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

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 54 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 54

 Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the United 
 States Postal Service should take all appropriate measures to restore 
            service standards in effect as of July 1, 2012.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 27, 2015

Mr. McKinley (for himself, Mr. Tonko, Mr. Young of Alaska, Ms. Kaptur, 
    Mr. LaMalfa, Mr. Nolan, Mr. Joyce, and Ms. Linda T. Saanchez of 
 California) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
            the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the United 
 States Postal Service should take all appropriate measures to restore 
            service standards in effect as of July 1, 2012.

Whereas on January 5, 2015, the United States Postal Service has implemented 
        lower ``service standards'' to virtually eliminate overnight delivery of 
        first class mail and periodicals, and further delay most other mail;
Whereas delayed mail negatively impacts businesses, hurts residents, rural 
        communities and the economy, and drives customers away, resulting in 
        lower revenue and worsens the Postal Service's financial situation; and
Whereas robust service standards implemented by the United States Postal Service 
        are essential to providing prompt and timely delivery of all mail: 
        online purchases, local newspapers, newsletters, bill payments, letters, 
        invitations, packages, and medicines: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that 
the United States Postal Service should take all appropriate measures 
to restore service standards in effect as of July 1, 2012.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 31.1 CERTIFICATION

I, IAN
HERMAN, certify that:

1. I have
reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Global Aircraft Solutions,
Inc.

2. Based
on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual
report;

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

4. The
registrant's other certifying officers 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 registrant 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 registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this annual report is being
prepared;

b)
evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant'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 annual report
any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that
occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The
registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant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 registrant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 registrant's internal control over financial
reporting; and

Date:
April 15, 2007

| | /s/    Ian HermanIan Herman, Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
| | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
/

.

June 28, 1954

I ; ; ., .., : Hon. Ro&rt S: Calverf Co.mptroller of Public Accounts

.’ Cdpilol’statidn Austin, Texas Opinion No, S-13 1 Re: Applicability of the stock transfer tax, Article 7047m. V.C.S., to the surrender

,.of preferred stock for the issuance of Coinmon stock to the same person in a.ccordance with conversion privileges,

..‘

.. ,Dear Mr. 

### Calveit: the exc!lange affecting neither the capital nor surplus of the corporation. Ybur request fdr an opinion from this office is, in substance, as follows:

Does the stock.transfer tax, Article 7047m, V.C.S., accrue ohthe surrender of preferred stock for an issuance of Common stock in accordance with the conversion privilege of the corporate charter? The same person who surrendered the preferred stock received the c’ommon stock and neither the capital nor the surplus of the corporation is increased, There Are tw? prior Attorney General’s Opinions, Nos. O-3792 and O-4339, which touch on this question.

Section 1of Article 7047m, Vernon’s Civil Statutes, erilbod&s the tax and specifies the transactions onwhiChtlieli&iity accrue&. This section is too lengthy to set out. The legal issue is whether the language taxing “transfer% of shares nis applicable to this type of transaction.

This office is of’the opinion that the tax d&Z n&taccrue under the fact ‘situation set out inyour letter of inquiry.

We have been unable to locate a Texas decisioa directly in point; however, we have had available thefederal cases and rulings by the internal Revenue Service. We quote a ruling from aBureau letter dated July 25, 1941, towhich the Internal Revenue Service still adheres, as follows: “Where stockholders owning convertible preferred

stock exercise the conversion privilege, there is no stockHon. Robert S. Calvert, page 2 (S-131)

transfer tax on the preferred stock turned in andno tax liability on the issue of thecommon stock, if the capital of the corporation is not thereby increased.” (See 413 CCH, Para. 

### 6466.)

This office is of the opinion that had the common stock been issued to some person other thanthe one:whosurrendered the preferred stock that a tax liability under Article 7047m. V.C.S. would accrue.

This opinion overrules prior Attorney General’s Opinion No. 

### O-3792,insofar as that opinion is in conflict herewith.
SUMMARY No tax liability accrnes under the stock transfer tax, Article 7047m. V.C.S., whenpreferred **stock is**  **sur** 

### ienderedfor ‘theissuance of common stock to the same person b accordance with conversion priViLegea when such an exchange does not affect the capital or surplus of the corporation. Attorney General’s Opinion No. O-3792 is,overruled insofar as it is in conflict herewith.
, APPROVED: Yours very truly, W. V. Geppert JOHN BEN SHEPPERD Taxation Division Attorney General W. H. Holloway Reviewer J. A. Amis, Jr. Reviewer John Ben Shepperd Attorney General WWG:hp **By ~&i,.&&&**  William W. Guild Assistant

,
EXHIBIT32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report ofMISONIX, INC. (the "Company") on Form 10-Qfor the period ending September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the"Report"), I, Michael A. McManus, Jr.,President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

|  |           |                                                                                                                     |
|--|-----------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  | (1)  | The Report fully complieswith the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and |

|  |           |                                                                                                                                                  |
|--|-----------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  | (2)  | Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and result of operations of theCompany. |

Dated: November 14, 2005

|  | /s/Michael A. McManus, Jr. |
|--|----------------------------|

|  |
|--|
|  |  |  |
|  |

|  | Michael A.McManus, Jr. President and Chief Executive Officer |
|--|--------------------------------------------------------------|

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906, orother document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting thesignature that appears in typed form within the electronic version ofthis written statement required by Section 906, has been provided toMISONIX, INC. and will be retained by MISONIX, INC. and furnished tothe Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest.

----
# C_2019182EN.01000202.xml

| 27.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 182/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/2

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 14 November 2018 — WN v Land Niedersachsen

(Case C-710/18)

(2019/C 182/03)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesarbeitsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: WN

Defendant: Land Niedersachsen

Question referred

Are Article 45(2) TFEU and Article 7(1) of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union (1) to be interpreted as precluding a provision such as that in Paragraph 16(2) of the Tarifvertrag für den Öffentlichen Dienst der Länder (the Collective Agreement for the public sector of the Länder; ‘the TV-L’), pursuant to which the relevant professional experience acquired with the last previous employer has a privileged position in the case where an employee is allocated to the steps of a collective pay structure following re-employment as a result of that professional experience being fully acknowledged pursuant to the second sentence of Paragraph 16(2) of the TV-L, whereas only a maximum of three years of relevant professional experience acquired with other employers is taken into account pursuant to the third sentence of Paragraph 16(2) of the TV-L, if that privileged position is required under EU law by clause 4.4 of the framework agreement on fixed-term contracts concluded on 18 March 1999, which is contained in the annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP?

---

(1)  OJ 2011 L 141, p. 1.

---
Page 1 of 2

Veterinary Health Certificate for Export of Pigeons and Doves (Columbiforms) Species to the 

United States of America (non EU-PTR)

Veterinary Authority Date Of Issue Certificate Number 

CERTIFICATION 

This is to certify that the animals described herein were inspected and tested for the diseases specified, and conform 

to the current veterinary requirements of the importing country. 

1. Consignor/Shipper/Owner: 2. Consignee/Broker/Owner:

3. Country of Export: 4. Date of Shipment:

5. Country Of Destination: 6.State Of Destination:

7. Home Quarantine Address: 8. Port Of Embarkation / Border Crossing: 

9. Date Of Veterinary Inspection: 10. Means Of Transport: 

11. Description Of Commodity: 12. Commodities Intended Use:

13. Total Quantity: 14. Total Number Of Shipping Containers:

15. Identification Of Commodities: (Identification can be in the form of: microchip, leg band, or tattoo)

Row Name/ ID Species Physical Description Age 

Weight 

(lbs) Sex 

1

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

Additional animals can be listed below: 

United States of America
Page 2 of 2

Veterinary Health Certificate for Export of Pigeons and Dove (Columbiforms) Species to the 

United States of America (non EU-PTR)

Veterinary Authority Date of Issue Certificate Number 

The issuing /official veterinarian certifies for export that all columbiforms covered by this certificate have been inspected 

and attests to the following statements, the columbiforms:

1. The columbiform(s) was/were shipped in new or appropriately sanitized containers prior to current use.

2. The columbiform(s) did not come in contact with wild birds or poultry within the 30 days previous to

exporting the premise of origin.

3. Have not been vaccinated with a vaccine for any H5 or H7 subtype of avian influenza.

4. Have been examined prior to movement from the premise of origin and there was no evidence of poultry

communicable disease.

5. CHOOSE EITHER A OR B BELOW:

A) The columbiform(s) was/were not vaccinated against Newcastle disease.

OR

B) The columbiform(s) was/were vaccinated against Newcastle disease (avian paramyxovirus) at least

21 days prior to export, using vaccines that do not contain any velogenic strains of Newcastle

disease virus

Name:

Date:

6. The columbiforms covered by this certificate does/do not originate from flocks nor had contact with any

birds or poultry originating in a control zone established by state/provincial/federal animal health

authorities due to outbreaks of Newcastle disease or Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI).

Note: if columbiforms originating in countries where APHIS considers highly pathogenic avian influenza

to exist, were moved without co-mingling the shipment with any other avian types after leaving the

premise of origin.

7. Birds were inspected within 24 hours of export.

**********************Certificate shall be valid for 30 days from date of issue********************* 

Name of Issuing Veterinarian (Printed) Name of Official Veterinarian (Printed) 

Signature of Issuing Veterinarian Signature of Official Veterinarian

Date Date
# C_2019230EN.01005001.xml

| 8.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/50

---

Order of the General Court of 16 May 2019 — ITSA v Commission

(Case T-396/18) (1)

(Action for annulment - Approximation of laws - Manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products and related product - Establishment and operation of a traceability system for tobacco products - Delegated Regulation and implementing acts - Lack of direct concern - Inadmissibility)

(2019/C 230/62)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: International Tax Stamp Association Ltd (ITSA) (Sunbury-on-Thames, United Kingdom) (represented by: F. Scanvic, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: I. Rubene and C. Valero, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/573 of 15 December 2017 on key elements of data storage contracts to be concluded as part of a traceability system for tobacco products (OJ 2018 L 96, p.1), Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/574 of 15 December 2017 on technical standards for the establishment and operation of a traceability system for tobacco products (OJ 2018 L 96, p.7), and Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/576 of 15 December 2017 on technical standards for security features applied to tobacco products (OJ 2018 L 96, p 57).

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for leave to intervene of the Council of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for leave to intervene of the Council of the European Union.

| 3. | International Tax Stamp Association Ltd (ITSA) shall bear its own costs and shall pay the costs incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

3.

International Tax Stamp Association Ltd (ITSA) shall bear its own costs and shall pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

| 4. | The Council shall bear its own costs relating to the application to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Council shall bear its own costs relating to the application to intervene.

---

(1)  OJ C 352, 1.10.2018.

---
EXHIBIT 23.1


                   CONSENT OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


 The Board of Directors
 American Healthchoice, Inc.

      We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of our report dated
 January 5, 2001, into  the following registration statements filed by you on
 Form S-8: File No.  333-36475 dated September 29,  1997; File No.  333-35581
 dated September 18, 1997; File No. 333-26061 dated April 30, 1997; File  No.
 333-26065 dated April 30, 1997; File No. 333-26043 dated April 30, 1997; and
 File No. 333-26063 dated April 30, 1997.

 Lane Gorman Trubitt, L.L.P.
 Dallas, Texas
 January 12, 2001
#### The STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. John Henry TAYLOR, Defendant and Appellant.

No. 14148.

Supreme Court of Utah.

March 3, 1976.

*908Phil L. Hansen, of Phil L. Hansen & Associates, Salt Lake City, for defendant and appellant.

Vernon B. Romney, Atty. Gen., Earl F. Dorius, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salt Lake City, for plaintiff and respondent.

HENRIOD, Chief Justice:

Appeal, after a jury trial, from convictions on three second-degree murder charges, another for attempted first-degree murder and for attempted second-degree murder, in a bar encounter affair in which defendant killed three people in what the jury seemed to think was in cold blood. Affirmed.

Taylor asserted three Points on Appeal, assigning three subdivisions under Point II, as bases for a reversal. No relief on appeal was asked by way of a new trial,— which we consider to be of little import in this particular case.

All of the points and subdivisions on appeal, in effect substantially urge error for failure to instruct the jury that *intention*was an essential to show guilt under the included offense or offenses of degrees of manslaughter. We agree that intention is an element of such offense but not necessarily of paramount concern, in a case like this.

This same urgence addressed to this court before has been resolved several times, epitomized by the principle enunciated in *State v. Gallegos,*and subsequent supportive cases,1 that:

> Also, it is generally held, under ordinary factual situations, that where a jury finds the defendant guilty of a greater offense, the giving of an erroneous instruction on a lesser offense is not prejudicial. If the jury were convinced from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that defendants were guilty of second degree murder, the failure to spell out in detail the required intentions for voluntary manslaughter could not reasonably influence their decision.

It is no answer to say this case entails extraordinary factual situations, excluding it from the rule, including the oft-repeated excuse that it should go off on the grounds of drunkenness. The jury did not buy such a theory and it wasn’t pressed too much, — justifiably because defendant, under his own steam or. faculties, so to speak, left the bar, went some place in his truck, came back, with two lethal weapons, killed three people, and drove eighteen blocks home, or nearly three miles, through traffic, sans incident.

We are of the opinion that other less important points advanced by defendant merged themselves into the main thrust of this case, — the factor of intention, — which we are constrained to and do hold is insufficient to justify any conclusion of prejudicial error.

ELLETT, CROCKETT and TUCK-ETT, JJ., concur.

MAUGHAN, J., concurs in the result.

1

. *State v. Valdez,*30 Utah 2d 54, 513 P.2d 422 (1973); *State v. Ash,*23 Utah 2d 14, 456 P.2d 154 (1969); *State v. Gallegos,*16 Utah 2d 102, 396 P.2d 414 (1964).
H. Res. 701 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

April 27, 2016. 

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall 

be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 4498) to 

clarify the definition of general solicitation under Federal securities law. All points of order against consideration of the 

bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All points 

of order against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 

on any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided 

and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of 

the Committee on Financial Services; (2) the amendment 

printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, if offered by the Member designated 

in the report, which shall be in order without intervention of 

any point of order, shall be considered as read, shall be separately debatable for the time specified in the report equally 

divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 

and shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the 
2 

•HRES 701 EH 

question; and (3) one motion to recommit with or without instructions. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          77,018
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   41,993
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               124,906
<PP&E>                                          12,885
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 162,950
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           20,222
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        79,856
<OTHER-SE>                                      61,085
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               154,827
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   64,946
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                58,379
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (2,437)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 33,894
<INCOME-TAX>                                    12,202
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             21,692
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    21,692
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .55
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .52


</TABLE>