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

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1565 

To allow the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection to provide greater 

protection to servicemembers. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 11, 2015 

Mr. REED (for himself, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr. WARNER, Mr. 

MERKLEY, Ms. WARREN, Mr. BLUMENTHAL, Mr. FRANKEN, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. KAINE, and Ms. HIRONO) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and 

Urban Affairs 

A BILL 

To allow the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection to 

provide greater protection to servicemembers. 

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 ‘‘Military Consumer 

5 Protection Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION. 

7 Section 1002(12) of the Consumer Financial Protec8 tion Act of 2010 (12 U.S.C. 5481(12)) is amended— 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1565 IS

1 (1) in subparagraph (Q), by striking ‘‘; and’’ 

2 and inserting a semicolon; 

3 (2) in subparagraph (R), by striking the period 

4 at the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

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

6 ‘‘(S) sections 101, 107 (except with respect 

7 to bailments), 108 (except with respect to in8 surance), 201 (except with respect to child cus9 tody proceedings), 207, 301, 302, 303, 305, 

10 and 305A of the Servicemembers Civil Relief 

11 Act (50 U.S.C. App. 511, 517, 518, 521, 527, 

12 531, 532, 533, 535, and 535a).’’. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### Arnold, Respondent, vs. Randall, imp., Appellant.

*January 10*

January *31, 1905.*

Res judicata: *Judgment in another action.*

It having been determined by tbe judgment in another action between the same parties, and upon the same evidence, that the alleged agreement upon which this action is based was not made, the matter is *res judicata*and that judgment is conclusive in this action*.*

Appeal from a judgment of tbe circuit court for Douglas county: A. J. ViNjs, Circuit Judge.

*Reversed.*

This action grows out of tbe same transaction as tbat between tbe same parties passed on by this court and decided February 2, 1904. 121 Wis. 462, 98 N. W. 239. Tbe two actions were, by stipulation, tried together upon tbe same evidence. Tbe difference consists in that, while tbe former was based upon tbe right of tbe mortgagee, assigned to plaintiff, to recover bis unsatisfied debt from the defendant *Randall*by reason of tbe latter’s alleged agreement with Bird to pay tbe same, this is based upon tbe fact tbat Bird bad been compelled to pay $350 in discharge of himself from liability upon tbat mortgage indebtedness, notwithstanding tbe alleged contract of *Randall*to pay it. Bird assigned such right of action to plaintiff. Tbe court found the facts substantially as in tbe former action, including a finding and conclusion tbat

*2
      *Randall*and Gray did'assume the mortgage debt, and became liable therefor to the mortgagee, and judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff for the $350 paid..by Bird to obtain his discharge, wdth interest and costs, from which judgment defendant *Randall*appeals.

The cause was submitted for the appellant on the brief of *A. G. Titus.*

[No appearance for the respondent.]

Dodge, J.

The only cause of action stated in the complaint is predicated upon the existence and breach of an agreement by *Randall*to pay to the mortgagee the amount of his debt, and therefore must fail because, in another action between the same parties, and upon the same evidence *(Arnold, v.*Randall, 121 Wis. 462, 98 N. W. 239), it was finally adjudicated that no such promise was made, which is, therefore, *res adjudícala*and conclusive in this action. *Grunert v.*Spalding, 104 Wis. 193, 220, 80 N. W. 589.

*By live Court.*— Judgment reversed, and cause remanded with directions to enter judgment dismissing the complaint.
## S IXTH 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
Case No. 6D2 3

- 2076 Lower Tribunal No. 22CF001616AO R

_____________________________
L INDA E DOUARD , Appellant
,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee

.

_____________________________ Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County

. Mark. S. Blechman , Judge.

December 12, 2023

PER CURIAM

.

AFFIRMED

.

NARDELLA
, SMITH and MIZE , JJ., c oncur.

Howard L. “Rex” Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Robert D. Rosen, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Robin A. Compton, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                             267,603
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      378,215
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                        387,713
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,085,655
<PP&E>                                           4,199,411
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,770,038
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   2,564,898
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              353,865
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                        11,129,948
<OTHER-SE>                                      (9,593,951)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     2,564,898
<SALES>                                            642,721
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   642,721
<CGS>                                              600,980
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      600,980
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   296,851
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  20,589
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (272,092)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (272,092)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (272,092)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                            0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0
        


</TABLE>
Accountants Consent





Board of Directors


Gold Banc Corporation, Inc.:





We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 333-74594, 333-80751, 333-78871 and 333-34152) on Form S-8 of Gold Banc Corporation, Inc. of our report dated February
8, 2002 relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Gold Banc Corporation, Inc. as of December 31, 2001 and 2000 and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders equity and comprehensive income, and cash flows for the
three years then ended, which report appears in the Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2001 of Gold Banc Corporation, Inc.





/s/ KPMG





October 15, 2002





Kansas City, Missouri
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

DECLASSIFIED BY: C/IART 

DECLASSIFIED ON: 9 dULY 2012 

SEeBEr 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD 

SUBJECT: QUILL 

SSC-o 189-68 

28 May 1968 

On 28 May 1968, C/SMS/DD/S&'T called 

and stated that in connection with ect program, his office 

has no objection t. dropping the QUILL program. After checking 

with OSP Security, he learned that ~p had no objection to 

dropping the program. 

Distribution: 

Orig - QUILL File 

1 - SSC Read file 

_/fr/28 May 1968 

Chief, 

5[88[T Sr,3i'1 EBIa~~ ~-:; ·'··~;lIati& 

'n-~~n3n: ft:;j ':;;"; ",., . :'a ..... , ....... ..--
<PAGE>




                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Petroleum Helicopters, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2003 (the "Report"), I,
Michael J. McCann, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify 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 result of operations of the
Company.

Petroleum Helicopters, Inc.



By: /s/ Michael J. McCann
    ----------------------------------------
    Michael J. McCann
    Chief Financial Officer
    May 13, 2003
99-1086.

#### State v. Barcus.

Athens App. Nos. 98CA34 and 98CA35. On motion for stay of execution of sentence. Motion granted.

Douglas, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., dissent.
h. 

71io:117 .

NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

MEMORANDUM FOR COMMANDER, NATIONAL RANGE DIVISION, AIR FORCE 

SYSTEMS COMMAND 

SUBJECT: Ship Support for MOL Orbital Insertion 

The Manned Orbiting Laboratory Program calls for an insertion 

ship on station south of Vandenberg for each launch. An NRD study 

for the ship support for MOL orbital insertion showed that the 

T-AON-19 class, T-2, is the most attractive from the viewpoints of 

cost, technical support capability, and modification schedule. 

However, the availability of these ships to support both Apollo 

and MDT, could be critical. Tight scheduling and close coordination 

of the test schedules of both programs will be required. 

The joint use of the T-2 type ships for support of both Apollo 

and MAUL was proposed informally by me to General Jones (NASA) on 

4 October 1965. On that occasion it was pointed out that based 

on planned MOL and Apollo launch schedules and preliminary ship 

turn around criteria, same adjustment in the launch schedules may 

be required. Agreement in principle to the joint uses of the T-2 

ships was requested to NASA. 

These discussions with NASA in an effort to get a "yes" or 

"no" answer on the proposed joint use of these ships through 

judicious, cooperative scheduling have not been fruitful. 

Since preliminary studies have shown that the T-2 ships can 

provide the technical support capability for MOL with only minor 

modification, the major obstacle in way of using these ships for 

support of the MOL program appears to be scheduling the ships to 

meet requirements levied on these resources from all sources. 

Specific MOL requirements have been provided to Headquarters NED, 

Western Planning Office by the MOL Systems Office. 

It is requested that NRD study the scheduling problem, and 

notify this office whether we should commit firm planning for T-2 

support for MOL. 

HARRY L. EVANS_ 

Brigadier General, USAF 

Vice Director, MOL Program 

Major Merritt/26 Oct 65/bha
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .gov**
A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
**Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

National Security Agency/Central Security Service

Search
Search

Search

-  About    -  Leadership             
  -  Mission & Combat Support             
  -  Cybersecurity             
  -  Signals Intelligence             
  -  Central Security Service             
  -  Locations             
  -  Research             
  -  Diversity, Equity, Inclusion & Accessibility             
  -  Cybersecurity Collaboration Center      -  Collaborative Partnerships             
    -  Enduring Security Framework             
    -  DIB Cybersecurity Services             
    -  Standards and Certifications             
    -  Artificial Intelligence Security Center 
-  Press Room    -  Press Releases & Statements             
  -  News & Highlights             
  -  Declassification & Transparency Initiatives             
  -  Cybersecurity Advisories & Guidance             
  -  Telework and Mobile Security Guidance             
  -  DoD Microelectronics Guidance             
  -  Research Publications 
-  Careers    -  Unique Pathways             
  -  Innovation 
-  History    -  National Cryptologic Museum             
  -  Cryptologic History             
  -  National Cryptologic Memorial 

# Cryptologic Machines Image Gallery

HomeHistoryNational Cryptologic MuseumExhibits & ArtifactsCryptologic MuseumMachines

Search

Search

                              - All Images 
                              - Design Elements 
                              - NSA Historical Photographs 
                              - Other 

                              - Upload Date
                              - Photo Date
                              - Title

----

Download Image: Full Size (0.59 MB)

Tags:machines

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
#### Johnson, Respondent, vs. Standard Accident Insurance Company and others, imp., Appellants.

Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Douglas county dated September 17, 1927: W. R. Foley, Judge.

Automobile accident. Judgment for plaintiff, from which defendants appeal.

For the appellants: *L. H. Dow*of Duluth.

For the respondent: *Cadigan & Cadigan*of Superior.

For the defendant *Republic Casualty Company: Hanitch, Hartley & Johnson*of Superior.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
**Exhibit 31.2**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, John H. Karnes, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of The Houston ExplorationCompany; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’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 registrantand have:
a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,to ensure that material information relating to the registrant,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared; b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter inthe case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’sboard of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial information; and c) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.   Date: March 12, 2004 /s/ John H. Karnes   John H. Karnes Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 37 (Wednesday, February 25, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 10202]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-03818]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION


Data Collection Available for Public Comments

ACTION: 60-Day notice and request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Small Business Administration (SBA) intends to request 
approval, from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the 
collection of information described below. The Paperwork Reduction Act 
(PRA) of 1995, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35 requires federal agencies to 
publish a notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed 
collection of information before submission to OMB, and to allow 60 
days for public comment in response to the notice. This notice complies 
with that requirement.

DATES: Submit comments on or before April 27, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Send all comments to Louis Cupp, New Markets Policy Analyst, 
Office of Investment, Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, 
7th Floor, Washington, DC 20416.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Louis Cupp, New Markets Policy 
Analyst, Office of Investment, 202-619-0511, or Curtis B. Rich, 
Management Analyst, 202-205-7030, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#711204030518025f03181219310213105f161e07"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="debdabacaab7adf0acb7bdb69eadbcbff0b9b1a8">[email protected]</span></a>;

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Small Business Administration (SBA) Forms 
856 and 856A are used by SBA examiners as part of their examination of 
licensed small business investment companies (SBICs). This information 
collection obtains representations from an SBIC's management regarding 
certain obligations, transactions and relationships of the SBIC and 
helps SBA to evaluate the SBIC's financial condition and compliance 
with applicable laws and regulations.

Solicitation of Public Comments

    SBA is requesting comments on (a) whether the collection of 
information is necessary for the agency to properly perform its 
functions; (b) whether the burden estimates are accurate; (c) whether 
there are ways to minimize the burden, including through the use of 
automated techniques or other forms of information technology; and (d) 
whether there are ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of 
the information.

Summary of Information Collection

    Title: Disclosures Statement Leveraged Licensees; Disclosure 
Statement Non-leveraged Licensees.
    Description of Respondents: SBA Examiners.
    Form Numbers: SBA Forms 856 and 856A.
    Total Estimated Annual Responses: 600.
    Total Estimated Annual Hour Burden: 276.

Curtis B. Rich,
Management Analyst.
[FR Doc. 2015-03818 Filed 2-24-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
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 quarterly report of Science Dynamics Corporation
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2006
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Paul Burgess, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 and Exchange Act of 1934; and

      (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Company.

      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.

November 20, 2006                                        /s/ Paul Burgess
                                                         -----------------------
                                                         Paul Burgess
                                                         Chief Executive Officer
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1498 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to require that military working 

dogs be retired in the United States, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 3, 2015 

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

to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to require that 

military working dogs be retired in the United States, 

and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. REQUIREMENT FOR RETIREMENT OF MILITARY 

4 WORKING DOGS IN THE UNITED STATES. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 2583 of title 10, United 

6 States Code, is amended— 

7 (1) by redesignating subsections (f) and (g) as 

8 subsections (g) and (h), respectively; 

9 (2) by inserting after subsection (e) the fol10 lowing new subsection (f): 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1498 IS

1 ‘‘(f) RETIREMENT OF MILITARY WORKING DOGS

2 WITHIN THE UNITED STATES.—(1) Except as provided 

3 in paragraph (2), the retirement of a military working dog 

4 under this section shall occur at a location within the 

5 United States. 

6 ‘‘(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the retirement 

7 of a military working dog abroad if a United States citizen 

8 living abroad adopts the dog at the time of retirement. 

9 ‘‘(3) Amounts available to the military department 

10 concerned shall be available for the costs of the transport 

11 of military working dogs to the United States for retire12 ment in accordance with the requirement in paragraph 

13 (1).’’; and 

14 (3) in subsection (g), as redesignated by para15 graph (1)— 

16 (A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), 

17 by striking ‘‘the Secretary of the military de18 partment concerned’’ and all that follows 

19 through ‘‘may’’ and inserting ‘‘a military work20 ing dog is to be retired in accordance with the 

21 requirement in subsection (f)(1) and no suitable 

22 adoption is available at the military facility 

23 where the dog is located at the time of retire24 ment, the Secretary of the military department 

25 concerned shall’’; and 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1498 IS

1 (B) by inserting ‘‘within the United 

2 States’’ after ‘‘another location’’. 

3 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

4 this section shall take effect on the date of the enactment 

5 of this Act, and shall apply to retirements of military 

6 working dogs pursuant to section 2583 of title 10, United 

7 States Code, that occur on or after that date. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS