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

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1963 

To temporarily extend expiring provisions of the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 and the Intelligence Reform 

and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 24, 2011 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER (for himself and Mr. SMITH of Texas) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and 

in addition to the Select Committee on Intelligence (Permanent Select), 

for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case 

for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the 

committee concerned 

A BILL 

To temporarily extend expiring provisions of the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 

and the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention 

Act of 2004, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SUNSET EXTENSIONS. 

4 (a) USA PATRIOT IMPROVEMENT AND REAUTHOR5 IZATION ACT OF 2005.—Section 102(b)(1) of the USA 

6 PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1963 IH

1 (Public Law 109–177; 50 U.S.C. 1805 note, 50 U.S.C. 

2 1861 note, and 50 U.S.C. 1862 note) is amended by strik3 ing ‘‘May 27, 2011’’ and inserting ‘‘June 3, 2011’’. 

4 (b) INTELLIGENCE REFORM AND TERRORISM PRE5 VENTION ACT OF 2004.—Section 6001(b)(1) of the Intel6 ligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 

7 (Public Law 108–458; 50 U.S.C. 1801 note) is amended 

8 by striking ‘‘May 27, 2011’’ and inserting ‘‘June 3, 

9 2011’’. 

Æ 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Baker, Willis and Overton 

Argued at Norfolk, Virginia 

DONALD VALCOLEN FREW 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

v. Record No. 0270-96-1 JUDGE NELSON T. OVERTON 

 OCTOBER 1, 1996 

PATRICIA CHADWICK FREW 

 FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT NEWS 

 Robert P. Frank, Judge 

 Oldric J. LaBell, Jr., for appellant. 

 Robert B. Halkowich (Spencer and Halkowich, 

P.C., on brief), for appellee. 

 Donald Frew (husband) appeals the decision of the circuit 

court concerning the final decree of divorce from Patricia 

Chadwick Frew (wife). For the reasons that follow, we affirm the 

trial court. 

 The parties separated in 1983, when they signed a separation 

agreement that provided for payment from husband to wife. 

Husband filed for divorce on January 25, 1994. While that suit 

was pending, wife filed an action at law to recover non-payment 

of the separation agreement on November 29, 1994. On December 1, 

1995, the circuit court rendered a final judgment on the law 

action, interpreting a disputed provision and assigning an 

arrearage. That decision was appealed on January 3, 1996 to this 

Court.1

 

 *Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not 

designated for publication. 

 1 The Court of Appeals had no jurisdiction over the law 
- 2 - 

 The final decree of divorce was entered on January 5, 1996. 

 In that decree the trial judge incorporated his ruling and 

interpretation of the earlier law action. Husband appeals from 

this order. 

 Husband's appeal concerns the interpretation of the 

separation agreement, fully argued and adjudicated in the law 

action. He does not contend that the judge erred by 

incorporating the previous order into the divorce decree, only 

that the previous order was decided incorrectly. He assigns no 

error to the actions of the judge in this case, but rather 

addresses his arguments to the ruling of the judge in the law 

action. 

 Because we find no reversible error by the trial judge in 

this case, we affirm the decision below. Any error in the law 

action will be considered by the Supreme Court of Virginia, where 

jurisdiction properly lies. 

 Affirmed.

 

action and transferred the appeal to the Supreme Court of 

Virginia pursuant to Code § 8.01-677.1. See Frew v. Frew, Record 

No. 0251-96-1 (October 1, 1996) (unpublished).
EXHIBIT 32.1   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 Unico, Incorporated (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended May 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Mark A. Lopez, Chief Executive 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, to my knowledge:  (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 the operations of the Company.


|                    |                                                        
|------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------
|Date: July 13, 2009 | /s/ Mark A. Lopez
Mark A. Lopez
Chief Executive Officer

[A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Unico, Incorporated and will be retained by Unico, Incorporated and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.]
Exhibit 32.1

                            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 Annual Report of Tofutti Brands Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB/A for the period ending January 1, 2005 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David Mintz, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss. 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/David Mintz*
--------------
David Mintz
Chief Executive Officer
Date:  January 20, 2006


* The originally executed copy of this Certification will be maintained at the
Company's offices and will be made available for inspection upon request.
1

The Honorable Harold D. Vietor, United States District Judge for the Southern

District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 99-4227

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Michael R. Pope, * Southern District of Iowa

*

Appellant. * [UNPUBLISHED]

___________

 Submitted: November 2, 2000

 Filed: November 8, 2000

___________

Before McMILLIAN, BOWMAN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit

Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Michael R. Pope appeals from the final judgment entered in the District Court1

for the Southern District of Iowa upon his guilty plea to making a false statement to a

financial institution insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, in violation

of 18 U.S.C. § 1014. The district court sentenced him to 3 months imprisonment and

3 months home confinement. For reversal, appellant argues the district court erred in
-2-

increasing his base offense level for having caused a loss of $35,116.50, see U.S.S.G.

§ 2F1.1(b)(1)(E) (4-level increase for $20,000-$40,000 loss), because his bankruptcy

estate contents are “assets pledged to secure the loan” which should be offset against

the balance of the loan pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1, comment. (n.8(b)). Note 8(b)

reads as follows:

In fraudulent loan application cases . . . , the loss is the actual loss

to the victim (or if the loss has not yet come about, the expected loss).

For example, if a defendant fraudulently obtains a loan by misrepresenting

the value of his assets, the loss is the amount of the loan not repaid at the

time the offense is discovered, reduced by the amount the lending

institution has recovered (or can expect to recover) from any assets

pledged to secure the loan. However, where the intended loss is greater

than the actual loss, the intended loss is to be used.

For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 

We find no error in the district court’s actual loss calculation, because the bank,

even if it could expect to recover fully from appellant’s bankruptcy estate, cannot

expect to recover from assets pledged to secure its loan to appellant. See United

States v. Oligmueller, 198 F.3d 669, 671 (8th Cir. 1999) (reviewing district court’s

interpretation and application of Guidelines de novo and its amount-of-loss

determination for clear error). See generally 11 U.S.C. § 507 (priorities in bankruptcy).

Accordingly, we affirm.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Supplemental Agreement No4 as of June 19, 2018

to

DESIGN SERVICE CONTRACT

Between

Twidel Co.

And

Minaro Corp.

THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT, made between Twidel Co., located at 7c 25 Martiou 2408 Egkomi, Nicosia, 2408, Cyprus (hereinafter called the “Customer”), and Minaro Corp., located at Kleonos 8A, Lakatameia, 2333, Cyprus (hereinafter called the “Executor”). Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Parties’ or the ‘Party’ if referred to separately. 

Works / services that are provided:

	Stage

	Services

	Terms


	1

	Understanding the general concept of the visualization

	1 working day


	2

	Project fulfillment

	30 working days


	3

	Fixing bugs (if any)

	5 working days




 

1.The total amount is $ 1,000 (One thousand US dollars). 

2.Customer pays for the services after they upon performed. 

3.This Supplemental Agreement is effective upon signing it by authorized representatives of the Parties. 

4.All other paragraphs of the DESIGN SERVICE CONTRACT shall remain effective and the Parties hereby confirm their obligations. 

5.This Supplemental Agreement is completed in English language, in two copies, one for each Party and currency of the Supplemental Agreement is US dollar. 

6.This Supplemental Agreement is an integral part of DESIGN SERVICE CONTRACT between Twidel Co. and Minaro Corp. as of February 6, 2018. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Supplemental Agreement to be duly executed. 

APPROVED BY:                             Twidel Co. / Customer 

 

/s/ Niles Apostolos                      

Director

 

APPROVED BY:                             Minaro Corp./ Executor 

 

/s/ Yulia Lazaridou                      

Director
Exhibit 32.1





IDI Global, Inc.



CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

18 U.S.C. Section 1350



In connection with the Quarterly Report of IDI Global, Inc., on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Kevin R. Griffith, Chief Executive Officer, and Steve Weatherly, a consultant performing certain services for the Company commonly provided by a Chief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer, 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 quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2006, 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 Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







Date: May 18, 2006

/s/ Kevin R. Griffith

Kevin R. Griffith

Chief Executive Officer









Date: May 18, 2006

/s/ Steven D. Weatherly

Steven D. Weatherly

Consultant performing certain services for the Company commonly performed by a Chief Financial Officer
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGION 8 

Ref: 8P-AR 

Tammy Whittington 

Associate Regional Director 

Resource Stewardship and Science 

1595 Wynkoop Street 

Denver, CO 80202-1129 

Phone 800-227-8917 

www.epa.gov/region08 

MAY Z 7 2015 

National Park Service, Intermountain Region 

12795 West Alameda Parkway 

P.O. Box 25287 

Denver, Colorado 80225-0287 

Re: Utah Regional Haze Plan (reference IA2 (SEUG-RSS)) 

Dear Ms. Whittington: 

Thank you for your April 2, 2015 letter urging the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to take strong 

action to restore air quality and remedy existing visibility impairment in five Class I national parks in 

Utah. 

The regional haze provisions of the Clean Air Act aim to reduce manmade air pollution that contributes 

to haze in our nation's national parks and wilderness areas such as: Arches National Park, Bryce Canyon 

National Park, Canyonlands National Park, Capitol Reef National Park and Zion National Park in Utah. 

I understand and appreciate your emphasis on the importance of clear air for the millions of visitors who 

come to experience the contrasting colors and textures of Arches National Park, the scenic Waterpocket 

Fold in Capitol Reef National Park and the many other scenic views that characterize these parks. 

The State of Utah just concluded a public comment period on its proposed regional haze plan for 

nitrogen oxides and particulate matter. We understand that the state is currently responding to comments 

on the proposal, including comments from the National Park Service, and afterward will submit its final 

plan to the EPA for review and action. 

The EPA will hold a public comment period when we propose our action on a regional haze plan for 

nitrogen oxides and particulate matter in Utah. EPA maintains a strong commitment to soliciting and 

t:valuating public comments -- including information on costs, visibility benefits and control 

technologies -- before issuing a final action on a state or federal regional haze plan. 
Again, thank you for your letter and interest in protecting visibility in Utah's national parks. We will 

carefully consider your concerns as we work on our proposal action for Utah's regional haze plan. If you 

have any questions, please contact Carl Daly in the EPA Region 8's Air Program at (303) 312-6416 or 

have your staff contact Gail Fallon at (303) 312-6281. 

Shaun L. McGrath 

Regional Administrator 

2 

@Printed on Recycled Paper
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 129 (Monday, July 7, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 38278]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-15779]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ARCHITECTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS COMPLIANCE BOARD

Performance Review Board Membership

AGENCY: Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Notice is given of the appointment of members to a performance 
review board for the Architectural and Transportation Barriers 
Compliance Board (Access Board).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David M. Capozzi, Executive Director, 
Access Board, 1331 F Street NW., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20004-1111. 
Telephone (202) 272-0010.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 4314 (c) of Title 5, U.S.C., 
requires each agency to establish, in accordance with regulations, one 
or more Senior Executive Service (SES) performance review boards. The 
function of the boards is to review and evaluate the initial appraisal 
of senior executives' performance and make recommendations to the 
appointing authority relative to the performance of these executives. 
Because of its small size, the Access Board has appointed SES career 
members from other federal agencies to serve on its performance review 
board. The members of the performance review board for the Access Board 
are:
     Craig Luigart, Chief Information Officer, Veterans Health 
Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs;
     Georgia Coffey, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Diversity 
and Inclusion, Department of Veterans Affairs;
     Rebecca Bond, Chief, Disability Rights Section, Department 
of Justice.

David M. Capozzi,
Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 2014-15779 Filed 7-3-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8150-01-P
```
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1934 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                  Union Calendar No. 59
112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1934

                          [Report No. 112-105]

    To improve certain administrative operations of the Library of 
                   Congress, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 23, 2011

  Mr. Daniel E. Lungren of California introduced the following bill; 
      which was referred to the Committee on House Administration

                             June 14, 2011

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
                       and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To improve certain administrative operations of the Library of 
                   Congress, 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. PERMITTING USE OF PROCEEDS FROM DISPOSITION OF SURPLUS OR 
              OBSOLETE PERSONAL PROPERTY.

    (a) Disposition of Property.--Within the limits of available 
appropriations, the Librarian of Congress may dispose of surplus or 
obsolete personal property of the Library of Congress by interagency 
transfer, donation, sale, trade-in, or other appropriate method.
    (b) Use of Proceeds.--Any amounts received by the Librarian of 
Congress from the disposition of property under subsection (a) shall be 
credited to the funds available for the operations of the Library of 
Congress, and shall be available to acquire the same or similar 
property during the fiscal year in which the amounts are received and 
the following fiscal year.
    (c) Effective Date.--This section shall apply with respect to 
fiscal year 2012 and each succeeding fiscal year.
                                                  Union Calendar No. 59

112th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 1934

                          [Report No. 112-105]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

    To improve certain administrative operations of the Library of 
                   Congress, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             June 14, 2011

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
                       and ordered to be printed
```
#### Marlon GUINN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 28399.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 3, 1956.

*909Reynold M. Gardner, Amarillo, for appellant.

Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Presiding Judge.

The offense is the possession of morphine, a narcotic drug; the punishment, 8 years.

Officer Nunly of the Amarillo police testified that he arrested the appellant, following an automobile collision, for the offense of driving while under the influence of a narcotic drug and carried him to the police station, that outside the station the appellant dropped a small bottle which he retrieved, and that after he entered the station the appellant surrendered to him a small box. It was shown by Chemist Wyatt that the bottle contained a morphine preparation and some barbiturate capsules. The bottle was identified as State’s Exhibit No. 1 and the box as Exhibit No. 2, but neither was introduced in evidence. This prosecution was predicated upon the possession of the morphine alone.

The appellant did not testify in his own behalf but offered Dr. Milligan of Santa Rosa, New Mexico, who testified that on the day charged in the indictment he had given the appellant a prescription for 24 one-sixteenth grain pills of dilaudid hydrochloride, which was shown 'by the witness Wyatt to . contain morphine.

The principal grounds for reversal advanced by the appellant were the refusal of the trial court to permit the witness Milligan to testify that State’s Exhibit No. 1, which was the bottle the appellant dropped outside the police station, bore a label which corresponded to the prescription which he had written for the appellant and the refusal to admit such label in evidence.

In such ruling, the court was clearly in error. Adair v. State, 157 Tex.Cr.R. 27, 246 S.W.2d 211, Musgrove v. State, 159 Tex.Cr.R. 571, 265 S.W.2d 820.

Under Section 11 of Article 725b, Narcotic Drug Regulations, Vernon’s Ann.P. C., the appellant had the right to establish as a matter of defense that he had received the narcotics involved in this prosecution upon prescription by a physician and possessed it in the container in which it was delivered to him.

For the error pointed out, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause remanded.
Exhibit 4.2


 


Consent of Independent Registered
Public Accounting Firm


We have issued our
report dated April 10, 2019, with respect to the financial statement of Advisors Disciplined Trust 1934 contained in Amendment
No. 1 to the Registration Statement on Form S-6 (File No. 333-229297) and related Prospectus. We consent to the use of the aforementioned
report in the Registration Statement and Prospectus, and to the use of our name as it appears under the caption “Experts”.


 


/s/ Grant
Thornton LLP


 


Chicago, Illinois


April 10, 2019
IN THE SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL, LAKELAND, FLORIDA September 30, 2020 OREST RADIONOVICH TYRAK and ) ARSEN RADIONOVICH TYRAK, ) ) Petitioners, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D19-4864 ) ASHLEY GARCIA and DAVID GARCIA ) DIAZ, ) ) Respondents. ) )

BY ORDER OF THE COURT: Petitioners filed on June 11, 2020, their motion for a written opinion, following this court's denial of their petition for certiorari review, rendered on June 5, 2020. Petitioners contend that the facts of this matter are factually and legally similar to cases pending review by the Florida Supreme Court and that a written opinion will place this matter in the "pipeline" for resolution by the applicable law as determined by the Florida Supreme Court. See Barthel v. State, 882 So. 2d 1054, 1055 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). Accordingly, Petitioners' motion for written opinion is granted. We vacate the June 5, 2020 decision denying Petitioners' petition for certiorari review and substitute the attached opinion in its place. No further motions for rehearing will be entertained.- 2 -

I HEREBY CERTIFY THE FOREGOING IS A TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL COURT ORDER.

MARY ELIZABETH KUENZEL, CLERKIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT OREST RADIONOVICH TYRAK and ) ARSEN RADIONOVICH TYRAK, ) ) Petitioners, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D19-4864 ) ASHLEY GARCIA and DAVID GARCIA ) DIAZ, ) ) Respondents. ) ) Opinion filed September 30, 2020. Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit Court for Sarasota County; Stephen Walker, Judge. Kansas R. Gooden of Boyd & Jenerette, P.A., Miami; and Toni-Ann S. Brown of Boyd & Jenerette, P.A., Boca Raton, for Petitioners. Amy Kimberly Kenyon, of Kenyon Law Group, P.L.L.C., Bradenton; for Respondents.

PER CURIAM.

Denied. See Younkin v. Blackwelder, 44 Fla. L. Weekly D549 (Fla. 5th DCA Feb. 22, 2019), review granted, No. SC19-385, 2 019 WL 2180625 (Fla. May 21, 2019); Tortorella-Andrews v. Delvecchio, 45 Fla. L. Weekly D65 (Fla. 2d DCA Jan. 3, 2020).- 2 -

NORTHCUTT, BLACK, and SMITH, JJ., Concur.