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

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1032 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1032

  To expand the eligibility of veterans for hospital care and medical 
    services provided by non-Department of Veterans Affairs medical 
              providers under the Veterans Choice Program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 14, 2017

  Mr. Byrne introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To expand the eligibility of veterans for hospital care and medical 
    services provided by non-Department of Veterans Affairs medical 
              providers under the Veterans Choice 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 ``Full Choice for Veterans Act''.

SEC. 2. EXPANSION OF ELIGIBILITY FOR NON-DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 
              MEDICAL CARE UNDER VETERANS' CHOICE PROGRAM.

    Subsection (b) of section 101 of the Veterans Access, Choice, and 
Accountability Act of 2014 (Public Law 113-146; 38 U.S.C. 1701 note) is 
amended to read as follows:
    ``(b) Eligible Veterans.--A veteran is an eligible veteran for 
purposes of this section if the veteran is enrolled in the patient 
enrollment system of the Department of Veterans Affairs established and 
operated under section 1705 of title 38, United States Code, including 
any such veteran who has not received hospital care or medical services 
from the Department and has contacted the Department seeking an initial 
appointment from the Department for the receipt of such care or 
services.''.
                                 <all>
```
**EXHIBIT 31.1**Certification of the Principal Executive OfficerPursuant to 15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)(Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)I, Morris H. Wheeler, the President and Chief Executive Officer of Cohesant Technologies Inc. (the“Company”), certify that:(1) I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of the Company;(2) Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary tomake the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered bythis report;(3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofthe Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report.(4) The Company’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Company andwe have:(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to bedesigned under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Company’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in thisreport our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation;and
 

 
(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the Company’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurredduring the Company’s most recent fiscal quarter (theCompany’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the Company’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and(5) The Company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,to the Company’s auditors and the audit committee of Company’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknessesin the design or operation of internal controls overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the Company’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant rolein the Company’s internal controls over financialreporting.   /s/ Morris H. Wheeler  Morris H. Wheeler  Cohesant Technologies Inc.  President and Chief Executive Officer
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, the Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of American Science and Engineering, Inc. (the “Company”), does hereby certify that to the undersigned’s knowledge:

 

1.                    the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2011(“10-K”) 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 Company’s 10-K being filed fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company

 

Date: June 9, 2011

 
|     | /s/ KENNETH J. GALAZNIK                                            |
|----------|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
|     | Kenneth J. Galaznik                                                |
| * * | *Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer   and   Treasurer* |

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to American Science and Engineering, Inc. and will be retained by American Science and Engineering, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
# Alert

# Alert

# Persistent Identifiers (PIDs)

                The Department of Energy's Office of Scientific and Technical Information (DOE OSTI) offers persistent identifier (PID) services to the DOE community                 and the US Government. A PID is a digital identifier that is globally unique, persistent, machine resolvable, has an associated metadata schema,                 identifies an entity, and is frequently used to disambiguate between entities.            

PIDs forData
                OSTI provides DOIs for DOE-funded research data through the free DOE Data ID Service and to partnering US government                 agencies through the Interagency DOI Service.            

PIDs forSoftware
                OSTI provides DOIs for DOE-funded software through the DOE software services platform and search tool DOE CODE.                 DOIs are optionally assigned when submitting software to OSTI and automatically assigned through the formal software announcement process.            

PIDs forText Documents
                OSTI automatically assigns DOIs to DOE-funded technical reports, workshop reports, conference posters,                 and presentations submitted to OSTI through the E-Link submission system.            

PIDs forAwards
                OSTI provides the Award DOI Service for DOE organizations to assign DOIs to awards, grants, and contracts.            

PIDs forPeople
                OSTI leads the US Government ORCID Consortium for US government organizations who would like to use, collect, and                 integrate ORCID iDs into their research workflows.            

PIDs forOrganizations
                OSTI maintains an internal organization authority that maps organization names to organization PIDs such as ROR, DOI, Wikidata, and Ringgold identifiers.            

## Connecting Persistent Identifiers

                    Persistent identifiers (PIDs) provide ways to connect research components and make those connections                    easier to identify. PIDs can be associated with research outputs such as articles, data, and software,                    as well as people, organizations, and funding. PIDs promote FAIR practices by supporting linkages,                    providing increased discoverability, and enabling interoperability between research components.                

Explore the way to connect PIDs »

## Impact of Using Persistent Identifiers

                    As more organizations begin connecting research components using persistent identifiers (PIDs),                    individual researchers, research-conducting organizations, and funding organizations can better                    understand the impact of their work. One example to explore impact and the influence of a journal articles is by looking at article citations over time.                

Explore measuring impact through PID adoption »
Exhibit 23


















Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm








We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-141344, 33-67114, and 333-17695 of AMREP Corporation on Form S-8 and in Registration Statement No. 333-141861 of AMREP Corporation on Form S-3 of our reports dated July 21, 2010 relating to our audits of the consolidated financial statements and the financial statement schedule appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of AMREP Corporation for the year ended April 30, 2010.








/s/ McGladrey & Pullen, LLP


Cedar Rapids, Iowa


July 21, 2010
Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission
Commission Monthly Case Activity for September 2013

1.Cases Pending Beginning of Month 39
2.Cases Added to Docket 

BP Products North America, Inc., & BP-Husky Refining, LLC 
No. 10-0637
Direction for Review on 9/16/13

ComTran Group
No. 11-0646
Mandate from Eleventh Circuit received on 9/19/13

2
3.Cases Subtracted From Docket

Piedmont Mechanical, Inc.
No. 11-2562
Remand Order on 9/26/13

ComTran Group
No. 11-0646
Remand Order on 9/26/13

Jim Boyd Construction, Inc.
No. 11-2559
Remand Order on 9/26/13

Quinlan Enterprises
No. 12-1698
Remand Order on 9/26/13

Monroe Drywall Construction, Inc.
No. 12-0379
Decision on 9/30/13

-54.Total Cases Pending End of Month36
November 20, 2014

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

GIJOY TECHNOLOGY, INC. AND GILBERT CRUZ, Appellants

NO. 14-14-00597-CV V.

JAMES WASHINGTON & PRENTICE AND HELEN SLAUGHTER, Appellees

________________________________

Today the Court heard its own motion to dismiss the appeal from the 

judgment signed by the court below on May 1, 2014. Having considered the 

motion and found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED.

We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by 

appellants, Gijoy Technology, Inc. and Gilbert Cruz.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
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 on Form 10-K of American Express
Credit Corporation (the Company) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), Anderson Y. Lee, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby
certifies, 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/ Anderson
 Y. Lee              |  | 
|                                  |  | 
|Name: Anderson
 Y. Lee            | 
|Title:   Chief
 Financial Officer | 
|Date:   March
 31, 2011           | 

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-K or as a separate
disclosure document for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), or otherwise subject to liability
under that section. This certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated
by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or
the Exchange Act except to the extent that this Exhibit 32.2 is expressly and
specifically incorporated by reference in any such filing.

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.

E-11

---
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

June 23, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

135524 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices 

v SC: 135524 

 COA: 281912 

Wayne CC: 88-014968-01-FC;

88-014969-01-FH;

88-014970-01-FC;

88-014971-01-FC 

MARK TYLER ANTHONY,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 12, 2007 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant’s 

motion for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G). 

KELLY, J., not participating because of her participation, while a member of the 

Court of Appeals, in the affirmance of defendant’s conviction. 

p0616 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

June 23, 2008 

 Clerk
Exhibit 32.1









**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350**


**(As adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2003)**









For the Quarterly Report of Zenex International, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2004 (the "Report"), the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company hereby certify 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 as of and for the periods covered in the Report.
| | ---- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

****Date: November 19, 2004
By:
/s/ Ron CarteRon CartePresident (Principal Executive Officer)




****By:
/s/ Tammy BeardTammy BeardChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
GRANT AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT CLOSEOUT CHECKLIST

Grant Recipient _________________________________________________

Type of Grant: Regulatory (A&E)_____ Abandoned Mine Land_____

 Watershed Cooperative Agreement_____

 Other_____________________________________________

Grant Identifiers: Grant Number_____________________

 Application Number_________________

Date Complete Closeout Information Received__________

Grant Closeout Due Date___________________________

Part A. Has the Recipient: Y N NA

1. Stated in the transmittal that it considers the grant to be complete, that payments from 

OSM for all allowable costs have been made, and that OSM is released from all obligations

under or arising from the grant?

2. Submitted an inventory of federally-owned property received under the grant?

3. Submitted an inventory of grant-purchased property requesting disposal or transfer to 

another grant?

4. Reported program income and sale of equipment in accordance with the program 

income option in the grant award?

Part B. Has the OSM Reviewing Office: Y N NA

1. Reviewed documentation of in-kind services? 

2. Checked that expenditures and drawdowns agree with amounts in FBMS?

3. Prepared a brief written evaluation of the recipient’s performance and placed a copy in 

the grant file?

4. Approved the transfer or disposition of grant-purchased property to another grant?

5. Reconciled the inventory of federally-owned property reported to OSM records, and 

approved the transfer to a subsequent grant?

6. Closed the grant or processed the final amendment? 
GRANT AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT CLOSEOUT CHECKLIST - Continued

Part C. Closeout Documentation DATE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Evaluation Report (Monitoring Statement)

Inventory of Grant-Purchased Equipment

Inventory of Federally-Owned Equipment

Closeout Checklist

Other Documents (Explain) 

Part D. Financial Information DATE

Amount Awarded

Less Expenditures

Amount Deobligated

$ 

$ 

$ 

 

Downtime, please explain:

Recommended Action:

Prepared by Date Prepared ____________
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OFTITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Pursuant to Section 1350,Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, the President and ChiefExecutive Officer of American Science & Engineering, Inc. (the “Company”),does hereby certify that to the undersigned’s knowledge:

 

1.                     the Company’s AnnualReport on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2008 (“10-K”) fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.                       the information contained in the Company’s10-K being filed fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operation of the Company

 
| Date: June 12,  2008 |                                     |
|---------------------------|------------------------------------------|
|                      | /s/ ANTHONY R.  FABIANO                  |
|                      | Anthony R.  Fabiano                      |
|                      | *President  and Chief Executive Officer* |

 

A signed originalof this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided toAmerican Science & Engineering, Inc. and will be retained byAmerican Science & Engineering, Inc. and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

.

R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-30135

Summary Calendar

HENRY WILSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS; CITY OF NEW ORLEANS DEPARTMENT OF

HEALTH; CITY OF NEW ORLEANS DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY AND PERMITS,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

(No. 00-CV-3115-R)

_________________________________________________________________ October 15, 2002

Before BARKSDALE, DEMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Henry Wilson appeals a summary judgment dismissing his 42

U.S.C. § 1983 action against the City of New Orleans and two of its

departments (collectively “the City”). (He does n ot contest the

d ismissal of his state-law claims.) Wilson contends the City

denied him due process of law by failing to provide sufficientnotice of a hearing and adjudication concerning the demolition of

his property in New Orleans.

We review a grant of summary judgment de novo

. E .g., Amburgey

v. Corhart Refractories Corp. , 936 F.2d 805, 809 (5th Cir. 1991).

Such judgment is proper when, viewing the evidence in the light

most favorable to the non-movant, “‘there is no genuine issue as to

any material fac t and ... the moving party is entitled to [a]

judgment as a matter of law.’” I d. (quoting F ED

. R. C IV

. P. 56(c)).

Wilson alleged no specific facts that, if accepted as true,

would establish a municipal policy or custom to provide inadequate

notice, as he must do to establish municipal liability under 42

U.S.C. § 1983. S ee

, e.g.

, Johnson v. Moore

, 958 F.2d 92, 93-94

(5 th Cir. 1992). Allegations of a policy or custom and its

relationship to a constitutional violation cannot be conclusional

but must contain speci fic facts. S ee, e.g., Spiller v. City of

Texas City, Police Dep’t

, 130 F.3d 162, 167 (5th Cir. 1997) (citing

Fraire v. Arlington , 957 F.2d 1268, 1278 (5th Cir.), cert. denied

506 U.S. 973 (1992))

.

Nor did Wilson offer any summary-judgment evidence relevant to

a policy or custom. He contends that a single decision may

constitute a policy or custom, but he does not ex plain how that

principle applies here. Instead, he a sserts that “various

witnesses” will establis h “a clear and continuing series of

practices” that violate constitutional due-process requirements.

Needless to say, such conclusions do not avoid dismissal. S ee3

Spiller

, 130 F.3d at 167. Because Wilson fails to show a policy

or custom, the judgment is AFFIRMED

. S ee Bickford v. Int’l

Speedway Corp.

, 654 F.2d 1028, 1031 (5th Cir. 1981) (appellate

court may a ffirm “on any grounds, regardless of whether those

grounds were used by the district court”).

AFFIRMED