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

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1037 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1037

    To expand the provisions for termination of mandatory purchase 
 requirements under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 22, 2015

   Mr. Risch introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To expand the provisions for termination of mandatory purchase 
 requirements under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978.

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

SECTION 1. RECOGNITION OF STATE DETERMINATIONS.

    Section 210(m) of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 
1978 (16 U.S.C. 824a-3(m)) is amended--
            (1) by redesignating paragraphs (3), (4), (5), (6), and (7) 
        as paragraphs (4), (5), (6), (7), and (8), respectively;
            (2) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
            ``(3) State determination.--After the date of enactment of 
        this paragraph, no electric utility shall be required to enter 
        into a new contract or obligation to purchase electric energy 
        from a qualifying cogeneration facility or a qualifying small 
        power production facility under this section if the State 
        regulatory agency having ratemaking authority over the electric 
        utility has determined that the electric utility has no need to 
        acquire additional generation resources in order to meet its 
        obligation to serve customers in the public interest.'';
            (3) in paragraph (4) (as so redesignated)--
                    (A) in the second sentence, by striking ``of this 
                subsection''; and
                    (B) by inserting ``or in paragraph (3)'' after 
                ``paragraph (1)'' each place it appears; and
            (4) in paragraph (5) (as so redesignated)--
                    (A) in the first sentence, by striking ``paragraph 
                (3)'' and inserting ``paragraph (4)'';
                    (B) in the second sentence, by striking ``of this 
                subsection''; and
                    (C) by inserting ``or in paragraph (3)'' after 
                ``paragraph (1)'' each place it appears.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         153,336
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           7,051
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                39,726
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    961,199
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          87,207
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            88,018
<LOANS>                                      3,144,439
<ALLOWANCE>                                     40,376
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,562,303
<DEPOSITS>                                   3,662,941
<SHORT-TERM>                                   182,362
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             44,027
<LONG-TERM>                                    285,695
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       218,881
<OTHER-SE>                                     168,397
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               4,562,303
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                281,902
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               62,625
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 3,004
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               347,531
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             142,216
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             166,917
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          180,614
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   10,928
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               (118)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                164,783
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 87,070
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      87,070
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    59,320
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.29
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.27
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.48
<LOANS-NON>                                     11,119
<LOANS-PAST>                                     4,822
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   475
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                 30,353
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                35,401
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    8,712
<RECOVERIES>                                     2,759
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               40,376
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            20,302
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                         20,074
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1099 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1099

  To amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to provide 
  States with flexibility in determining the size of employers in the 
                          small group market.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 27, 2015

Mr. Scott (for himself and Mrs. Shaheen) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, 
                     Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to provide 
  States with flexibility in determining the size of employers in the 
                          small group market.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Protecting Affordable Coverage for 
Employees Act'' or the ``PACE Act''.

SEC. 2. SMALL EMPLOYERS IN THE GROUP MARKET.

    (a) In General.--Section 1304(b) of the Patient Protection and 
Affordable Care Act (42 U.S.C. 18024(b)) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``101 employees'' and 
        inserting ``51 employees'';
            (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``100 employees'' and 
        inserting ``50 employees''; and
            (3) by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the following:
            ``(3) State option to extend definition of small 
        employer.--Nothing in this subsection shall prevent a State 
        from treating an employer with an average of at least 1 but not 
        more than 100 employees on business days during the preceding 
        calendar year as a small employer for purposes of this 
        title.''.
    (b) Public Health Service Act.--Section 2791(e) of the Public 
Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg-91(e)) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (2), by striking ``101 employees'' and 
        inserting ``51 employees''; and
            (2) in paragraph (4), by striking ``100 employees'' and 
        inserting ``50 employees''.
                                 <all>
```
State of Vermont [phone] 802-241-36oo Agency of Natural Resources 

Office of the Secretary [fax] 802-244-iio2 

103 South Main Street, Center Building 

Waterbury, VT o567i-o3oi 

November 14, 2008 

Robert W. Varney 

Regional Administrator 

U.S . EPA Region I 

1 Congress Street, Suite 1100 

Boston, MA 02114-2023 

Re: Vermont SIP Revisions Documenting RACT Requirements for the 1997 8-Hour 

Ozone Standard 

Dear Regional Administrator Varney: 

,Please find enclosed revisions to Vermont's State Implementation Plan (SIP) documenting 

that Vermont meets the Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) requirements for the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard . 

On July 18, 1997, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revised the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard for ozone from 0.12 ppm measured over a 1-hour period to 0.08 ppm 

measured over an 8-hour averaging period (62 FR 38856). Due to subsequent legal challenges, F*PA 

did not issue formal designations and classifications for the 8-hour ozone standard until April 15, 

2004 with an effective date of June 15, 2004 (69 FR 23858). On November 29, 2005, EPA adopted 

a final rule to implement the 8-hour ozone standard (70 FR 71612). This rule required states with 

nonattainment areas to submit SIPs by June 15, 2007 demonstrating how each nonattainment area 

would attain the 1997 8-hour ozone standard . The rule also required nonattainment areas and areas 

in the Ozone Transport Region (OTR) to submit SIP revisions requiring RACT to meet the revised 

ozone standards by September 15, 2006. 

EPA designated all counties in Vermont as "attainment" for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard . 

However, Vermont is part of the Ozone Transport Region (OTR) under Section 184 of the Clean Air 

Act and was therefore required to submit SIP revisions to meet the RACT requirements for the 8-

hour ozone standard . On March 24, 2008, EPA published in the Federal Register a finding that 

Vermont had failed to submit the SIP revisions required for the 1997 8-hour ozone RACT 

requirements (73 FR 15416). Although delayed, this SIP submittal does not have any substantive 

effect on air quality because the required RACT controls on the applicable sources in Vermont have 

been required by rules, permits and/or administrative orders for many years . 

.,or~® V ER1Y1O1 N 1 

Department of Fish & Wildlife . Department of Forests, Parks & Recreation . Department of Environmental Conservation 
This submittal package includes all the documentation for EPA to consider these SIP 

revisions complete. Additionally, I trust that EPA will find that this submittal fulfills Vermont's 

obligations under the Clean Air Act to meet the RACT requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard . Should you have questions about this submittal, please contact Richard Valentinetti, 

Director of Vermont's Air Pollution Control Division. 

Sincerely, 

Enclosures (3) 

Cc: Dave Conroy, Chief, Air Programs Branch, EPA Region I 

Anne Arnold, Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit, EPA Region I 

Richard Valentinetti, Director, Vermont Air Pollution Control Division
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 Treasure Mountain  Holdings,
Inc. (the  "Company") on Form 10- QSB for the period ending  September 30, 2003,
as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the
"Report"), Lane Clissold,  Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant  to 18  U.S.C.  Sec.  1350,  as  adopted  pursuant  to Sec.  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

         (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 result of operations of
         the Company.


/s/   Lane Clissold
-------------------------------
Lane Clissold
Principal Accounting Officer
November 14, 2003

         A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or
         other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
         signature that appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of
         this  written  statement  has been  provided to the Company and will be
         retained by the Company and  furnished to the  Securities  and Exchange
         Commission or its staff upon request. The foregoing  certifications are
         accompanying  the Company's Form 10-QSB solely  pursuant to section 906
         of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section
         1350,  chapter  63 of title 18,  United  States  Code) and is not being
         filed as part of the Form 10-QSB or as a separate disclosure document.
EXHIBIT 31.1
 
 **CERTIFICATIONS**
  I, Mark J. Ahn, certify that:
  1. I have reviewed this Transition Report on Form 10-QSB of Hana Biosciences, Inc., formerly Email Real Estate.com, Inc. (the Registrant);
  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 Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
  4.  The Registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing 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 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 report any change in the Registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the Registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) 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 officer(s) 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 the 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.
  Date: October 22, 2004

/s/ Mark J. AhnMark J. AhnPresident and Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         1,647,623  
<SECURITIES>                                   1
<RECEIVABLES>                                  1,647,623
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    1,270,959
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2,918,582
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0         
<BONDS>                                        0       
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     2,505,248
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   2,918,852
<SALES>                                        0         
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               279,251
<CGS>                                          0      
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               79,698
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                199,553
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            199,553
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0      
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   199,553
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .37
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .37
        


</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Jean La Page, Respondent, v Jeffrey Blake, Appellant.

— Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Respondent appeals from an order of support based upon a prior order of filiation. He contends that the evidence of paternity was insufficient and that the court erred in denying his motion to reopen the proof for expert testimony challenging the HLA test result.

The evidence of paternity, without regard to the HLA test, was clear and convincing based upon the hospital records and petitioner’s testimony, which the court found credible *(see,*
      *623
      *Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. v Philip De G.,*59 NY2d 137; *Matter of Bradley W. v Mary Ann N.,*115 AD2d 268, *appeal withdrawn*67 NY2d 938). Therefore, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying respondent’s motion to reopen the proof. (Appeal from Order of Monroe County Family Court, Bonadio, J. — Paternity.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Denman, Green and Lowery, JJ.
#### Ruth Fialkoff, Respondent, v CRT Surgical Associates, P. C., et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant.

— In a medical malpractice action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants CRT Surgical Associates, P. C., and James L. Chassin appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hentel, J.), dated September 13, 1989, as denied that branch of their motion which was to impose sanctions on the plaintiff for failure to provide certain medical authorizations.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

In June 1987 the plaintiff served and filed a certificate of readiness in this medical malpractice action in accordance with the court rules and with an order issued following a preliminary conference *(see,*22 NYCRR 202.21, 202.56 [a] [1] [ii], [iv]). One year later, the appellants demanded authorizations to obtain medical records concerning treatment which the plaintiff claims predates and is irrelevant to the alleged malpractice on which this action is based. Nine months later, the appellants served demands for yet additional authorizations and thereafter moved to impose sanctions for willful failure to comply with both sets of demands. Except with *236respect to one authorization not at issue on this appeal, the Supreme Court denied the motion on the ground that the appellants failed to demonstrate that the records sought were material. We affirm, but for different reasons.

Although no note of issue could be filed because of the requirement that this case be heard by a medical malpractice panel *(see,*Judiciary Law former § 148-a; *see also,*22 NYCRR 202.21 [a]; 202.56 [a] [1] [iv]), this case was otherwise certified ready for trial without objection from any defendant *(cf.,*22 NYCRR 202.21 [e]) long before the appellants served the demands presently at issue and long after disclosure issues were addressed at the preliminary conference *(see, Foster v Hastings,*122 AD2d 20). Under the circumstances, the appellants waived their right to additional disclosure and have failed to demonstrate special circumstances warranting further disclosure *(cf.,*22 NYCRR 202.21 [d], [e]; *Niagara Falls Urban Renewal Agency v Pomeroy Real Estate Corp.,*74 AD2d 734; *Cerrone v S’Doia,*11 AD2d 350). Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.
Annual Report Animal Usage by Fiscal Year 27-Apr-21

Total number of animals research facilities used in regulated activities (Column C) Page 1 of 2

Region: * Fiscal Year: 2019

State: * Classes: *

Org/Cust ID Number: Pain Type: ALL_PAINTYPES

All Other 

Covered 

Species

Cats Dogs Guinea Pigs Hamsters Nonhuman 

Primates

Pig Rabbits Sheep Total

AK 188 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 188

AL 1,984 41 392 43 72 281 61 57 3 2,934

AR 85 28 302 4 2 126 22 514 0 1,083

AZ 1,109 352 572 9 26 0 32 65 20 2,185

CA 16,461 386 657 5,982 207 2,700 256 11,711 274 38,634

CO 2,399 309 497 303 25 1 16 490 187 4,227

CT 367 17 126 45 0 193 0 26 0 774

DC 7,782 4 5 382 15 114 6 28 0 8,336

DE 644 67 98 0 0 0 0 5,313 34 6,156

FL 1,016 61 280 62 0 727 14 27 18 2,205

GA 2,770 327 1,166 437 1,033 211 147 1,403 7 7,501

HI 229 60 129 0 0 0 0 13 14 445

IA 2,306 191 290 414 1,513 6 306 45 414 5,485

ID 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 44

IL 1,293 568 1,829 1,411 8 346 948 1,082 0 7,485

IN 4,798 168 1,338 358 9,706 221 332 55 0 16,976

KS 21,415 3,013 9,657 4,989 24,409 1,551 3,265 5,170 879 74,348

KY 417 84 104 0 0 4 178 11 40 838

LA 170 524 146 0 0 2 0 6,151 56 7,049

MA 5,507 500 7,878 18,086 2,803 13,011 4,354 13,671 200 66,010

MD 4,265 18 383 3,022 908 3,020 47 1,232 63 12,958

ME 466 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 470

MI 1,020 124 348 9,325 32 39 4 1,228 182 12,302

MN 309 217 317 29,546 596 7 201 3,478 50 34,721
MO 483 1,052 1,809 1,284 2,309 87 851 226 25 8,126

MS 63 0 16 0 0 0 0 48 23 150

MT 398 1 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 404

NC 407 121 408 3,894 79 89 156 4,386 79 9,619

ND 178 95 98 2 0 0 24 20 10 427

NE 746 0 156 0 429 88 28 3 0 1,450

NH 511 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 513

NJ 505 843 3,085 5,967 17,669 1,702 121 6,045 2 35,939

NM 38 0 217 0 0 132 1 16 0 404

NV 231 23 13 7 0 0 1 4 0 279

NY 6,382 376 597 1,126 255 784 20 1,091 733 11,364

OH 111 1,066 1,248 42,133 35 290 32 5,278 0 50,193

OK 844 185 431 1,804 0 19 3 47 1 3,334

OR 1,069 6 4 0 0 1,325 0 25 72 2,501

PA 5,205 862 1,697 535 270 586 461 6,482 790 16,888

PR 0 3 42 0 0 4,394 3 45 0 4,487

RI 89 2 16 29 4 0 0 295 0 435

SC 1,331 22 31 121 64 138 0 12 6 1,725

SD 1,277 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 2 1,282

TN 885 268 627 96 213 7 76 77 1 2,250

TX 4,232 302 612 724 682 2,896 174 2,287 93 12,002

UT 503 153 167 0 279 0 23 34 6 1,165

VA 7,608 16 88 0 68 21 56 8 234 8,099

VT 139 0 0 14 0 0 0 6 191 350

WA 5,442 109 355 2,433 0 2,574 5 263 11 11,192

WI 1,497 206 4,234 1,044 127 6,084 420 10,622 39 24,273

WV 0 69 29 0 6 0 0 5 2 111

WY 155 6 2 3 3 0 1 0 94 264

REPORT 

TOTAL

117,355 12,845 42,496 135,634 63,850 43,781 12,647 89,117 4,855 522,580