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

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4452 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 4452

 To amend the Equal Credit Opportunity Act to repeal a small business 
                   loan data collection requirement.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 17, 2017

Mr. Pittenger introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Equal Credit Opportunity Act to repeal a small business 
                   loan data collection requirement.

    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 ``Right to Lend Act of 2017''.

SEC. 2. SMALL BUSINESS LOAN DATA COLLECTION REQUIREMENT.

    (a) Repeal.--Section 704B of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (15 
U.S.C. 1691c-2) is repealed.
    (b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 701(b) of the Equal Credit 
Opportunity Act (15 U.S.C. 1691(b)) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``or'' at the end;
            (2) in paragraph (4), by striking ``; or'' and inserting a 
        period; and
            (3) by striking paragraph (5).
    (c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for title VII of the 
Consumer Credit Protection Act is amended by striking the item relating 
to section 704B.
                                 <all>
```
# Whitley - Appalachian Regional Commission

- Why Whitley: Designing a New Community Narrative In 2018 in Whitley County, Kentucky, a group of passionate citizens held a dinner to discuss ways to change the narrative surrounding the community. There were so many things to be proud of within the county, but it seemed like news coverage consistently revolved around the same, tired stereotype of Southeastern Kentucky. These volunteers wanted [&#8230;]The post Why Whitley: Designing a New Community Narrative appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
- Cumberland Valley Area Development District Executive Director Whitney Chesnut Email &#x77;&#99;h&#x65;&#x73;&#116;n&#x75;&#x74;&#64;c&#x76;&#97;d&#x64;&#x2e;&#111;r&#x67;The post Cumberland Valley Area Development District appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, James W. Dennis, certify that: 

 

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

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact 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 presentin 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 (asdefined 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 designated under oursupervision, 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 theregistrant’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 theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely 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 financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function): 

 

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

 

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

 

Date: May 13, 2004
# Morgan - Appalachian Regional Commission

- East Tennessee Development District Executive Director Rick Yakubic Email &#x72;y&#x61;k&#x75;&#98;&#x69;&#99;&#64;&#x65;t&#x64;&#100;&#x2e;&#111;&#x72;&#103;The post East Tennessee Development District appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

KENNETT CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL 

DISTRICT

v.

CHESTER COUNTY BOARD OF 

ASSESSMENT APPEALS, CHESTER 

COUNTY, PA

PETITION OF: PROPERTY OWNER 

AUTOZONE DEVELOPMENT CORP.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 150 MAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the 

Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 3rd day of November, 2020, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is GRANTED. The issues, as stated by Petitioner, are:

(1) Did the School District violate the requirements of the

Uniformity Clause by subdividing real estate in the District

based [upon] the money value [of] the property and imposing

unequal tax burdens on properties with actual market value of

more than $1,000,000?

(2) Did the School District violate the requirements of the

Uniformity Clause by implementing an assessment appeal

selection system which subjected only commercial properties

to disparate treatment in operation and effect?

(3) Did the Commonwealth Court err by shifting the burden of

proof and holding taxpayers to an impossible standard that
[150 MAL 2020] - 2

this Court has specifically rejected, namely by requiring 

taxpayers to prove that the School District intended to 

discriminate against a sub-class of taxpayers?
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer

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 on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2011 (the Report) of
MCG Capital Corporation (the Registrant), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Richard W. Neu, the Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my
knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 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 operations of the Registrant.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ RICHARD W. NEUName:

Richard W. NeuTitle:

Chief Executive OfficerDate

November 3, 2011
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated balance sheet as of December 27, 1997 and the consolidated
statement of operations for the year ended December 27, 1997 and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such consolidated financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-27-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-27-1997
<CASH>                                          46,686
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      888
<ALLOWANCES>                                       214
<INVENTORY>                                     21,539
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                71,398
<PP&E>                                          72,170
<DEPRECIATION>                                  15,885
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 173,067
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           34,335
<BONDS>                                            467
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            13
<OTHER-SE>                                     135,110
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   173,067
<SALES>                                        311,077
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               311,077
<CGS>                                          215,156
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  215,156
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                83,830
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   273
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (113)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,931
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,895
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,036
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,036
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.67
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.64
        

</TABLE>
Map Created: October 2009.

Data Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census, SF3.

A college completion rate is the percentage of adults, 25 years 

and over, completing 4 years of college or more. The map uses 

natural breaks in the distribution to organize the data into groups 

of common values. 

College Completion Rates in Appalachia, 2000

(County Rates)

0 50 100 

Miles 

GEORGIA 

ALABAMA 

MISSISSIPPI 

SOUTH 

CAROLINA 

NORTH CAROLINA 

VIRGINIA 

WEST 

VIRGINIA 

KENTUCKY 

OHIO ILLINOIS INDIANA 

WISCONSIN 

MICHIGAN 

DE 

NJ PENNSYLVANIA 

MARYLAND 

NEW YORK 

TENNESSEE

4.9% - 11.5% 

11.6% - 17.3% 

17.4% - 27.0% 

27.1% - 47.5% 

U.S. average = 24.4%

Appalachian average = 17.6%

Completion Rate 

(Natural Breaks Classification)
ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION • IN THE

OF MARYLAND • COURT OF APPEALS • OF MARYLAND Petitioner • Misc. Docket AG v. • No. 0071 • September Term, 2016 STERLING GARRETT MEAD • Circuit Court

Respondent • for Montgomery County • Case No. 33032-M ***********4t***********************************

ORDER Upon consideration of the Joint Petition for One-Year Suspension by Consent filed herein pursuant to Maryland Rule 19-736, and Respondent's acknowledgement therein that sufficient evidence exists to sustain allegations that he committed professional misconduct in violation of Rules 1.5(a), 5.5(a), 8.1(b) and 8.4(a)-(d) of the Maryland Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct in effect prior to July 1, 2016, it is this 8th day of June , 2017, ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, that Sterling Garrett Mead, Respondent, is hereby suspended from the practice of law in this State for a period of one year, effective July 3,2017; and it is further ORDERED, that on July 3, 2017, the Clerk of this Court shall strike the name of Sterling Garrett Mead from the register of attorneys in this Court, notify Respondent of such action, and comply with the notice provisions set forth in Maryland Rule 19-761(6); and it is further ORDERED, that judgment is hereby entered in favor of the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland against Sterling Garrett Mead in the amount of $1,019.30.

/s/ Clayton Greene Jr. Senior Judge
REGULATORY EVALUATION

Directorate Identifier: 2012-NM-079-AD

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific 

requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of 

transportation?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-18-00190-CV

IN RE SETERUS, INC.

Original Proceeding

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus, filed on June 7, 2018, is denied.

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Petition denied

Opinion delivered and filed June 13, 2018

[OT06]
<PAGE>

Exhibit 32

      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

         In connection with the Report of Amaru, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-QSB for the for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we, Colin
Binny President (Chief Executive Officer) and Francis Foong Keong Kwong, 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, 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 result of
         operations of the Company.

/s/ Colin Binny
-------------------------------------
Colin Binny
President (Chief Executive Officer)
November 3, 2004

/s/ Francis Foong Keong Kwong
-------------------------------------
Francis Foong Keong Kwong
Chief Financial Officer
November 3, 2004
# C_2010134EN.01003402.xml

| 22.5.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 134/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 134/34

---

Order of the General Court of 24 March 2010 — Eriksen v Commission

(Case T-516/08) (1)

1

(Action for damages - Public health implications of the nuclear accident at Thule (Greenland) - Directive 96/29/Euratom - Commission’s failure to adopt measures against a Member State - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

2010/C 134/58

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Heinz Helmuth Eriksen (Ebeltoft, Denmark) (represented by: I. Anderson, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: E. White and M. Patakia, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action for compensation for damage suffered as a result of the Commission’s alleged failure to adopt the measures necessary to ensure that the Kingdom of Denmark adopted the legislative and administrative provisions enabling it to comply with Council Directive 96/29/Euratom of 13 May 1996 laying down basic safety standards for the protection of the health of workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionising radiation (OJ 1996 L 159, p. 1) and applied those provisions to workers involved in the nuclear accident at Thule (Greenland).

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

The Court hereby:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Heinz Helmuth Eriksen to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Heinz Helmuth Eriksen to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 44, 21.2.2009.

1

---
Exhibit 21

List of Subsidiaries



|                                 |  |                               |  |                                          
|-------------------------------- |  | ----------------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------
|Subsidiary*                      |  | Jurisdiction of Incorporation |  | Name Under which Subsidiary does Business
|Ingenex, Inc.                    |  | Delaware                      |  | This subsidiary is currently inactive    
|                                 |  |                              
|Developmental Therapeutics, Inc. |  | Delaware                      |  | Developmental Therapeutics               

---

|* | We own 100% of the outstanding common stock of Developmental Therapeutics, Inc. and 81% of the outstanding common stock of Ingenex, Inc.
|- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exhibit 32.2





WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350




Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. 1350, I, the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of Liquidmetal Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2011 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.






/s/ Tony ChungTony Chung, Chief Financial OfficerMay 16, 2011
#### In re INITIATIVE PETITION NO. 253, STATE QUESTION NO. 357.

No. 35719.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

March 9, 1954.

Rehearing Denied April 6, 1954.

Darrell Winings, Paul Pugh, Oklahoma City, for appellant.

John Ladner, Dale J. Briggs, Tulsa, for appellees.

WELCH, Justice.

It is not disputed that a copy of the Initiative Petition to amend Section 1, Chapter 1, Title 14, page 26, Oklahoma Session Laws 1951, 14 O.S.1951 § 1, was filed and that' thereafter in less than ninety days the completed Initiative Petition was filed containing more than 60,000 signatures of purported qualified electors of the State of Oklahoma. That number is more than eight (8%) per cent of the total number of votes cast at' the last general election for the state office receiving the highest number of votes.

Upon the Secretary of State giving notice' as provided by law, a protest to the sufficiency -of the Initiative Petition was filed with the Secretary of State contending in effect that the petition was not sufficient numerically, and that various signers thereof were not qualified electors and legally qualified to sign an Initiative Petition, and: that said petition did not contain sufficient, .legal signatures. -

Upon hearing, the Secretary of State denied the protest and.found that the Ini-tiátive Petition was signed by more than 60,000 qualified electors, and that the petition was sufficient.

Upon appeal 'and hearing in- this court, the court finds that the contestant or protestant. has wholly failed to sustain the burden of showing the illegality of signatures upon the Initiative Petition, and the -court finds -that -said Initiative Petition contains more than 60,000 valid signatures of qualified electors and persons entitled to join in initiating said measure.

:■ The court- does, not deem it necessary to make any further detailed statement of th.e questions of law. and fact involved, and deems the foregoing to be sufficient for an opinion disposing of this appeal.

' The conclusion of the Secretary of State that said Initiative Petition is sufficient is in all things sustained and affirmed, and the protest and contest is in all respects denied.

HALLEY, C. J., JOHNSON, V. C. J., and DAVISON, ARNOLD, O’NEAL, WILLIAMS and BLACKBIRD, JJ., concur.
.I

S8d .tO this. d8ptWtElOnt, wing question:

now oonstitutea part 0r the3 oo0 purwant to Article poyslefit

or these bonds to the urns tr,:s

ansu&lon there were a few p/nrticii;ation

wns only partial, during -t‘~kLch el;ze t>a ccunty 1CmieJe

a%ax for the pcapose or payin 2%'>ortfon of tk:c dabt raqdrewmt, with the mxU.t ticat thara
. hns cccuzulnted e scz of alg1-orirmtely $35,000 i&the sinkl~ -*.-.'i LLe... croeted :or the retL-ment of these bonUs.^

,

Yz. C. Burtt Potter, lkzrch 20, 1939, page 2

The tsr=leunier which the States has undertaken to pzy off boxxk vote8, the proceeds of which have been spent on designatedState higbweys,by their wry nature require thzt a county or road district'cont inue secondarilyliable for the payment of that inecbtednessinasmuchas the State ke.9 merely ass~zxa~

the -peyzLent

thereo?. E6ch biennium the Legislatureappropriatesfrom the State TreasuryR sum sufficient to meet its propc rtionatepart of-the debt so assumec, snd while it is an unlikely contingency,it is entirelypossible t&t et some future date the Legislature~mey fail.to appropriate the money ror thispurpose. "Accordingly, it .would fall to the lot or the county or road district to provide funds for the .purpose'of

meeting the debt requirementsfor that year, end in

. .'- the event 3 levy had not.beenmade of a sinkingfund ha8 not theretoforebeen created,' the county or road districtwould be in default on the payments due at t+t,,time.

: " In. our opinion the moneyaccumulated in the sink-- ' 'ir?g Lund by Road Districts 1, 3 and.5, 'should be he14 intact for. the purpose of mesting such a contingency,'and'tbat the 'county or road districtwould not be authorizedto use this money for shy other-.purpc;e

until all bonds and Interestdue..thereon 3ave been finallyretired and'disbharged: To otherwiseuse tb money.thanfor.the purpose fhr'which it was'cOlle'Ot8d woulfl in our opinion constitutea diversion of funds.-. Very truly yours ATT&RJ!?Y

GENERAL OF TEXAS By (s) ClarenceA;;iFG

,'
CEC:S : .CEC:FO - ,. APPROVED' " (S) W. F, MOORE ATTORNEIGBNFRAL OF TEXAS.

.