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

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 73

To make available funds under the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961 to provide Fulbright scholarships for Cuban nationals

to undertake graduate study in the social sciences.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 19, 1999

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

referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

A BILL

To make available funds under the Mutual Educational and

Cultural Exchange Act of 1961 to provide Fulbright

scholarships for Cuban nationals to undertake graduate

study in the social sciences.

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

3 SECTION 1. FULBRIGHT SCHOLARSHIPS FOR CUBAN NA4 TIONALS.

5 (a) AUTHORITY.—

6 (1) IN GENERAL.—The President is authorized

7 to provide scholarships under the Fulbright Aca8 demic Exchange Program in section 102 of the Mu-
2

•S 73 IS

1 tual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of

2 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2452) for nationals of Cuba who

3 seek to undertake graduate study in public health,

4 public policy, economics, law, or other field of social

5 science.

6 (2) PROHIBITION.—No official of the Cuban

7 government, or any member of the immediate family

8 of the official, shall be eligible to receive a scholar9 ship under paragraph (1).

10 (3) SUPERSEDING EXISTING LAW.—The author11 ity of paragraph (1) shall be exercised without re12 gard to any other provision of law.

13 (b) ALLOCATION OF FUNDS.—Of the amounts au14 thorized to be appropriated to carry out the Mutual Edu15 cational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C.

16 2451 et seq.) for fiscal years 2000 through 2004, the fol17 lowing amounts are authorized to be available to carry out

18 subsection (a):

19 (1) For fiscal year 2000, $1,400,000 for not to

20 exceed 20 scholarships.

21 (2) For fiscal year 2001, $1,750,000 for not to

22 exceed 25 scholarships.

23 (3) For fiscal year 2002, $2,450,000 for not to

24 exceed 35 scholarships.
3

•S 73 IS

1 (4) For fiscal year 2003, $2,450,000 for not to

2 exceed 35 scholarships.

3 (5) For fiscal year 2004, $2,450,000 for not to

4 exceed 35 scholarships.

Æ
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 850 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 850

 To make schools safer by waiving the local matching requirement under 
  the Community Policing program for the placement of law enforcement 
                       officers in local schools.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 21, 1999

  Mrs. Boxer introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To make schools safer by waiving the local matching requirement under 
  the Community Policing program for the placement of law enforcement 
                       officers in local schools.

    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 ``COPS in Schools Act of 1999''.

SEC. 2. WAIVER FOR LOCAL MATCH REQUIREMENT.

    Section 1701(i) of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act 
of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796dd(i)) is amended by adding at the end of the 
first sentence the following: ``The Attorney General shall waive the 
requirement under this subsection of a non-Federal contribution to the 
costs of a program, project, or activity that hires law enforcement 
officers for placement in public schools.''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.2:

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Hudson Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, James R. Buscemi, as Chief Financial 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:

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/ James R. Buscemi    
|-----------------------
|James R. Buscemi       
|Chief Financial Officer
|                       
|August 2, 2006
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                      JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                        JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                        0
<SECURITIES>                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                         1,741,047
<ALLOWANCES>                                  0
<INVENTORY>                                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                      1,744,668
<PP&E>                                9,459,993
<DEPRECIATION>                        6,859,279
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                        4,687,553
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                11,745,893
<BONDS>                                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                           1,475,360
<COMMON>                                    450
<OTHER-SE>                           (8,534,050)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>          4,687,553
<SALES>                                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                      2,203,039
<CGS>                                         0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                         1,848,553
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                      1,938,162
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      328,552
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               0
<INCOME-TAX>                                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           0
<DISCONTINUED>                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                         (1,912,228)
<EPS-BASIC>                                (.85)
<EPS-DILUTED>                              (.85)


</TABLE>
II

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 650

To amend the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 to provide for

coverage under that Act of employees of the Federal Government.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 17, 1999

Mr. WELLSTONE (for himself and Mr. KENNEDY) introduced the following

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

A BILL

To amend the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970

to provide for coverage under that Act of employees

of the Federal Government.

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 ‘‘Federal Employees

5 Safety Enhancement Act’’.

6 SEC. 2. COVERAGE OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES.

7 Section 3(5) of the Occupational Safety and Health

8 Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 652(5)) is amended to read as

9 follows:
2

•S 650 IS

1 ‘‘(5) The term ‘employer’ means a person en2 gaged in a business affecting commerce who has em3 ployees, including the United States and the United

4 States Postal Service, but does not include any State

5 or political subdivision of a State.’’.

Æ
* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. SeeFed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### February 25, 2009 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT JENNY L. PURKETT, Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 08-1419 v. (D. Colorado) ROBERT M. GATES, Defendant - Appellee. (D.C. No. 1:07-CV-00019-EWN-BNB)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before HARTZ , McKAY , and O’BRIEN , Circuit Judges. Jenny L. Purkett appeals the district court’s summary judgment dismissing her equal-employment-opportunity complaint as untimely. For the reasons stated in the magistrate judge’s recommendation, we hold that the judgment below was correct.-2- The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. ENTERED FOR THE COURT Harris L Hartz Circuit Judge
Tax Indemnity Letters



 Exhibit 10.36 

Column A 
 Column B 

 Column C 

Re: Tax Payables 
 Dear
Column D: 
 In connection with that certain Loan Agreement, Equity Pledge Agreement and Exclusive Business Cooperation Agreement
entered into among Column B, Shanghai Rampage Shopping Co., Ltd. (“Rampage Shopping”) and Rampage Trading (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. on the date hereof (the “Agreements”), Rampage Shopping will
reimburse Column B for any and all taxes payable by Column B arising from the transactions contemplated under the Agreements. 
  

	
	Sincerely,
	
	Shanghai Rampage Shopping Co., Ltd.
	
	[seal: Shanghai Rampage Shopping Co., Ltd.]

  

			
	AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED BY:
	
	     /s/ Column B

	(Signature of Column B)
		
	By:	 	Column B

  

 1 









									
	 	  	Column A	  	Column B	  	 Column C
	  	Column D
	1	  	May 18, 2010	  	Xu Yi	  	 Room 701, No. 2, Lane 925, South Zhong Shan Road
(2nd), Shanghai, China
	  	Mr. Xu
	2	  	May 18, 2010	  	Zhang Bang	  	 Room 1408, No. 29, Shui Yin Road, Yue Xiu District, Guangzhou, China
	  	Mr. Zhang
	3	  	Sep 17, 2010	  	Liu Guisheng	  	 Room 601, No. 6, Lane 157 Zhenhua Road Shanghai, China
	  	Mr. Liu

  

 2
DATOS

RÁPIDOS

Para más información:

Departamento de Trabajo

de los EE. UU.

Hilda L. Solis, Secretaria de Trabajo

www.osha.gov (800) 321-OSHA (6742)

Administración de 

Seguridad y Salud 

Ocupacional

Prácticas Seguras 

de Trabajo en el 

Procesamiento de Aves

Los trabajadores en las 

plantas de procesamiento 

enfrentan muchos riesgos, 

incluyendo manejo de 

equipos y químicos 

peligrosos, superficies 

resbalosas, altos niveles 

de sonido y movimientos 

repetitivos.

Las siguientes medidas de 

seguridad pueden prevenir lesiones o enfermedades:

• Asegúrese que todas las maquinarias estén 

adecuadamente protegidas, antes de comenzar 

su trabajo.

• Asegúrese de que el equipo este apagado durante las 

actividades de limpieza y mantenimiento. Siempre 

cierre el equipo con candado, o ponga un rotulo para 

evitar que las maquinarías sean puestas en marcha 

involuntariamente. 

• Mantenga los pisos, desagües y superficies limpias; 

y libres de excesos de carne y grasa para prevenir 

resbalones. 

• Cuando sea necesario, utilice ropa y gafas de 

protección; protección auditiva y respiratoria; y 

zapatos antideslizantes. 

• Reporte a la gerencia síntomas iniciales de lesiones 

de movimientos repetitivos. Estos síntomas pueden 

incluir: dolor en las manos o entumecimiento; 

endurecimiento de los dedos; hinchazón en las manos, 

muñecas, o antebrazos; y dolor de espalda u hombros.

• Busque atención medica si usted sufre un rasguño o 

corte en su piel o si usted está sangrando.

• Si algún líquido salpica en sus ojos, enjuáguese 

inmediatamente con agua para prevenir infecciones.

Usted tiene derecho a reportar las condiciones inseguras 

o peligrosas en su trabajo, sin temor a represalias.

Foto: National Chicken Council
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1
                           K-Tron International, Inc.
                              List of Subsidiaries*

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                          State or Jurisdiction
Name of Subsidiary                                                        of Incorporation
<S>                                                                       <C>
K-Tron Investment Co.....................................................  Delaware
        Hurricane Pneumatic Conveying Inc................................  Canada
        K-Tron America, Inc..............................................  Delaware
        K-Tron (Schweiz) AG..............................................  Switzerland
                 K-Tron Asia Pacific Holding Pte Ltd.....................  Singapore
                           K-Tron Asia Pacific Pte.......................  Singapore
                 K-Tron China Ltd...... .................................  China
                 K-Tron Deutschland GmbH.................................  Germany
                 K-Tron France S.a.r.l...................................  France
                 K-Tron Great Britain Ltd................................  England
K-Tron Technologies, Inc.................................................  Delaware
</TABLE>


*    Pursuant to applicable Securities and Exchange Commission regulations, the
     Registrant has omitted those subsidiaries which when considered in the
     aggregate as a single subsidiary, would not have been considered a
     significant subsidiary as of the end of fiscal year 1999.
II

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 846

To make available funds for a security assistance training and support

program for the self-defense of Kosova.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

APRIL 21, 1999

Mr. MCCONNELL (for himself and Mr. LIEBERMAN) introduced the following

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

A BILL

To make available funds for a security assistance training

and support program for the self-defense of Kosova.

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 ‘‘Kosova Self-Defense

5 Act of 1999’’.

6 SEC. 2. POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES.

7 It shall be the policy of the United States to provide

8 the interim government of Kosova with the capability to

9 defend and protect the civilian population of Kosova

10 against armed aggression.
2

•S 846 IS

1 SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR SECU2 RITY ASSISTANCE.

3 (a) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—In addi4 tion to funds otherwise available to carry out section 23

5 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2763), there

6 are authorized to be appropriated to the President to carry

7 out the provisions of such section, $25,000,000, which

8 amount shall be made available only for grants to the in9 terim government of Kosova to be used for training and

10 support for the established self-defense forces to carry out

11 the policy of section 2.

12 (b) AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS.—Amounts appro13 priated pursuant to subsection (a) are authorized to re14 main available until expended.

15 SEC. 4. RELATION TO EXISTING AUTHORITIES IN LAW.

16 Assistance provided under section 3 may be made

17 available notwithstanding any other provision of law (in18 cluding any executive order or directive or any rule or reg19 ulation).

Æ
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

** **

** **

**CERTIFICATION**

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

**(Subsection (a) and (b) of Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code)**

** **

     Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code), the undersigned officer of Alexander’s, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:

 

     The Annual Report on Form 10-K for year ended December 31, 2009**(the “Report”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

** **

|              |   |   |
|-------------------|--------|--------|
| February 22, 2010 |   |   | /s/ Joseph Macnow |
|              |   | Name:  | Joseph Macnow |
|              |   | Title: | Chief Financial Officer |
|                   |        |        |  |  |

 

 

----
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

January 22, 2016

Order 

January 22, 2016

151679(25)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v

JAMES RODNEY PERNA,

Defendant-Appellant.

SC: 151679

COA: 325132

Crawford CC: 2013-003572-FH

________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of plaintiff-appellee to extend the Courtordered time for filing an answer to the application for leave to appeal is GRANTED. 

The answer will be accepted as timely filed if submitted on or before January 25, 2016.
#### T. J. MERONEY v. ALPHONSO C. AVERY, Executor, &c.

Objections to the competency of testimony, must be taken in due time, if not, they are waived; *Therefore,*where a party was allowed to testify upon examination in chief, to a conversation between himself and the defendant’s testator, and during the cross-examination, the defendant objected to the competency of such testimony, and asked that it might be excluded; *Held,*that although incompetent, the objection to its reception came too late.

*(Whitesides*v. *Green, ante*307, cited and approved.)

Assumpsit, tried before Cloud, *J.,*at Fall Term 1869 of ÉOWAN Court.

Upon the trial, the plaintiff was introduced and testified, without objection, as to a conversation between himself and the testator in regard to the cause of *action;*upon his cross-examination he was asked if he were not plaintiff, and if Isaac T. Avery, the testator of the defendant, were not dead. Upon his answering in the affirmative, the defendant objected to the competency of his evidence as to the conversation.

His Honor held that all objection had been waived, and refused to exclude it.

Afterwards the defendant testified in regard to the same conversation.

*313Yerdict for the plaintiff. Rule, &c. Judgment and Appeal.

*Crcáge and Bailey,*for the appellant.

*Boy den, Blackmer & McOorMe and Clement, contra.*

Rodman, J.

The plaintiff was an incompetent witness to any transaction or communication with the testator of the defendant: C. C. P. § 343; *Whitesides*v. *Green, Admr.*decided at this term: hut the objection was waived, by not being taken in due time. An objection must be taken as soon as its existence becomes known: 1 Stark. Ev. 114; 1 Greenl. Ev. 461. The introduction of the defendant after-wards cannot affect this case.

Pee Curiam:. Judgment affirmed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

DENNIS A. HOWARD,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 102 EM 2017

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 31st day of October, 2017, the Petition for Review is DENIED.
#### White Construction Company, Appellant, vs. City of West Allis, Respondent.

*December 12, 1925*

January *12, 1926.*

This case is ruled by *White Construction Co. v. Beloit, ante,*p. 5.

Appeal from an order of the circuit court for Milwaukee county. Walter Sci-iinz, Circuit Judge.

*Affirmed.*

Action to recover under a contract with the defendant city for repair work done on defendant’s streets. The com*9plaint alleged that the contract ivas defectively executed and was not in compliance with the provisions of sec. 62.15, Stats. 1921, but alleged the passage of ch. 332, Laws of 1923, and claimed that the contract was thereby validated. The trial court sustained the defendant’s demurrer to the complaint, and the plaintiff appealed.

For the appellant there was a brief by *Olwell & Brady*and *George A. Gessner,*attorneys, and *George A. Gessner,*of counsel, all of Milwaukee, and oral argument by *Lawrence A. Olwell.*' ■

For the respondent there was a brief by *George M. Han-ley,*city attorney, and *Joseph E. Tierney*of Milwaukee, of counsel, .and oral argument by *Mr. Tierney.*

Vinje, C. J.

This case is ruled by the case of *White Construction Co. v. Beloit, ante,*p. 5, 206 N. W. 908.

*By the Court.*— Order affirmed.
Federal Aviation

Administration

Memorandum

Date: September 18, 2013

To: Docket No. FAA-2008-0677

Subject: Summary of Airlines for America Meeting with OIRA Regarding the FAA 

SNPRM on Qualification, Service and Use of Crewmembers and Aircraft 

Dispatchers Pursuant to Executive Order 12866

On September 17, 2013, representatives from Airlines for America (A4A) met with the Office of 

Management and Budget’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in accordance with 

Executive Order 12866 to discuss the FAA Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(SNPRM) on Qualification, Service and Use of Crewmembers and Aircraft Dispatchers. 

Representatives from the U.S. Department of Transportation’s General Counsel’s Office and the 

Federal Aviation Administration’s Chief Counsel’s Office participated in the meeting in a 

listening capacity only.

Consistent with comments on the SNPRM, A4A stated that it would support a final rule that 

addressed stall and upset prevention and recovery training as well as training for adverse weather 

events. However, A4A continues to object to the SNPRM. A4A discussed a number of 

additional issues previously stated in their comments submitted to the docket for this rulemaking. 

Specific concerns discussed by A4A are summarized as follows:

• The training environment has dramatically changed since the rulemaking project was 

initiated due to changes in technology, the evolution of Advanced Qualification Programs 

(AQP), and a reduction in accident rates.

• Neither the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) nor the SNPRM used available data 

to identify new crewmember training requirements.

• The NPRM and SNPRM would result in costs to carriers who use AQP to train 

crewmembers.

• In the cost and benefit analysis, the agency did not identify causal links between each 

new rule provision and the accidents used in the benefits analysis. As a result, the 

SNPRM contained provisions that would cause air carriers to incur costs without any 

corresponding benefit. Also, the period of the accident history analysis exceeds the 

period of time for the estimated cost analysis.