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

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1123 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to modify certain provisions 

relating to the capital financing of historically Black colleges and universities. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 16, 2017 

Ms. ADAMS (for herself, Mr. BYRNE, Ms. SEWELL of Alabama, and Mr. HILL) 

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 

Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to modify 

certain provisions relating to the capital financing of 

historically Black colleges and universities. 

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 ‘‘HBCU Capital Financ5 ing Improvement Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. BOND INSURANCE. 

7 Section 343 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 

8 U.S.C. 1066b) is amended— 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1123 IH

1 (1) by striking ‘‘escrow account’’ each place it 

2 appears and inserting ‘‘bond insurance fund’’; and 

3 (2) in subsection (b)— 

4 (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘an’’ and 

5 inserting ‘‘a’’; and 

6 (B) in paragraph (8), in the matter pre7 ceding subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘an’’ and 

8 inserting ‘‘a’’. 

9 SEC. 3. STRENGTHENING TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE. 

10 Paragraph (9) of section 345 of the Higher Edu11 cation Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1066d) is amended to read 

12 as follows: 

13 ‘‘(9) may, directly or by grant or contract, pro14 vide financial counseling and technical assistance to 

15 eligible institutions to prepare the institutions to 

16 qualify, apply for, and maintain a capital improve17 ment loan, including a loan under this part; and’’. 

18 SEC. 4. HBCU CAPITAL FINANCING ADVISORY BOARD. 

19 Paragraph (2) of section 347(c) of the Higher Edu20 cation Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1066f(c)) is amended to 

21 read as follows: 

22 ‘‘(2) REPORT.—On an annual basis, the Advi23 sory Board shall prepare and submit to the author24 izing committees a report on the status of the hisVerDate Sep 11 2014 23:10 Feb 23, 2017 Jkt 069200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H1123.IH H1123

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1123 IH

1 torically Black colleges and universities described in 

2 paragraph (1)(A). That report shall also include— 

3 ‘‘(A) an overview of all loans in the capital 

4 financing program, including the most recent 

5 loans awarded in the fiscal year in which the re6 port is submitted; and 

7 ‘‘(B) administrative and legislative rec8 ommendations, as needed, for addressing the 

9 issues related to construction financing facing 

10 historically Black colleges and universities.’’. 

Æ 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
No. 90-706.

#### Brahms *v.*Schwartz, Grievance Administrator, Michigan Attorney Grievance Commission.

Sup. Ct. Mich. Certiorari denied.
EXHIBIT 13.1








CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. §1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002











In connection with the annual report of Oncolytics Biotech Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the “Report”), I, Brad Thompson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.











/s/ Brad Thompson


_________________________________


Brad Thompson, PhD


Chief Executive Officer


Principal Executive Officer


March 19, 2014








A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Oncolytics Biotech Inc. and will be retained by Oncloytics Biotech Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

Sharol Martin, Appellant

No. 06

- 12

- 00187

- CR v.
The State of Texas, Appellee Appeal from the 6th District Court of Lamar County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 24807 ). Opinion delivered by Chief Just ice Morriss, Justice Carter and Justice Moseley participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find there was partial error in the judgment of the court below. Therefore, we modify the trial court’s judgment to reflect

conviction of a second

- degree felony with punishment enhanced to the penalty range of a first

degree felony. We also modify the judgment to reflect that the statute of the offense is Section
15.02 of the Texas Penal Code, rather than Section 481. 112 of the Texas Health and Safety

Code

. As modified, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. We note that the appellant, Sharol Martin, has adequately indicated h er inability to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED JUNE 28, 2013 BY ORD ER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
Exhibit 32.1    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 Amended Annual Report of Desert Mining, Inc. a Nevada corporation (the Company), on Form 10-KSB/A for the annual period ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Randall B. Anderson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that to my knowledge:  (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and  (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.      /s/Randall B. Anderson Randall B. Anderson Chief Executive Officer Date: October 3, 2007
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 MAY 30, 2012

JOHN LEY

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 ________________________

 No. 10-15637 

Non-Argument Calendar

 ________________________

 D.C. Docket No. 3:06-cr-00011-LC-MD-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL STANTON,

a.k.a. Christopher Stanton, 

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

 Appeal from the United States District Court

 for the Northern District of Florida

 ________________________

(May 30, 2012)

Before WILSON, JORDAN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Chet Kaufman, appointed counsel for Christopher Stanton in this direct
criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the

appellant, and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87

S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record

reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. 

Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues

of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Stanton’s convictions

and sentences are AFFIRMED.

2
Exhibit 32.1

                            ZENEX INTERNATIONAL, INC.



                    Certification by Chief Executive Officer
           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 on Form 10-Q of Zenex
International, Inc. (the "Company") for the three months ended March 31, 2006 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Ron Carte, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of the operations of
     the Company.



                                            By:      /s/ Ron Carte
                                                       Ron Carte
                                                  Chief Executive Officer
1

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 5, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-50568

UNITED STATES AVIATION UNDERWRITERS, INC., Manager, United

States Aircraft Insurance Group, Inc., a New York Corporation,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

RAYTHEON AIRCRAFT COMPANY, Etc., ET AL.,

Defendants,

RAYTHEON AIRCRAFT COMPANY, a Kansas Corporation,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for

the Western District of Texas

(USDC No. 1:03-CV-26-LY) 

_________________________________________________________

Before REAVLEY, JOLLY and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

2

PER CURIAM:*

The summary judgment of the district court is affirmed for the following

reasons:

1. There is no evidence that Raytheon as a reseller altered or modified the

plane before reselling it in 1999. Under Oklahoma law, no strict

liability is obtained. Allenberg v. Bentley Hedges Travel Serv., Inc.,

22 P.3d 223, 230 (Okla. 2001).

2. As for the wiring criticized by the FAA in 1991, that was how the

plane was manufactured in 1976. While Raytheon is the corporate

successor of Beech Aircraft, which manufactured the plane, this

liability is barred by the General Aviation Revitalization Act’s

eighteen-year statute of repose. 49 U.S.C. § 40101. 

3. Assuming the inverter select relay was made by Beech and installed in

1990, there is no evidence it was defective. The argument over Dr.

Rhoten’s testimony is misplaced. Indeed, there was a fact issue on the

recovery of the relay and, in any event, his testimony was certainly
3

admissible. But all he said was that he thought the inverter select relay

failed. He said that he did not know why or how it failed and that he

had no knowledge as to whether it was defective when it was

manufactured. Ahrens v. Ford Motor Co., 340 F.3d 1142, 1145 (10th

Cir. 2003) (applying Oklahoma law).

4. The claim that Raytheon failed to warn the buyer of the plane of the

1991 FAA statement about the bus wiring fails because this

information was known by the plane’s pilot. Duane v. Okla. Gas &

Elec. Co., 833 P.2d 284, 287 (Okla. 1992) (“Where the danger or

potentiality of danger is known or should be known to the user, the

duty to warn does not attach.”). Furthermore, the change

recommended by the FAA would not have saved this plane where both

buses failed. Gaines-Tabb v. ICI Explosives, USA, Inc., 160 F.3d 613,

620 (10th Cir. 1998) (applying Oklahoma law) (recognizing lack of

proximate cause where the causal nexus is broken). 

AFFIRMED.
#### Richard Dioguardi, Appellant, v Gerald Glassey et al., Respondents.

[772 NYS2d 604]

In an action to recover damages based on the fraudulent concealment of a will, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Price, J.), dated November 27, 2002, as granted those branches of the motion of the defendant Bruce D. Merkur, and the joint separate motion of the defendants Gerald Glassey, Donald Glassey, and Ruth Glassey, which were pursuant to CPLR 3211 to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them as time-barred.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

Ths Supreme Court found that the plaintiffs action sounds in fraud, the fraud occurred in 1995, and the plaintiff discovered the fraud in February 2000. These findings are supported by the record, and are essentially unchallenged on appeal. The Supreme Court properly determined that the instant action, commenced in April 2002, was time-barred *(see*CPLR 203 [g]; 213 [8]).

Contrary to the plaintiffs only argument on appeal, the Supreme Court does not have the inherent power to disregard the statute of limitations whenever the complaint alleges egregious misconduct by a defendant. Rather, in general, courts have no inherent power to extend the statute of limitations in the interest of justice *(see*CPLR 201; *Roldan v Allstate Ins. Co.,*149 AD2d 20, 33 [1989]; *Lennox v Rhodes,*39 AD2d 801, 802 [1972]; *cf.*CPLR 2004).

The plaintiff expressly disavowed reliance on the doctrine of equitable estoppel. In any event, the record is devoid of allegations or proof that the plaintiff was induced to delay his commencement of the action, after his discovery of the alleged fraud in February 2000, as a result of any affirmative misconduct on the part of the defendants *(see e.g. Petito v Piffath,*85 NY2d 1, 6-7 [1994], *cert denied*516 US 864 [1995]; *Zoe G. v Frederick F.G.,*208 AD2d 675 [1994]; *cf. Simcuski v Saeli,*44 NY2d 442, 448-449 [1978]).

We do not agree with the defendant Bruce D. Merkur that sanctions are warranted in this case. Ritter, J.P., Santucci, Adams and Crane, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jody Watson, Appellant.

[631 NYS2d 550]

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Vogt, J.), rendered November 8, 1993, convicting defendant upon her plea of guilty of the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree.

■Defendant pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree in full satisfaction of a four-count indictment. Defense counsel seeks to be relieved of her assignment of representing defendant on appeal on the basis that there are no nonfrivolous issues to be raised. We agree. A review of the records and briefs in this case, including the arguments raised by defendant in her *pro se*brief, reveal that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised and therefore defense counsel’s application to withdraw should be granted.

We do note, however, that during the plea proceedings the People recommended and defendant accepted that she be sentenced as a second felony offender to an indeterminate prison term of 41/2 to 9 years. The People repeated the terms of the promise at the outset of the sentence proceedings. At sentencing, however, County Court imposed a term of 4 to 9 years. All indications in the record support the conclusion that the court merely misspoke and intended the sentence to be the sentence proffered by the People and defendant *(see, People v Brown,*205 AD2d 854, *lv denied*84 NY2d 866). In fact, by statute the recommended sentence of 41/2 to 9 years was the most lenient sentence possible (Penal Law § 70.06 [4] [b]). In view of the clear indication by the court to impose that sentence, remitting the matter for resentencing would be pointless *(see, People v Pizzano,*127 AD2d 858). We therefore modify the judgment accordingly.

*761Cardona, P. J., Crew III, White, Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by vacating so much thereof as sentenced defendant to 4 to 9 years’ imprisonment; defendant is sentenced to 41/2 to 9 years’ imprisonment; and, as so modified, affirmed, and application to be relieved of assignment granted.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1026 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1026

  To revise the authorized route of the North Country National Scenic 
Trail in northeastern Minnesota and to extend the trail into Vermont to 
   connect with the Appalachian National Scenic Trail, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 13, 2017

   Mr. Nolan (for himself, Mr. Welch, Mr. Connolly, Mr. Ellison, Mr. 
Peterson, Ms. McCollum, Mr. Walz, Mr. Blumenauer, Mr. Meeks, Mr. Kelly 
of Pennsylvania, Ms. Clark of Massachusetts, Mr. Kildee, Mr. Beyer, Mr. 
 Tonko, Mrs. Dingell, Mr. Faso, Mr. Cramer, Mr. Sensenbrenner, and Mr. 
   Paulsen) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To revise the authorized route of the North Country National Scenic 
Trail in northeastern Minnesota and to extend the trail into Vermont to 
   connect with the Appalachian National Scenic Trail, 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. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``North Country National Scenic Trail 
Route Adjustment Act''.

SEC. 2. ROUTE ADJUSTMENT.

    Section 5(a)(8) of the National Trails System Act (16 U.S.C. 
1244(a)(8)) is amended in the first sentence--
            (1) by striking ``thirty-two hundred miles, extending from 
        eastern New York State'' and inserting ``4,600 miles, extending 
        from the Appalachian Trail in Vermont''; and
            (2) by striking ``Proposed North Country Trail'' and all 
        that follows through ``June 1975.'' and inserting ```North 
        Country National Scenic Trail, Authorized Route', dated 
        February 2014, and numbered 649/116870.''.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 4 (Friday, January 9, 2009)]
[House]
[Page H163]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                            PETITIONS, ETC.

  Under clause 3 of rule XII, petitions and papers were laid on the 
Clerk's desk and referred as follows:

       3. The SPEAKER presented a petition of City Council of 
     Brook Park, Ohio, relative to Resolution No. 35-2008, urging 
     the Federal Government to provide assistance to the 
     automobile industry; to the Committee on Financial Services.
       4. Also, a petition of City of Atlanta, Office of Municipal 
     Clerk, GA, relative to Resolution 08-R-2320, urging the 
     Federal Government to establish an Urban Infrastructure 
     Renewal and Development Initiative; to the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure.
```
<PAGE>
                                                                      Exhibit 14


                          CROWLEY MARITIME CORPORATION

                 Code of Ethics for Chief Executive Officer and
                 ----------------------------------------------
                           Senior Financial Officers
                           -------------------------


Introduction.

This Code of Ethics has been adopted by the Board of Directors of Crowley
Maritime Corporation to promote honest and ethical conduct, proper disclosure of
financial information in the Corporation's periodic reports and compliance with
applicable laws, rules, and regulations by the Corporation's Chief Executive
Officer and Senior Financial Officers.


Applicability.

This Code of Ethics applies to the Corporation's Chief Executive Officer and
Senior Financial Officers.  As used herein, the term Senior Financial Officers
specifically includes the Corporation's principal financial officer and
controller or principal accounting officer or persons performing similar
functions.


Principles and Practices.

In performing his or her duties, the Chief Executive Officer and Senior
Financial Officers each must:

(1)   maintain high standards of honest and ethical conduct, including the
      ethical handling of actual or apparent conflicts of interest between
      personal and professional relationships;

(2)   provide, or cause to be provided, full, fair, accurate, timely and
      understandable disclosure in reports and documents that the Corporation
      files with or submits to the Securities and Exchange Commission and in
      other public communications;

(3)   comply with applicable governmental laws, rules and regulations; and

(4)   promptly report violations of this Code to the Corporation's Vice
      President, Human Relations and its General Counsel.


Compliance and Accountability.

The Corporation's Vice President, Human Relations and its General Counsel will
assess compliance with this Code, report material violations to the Board of
Directors and recommend to the Board appropriate action.

The Chief Executive Officer and Senior Financial Officers must also comply with
the Business Ethics Procedure and Guideline applicable to the Corporation's
officers and employees generally.


Waiver.

Any request for a waiver of any provision of this Code must be in writing and
addressed to the Audit Committee. Any waiver of this Code of Ethics will be
disclosed promptly on Form 8-K or any other means approved by the Securities and
Exchange Commission.


            (Approved by the Board of Directors on October 2, 2003)
```

[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 191 (Friday, December 26, 2008)]
[Daily Digest]
[Page D1331]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

Committee Meetings
  No committee meetings were held.
```
Exhibit 32(a)

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 American Greetings Corporation (the Corporation) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
February 28, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date therein specified (the Report), each of the undersigned certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his 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 Corporation.
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: May 9, 2006



|                                                                                                        
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                        
|/s/ Zev Weiss                                                                                           
|Zev Weiss Chief Executive Officer (principal
executive officer)                                         
|                                                                                                        
|/s/ Michael J. Merriman, Jr.                                                                            
|Michael J. Merriman, Jr. Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (principal financial officer)