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

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4925 

To require the Administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration to implement certain recommendations for management and collection of railroad 

safety data. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 5, 2018 

Mr. GOTTHEIMER (for himself and Mr. MITCHELL) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To require the Administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration to implement certain recommendations for management and collection of railroad safety data. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘FRA Safety Data Im5 provement Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MANAGEMENT AND COL7 LECTION OF RAILROAD SAFETY DATA. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator of the Federal 

9 Railroad Administration shall develop a plan, and a 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4925 IH

1 timeline to carry out such plan, to implement the rec2 ommendations from the Inspector General Report No. 

3 ST2017045 of the Department of Transportation, issued 

4 on May 3, 2017, to the greatest extent possible, to improve 

5 the Federal Railroad Administration’s management and 

6 collection of railroad safety data. 

7 (b) IMPLEMENTATION.— 

8 (1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days 

9 after date of enactment of this Act, the Adminis10 trator shall submit the plan and timeline developed 

11 under subsection (a) to the Committee on Transpor12 tation and Infrastructure of the House of Represent13 atives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, 

14 and Transportation of the Senate. 

15 (2) REPORT.—The Administrator shall report 

16 annually to the committees on the implementation of 

17 such plan until implementation is complete. 

18 SEC. 3. NO ADDITIONAL FUNDS AUTHORIZED. 

19 No additional funds are authorized to carry out the 

20 requirements of this Act. Such requirements shall be car21 ried out using amounts otherwise authorized. 

Æ 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
#### In the Matter of Pyramid Lounge, Inc., Respondent, v New York State Liquor Authority, Appellant.

— In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent New York State Liquor Authority, dated December 1, 1988, suspending the petitioner’s license to sell liquor for a period of 20 days (15 days forthwith and 5 days deferred) and imposing a $1,000 bond forfeiture, the appeal is from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O’Shaughnessy, J.), entered May 31, 1989, which granted the petition to the extent of remitting the matter to the respondent for "review of the penalty and the imposition of an appropriate penalty”.

Ordered that on the court’s own motion, the appellant’s notice of appeal is treated as an application for leave to appeal, the application is referred to Justice O’Brien, and leave to appeal is granted by Justice O’Brien *(see,*CPLR 5701 [b] [1]); and it is further,

Ordered that the order and judgment is modified, on the law, by adding to the end of the decretal paragraph thereof the following: "the penalty is not to exceed a suspension of the petitioner’s license for a 10-day period”; as so modified, the order and judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The petitioner pleaded "no contest” to a violation of Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 106 (6) and State Liquor Authority rule 53.1 (9 NYCRR) by maintaining a Joker Poker machine on the premises in August 1987. The State Liquor Authority (hereinafter the SLA) imposed a penalty of a 20-day license suspension (five days deferred) and a $1,000 bond forfeiture. Under the circumstances, including the petitioner’s unblemished record with the SLA since 1981, we find that the Supreme Court properly determined that the penalty imposed was excessive and remitted the matter to the SLA for imposition of an appropriate penalty *(see, Matter of 3275 Byron Ave. Corp. v New York State Liq. Auth.,*161 AD2d 600; *Matter of PJP Tavern Corp. v New York State Liq. Auth.,*152 AD2d 578). In addition, we find that under the circumstances of this case a penalty in excess of a suspension of the petitioner’s license for a 10-day period would be shocking to one’s sense of fairness *(Matter of Pell v Board of Educ.,*34 NY2d 222). Mangano, P. J., Kooper, Rosenblatt and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 32.1****Certification Pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.**§ **1350)**     The undersigned, as the chief executive officer of ARRIS Group, Inc., certifies that to thebest of his knowledge the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2006, whichaccompanies this certification fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the quarterly report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of ARRISGroup, Inc. at the dates and for the periods indicated. The foregoing certification is madepursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350) and shall not be relied uponfor any other purpose.     Dated this 1st day of August, 2006.       /s/ Robert J. Stanzione     Robert J. Stanzione    Chief Executive Officer, Chairman
#### BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF POLICE PENSION AND RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF OKLAHOMA CITY v. MITCHELL.

No. 36053.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Sept. 29, 1953.

A. L. Jeffrey, Municipal Counsellor,, Keith McMillin, Asst. Municipal Counsel-lor, Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in' error.

Charles D. Scales, Oklahoma City, for defendant in error.

JOHNSON, Vice Chief Justice.

This is an appeal by the Board of Trustees of Police Pension and Retirement System of Oklahoma City from an order and judgment of the district court reversing the finding of said Board of Trustees and directing a judgment in favor of Mrs. Guy Mitchell, widow of a deceased policeman.

A motion to dismiss has been filed for the reason that no appeal lies from the action of the district court in reviewing the order made by the Board. The motion to dismiss must be sustained. Appeals are not allowed as a matter of right but by reason of constitutional and statutory provisions. In re Gruber, 89 Okl. 148, 214 P. 690. 11 O.S. 1951 § 541v provides for appeals to the district court from decisions of the Board of Trustees of Police and Retirement Systems of this State and further provides that the review by the district court shall be final. Under such a statute no appeal can be taken to the Supreme Court. In re Leaf’s Deed, 180 Okl. 444, 70 P.2d 75.

Since there is no right of appeal from the final order of the district court made in this cause the appeal must be and the same is hereby dismissed.

HALLEY, C. J., and WELCH, CORN, DAVISON, O’NEAL, WILLIAMS, and BLACKBIRD, JJ, concur.
ex10-3.htm








EXHIBIT 10.3


 






4 Tri Harbor Court


Port Washington, NY 11050


Tel: (516) 627 6000


Fax: (516) 627 6093



	
www.aceto.com

	Albert L. Eilender
	 	Chairman & Chief Executive Officer







 


 




	
January 10, 2012


	 
	
By Hand Delivery


	
Mr. Michael Feinman


	
c/o Aceto Corporation


	
Port Washington, NY 11050


	  
	
Dear Mr. Feinman:







 


Pursuant to Section 1 of the employment agreement between you and Aceto Corporation (“Aceto”), dated as of March 24, 2009 (the “Employment Agreement”), this letter shall serve as notice under the Employment Agreement that the Employment Period (as defined in the Employment Agreement) will not be extended.  This notice is effective as of the date hereof and, unless terminated sooner, the Employment Period will expire at midnight on March 23, 2012.







The Employment Agreement will continue to govern your employment with Aceto until the end of the Employment Period. You are not entitled to any payments or benefits under the Employment Agreement solely as a result of Aceto’s delivery of this notice.  Nothing in the foregoing paragraph shall be construed as affecting (i) any other right you or Aceto may have under any other provision of the Employment Agreement, including, without limitation, your or Aceto’s ability to terminate the Employment Agreement and your employment thereunder, or (ii) your obligations under Section 6 (“Confidential Information”) and Section 7 (“Non-Compete; Non-Solicitation”) of the Employment Agreement, which will survive the expiration of the Employment Period and remain in full force and effect.







Enclosed is a copy of the Aceto Corporation Severance Policy (the “Severance Policy”).  The Severance Policy will succeed the Employment Agreement and, if then in effect, will generally apply in the event of your termination of employment with Aceto following the expiration of the Employment Agreement.


 









	
ACETO CORPORATION

	 
	
  

	 
	 	 
	
/s/ Albert L. Eilender

	 
	
By: Albert L. Eilender

	 
	
Title: Chairman & CEO

	 
	 	 
	
Enclosures
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 21

Subsidiaries of Registrant

The following subsidiaries are direct or indirect subsidiaries of the Company:

     VBI Inc., a Delaware corporation
     Golf Card International Corp., a Delaware corporation
     Venture Enterprises, Inc., a Delaware corporation
     Camp Coast to Coast, Inc., a Delaware corporation
     Golf Card Resort Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation
     TL Enterprises, Inc., a Delaware corporation
     Golf Card Holding Corporation, a Delaware corporation
     GSS Enterprises, Inc., a Delaware corporation
     National Association for Female Executives, Inc., a Delaware corporation
     Woodall Publications Corporation, a Delaware corporation
     AGI Properties of Colorado, Inc., a Delaware corporation
     Affinity Thrift and Loan, a Delaware corporation *
     Affinity Insurance Group, Inc., a Colorado corporation
     Affinity Group Thrift Holding Corporation, a California corporation *
     Affinity Road and Travel Club, Inc., a Delaware corporation

______________________

  *  Not a guarantor of the Company's $120 million 11.5% senior subordinated
     notes.
Appendix B – Survey Invitations

Email invitation to participate in the survey
Online Survey Invitation 2
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350**

 

Solelyfor the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. 1350, I, the undersigned ChiefFinancial Officer of Liquidmetal Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”), herebycertify, based on my knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of theCompany for the quarter ended June 30, 2005, as amended (the “Report”), fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 

 
| /s/ Young Ham                       |   |
|-------------------------------------|--------|
| Young Ham, Chief Financial  Officer |
| March 16, 2006                      |

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM QUIKSILVER,
INC.'S JANUARY 31, 1996 FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FORM 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1996
<CASH>                                       1,217,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               38,325,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 2,895,000
<INVENTORY>                                 32,862,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            75,492,000
<PP&E>                                       7,326,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               7,236,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             101,892,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       27,690,000
<BONDS>                                      3,355,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           68,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  71,007,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               101,892,000
<SALES>                                     40,487,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            40,487,000
<CGS>                                       24,892,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               24,892,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            11,696,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             2,895,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             170,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,606,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,481,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,125,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,125,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .30
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .30
        

</TABLE>
:S

.\TEO ST ^^^ATE

4L PRO

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 


WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF


SOLID WASTE AND


The Honorable Colleen Hanabusa EMERGENCY RESPONSE 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Congresswoman Hanabusa: 

Thank you for your letter of June 28, 2013, regarding the proposed revisions to the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency's (EPA) underground storage tank regulations. Knowing that the majority of our 

regulated entities are small businesses, we agree it is important to be careful about potential impacts to 

this sector. This was one of the main reasons why, when drafting the proposal, we made a conscious 

decision to avoid provisions which would require costly retrofits to existing underground storage tank 

(UST) systems. 

The EPA is working to analyze all of the comments we received during the extended public comment 

period before determining a path forward for this rulemaking. In order to determine which changes to 

make to the UST regulations, the EPA conducted extensive outreach to stakeholders for several years 

prior to the 2011 proposal. We reached out to petroleum marketers and other owners and operators of 

UST systems, equipment manufacturers, vendors and service providers who work on the equipment, 

among others. We carefully evaluated the costs associated with the proposal and determined that they 

did not meet the threshold to convene an advisory panel. Before, during and since the end of the 

rulemaking comment period, we have held more than 100 meetings with stakeholders. We met with all 

industry representatives who asked to do so. In order to ensure all members of the public had an 

opportunity to comment on the proposal, we extended the comment period from 90 to 150 days. 

The EPA takes the comments we received during the comment period very seriously. We are currently 

working to determine the appropriate path forward using the comments we received to help inform our 

decision making. We share your concern about the potential burden on small businesses and are working 

to minimize the costs while we maintain appropriate environmental protection. 

Again thank you for your letter. If you have further questions, please contact me or your staff may call 

Carolyn Levine, in EPA's Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations, at (202) 564-1859. 

Mathy Stá(4laus 

Assistant A4lministrator 

Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov


Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paper
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0541

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

BEAU AVIDIYA,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including November 24, 2023, within which to prepare, 

file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 18 2023

10/18/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0541
Exhibit 31.4

CERTIFICATION

I, James R. Thomas, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-K/A to Annual Report on Form 10-K of Trimeris, Inc.; and

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.

Date: April 28, 2011



/s/ JAMES R. THOMASJames R. ThomasChief Financial Officer
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION OF**

**CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**OF MAX RE CAPITAL LTD.**

This certification is providedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. § 1350, and accompanies the quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A (the “Form 10-Q/A”) for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 of Max Re Capital Ltd. (the“Issuer”). 

I, W. Marston Becker, the Chief Executive Officer of Issuer certify that: 

(i) the Form 10-Q/A fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.78m(a) or 78o(d)); and 

(ii) the information contained in the Form 10-Q/A fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Issuer. 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other documentauthenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Issuer and will be retained by the Issuerand furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. 

Dated: November 14, 2006
##### 



Registration Statement on Form S-3 (File No. 333-148617)
   (a)
    
    104,311 shares of the Companys Common Stock (the Common Shares);(b)
    
    867,662 shares (the  February Warrant Shares) that are issuable upon
exercise of outstanding warrants (February Warrants) which were issued by the
Company in a private placement transaction on February 23, 2007; and
 (c)
    
    131,986 shares (together with the February Warrant Shares, the Warrant
Shares) that are issuable upon exercise of outstanding warrants (together with the
February Warrants, the Warrants) which were issued by the Company in a private
placement transaction on August 1, 2007.




---



##### 



Very truly yours,/s/ Rutan & Tucker, LLP
S. 1465

One Hundred Fourth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the fourth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-five

An Act

To extend au pair programs.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF AU PAIR PROGRAMS.

(a) REPEAL.—Section 8 of the Eisenhower Exchange Fellowship

Act of 1990 (Public Law 101–454) is repealed.

(b) AUTHORITY FOR AU PAIR PROGRAMS.—The Director of the

United States Information Agency is authorized to continue to

administer an au pair program, operating on a world-wide basis,

through fiscal year 1997.

(c) REPORT.—Not later than October 1, 1996, the Director of

the United States Information Agency shall submit a report regarding the continued extension of au pair programs to the Committee

on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee on International Relations of the House of Representatives. This report

shall specifically detail the compliance of all au pair organizations

with regulations governing au pair programs as published on February 15, 1995.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION OF**

**CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**OF MAX RE CAPITAL LTD.**

This certification is providedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. § 1350, and accompanies the quarterly report on Form 10-Q (the “Form 10-Q”) for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 of Max Re Capital Ltd. (the“Issuer”). 

I, Keith S. Hynes, the Chief Financial Officer of Issuer certify that: 

(i) the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.78m(a) or 78o(d)); and 

(ii) the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Issuer. 

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 required by Section 906, has been provided to the Issuer and will be retained by the Issuer and furnished tothe Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. 

Dated: November 14, 2006
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23


INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
333-45879, 333-13033, 333-13035, and 333-16901 of US Diagnostic Inc. on Forms
S-8 and Registration Statement Nos. 333-05395 and 333-67959 of US Diagnostic
Inc. on Forms S-3 of our report dated April 3, 2001 (which report expresses an
unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to US
Diagnostic Inc.'s ability to continue as a going concern), appearing in this
Annual Report on Form 10-K of US Diagnostic Inc. for the year ended December 31,
2000.



DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Certified Public Accountants

Miami, Florida
April 16, 2001
EXHIBIT 32.1




CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




The undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




This 16th day of May, 2011




/s/ Stephen D. BarnhillStephen D. Barnhill, M.D.Chairman, Chief Executive Officer, Principal Financial Officer,

and Principal Accounting Officer