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

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2246 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2246

To suspend United States assistance to Brazil until such time as Brazil 
 amends its laws to remove the prohibition on extradition of nationals 
                     of Brazil to other countries.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 21, 2011

 Mr. Ryan of Ohio introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                    the Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To suspend United States assistance to Brazil until such time as Brazil 
 amends its laws to remove the prohibition on extradition of nationals 
                     of Brazil to other countries.

    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 ``Brazilian Foreign Aid Fairness 
Act''.

SEC. 2. SUSPENSION OF UNITED STATES ASSISTANCE TO BRAZIL UNTIL BRAZIL 
              AMENDS ITS LAWS TO REMOVE THE PROHIBITION ON EXTRADITION 
              OF NATIONALS OF BRAZIL TO OTHER COUNTRIES.

    (a) Suspension of Assistance.--Notwithstanding any other provision 
of law, no funds made available to any Federal department or agency may 
be used to provide assistance to Brazil until the President determines 
and certifies to Congress that the Government of Brazil has amended its 
laws to remove the prohibition on extradition of nationals of Brazil to 
other countries.
    (b) Waiver.--The President may waive the application of subsection 
(a) on a case-by-case basis if the President determines and certifies 
to Congress that is in the national interests of the United States to 
do so.
    (c) Effective Date.--This Act takes effect on the date of the 
enactment of this Act and applies with respect to funds made available 
to any Federal department or agency for any fiscal year after fiscal 
year 2011.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7113
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ANTHONY DAWSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (8:04-cr-0836; 8:06-cv-1295-GRA) Submitted: October 31, 2006 Decided: December 11, 2006 Before MICHAEL, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Dawson, Appellant Pro Se. Alan Lance Crick, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Anthony Dawson seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Dawson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
[4910-13-P]

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2009-1111; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-147-AD; Amendmen 39J.~b7! AD 2010_*9.~*1(J0 RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2CI0 (Regional Jet Series 700,701 &702), 

### CL-600-2Dls (Regional Jet Series 

### 705), and CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department ofTransportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. 

### SUMMARY: We are adopting anew airworthiness directive (AD) for the products liste above. This AD results from mandatory continuing 

### airwoItt

# fl hiness information (MeAl) originated by an aviation authority ofanother country to i,entify and correct anunsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes thl unsafe condition as: During an elevator Power Control Unit (peU) Centering Functional Check ontwo CL-600-2CIO aircraft, sustained os¢illations were , discovered when a control rod was disconnected. These sustained oscillations could render the elevator surface inop~rable and cause subsequent loss ofpitch control ofthe aircraft. 

# <+1*),0-
tmNG'YMBOl



## - /l1tJ

ROlITlN ,YMllOl

ROlIT[NGSYMllOl

n.•••.•••• 'G



# • • • • • • • UTING SYMBOl Loss ofpitch control could result inreduced controllabilif ofthe airplane. We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe condition on these products.14910-13-1" DEPAlnMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration ({"L1'J<Rl-~,_-,._< """'l>IGS\""""'. .'NE-l71 14CFR Port 39 •• ,,'E (Docket No. FAA-2009-1111; Dircdor.ltc Identifier 2009-NM~147-AD; Amcndmcnl39- 

### 03/J-3 ."""-"'''"'s'''''' LGl3/AEG
R1N2120-AA64 Airwor1hiucss Dirtctivcs; Bombardier, 

### me., Model CL-600~2CIO (Regional Jet Series 700,701 &702), CL·600-2DI5 (Regional Jet Series 705),

# aL CL-600-2D:!4lRegional Jet Series 900) Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Adminislration (FAA), Department ofTransportation (DOT). At.'TI.oN: Final rule. SUMMARY: We arc adopting anew airworthiness directive (AD) for the products listed I above. This AD results from mandatory contil1lling airworth"ncss information (MeAl) , originated by an aviation authority ofanother country to ide tify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product The MeAl dcscrib(::sthe U lSl.Ife condition as: During an elevator Power Control Unit (peU) Cente ing Functional Check on two CL·600~2C I0 aircraft, sustained ascii ations were discovered when acontrol rod was disconnecled. Th~sc sustall1cd oscillations could render tJ1C elevator surface

# inopcr1~blCand cause subsequent loss ofpitch control ofthe aircran.



## .. '" 

## .. '" .•. .•. "" Loss ofpitch conlrol could result inreduced controllability ofthe airplam:. We are 

# I issuing this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe condition on the~e products. 

# ~o~.,,"----
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Phillips-Van Heusen Corporation (the Company) for the quarterly period ended August 2, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Emanuel Chirico, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



(i)

the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



(ii)

the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Dated:  September 10, 2009



|By:   | /s/ Emanuel Chirico                                  | 
|----- | ---------------------------------------------------- | 
|Name: | Emanuel Chirico
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer | 



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _
Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A2 1 A1 77 3 . RAY v . THE STATE.

Ceci l Ray fi l ed a n ot i ce o f ap p eal fro m t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s o rd er d i s m i s s i n g h i s

m o ti o n t o vacat e a v o i d ju d g m en t , an d t h e ap p eal was d o ck et ed o n J u l y 9
, 2 0 2 1. Ray ’ s b ri ef o f ap p el l an t was du e 2 0 d ay s l at er, o n J ul y 2 9
, 2 0 2 1

. Th e d u e d at e h as
p as s ed
, an d Ray h as n o t fi l e d a b ri ef. Acco rd i n g l y , Ray ’ s ap p eal is h ereb y DISM ISSED fo r fai l u re t o fi l e a b ri ef. See Co u rt o f Ap peal s Ru le 2 3 (a).

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia C le r k ’ s O f f i c e , A t la n t a ,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e is a tr u e e x t r a c t f r o m
t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. August 13, 2021

08/13/2021
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACTOF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 135)**

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Eschelon Telecom, Inc., a Delawarecorporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30,2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”),Geoffrey M. Boyd, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, does hereby certify,pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350),that to his knowledge:

 

(1)          Thereport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)          Theinformation contained in the Report fairly represents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of the periodcovered by the Report and the results of operations  of the Company for the period coveredby the Report.

 

 
| Sign:                    | /S/ | Geoffrey M. Boyd |   |
|--------------------------|-----|------------------|--------|
| Geoffrey M. Boyd         |
| Chief Financial  Officer |
| November 14,  2005  |

 

 

The foregoing certificationis being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002 and is not being filed as part of this Report or as a separatedisclosure document.  A signed originalof this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to theCompany and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1 (TELECOMMUNICATION SYSTEMS LOGO) Certification of Principal Executive Officer
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002) I, Maurice B. Tosé, President and Chief Executive Officer (principal executive officer) of
TeleCommunication Systems, Inc. (the Registrant), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that: (1) The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2005
(the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Act of
1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company. /s/ Maurice B. ToséMaurice B. ToséDate: May 9, 2005 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the
Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 10.24 

Change in Control AgreementAmendment

	Effective October 4, 2004, this Amendment amends theChange in Control Agreement (the "Agreement"), entered into as ofMarch 7, 2000 by and between John Ottman, an individual ("Executive") andCorio, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company").

	For good and valuable consideration, the receipt andsufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:

1.  Section 1.  Section 1 of the Agreement is herebydeleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:

"1.  	Benefits Upon a Change in Control.  If (i) duringthe term of this Agreement****and while Executive remains an employee of theCompany, the Company shall be subject to the consummation of a Change in Controland (ii) within one (1) year following such Change in Control the Companyterminates the employment of Executive involuntarily and without BusinessReasons or a Constructive Termination occurs, then in such case Executive shallbe entitled to receive the following:  (A) Executive's base salary andvacation accrued through the Termination Date, (B) vesting of all outstandingstock options and other equity arrangements subject to vesting and held byExecutive through the Termination Date that had vested as of the TerminationDate, plus acceleration of an additional twelve (12) months of vesting of suchoptions and other equity arrangements, (C) base salary continuance, excludingany rights to a bonus and any payment rights other than base salary, for sixmonths after the Termination Date, and (D) to the extent required by COBRA only,continuation of group health benefits pursuant to the Company's standardprograms in effect at the Termination Date, for a period of not less than 18months (or such longer period as may be required by COBRA), provided thatExecutive makes the necessary conversion and payments."

2.  Section 6.   Section 6 of the Agreement is hereby deleted in itsentirety and replaced with the following:

"6.	Term of Agreement.  This Agreement shall commence as ofthe date first set forth above and shall continue until the date (the"Termination Date") which is the earlier of (i) the date thatExecutive ceases to be an employee of the Company, for any reason, and (ii)December 31, 2007.  Any benefits accruing to Executive under Section 1 hereofprior to or upon the Termination Date shall survive termination of theAgreement, and any obligations of Executive under Sections 1, 4 and 5 hereofshall survive any such termination."

The remaining provisions of the Agreementremain in full force and effect.

	IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the parties has executed thisAgreement, in the case of the Company by its duly authorized officer, as of theday and year first above written.

			

COMPANY

	

CORIO, INC.

			

By:    /s/ GEORGE KADIFA

George Kadifa
President and CEO
**				

EXECUTIVE**
	

   /s/ JOHN OTTMAN

John Ottman
 

 

 

 

 

 

[Signature Page to Change in Control AgreementAmendment]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AND STATEMENT OF OPERATION AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                           1,083
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,456
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (210)
<INVENTORY>                                      6,345
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                10,055
<PP&E>                                           9,096
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (8,123)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  22,184
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           24,240
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       100,103
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,008
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    22,184
<SALES>                                          7,577
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 8,391
<CGS>                                            6,462
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,042
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,712
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 992
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (8,001)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       126
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (8,127)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (8,127)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.10)


</TABLE>
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 179 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to eliminate the requirement that 

certain former members of the reserve components of the Armed Forces 

be at least 60 years of age in order to be eligible to receive health 

care benefits. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 5, 2011 

Mr. WILSON of South Carolina introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to eliminate the 

requirement that certain former members of the reserve 

components of the Armed Forces be at least 60 years 

of age in order to be eligible to receive health care 

benefits. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ELIMINATION OF THE AGE REQUIREMENT FOR 

4 HEALTH CARE BENEFITS FOR NON-REGULAR 

5 SERVICE RETIREES. 

6 Section 1074(b) of title 10, United States Code, is 

7 amended— 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 179 IH

1 (1) by striking ‘‘(1)’’; and 

2 (2) by striking paragraph (2). 

Æ 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
#### CLARKE v. GOLD DUST CORPORATION.

No. 6233.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

June 23, 1937.

*13Wm. C. Kronmeyer, of Union City, N. J. (Edward R. McGlynn, of Newark, N. J., of counsel), for appellant.

George W. C. McCarter, of Newark, N. J., for appellee.

Before BUFFINGTON, THOMPSON, and BIGGS, Circuit Judges.

BIGGS, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from an order of the District Court of the United States for the District of New Jersey dismissing the amended bill of complaint filed by the plaintiff-appellant against the defendant-appellee, Gold Dust Corporation, alleging certain grievances arising out of a merger between that company and American Linseed Company, and praying, inter alia, that the consolidation or merger between the two companies be found to be void in so far as it affects the appellant. The learned District Judge made no findings'of fact or conclusions of law as required by Equity Rule 70% of the Equity Rules of the Supreme Court (28 U.S.C.A. following section 723).

In the case of Siano v. Helvering, 79 F.(2d) 444, 445, this court held:

“The District Court made no findings of fact or conclusions of law. The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized the importance of statements by District Courts of the grounds of their decisions, covering both facts and law, even in the absence of a rule. Public Service Commission v. Wisconsin Telephone Co., 289 U.S. 67, 53 S.Ct. 514, 77 L.Ed. 1036. See cases cited on this point in Los Angeles Gas & Electric Corporation v. Railroad Commission, 289 U.S. 287, 327, 53 S.Ct. 637, 77 L.Ed. 1180. After the promulgation of Equity Rule 70% (28 U.S.C.A. following section 723), the Supreme Court said in State Board of Tax Commissioners v. Jackson, 283 U.S. 527, 533, 51 S.Ct. 540, 542, 75 L.Ed. 1248, 73 A.L.R. 1464 [75 A.L.R. 1536]:

> “ ‘The District Court failed to make findings of fact and law as now required by Equity Rule 70% (28 U.S.C.A. § 723), but contented itself with a partial summary of the facts and certain general conclusions of law. Piad the rule been in force at the time of the trial, we should feel constrained to remand the case with directions to make such findings.’ ”

This cause is herewith remanded to the District Court with the direction to proceed in the cause in accordance with this opinion. The solicitors for the respective parties should submit their requests for findings of fact and conclusions of law to the court below.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2170 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2170

  Streamlining Federal review to facilitate renewable energy projects.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 14, 2011

  Mr. Hastings of Washington (for himself, Mr. Lamborn, Mr. Broun of 
   Georgia, Mr. Duncan of Tennessee, and Mr. Wittman) introduced the 
    following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural 
                               Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  Streamlining Federal review to facilitate renewable energy projects.

    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 ``Cutting Federal Red Tape to 
Facilitate Renewable Energy Act''.

SEC. 2. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY PROJECTS.

    (a) Compliance With NEPA for Renewable Energy Projects.--In 
complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (41 U.S.C. 
4321 et seq.) with respect to any action authorizing or facilitating a 
proposed renewable energy project, a Federal agency shall--
            (1) consider only the proposed action and the no action 
        alternative;
            (2) analyze only the proposed action and the no action 
        alternative; and
            (3) identify and analyze potential mitigation measures only 
        for the proposed action and the no action alternative.
    (b) Public Comment.--In complying with the National Environmental 
Policy Act of 1969 with respect to a proposed renewable energy project, 
a Federal agency shall only consider public comments that specifically 
address the proposed action or the no action alternative (or both) and 
are filed within 30 days after publication of a draft environmental 
assessment or draft environmental impact statement.
    (c) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
            (1) Federal waters.--The term ``Federal waters'' means 
        waters seaward of the coastal zone (as that term is defined in 
        section 304 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 
        U.S.C. 1453)), to the limits of the exclusive economic zone or 
        the Outer Continental Shelf, whichever is farther.
            (2) Outer continental shelf.--The term ``Outer Continental 
        Shelf'' has the meaning the term ``outer Continental Shelf'' 
        has in the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 et 
        seq.).
            (3) Renewable energy project.--The term ``renewable energy 
        project'' means a project on Federal lands or in Federal 
        waters, including a project on the Outer Continental Shelf, 
        using wind, solar power, geothermal power, biomass, or tidal or 
        kinetic forces to generate energy.
                                 <all>
```