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

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 306 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 306

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 16, 2014

  Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
             For the relief of Corina de Chalup Turcinovic.

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR CORINA DE CHALUP TURCINOVIC.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of section 
201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Corina de Chalup Turcinovic 
shall be eligible for issuance of an immigrant visa or for adjustment 
of status to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence 
upon filing an application for issuance of an immigrant visa under 
section 204 of such Act or for adjustment of status to lawful permanent 
resident.
    (b) Adjustment of Status.--If Corina de Chalup Turcinovic enters 
the United States before the filing deadline specified in subsection 
(c), she shall be considered to have entered and remained lawfully and 
shall, if otherwise eligible, be eligible for adjustment of status 
under section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act as of the date 
of the enactment of this Act.
    (c) Deadline for Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsections (a) 
and (b) shall apply only if the application for issuance of an 
immigrant visa or the application for adjustment of status is filed 
with appropriate fees within 2 years after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
    (d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Number.--Upon the granting of an 
immigrant visa or permanent residence to Corina de Chalup Turcinovic, 
the Secretary of State shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by 
1, during the current or next following fiscal year, the total number 
of immigrant visas that are made available to natives of the country of 
the alien's birth under section 203(a) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act or, if applicable, the total number of immigrant visas 
that are made available to natives of the country of the alien's birth 
under section 202(e) of such Act.
    (e) Denial of Preferential Immigration Treatment for Certain 
Relatives.--The natural parents, brothers, and sisters of Corina de 
Chalup Turcinovic shall not, by virtue of such relationship, be 
accorded any right, privilege, or status under the Immigration and 
Nationality Act.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 15, 2014.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
AFS-09-015-E December 30, 2010 Exemption No. 8852B Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2005-20038

Jerrod Seabaugh Director of Quality Control Era Helicopters, LLC 600 Airport Service Road Lake Charles, LA 70605

Dear Mr. Seabaugh:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption No. 8852. It explains the basis for our decision and describes its effect.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated October 26, 2010, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Adm inistration (FAA) on behalf of Era Helicopters LLC (Era) for an extension of Exemption No. 8852. That exemption from §§ 91.411(b) and 91.413(c) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations allows Era to perform air traffic control (ATC) transponder tests and inspections and altimeter system and altimeter reporting equipment tests and inspections for its 14 CFR part 135 aircraft maintained under a continuous airworthiness maintenance program (CAMP).

For clarification, the relief granted in Exemption No. 8852, which referenced Exemption No. 8474A, includes Era aircraft maintained in accordance with the requirements of § 135.411(a)(1) under an Approved Aircraft Inspection Program (AAIP).

In your petition, you indicate there has been no change in the conditions and reasons regarding public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.2

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition in

the Federal Register . The requested extension of the exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Era.

Our Decision

The FAA has determ ined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 8852 remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I grant your petition. Please note the following conditions and limitations.

Conditions and Limitations of your Exemption

1. All ATC transponder tests and inspections and all altimeter reporting equipment tests and inspections must be conducted under Era’s part 135 general Maintenance Manual.

2. All tests and inspections must be recorded in the aircraft’s maintenance log by the person performing each inspection and test. This record must identify the person performing the inspection, the date of the inspection, and this exemption number.

3. All records of these tests and inspections also must be kept in Era’s maintenance recording system for its aircraft operated under part 135.

Our decision extends the termination date of Exemption No. 8852 to December 31, 2013, unless sooner superseded or rescinded. This letter must be attached to, and is a part of, Exemption

No. 8852.

Sincerely,

/s/ John W. McGraw Acting Director, Flight Standards Service
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection withthe Annual Report of AXT, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K forthe year ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned herebycertifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

(1)         The Report fully complieswith the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and

(2)         Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| Date: March 23, 2007 |     | By:      |     | /s/ PHILIP C.S.  YIN       |
|---------------------------|----------|----------|----------|----------------------------|
|                      |     |     |     | Philip C.S. Yin            |
| * *                  | * * | * * | * * | *Chief  Executive Officer* |

 

----
#### PULLEY v. STATE.

No. 24273.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 23, 1949.

Milton K. Norton, Harvey Lindsay and Neal De Shazo, all of Dallas, for appellant.

Will R. Wilson, Jr., Criminal Dist. Atty., George P. Blackburn, First Asst. Dist. Atty., and William B. Henley, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., all of Dallas, and Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

This is a -conviotion for unlawfully possessing a narcotic drug; the punishment, two years in the penitentiary.

Appellant was a duly licensed and registered pharmacist, employed as such in a *856drug store owned íby Reese and authorized •to lawfully dispense narcotic drugs. Such drugs were kept under lock in a cabinet to which only Reese and appellant had access. Reese began missing narcotics therefrom. He reported this fact to the officers. Upon the night in question, a Federal narcotics agent was secreted in the store in a position where he could see the case in which the narcotics were kept. Two narcotics agents were stationed outside the store in an automobile, where they could view the front of the store. After the store had been closed, appellant, accompanied by 'his wife, returned to the store, unlocked the front door, and entered. He was seen by the officer 1⁄8 the store to take something from the narcotics cabinet and ¡place it in his pocket. He and his wife -then left the store and, 'as 'he did so, he was arrested ■by the officers waiting outside the store. There was 'found upon his person a small box containing five iie-grain -tablets of di■laudid hydrochloride, a derivative of opium

Appellant did not testify. His wife testified that he was a sufferer ¡from asthma and that they went to the drug store on the night in question to get some medicine for the relief of that condition.

It is contended that the facts are insufficient to support the conviction.

By Art. 725b, Sec. (2) of Vernon’s Annotated Penal Code, it is made unlawful to possess a narcotic drug. Opium or any derivative thereof is a narcotic drug. Art. 725-b, Sec. 1(12) and (14), Vernon’s P.C.

While a pharmacist (apothecary) may -lawfully possess narcotics, such possession is limited to the regular 'course of his business, which is to dispense narcotics upon proper prescription of a duly licensed ■physician. The possession of the narcotic here shown is not within the exception.

The conclusion is reached that the facts establish appellant’s guilt, as 'Charged.

Bills of exception appearing have been examined and are overruled without discussion.

The judgment is -affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The -foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals ‘has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals, and approved by the court.
ELLI N REISNER , PH.D . 

5 1 MT . VERNO N STREE T 

SOMERVILLE , M A D214 5 

REISNERE 5 1 ©GMAIL.CD M 

September 24, 2012 

Jerome Grafe 

MassDEP, Bureau of Waste Prevention 

One Winter Street, 6th Floor 

Boston, MA 02108 

Dear Mr. Grafe, 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed amendments to 310 CMR 

7.36, Transit System Improvements, as requested by the Massachusetts Department of 

Transportation (MassDOT). I am writing to urge MassDEP to not accept the request 

MassDOT's effort to remove the Red-Blue Connector design from the to delete the 

State Implementation Plan - Transit Commitments. 

As noted in Starts and Stops in the Boston Globe on Sunday, September 24, 2012 there 

are numerous reasons why this project should not be abandoned. It will connect people 

to jobs, reduce crowding in the Central Subway which is a huge problem that 

discourages increased transit use, it would be beneficial to development ofvSrjffolk 

Downs as a casino, reducing traffic congestion on Route 1A. 

The Red-Blue Connector is also a project that would serve environmental justice 

communities in East Boston to improve access to jobs in East Cambridge, the Waterfront 

and in the MGH medical area. Lastly, eliminating completion of planning for this project 

that would make it "shovel-ready" would prevent the project from going forward if 

funds become available from the federal government and developers for infrastructure 

improvements. 

I have been primarily focused on mitigation for Green Line Extension delays, but I 

strongly urge MassDEP to not allow this critically important project to be abandoned. 

The Commonwealth needs to be prepared to move forward to meet its sustainability 

goals. The Connector and the Green Line Extension are critical elements of this. 

Sincerely, 

Ellin Reisner
EXHIBIT 6.11





                             DEMAND PROMISSORY NOTE

$25,000

Date as of November 7, 2002                                  Mundelein, Illinois

         FOR VALUE RECEIVED, Circle Group Internet, Inc. an Illinois corporation
located at 1011 Campus Drive, Mundelein, IL 60060 (the "Maker"), promises to pay
to Edward L. Halpern (the "Holder") the sum of Twenty Five Thousand ($25,000)
Dollars, plus interest at the annual rate of Five (5.00%) percent per annum upon
written demand for payment.

         The accrued interest and principal of this Note shall be payable within
two (2) business days following the posting by certified mail of written demand
therefor, sent to Maker's above indicated address.

         This Note may be prepaid without premium or penalty, at any time, in
whole or in part with accrued interest to the date of prepayment. All payments
on this Note shall be applied first to the payment of accrued interest and the
balance shall be applied to the principal.

         All payments of principal and interest are payable at Maker's above
indicated address or such place as the Holder hereof may, from time to time,
designate in writing, in lawful money of the United States of America.

         Should it become necessary to collect the sum due under this Note
through an attorney, Maker hereby agrees to pay all costs of collection,
including a reasonable attorney's fee. Said reasonable attorney's fee shall
include fees for services rendered in all appellate proceedings. Maker waives
presentment for payment and protest for nonpayment of this Note, and trial by
jury in connection with the enforcement of collection of this Note.

         This Note may be assigned by the Holder thereof at any time, and Maker
will thereafter make payment directly to assignee, as directed by assignor. The
terms of this Note are binding upon any successor in interest to Maker.

         This Agreement shall be construed pursuant to the laws of the State of
Illinois.

Dated October 31, 2002                       MAKER:

Made in the presence of:                     Circle Group Internet, Inc.


/s/ Dana L. Dabney                           /s/ Gregory J. Halpern
---------------------------------            -----------------------------------
Dana L. Dabney (Secretary - CRGQ)            Gregory J. Halpern (CEO)
#### Taylor-Warner Corporation, Respondent, v Myron Minskoff et al., Appellants.

In an action, *inter alia,*to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Collins, J.), entered January 11, 1989, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

*383In 1983, the defendant developer Garden City Plaza, Inc. (hereinafter GCP) purchased a parcel of undeveloped land in Garden City for the purpose of constructing a condominium complex. GCP contracted with the plaintiff Taylor-Warner Corporation (hereinafter TWC) to be its exclusive sales agent for the condominium units. GCP experienced difficulties in financing the project and the condominiums were never built. Finally, in March 1987, GCP sold the still-undeveloped land to a third party. TWC then commenced this action against GCP and Myron Minskoff, the president, a director and the majority shareholder of GCP, to recover damages for breach of contract.

The defendants have met their burden of sufficiently establishing, as a matter of law, entitlement to summary judgment in their favor *(see, Frank Corp. v Federal Ins. Co.,*70 NY2d 966). Once a prima facie showing has been made, the burden shifts to the opposing party who "must produce evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to require a trial of material questions of fact * * * or must demonstrate acceptable excuse for his failure to meet the requirement of tender in admissible form” *(Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557, 562). Mere conclusions or unsubstantiated allegations are insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact *(Frank Corp. v Federal Ins. Co., supra).*

In this case, TWC’s papers in opposition to the motion for summary judgment are fatally deficient with respect to the issue of breach of contract. The defendants effectively terminated the contract in compliance with a 30-day notice of termination provision *(see, New York Tel. Co. v Jamestown Tel. Corp.,*282 NY 365, 373; *Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v Graver Tank & Mfg. Co.,*470 F Supp 1308, 1316 [applying New York law]; *see also, Alco Std. Corp. v Schmid Bros.,*647 F Supp 4, 7 [applying New York law]). Although the cited cases do not impose a good-faith restriction on a unilateral termination clause, the defendants, in any event, did not act in bad faith when they sold the undeveloped land after years of trying to secure financing, without success, for the project. Further, TWC’s claim sounding in quantum meruit must be dismissed, as it arises from the same subject matter covered by the contract *(see, Clark-Fitzpatrick, Inc. v Long Is. R. R. Co.,*70 NY2d 382, 388).

In light of our determination, we need not address the defendants’ other contention. Thompson, J. P., Lawrence, Fiber and Ritter, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0001051827
<NAME>                        MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED FUNDING III, L.P.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        DEC-25-1998
<PERIOD-START>                           JAN-16-1998
<PERIOD-END>                             DEC-25-1998
<CASH>                                       421,119
<SECURITIES>                             909,657,166
<RECEIVABLES>                             15,759,566
<ALLOWANCES>                                       0
<INVENTORY>                                        0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                         925,837,851
<PP&E>                                             0
<DEPRECIATION>                                     0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           925,837,851
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     15,759,566
<BONDS>                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                              773,196,000
<COMMON>                                 136,882,285
<OTHER-SE>                                         0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             925,837,851
<SALES>                                            0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          60,684,523
<CGS>                                              0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           60,684,523
<INCOME-TAX>                                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       60,684,523
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                              60,684,523
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      0
        


</TABLE>
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**







Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned Officer of Flagship Global Health,
      Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that the
      Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A for the year ended December 31, 2006
      (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section
      15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.









/s/
      Philip E. Barak


Philip
      E.
      Barak


Chief
      Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer







Date:
      May
      2, 2007
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3053 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3053

 To amend title 38, United States Code, to extend the authority of the 
 Secretary of Veterans Affairs to carry out the Department of Veterans 
            Affairs Health Professional Scholarship Program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             August 2, 2013

   Ms. Sinema (for herself and Mr. Roe of Tennessee) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans' 
                                Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 38, United States Code, to extend the authority of the 
 Secretary of Veterans Affairs to carry out the Department of Veterans 
            Affairs Health Professional Scholarship Program.

    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 ``Healthcare for our Heroes Act''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS HEALTH PROFESSIONAL 
              SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM.

    Section 7619 of title 38, United States Code, is amended by 
striking ``December 31, 2014'' and inserting ``December 31, 2016''.
                                 <all>
```
#### TOWN OF STRATFORD *v.*INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIREFIGHTERS, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 998

The Supreme Court docket number is SC 15966.

*Richard J. Buturla,*in support of the petition.

Decided July 2, 1998

The plaintiffs petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 48 Conn. App. 849 (AC 16764), is granted, limited to the following issues:

“1. Whether the Appellate Court properly concluded that the trial court improperly vacated the arbitration award on the ground that the arbitration panel failed to apply the doctrine of collateral estoppel "with respect to a prior arbitration award on the same issue?

“2. Whether the Appellate Court properly concluded that the trial court improperly inteipreted the public policy exception as a basis for vacating the arbitration award as to the grievance no. 91-03?

“3. Whether the Appellate Court properly concluded that the arbitrators did not exceed their powers under General Statutes § 52-418 (a)?”