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

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1577 Reference Change Senate (RCS)]

  2d Session
                                S. 1577

 To authorize appropriations for the National Historical Publications 
  and Records Commission for fiscal years 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

            February 27 (legislative day, February 23), 1996

 Mr. Hatfield (for himself and Mr. Sarbanes) introduced the following 
 bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Rules and 
                             Administration

            February 29 (legislative day, February 28), 1996

Committee discharged; referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To authorize appropriations for the National Historical Publications 
  and Records Commission for fiscal years 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001.

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

SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE NATIONAL HISTORICAL 
              PUBLICATIONS AND RECORDS COMMISSION.

    Section 2504(f)(1) of title 44, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (F) by striking out ``and'' after the 
        semicolon;
            (2) in subparagraph (G) by striking out the period and 
        inserting in lieu thereof a semicolon; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraphs:
                    ``(H) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 1998;
                    ``(I) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 1999;
                    ``(J) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2000; and
                    ``(K) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2001.''.
                                 <all>
```
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
Myoffiz, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period
ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Jaren Chan Eng Ann, as Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  1350, as adopted
pursuant to  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 results of operations of the Company.



                              By   /s/  Jaren Chan Eng Ann
                                  -------------------------
                              Jaren Chan Eng Ann
                              Chief Executive Officer


March 14, 2004
Contacts, With whom outside the FAA hasthis proposal been discussed? Organization Person Contacted Date Response National Business A.irC'rafrAssociation Eli Corti 

### 10' 

## I-o'! 

# - RegiflllaI Airline Association Dave Lotterer J

__ 

### 1_0'1 

# - Aircr:lft Owners & Pilots Association Robert Hadrnum 

## '0-1-fl1 ~ ATA Craig Fahiau 

### f6-Hf7 ~
<PAGE>

                                EXHIBIT 10.18

                      AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


     This Amendment to Employment Agreement (the "Agreement") is made
effective as of the 4th day of September, 1997 by and between David E. Webb
(the "Employee") and CS Wireless Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation having
its principal place of business at 200 Chisholm Place, Suite 202, Plano,
Texas 75075 (the "Company").

     WHEREAS, on or about April 2, 1997, Webb and the Company entered into
that certain Employment Agreement ("the Agreement") providing for, INTER
ALIA, the employment of Webb as President and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company upon the terms and conditions set forth in the Agreement.

     WHEREAS, the Compensation Committee and the Board of Directors of the
Company have reviewed the Base Salary (defined in the Agreement) payable to
Webb pursuant to the Agreement and have resolved to increase the Base Salary.

     NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the mutual promises
set forth herein, the receipt and sufficiency which is hereby acknowledged,
Webb and the Company agree as follows:

     1. ADJUSTMENT TO BASE SALARY.  Section 2.(a) of the Agreement is hereby
modified to delete the existing text and substitute in lieu thereof the
following:

       (a) BASE SALARY.  During the Term of this Agreement (as defined below)
the Company agrees to pay Employee the base annual salary ("Base Salary") in
an amount equal to $225,000.  Such Base Salary shall be reviewed no less
frequently than annually during the Term and may be increased, but not
decreased, by the Board of Directors.  Such Base Salary shall be payable in
accordance with the Company's normal business practices or in such other
amounts and at such other times the parties may mutually agree.

     2. ENTIRE AGREEMENT; MODIFICATION.  The terms of this Amendment and the
Agreement constitute the entire Agreement between the parties regarding the
subject matter described herein and in the Agreement.  No modification to the
Agreement or the Amendment shall be binding unless in writing and signed by
Webb and the Company.

                                     1
<PAGE>

                                  CS WIRELESS SYSTEMS, INC.


                                  By : /s/ Jared Abbruzzese
                                  --------------------------------
                                  Name:  Jared Abbruzzese
                                  Title: Chairman


                                  /s/  David E. Webb
                                  --------------------------------
                                  DAVID E. WEBB





                                      2
FILED

January 14, 1998

Cecil W. Crowson

Appellate Court Clerk

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

MIDDLE SECTION AT NASHVILLE

ROBERT OGBURN, )

)

Plaintiff/Appellant, ) Davidson Chancery

) No. 96-1806-I(II)

VS. )

) Appeal No.

TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF ) 01A01-9707-CH-00284

CORRECTION, ET AL., )

)

Defendants/Appellees. )

DISSENTING OPINION

I respectfully dissent from the court’s conclusion that the Department of

Correction was not required to promulgate Policy 502.02 as a rule in accordance with

the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act. See Mandela v. Campbell, App. No.

01A01-9607-CH-00332, 1996 WL 730289, at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 20, 1996),

perm. app. granted (Tenn. May 12, 1997) (Koch, J., dissenting).

I concur with the remaining provisions of the opinion.

_______________________________

WILLIAM C. KOCH, JR., JUDGE
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**CERTIFICATIONOF VICE PRESIDENT, FINANCE**

**CALLISTOPHARMACEUTICALS, INC.**

**FORM 10-QFOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 2006**

**PURSUANTTO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED**

**PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I am the Vice President,Finance of Callisto Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”).I am delivering this certificate in connection with the Form 10-Q of theCompany for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 and filed with the Securities andExchange Commission (“Form 10-Q”).

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge,the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934 and that the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 
|        | Date: August 14, 2006   |   |
|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|   |                    |
|   | /s/ BERNARD F. DENOYER  |
|   |                    |
|   | Bernard F. Denoyer      |
|   | Vice President, Finance |

 

 

----
#### W. H. SHARP, Plaintiff in Error, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Defendant in Error.

No. A-12322.

Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma.

July 11, 1956.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 5, 1956.

James Hugh Rinehart, El Reno, for plaintiff in error.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., Oklahoma City, for defendant in error.

BRETT, Judge.

Plaintiff in error, W. H. Sharp, defendant below, was charged by information in the County Court of Canadian County, Oklahoma, on the sixth of June, 1955, with the offense of unlawful possession of thirty pints of assorted brands of bonded whiskey in violation of the law. To the charge the defendant returned a plea of guilty and *1018judgment and sentence was entered thereon fixing his punishment at a fine of $250 and imprisonment in the county jail for sixty days from which this appeal has been perfected.

The matter was set for oral argument on May 23, 1956. No briefs were filed and no argument was made on behalf of the defendant. We have examined the information and find it sufficient to support the charge of unlawful possession of intoxicat-. ing liquor, and the record does not disclose any fundamental error or prejudice to the rights of the defendant.

Under the authority of Hunnicutt v. State, Okl.Cr., 281 P.2d 767, and numerous other authorities, the conviction is accordingly affirmed.

POWELL, J., concurs.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                           UT
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM STATEMENTS
OF OPERATIONS, BALANCE SHEETS AND STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1,000
<CURRENCY>                                U.S. Dollars


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<BOOK-VALUE>                                   PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                       65,896
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                     18,365
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                          29,039
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                             0
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                   1,354
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 114,654
<COMMON>                                         1,194
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                       37,026
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                             30,104
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                  68,324
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      1,446
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                            21,582
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                    1,007
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                  22,295
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  114,654
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                       63,527
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                             4,043
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                      54,400
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                      58,443
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                          9,127
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                               5,650
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  14,777
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        (1,818)
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,851
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                         65
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                    8,851
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                         2,871
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                            0
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                          17,824
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.20




</TABLE>
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LYN RICHARD OBERG,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

GUY HALL,

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 07-36061

D.C. No. CV-05-00704-ALH

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Oregon

Ancer L. Haggerty, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 29, 2010** 

Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

Oregon state prisoner Lyn Richard Oberg appeals from the district court's

judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

FILED

JUL 22 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 07-36061

Oberg contends that the district court erred by dismissing his petition as

untimely because the failure by prison officials to mail his notice of appeal

concerning his state direct appeal entitles him to equitable tolling. The record

reflects that the that Oberg’s petition was filed nearly four years after the statute of

limitations period began to run, see 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1), and that Oberg is not

entitled to equitable tolling because he has not shown that he was diligent in

pursuing his rights during the relevant time period. See Bryant v. Arizona Attorney

General, 499 F.3d 1056, 1061 (9th Cir. 2007); cf. Roy v Lampert, 465 F.3d 964,

970-971 (9th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal of Oberg’s petition.

 See White v. Klitzkie, 281 F.3d 920, 922 (9th Cir. 2002) (“Although the statute of

limitations issue was not included in the certificate of appealability, we can affirm

the district court on any ground supported by the record.”).

Because the district court properly deemed his petition untimely, we do not

address the parties’ additional contentions.

AFFIRMED.
InThe Matter Of: 

## SERVED JULY 23, 2012 U.S. 

### DEPARTMENTOF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS WASHINGTON, DC

DocketNo. FAA-2012-0020 ·Jn 1 "l**L~L:**

BRENDAN AIRWAYS, LLC, ) ) ) ) ) CaseNo. 2011 EA 170024 Respondent 

### ORDER GRANTING SECOND CONTINUANCE OF RULE 16 LITIGATION SCHEDULING CONFERENCE ?L!

OnJune 27,2012 anOrder Granting Continuance ofRule 16 Litigation Scheduling Conference was filed. Among otherthings, this Order directedthe parties to reappear on July 23, 2012 for the rescheduled LitigationConference, OnJuly 23, 2012, the parties appeared bytelephone for a secondRule 16 Litigation Scheduling Conference, and discussedtheir calendar availability, hearing dates, and other litigationprocedural matters. Pursuantto 14 C.F.R. §13.205(a)(1), (6) and (7), Civ. R. 16, 14 C.F.R. §13.21,7, and 14 C.F.R. §13.220, and afterreviewing allrelevantcaselaw, regulation, statutory authority, and being fully advised; 

### IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:



## .. 1. 

# The Rule 16 Litigation Scheduling Conference is continuedby agreement ofthe parties. 2. The 

### third Rule 16 Litigation Scheduling Conference is set, by agreement ofthe parties, for 

### Thurs'day, September27,2012 at lO:OOam Eastern·time. The Office ofHearings shall initiate the conference call. 3. Priorto September 27, 2012, ifthe parties reach a settlement and wishto move to cancel the conference, they must file the necessary settlement withdrawal notice or othernecessary document(s) withthe Office ofHearings. ·

Attachment

- Service List Page 1of1FDMS NO. FAA-2012-0020 (Civil Penalty Action) SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL and FAX ORIGINAL & ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence A venue, S. W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430, Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1 000 1 Jason Dickstein, Respondent's Counsel Washington Aviation Group 2233 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W., #503 Washington, DC 20007 TEL: 202 628-6776 FAX: 202-628-8948

ONE COPY Zachary M. Berman, Complainant's Counsel

Office of the Regional Counsel, AS0-7 Eastern Region . Federal Aviation Administration 1 Aviation Plaza Jamaica, NY 11434 TEL: 718-553-3258 FAX: 718-995-5699

The Honorable J.E. Sullivan, Administrative Law Judge Office of Hearings, M-20 U.S. Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-2132 FAX: 202-366-7536

..

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Buildirig,_Suite 2WIOOO, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ERNIE J. PEREZ, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner 

of Social Security, 

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 20-15773 

D.C. No. 2:18-cv-02737-MTL 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Michael T. Liburdi, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 3, 2021**

Submission Vacated March 9, 2021

Resubmitted January 14, 2022

Phoenix, Arizona

Before: HAWKINS and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges, and CARDONE,*** District 

Judge.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** The Honorable Kathleen Cardone, United States District Judge for the 

Western District of Texas, sitting by designation.

FILED

JAN 19 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

During the pendency of this appeal, we issued our opinion in Larson v. Saul, 

967 F.3d 914 (9th Cir. 2020). Joining the Sixth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits, we

held that the uniformed services exception to the Windfall Elimination Provision 

(“WEP”) of 42 U.S.C. § 415(a)(7) does not apply to the Civil Service Retirement 

System (“CSRS”) pensions of dual-status technicians of the National Guard. Id. at 

921, 926; see Babcock v. Comm’r of Social Sec., 959 F.3d 210 (6th Cir. 2020), 

Kientz v. Comm’r, SSA, 954 F.3d 1277 (10th Cir. 2020), Martin v. Social Sec. 

Admin., Comm’r, 903 F.3d 1154 (11th Cir. 2018). 

We held this case in abeyance pending the Supreme Court’s review of 

Babcock. The Supreme Court has recently affirmed the Sixth Circuit, holding that 

“civil-service pension payments fall outside the Social Security Act’s uniformedservices exception because they are based on service in [a] civilian capacity.” 

Babcock v. Kijazaki, 20-480, 2022 WL 119605, at *5 (Jan. 13, 2022). As a result, 

Appellant, as a dual-status technician of the National Guard, is subject to the WEP

and the resulting reduction of his pension payment. See id. 

The district court is AFFIRMED.
Final Notes July 9, 2010 

### Steam Study Data Review Notes

Dissolved Hexavalent Chromium EPA Method 218.6 ( 1994 ) Ion chromatography

1. If the laboratory judges that the influent samples contained sulfate and chloride concentrations that were high enoug h to cause column overload, the af fected samples should be diluted by the laboratory (218.6/4.1.3)

. If reported, not e if the laboratory diluted samples to prevent column overload.

2. S amples should be adjusted to roo m temperature prior to analysis (218.6/11.1)

.

3. A rinse blank should be used to flush the system between all solution changes and

suitable rinse times should be determined and used to prevent memory interferences (200.8/4.1.5) . If reported, indicate h ow many rinse blank s were r un and state any

contamination noted.

4. For aqueous sample s, a field blank should be prepared and analyzed at each sample point during one of the four days of sample collecti on. If the analyte concentration was greater than the MDL, indicate the concentration.

5. **B oth masses 52 and 53 should be analyzed and mass 5 2 used to determine the

concent ration of Cr(VI) in the samples (200.8/11.4.4/Table 4)

.

6. Results should be corrected based on Cr(VI) contamination found in the LRB . Indicate whether the laboratory automatically made these corrections.

7. *If the analyte concen tration in a sample was less than 5 times the analyte c oncentration in the laboratory/method blank, the result should be reported as a nondetect. List all affected samples.

8. *If the analyte concentration in a sample was less than 10 times but greater than 5 times the analyte concentration in the laboratory/method blank, the result should reported as an estimated value. List all affected samples.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1608 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 1608

 To extend the applicability of certain regulatory authority under the 
 Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 12, 1996

Mr. McCain (for himself and Mr. Inouye) introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To extend the applicability of certain regulatory authority under the 
 Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF APPLICABILITY OF CERTAIN REGULATORY AUTHORITY.

    Section 107(a)(2)(B) of the Indian Self-Determination and Education 
Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450k(a)(2)(B)) is amended by striking ``18 
months'' and inserting ``20 months''.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>   1



                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 No. 333-14933 and Form S-8 No. 333-40899) pertaining to the Digene
Diagnostics, Inc. 1990 Stock Option Plan, the Digene Diagnostics, Inc. 1991-A
Stock Option Plan, the Digene Diagnostics, Inc. 1991-B Stock Option Plan, the
Digene Corporation Omnibus Plan, the Digene Corporation Directors' Stock Option
Plan, and the Digene Corporation 1997 Stock Option Plan of our reports dated
August 20, 1999, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and
schedule of Digene Corporation included in its Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for
the year ended June 30, 1999, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.



                                                      /s/ Ernst & Young LLP


Washington, DC
December 20, 1999
EXHIBIT 10.1
 Cooper US, Inc.
Executive Stock Incentive Agreement
 
 Performance Share Award
 Performance Period
 Performance Share Grant
 Coverage RatioPerformance Level
    
    (Net Debt/EBITDA)
    
    Share Award Not achieved
    
    
    > 2.00
    
    
    
    0 Achieved
    
    
    3 2.00




---



##### 



Dividends
 Restrictions and Limitations
 Forfeiture
  - 2 -




---



##### 



Termination Upon Death or Disability
     - 3 -




---



##### 



Limitations on Transferability
 Tax
 Change in Control
 Consideration
 Plan Incorporated
  - 4 -




---



##### 



Binding Effect
  COOPER US, INC.John W. SparrowVice President, Compensation & BenefitsEXECUTIVENameTitle
Division
  - 5 -