581-0093

LP-13 (Expiration Date 11/30/2024)

NOMINEE’S AGREEMENT TO SERVE

If appointed, I agree to serve on the Lamb Promotion, Research, and Information 

Board (Board), and to disclose any relationship with any lamb promotion entity 

or any organization that has a contractual relationship with the Board.

_____________________________ _______________________

Signature Date

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a 

collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. The valid OMB control number for this information collection is 

0581-0093. There is no time estimated to complete this information collection because it requires only a signature.

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its 

Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based 

on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, 

family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights 

activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing 

deadlines vary by program or incident. 

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, 

American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or 

contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages 

other than English. 

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at 

http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all 

of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter 

to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights; 1400 Independence Avenue, SW.;

Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: program.intake@usda.gov. USDA is an equal opportunity provider, 

employer, and lender.
##### 



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 Airbee Wireless, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for
the fiscal quarter ended March 1, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), I Richard P. Sommerfeld, Jr., 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, to the best of my knowledge, that: (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) 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 the operations of the Company. /s/ Richard P. Sommerfeld, Jr.
Richard P. Sommerfeld, Jr.
Chief Financial Officer July 21, 2005
null

2015-04-07

544.1432

eng - Argued: 2015-04-07. Docket number: 13-35154
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Steven Pleasant, Appellant.

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Nicholas Figueroa, J.), rendered June 29, 1989, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the *372second degree and sentencing him as a predicate felon to 2-Vi to 5 years, unanimously affirmed.

The issue at trial of this matter was whether the defendant’s actions constituted an assault on complainant from behind, or were justified. The court acknowledged that its supplemental instruction tended to shift the burden of proof when it charged the jury that it had to decide which version had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. However, the court cured the error by charging that it was the People’s burden to prove every element of the crime and disprove the justification defense beyond a reasonable doubt. The charge read in its entirety was correct. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Ellerin, Wallach and Smith, JJ.
Marketing and Regulatory Programs – Agricultural Marketing Service – Specialty Crops Program – Specialty Crops Inspection Division 1 of 1

 Inspection Aid No. 116

Canned Apples Score Points - Sliced - 50 Ounces July 2016

Factors Maximum Weight of Defects Permitted for the Respective Grade

Color Grade A

V

1

C

V

Points 20 19 18 17 162 152 142 1

A – Reasonably Uniform Internally and Externally Varies noticeably, slight Brown but not

Bright Reasonably Uniform markedly Brown, Pink or Gray cast -

C – Vary noticeably Bright Color Practically free from internal dis-coloration

Uniformity of Size & Symmetry Points 20 19 18 17 16 15 14

Ounces that fail Thickness does not vary more than 1⁄4 inch

Partially whole or whole -

 3/4 slice and at least 1-1/4 inch in length 1.0 2.5 3.5 5.0 2 1/2 7.5 10.0 12.5 5

Defects – in Ounces Points 20 19 18 17 162 152 142

Damaged – over 1⁄2 inch damaged

diameter green peel or 0 1/2 1 1/2 2 1/2 1 1/2 4 5 1/2 7 1/2 3 1/4

1⁄4 in. diameter red peel

Seriously Damaged 0 0 1/4 1/2 1/2 3/4 1 1 1/2 1

Bruises – over 1⁄2 inch diameter and 1⁄4 inch 

depth.

Carpel Tissue square inch 0 3/4 1 1/2 2 1/4 1 1/4 3 3 3/4 4 1/2 2 1/4

Character Points 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 332 322 312 302 292 282

Ounces of Mushy Units 0 1/4 1/2 1 1 1/2 2 2 1/2 1 1/2 3 1/2 4 4 1/2 5 1/2 6 1/2 7 1/2 3 1/4

 

1 V columns are allowances for verification sample of 14 ounces.

2

Limiting Rule
================================================================================

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  HS3  Technologies,  Inc.  (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended  September 30, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  the
undersigned,  in the  capacities  and  on  the  dates  indicated  below,  hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his 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.


Date:  November 21, 2005


/s/ Mark Lana
-------------------------------
Mark Lana, President and C.E.O.
Principal Executive Officer
Exhibit 10.7

BOISE CASCADE CORPORATION    SUPPLEMENTAL PENSION PLAN    (As Amended Through September 26, 2003)

ARTICLE I

1.Purpose of the Plan. It is the policy of Boise Cascade Corporation to provide retirement benefits to eligible employees in
accordance with the terms and conditions of the Company's retirement plans. Under certain circumstances the effect of federal and state tax laws may preclude payment of full benefits to which an
employee is otherwise entitled out of the assets of the Company's retirement plans qualified under Section 401 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the "Code"). In addition, the election of
certain employees to voluntarily defer receipt of otherwise taxable and pensionable compensation may have the effect of reducing the amount of retirement benefits which such employees would otherwise
be entitled to receive out of the Company's tax-qualified retirement plans. In order to ensure that employees of the Company receive the full retirement benefits earned during the course
of their employment with the Company, the Company will provide benefits as described in this Plan.

ARTICLE II

2.Definitions.



1

---



ARTICLE III

3.Benefits.



2

---



ARTICLE IV

4.Plan Administration.



3

---



4

---

QuickLinks
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF BLOUNT, INC. FOR THE PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997,
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                               5
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      139
<ALLOWANCES>                                         4
<INVENTORY>                                        133
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   301
<PP&E>                                             377
<DEPRECIATION>                                     188
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     638
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              128
<BONDS>                                            139
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                         318
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       638
<SALES>                                            717
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   717
<CGS>                                              483
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      483
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  10
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     95
<INCOME-TAX>                                        35
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 60
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        60
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        


</TABLE>
#### Darrell Damboise, Appellant, v Kelrod Construction Corp., Respondent.

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Luciano, J.), dated December 29, 1989, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Summary judgment was properly granted to the defendant, as there was no theory of liability under which the plaintiff might recover from it and no factual issues were presented requiring an adjudication on the merits *(see, Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557). The undisputed evidence established that the defendant named in the complaint was not the general contractor who might be held responsible for the plaintiff’s injuries. Under the circumstances herein the defendant’s denial in its answer of "knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief’ (CPLR 3018 [a]) as to its status as the general contractor was a sufficient denial of the plaintiffs allegations in the complaint. Bracken, J. P., Kooper, Lawrence, Balletta and O’Brien, JJ., concur.