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

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 601

To improve the foreign language assistance program.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 11, 1999

Mr. COCHRAN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

A BILL

To improve the foreign language assistance program.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Foreign Language

5 Education Improvement Amendments Act of 1999’’.

6 SEC. 2. FOREIGN LANGUAGE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

7 (a) FEDERAL SHARE.—Section 7203 of the Foreign

8 Language Assistance Act of 1994 (20 U.S.C. 7513) is

9 amended—

10 (1) in subsection (a)(2), by striking ‘‘three

11 years’’ and inserting ‘‘not less than three and not

12 more than five years’’;
2

•S 601 IS

1 (2) in subsection (b), by adding at the end the

2 following:

3 ‘‘(3) HEAVILY IMPACTED SCHOOLS.—The Sec4 retary shall use 50 percent of the funds appro5 priated to carry out this part for a fiscal year to

6 award grants for foreign language programs serving

7 students in elementary schools or secondary schools

8 described in section 1114(a)(1)(B), and notwith9 standing subsection (c) the Federal share of the cost

10 of such programs shall be 100 percent.’’; and

11 (3) in subsection (c)—

12 (A) by striking paragraph (2); and

13 (B) by redesignating paragraphs (3) and

14 (4) as paragraphs (2) and (3), respectively.

15 (b) APPLICATIONS.—Section 7204(b) of the Foreign

16 Language Assistance Act of 1994 (20 U.S.C. 7514(b)) is

17 amended—

18 (1) by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as

19 paragraphs (4) and (5);

20 (2) by inserting after paragraph (1) the follow21 ing:

22 ‘‘(2) make effective use of technology such as

23 computer assisted instruction, language laboratories,

24 or distance learning;
3

•S 601 IS

1 ‘‘(3) promote innovative activities such as im2 mersion, partial immersion, or content-based in3 struction;’’;

4 (3) in paragraph (4) (as redesignated by para5 graph (1)), by striking ‘‘or’’ after the semicolon;

6 (4) in paragraph (5) (as redesignated by para7 graph (1)), by striking the period and inserting ‘‘;

8 or’’; and

9 (5) by adding at the end the following:

10 ‘‘(6) involve consortia with elementary schools

11 or secondary schools.’’.

12 (c) INCENTIVE PAYMENTS.—Section 7205(a) of the

13 Foreign Language Assistance Act of 1994 (20 U.S.C.

14 7515(a)) is amended by striking ‘‘provides to students at15 tending such school’’ and inserting ‘‘initiates’’.

16 (d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Section

17 7206 of the Foreign Language Assistance Act of 1994 (20

18 U.S.C. 7516) is amended—

19 (1) by striking ‘‘$35,000,000 for the fiscal year

20 1995’’ and inserting ‘‘$50,000,000 for fiscal year

21 2000’’; and

22 (2) by striking ‘‘$20,000,000’’ and inserting

23 ‘‘$25,000,000’’.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE STATEMENTS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1999 AND AS
OF JUNE 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                    0000925664
<NAME> ST. JAMES GROUP, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                    1
<CURRENCY>                      US dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Mar-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 Apr-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   Jun-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         0
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2,021
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       1,246
<OTHER-SE>                                     (3,267)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   0
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  15
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (15)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (15)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (15)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.00)




</TABLE>
#### Will of Anna Limberger: Volkmann, Executor, Appelant, vs. Oldenburg and another, Respondents.

For the appellant: *John P. Retser*and *H. R. Neubauer,*both of Milwaukee.

For the respondents : *Timlin, Dean & Klug*of Milwaukee.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.
#### JOS. M. S. ROGERS *v.*B. W. GOODWIN.

When a verdict upon issues sent for trial from this court to a Superior-Court, is, in the opinion of the Judge who presided, contrary to the weight of the evidence ; or in case .of any other miscarriage by the court, or the jury, such Judge has full power to grant a new trial.

Oases in equity pending at the adoption of the present constitution, cannot now be *transferred*for trial to this court; they must be heard below, and can only be constituted here *by appeal.*

*(Peebles*v. *Peebles,*63 N. C. 656, cited and approved.)

*279Motion for a new trial of *issues,*made before *Watts, J.,*at Fall Term 1870 of Northampton Court.

Tbe issues bad been sent for trial bom tbis court.

No statement of tbe facts is necessary.

*Bragg,*for tbe motion.

*Peebles, contra.*

Pearson, C. J.

His Honor was of opinion, that tbe verdict was against tbe weight of tbe evidence; but be doubted bis power to set aside tbe verdict and order a new trial, and on that ground refused tbe motion.

On tbe argument before us, it was properly conceded that bis Honor bad tbe power, and tbe only question was upon tbe construction of tbe words used by bim in sending up tbe issues.

We are satisfied that be would bave ordered a new trial, but for bis doubt in regard to tbe power to do so on tbe “ trial of issues ” sent from tbis court.

Upon tbe trial of issues of fact sent down by tbis court, tbe Judge in tbe court below bas fall power to correct any miscarriage of tbe jury or any error that may bave been committed by bimself, in respect to tbe admission or rejection of evidence, or in bis charge, by granting a new trial. In these respects bis power is tbe same as on tbe trial of actions: *Peebles*v. *Peebles,*63 N. C. 656. Tbe English precedents in regard to issues sent by a Court of Equity, are not applicable. Ours is a new system which rests on tbe provision of tbe constitution, “No issue of fact shall be tried before tbe Supreme Court.” Art. 4, sec. 10.

We take occasion to say that tbe statute allowing cases in equity to be transferred to tbe Supreme Court for trial, is repealed, by tbe effect of tbe constitution creating tbis court as a “ Court of Appeal.”

Equity cases pending before tbe adoption of the constitu*280tion, must be beard and disposed of below, and can only be constituted in this court by appeal.

Tbe verdict must be set aside, and a new trial of tbe *issues*ordered.

Pee, Curiam. Ordered accordingly.
II

Calendar No. 55

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 392

To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located

at West 920 Riverside Avenue in Spokane, Washington, as the ‘‘Thomas

S. Foley Federal Building and United States Courthouse’’, and the

plaza at the south entrance of that building and courthouse as the

‘‘Walter F. Horan Plaza’’.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

FEBRUARY 8, 1999

Mrs. MURRAY (for herself and Mr. GORTON) introduced the following bill;

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and

Public Works

MARCH 17, 1999

Reported by Mr. CHAFEE, without amendment

A BILL

To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located at West 920 Riverside Avenue in Spokane,

Washington, as the ‘‘Thomas S. Foley Federal Building

and United States Courthouse’’, and the plaza at the

south entrance of that building and courthouse as the

‘‘Walter F. Horan Plaza’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

S 392 RS

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF THOMAS S. FOLEY FEDERAL

2 BUILDING AND UNITED STATES COURT3 HOUSE.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Federal building and United

5 States courthouse located at West 920 Riverside Avenue

6 in Spokane, Washington, shall be known and designated

7 as the ‘‘Thomas S. Foley Federal Building and United

8 States Courthouse’’.

9 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg10 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United

11 States to the Federal building and United States court12 house referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be

13 a reference to the ‘‘Thomas S. Foley Federal Building and

14 United States Courthouse’’.

15 SEC. 2. DESIGNATION OF WALTER F. HORAN PLAZA.

16 (a) IN GENERAL.—The plaza located at the south en17 trance of the Federal building and United States court18 house referred to in section 1(a) shall be known and des19 ignated as the ‘‘Walter F. Horan Plaza’’.

20 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg21 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United

22 States to the plaza referred to in subsection (a) shall be

23 deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Walter F. Horan Plaza’’.

24 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

25 This Act takes effect on March 6, 1999.

Calendar No. 55

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 392

A BILL

To designate the Federal building and United

F. Horan Plaza’’.of that building and courthouse as the ‘‘WalterCourthouse’’, and the plaza at the south entranceS. Foley Federal Building and United StatesAvenue in Spokane, Washington, as the ‘‘ThomasStates courthouse located at West 920 Riverside

MARCH 17, 1999

Reported without amendment
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**





CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT
      TO


18
      U.S.C.
      SECTION 1350,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002














I,
      Albert
      E. Sisto, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
      to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of hi/fn,
      inc. on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2006 fully complies
      with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
      Act
      of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly
      presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of
      operations of hi/fn, inc.








/s/
                ALBERT E. SISTOAlbert
                E. SistoInterim
                Chief Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 591 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 591

  To authorize a feasibility study for the preservation of the Loess 
                         Hills in western Iowa.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 11, 1999

 Mr. Grassley introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To authorize a feasibility study for the preservation of the Loess 
                         Hills in western Iowa.

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

SECTION 1. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

    (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
            (1) the Loess Hills spread across 600,000 acres of land in 
        Fremont, Harrison, Mills, Monona, Plymouth, Pottawattamie, and 
        Woodbury counties in western Iowa;
            (2) soil deposited by wind over many centuries formed the 
        Loess Hills, which support several species of rare native 
        prairie grass;
            (3) the Loess Hills and 1 other similar formation in China 
        are the only 2 formations of their kind in the world; and
            (4) the Loess Hills are rare and valuable natural 
        formations of the State of Iowa and of the United States.
    (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to authorize the Secretary 
of the Interior to conduct a feasibility study to determine what 
measures should be taken to preserve the Loess Hills in western Iowa.

SEC. 2. FEASIBILITY STUDY.

    (a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment 
of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall conduct a study to 
determine what measures may be taken to preserve the Loess Hills in 
western Iowa.
    (b) Consultation.--In completing the study under subsection (a), 
the Secretary shall consult with representatives of--
            (1) State and local agencies;
            (2) nonprofit groups; and
            (3) other interested parties.
    (c) Report.--Not later than 60 days after the completion of the 
study under subsection (a), the Secretary shall submit a report 
describing the results of the study to--
            (1) the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the 
        Senate; and
            (2) the Committee on Resources of the House of 
        Representatives.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this Act 
$275,000.
                                 <all>
```
# John F. Hanzel, P.A.

John F. Hanzel, Esq. jfh@nclawoffice.com Licensed in NC & VA

Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue SW Wilbur Wright Building Suite 2Wl000 Washington, D.C. 20591 Attorneys at Law

September 25,2013

Attention: HearingDocket Clerk, AGC-430 David A. Grassi, Esq. I Licensed in NC David@nclawoffice.com Matthew L Spencer, Esq. 

### I Licensed in NC mspencer@nclawoffice.com 

# RECEIVED SEP 302013 

## HEARING 

## DOCKET

Re: Request for Hearing; Airport Mailers, Inc., Case No. 2012S0700256 Hearing Docket Clerk: OnAugust 14, 2013 our firm has beenretained by Airport Mailers, Inc. to draft a letter requesting that a hearing be scheduled to address the proposed civil penalty in the abovereferenced matterpursuantto 14 C.F.R. §13.16. Ourrepresentation was only limited to the drafting ofthe aforementioned letter as Airport Mailers, Inc.'s counsel, Mr. JohnL. Wright, was unavailable due to anunforeseenpersonal matter. Please letthis letter serve as formal notice that Mr. Wright is AirportMailer, Inc.'s counsel in this matter and that we do notrepresent Airport Mailer's Inc. Ifyouhave any questions, please feel free to contact me.

CC: James 

### H. Dunfee, Jr. JFH/mls

19425-G Liverpool Parkway 

## I Cornelius, North Carolina 28031 

## I office: 704-892-1375 

## I fax: 704-892-5784 www.nclawoffice.com
#### James B. Walker, plaintiff in error, *vs.*William H. Whitehead, defendant in error.

Where the judgment of this Court has been reversed upon writ of error to the Supreme Court of the United States, the judgment of said trinal will, on motion, be made the judgment of this Court. (R.)

Practice in the Supreme Court. Before the Supreme Court. July Term, 1873.

This case was carried by writ of error to the Supreme Court of the United States where the judgment of the Supreme Court of Georgia was reversed. Counsel for plaintiff in error moved to have the judgment of reversal made the judgment of this Court. The motion was resisted upon the ground that the judgment of this Court was final as between the parties to this case, whatever might be the effect of the judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States in establishing principles for the control of other cases. The objection was overruled, and the following order Avas passed:

*“*Whereas, the above case Avas carried to the Supreme Court of (he United States by Avrit of error to this Court, and the foregoing judgment was had reversing the judgment of this Court; upon motion of Hines & Hobbs, of counsel for plaintiff in error, it is ordered that the foregoing judgment of the Supreme Court be made the judgment of this Court; and the judgment of the Superior Court of Baker county, Georgia, be reversed, and said case reinstated and proceed according to law. And that the said James B. Walker recover of the said William H. Whitehead the sum of $59 98 costs in the Supreme Court of the United States, and $......, to be taxed by the clerk of this Court as costs in this Court.”

Hines *&*Hobbs, for the motion.

Richard F. Lyon, contra.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-2330

ANDREW CHIEN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

TIMOTHY J. HAULER; MARK R. HERRING; DONALD W. LEMONS,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, Senior District Judge. (3:19-cv-00235-HEH)

Submitted: April 16, 2020 Decided: April 20, 2020

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WYNN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Andrew Chien, Appellant Pro Se. Blaire Hawkins O’Brien, OFFICE OF THE 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Andrew Chien appeals the district court’s order granting Defendants’ motion to 

dismiss Chien’s civil action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Chien v. Hauler, 

No. 3:19-cv-00235-HEH (E.D. Va. Oct. 23, 2019). We deny as unnecessary Chien’s 

motion to avoid bias in selecting a three-judge panel for this appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
*March 14, 1944.*

#### McDonald, Appellant, vs. McDonald and another, Respondents.

For the appellant: *Lynn D. Jaseph*of Green Bay.

For the respondents : *Evrard & Evrard*of Green Bay.

*By the Court.*

Order affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2949 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2949

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to treat distributions from 
    publicly traded partnerships as qualifying income of regulated 
             investment companies, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 27, 2000

Mr. Gramm (for himself, Mr. Nickles, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Murkowski, and 
 Mr. Grassley) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to treat distributions from 
    publicly traded partnerships as qualifying income of regulated 
             investment companies, 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. DISTRIBUTIONS FROM PUBLICLY TRADED PARTNERSHIPS TREATED AS 
              QUALIFYING INCOME OF REGULATED INVESTMENT COMPANIES.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 851(b) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (defining regulated investment company) is amended 
by inserting ``distributions or other income derived from an interest 
in a publicly traded partnership (as defined in section 7704(b)),'' 
after ``dividends, interest,''.
    (b) Source Flow-Through Rule Not To Apply.--The last sentence of 
section 851(b) of such Code is amended by inserting ``(other than a 
publicly traded partnership (as defined in section 7704(b)))'' after 
``derived from a partnership''.

SEC. 2. SPECIAL PASSIVE ACTIVITY RULE FOR PUBLICLY TRADED PARTNERSHIPS 
              TO APPLY TO REGULATED INVESTMENT COMPANIES.

    Subsection (k) of section 469 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
(relating to separate application of section in case of publicly traded 
partnerships) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
paragraph:
            ``(4) Application to regulated investment companies.--For 
        purposes of this section, a regulated investment company (as 
        defined in section 851) holding an interest in a publicly 
        traded partnership shall be treated as a taxpayer described in 
        subsection (a)(2) with respect to items attributable to such 
        interest.''

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendments made by this Act shall apply to taxable years 
beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <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 Annual Report of Magma Design
Automation, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Gregory C. Walker, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify for the
purposes of section 1350 of chapter 63 of title 18 of the United States Code that, to the best of my knowledge,



(i) the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the period ended March 31, 2004 (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of
section 13(a) 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.



/s/ Gregory C. WalkerGregory C. Walker Senior Vice PresidentFinance and Chief Financial Officer  June 8, 2004




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
      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 SKRM Interactive, Inc. (the “Company”)
      on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2007 as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
      Pericles DeAvila **,** Chief
      Financial 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 to the best of
      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 operations of the Company.




/s/
                Pericles DeAvilaPericles
                DeAvila, Chief Financial Officer
              March
                  3, 2008