alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2016255EN.01000301.xml

| 14.7.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 255/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.7.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 255/3

---

NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITION

(2016/C 255/03)

The European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) is organising the following open competition:

| | EPSO/AST-SC/05/16 — ACCREDITATION OFFICERS/RECEPTIONISTS (SC 1/SC 2) |
| --- | --- |

EPSO/AST-SC/05/16 — ACCREDITATION OFFICERS/RECEPTIONISTS (SC 1/SC 2)

The competition notice is published in 24 languages in
  Official Journal of the European Union C 255 A of 14 July 2016.

Official Journal of the European Union C 255 A

Further information can be found on the EPSO website: http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/eu-careers.info/

---
Exhibit 21.1

SUBSIDIARIES OF TUMBLEWEED COMMUNICATIONS CORP.

AS OF MARCH 16, 2006



|                                       |  |                         
|-------------------------------------- |  | ------------------------
|Subsidiary                             |  | Country of Incorporation
|Corvigo, L.L.C.                        |  | Delaware, U.S.A.        
|Interface Systems, Inc.                |  | Michigan, U.S.A.        
|TC EMEA Ltd.                           |  | U.K.                    
|Tumbleweed Communications EOOD         |  | Bulgaria                
|Tumbleweed Communications GmbH         |  | Germany                 
|Tumbleweed Communications Holding GmbH |  | Switzerland             
|Tumbleweed Communications Limited (1)  |  | U.K.                    
|Tumbleweed Communications Pte. Ltd.    |  | Singapore               
|Tumbleweed Communications Pty. Ltd.    |  | Australia               
|Receipt.com, Inc.                      |  | California, U.S.A.      
|Valicert B.V.                          |  | The Netherlands         
|Valicert Japan K.K.                    |  | Japan                   

---

|(1) | Tumbleweed Communications Limited changed its name from Incubator, Limited on February 28, 2006.
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 3021 

To provide non-medical counseling services for military families. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 20, 2021 

Ms. SINEMA (for herself and Mr. BLUNT) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To provide non-medical counseling services for military 

families. 

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 ‘‘Comforting Our Mili5 tary Families through On-base or Remote Treatment Act 

6 of 2021’’ or the ‘‘COMFORT Act of 2021’’. 

7 SEC. 2. NON-MEDICAL COUNSELING SERVICES FOR MILI8 TARY FAMILIES. 

9 Section 1781 of title 10, United States Code, is 

10 amended by adding at the end the following new sub11 section: 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3021 IS

1 ‘‘(d) NON-MEDICAL COUNSELING SERVICES.—(1) In 

2 carrying out its duties under subsection (b), the Office 

3 may coordinate programs and activities for the provision 

4 of non-medical counseling services to military families 

5 through the Department of Defense Military and Family 

6 Life Counseling Program. 

7 ‘‘(2) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a 

8 mental health professional described in paragraph (3) may 

9 provide non-medical counseling services at any location in 

10 a State, the District of Columbia, or a territory or posses11 sion of the United States, without regard to where the 

12 provider or recipient of such services is located, if the pro13 vision of such services is within the scope of the authorized 

14 Federal duties of the provider. 

15 ‘‘(3) A mental health professional described in this 

16 subsection is a person who is— 

17 ‘‘(A) a currently licensed or certified mental 

18 health care provider who holds an unrestricted li19 cense or certification that is— 

20 ‘‘(i) issued by a State, the District of Co21 lumbia, or a territory or possession of the 

22 United States; and 

23 ‘‘(ii) recognized by the Secretary of De24 fense; 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 3021 IS

1 ‘‘(B) a member of the uniformed services, a ci2 vilian employee of the Department of Defense, or a 

3 contractor designated by the Secretary; and 

4 ‘‘(C) performing authorized duties for the De5 partment of Defense under a program or activity re6 ferred to in paragraph (1). 

7 ‘‘(4) In this subsection, the term ‘non-medical coun8 seling services’ means mental health care services that are 

9 non-clinical, short-term, and solution-focused, and address 

10 topics related to personal growth, development, and posi11 tive functioning.’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
#### Commonwealth v. Kyler

*Thomas F. Morgan,*for Commonwealth.

*John Carfley,*for defendant.

*527September 23, 1977

REILLY, P. *J.,*

Defendant above named was arrested and charged under section 4941 of the Vehicle Code, June 17, 1976, P. L. 162, 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 4941, which makes it illegal to operate a motor vehicle in excess of its registered gross weight. Defendant appealed from his summary conviction and, at hearing de novo, raises three issues. First, did the arresting officer have sufficient cause to stop defendant’s vehicle initially? Second, does the Commonwealth have the burden of establishing the accuracy of the scales used to weigh the defendant’s vehicle? Third, is the Commonwealth required to advise defendant of his right to have his vehicle reweighed on scales of his own choosing as provided by the statute. This court has determined that no authority exists for granting the appeal on the above issues. The arresting officer stated that he observed defendant’s truck with the coal loaded above the sideboards, and that in the past, he has observed the same model truck with the same load and, in every instance, it had been overweight. In view of this and the officer’s past experience, this court must deny defendant’s first request.

Second, the act does not require the Commonwealth to prove the accuracy of the scales, nor is there any case law on the point. This court is of the opinion that had the legislature intended this to be the case, it would have been specifically set forth in the statute. Failing this, the court refuses defendant’s second point.

Finally, while the statute does give defendant the right to have his vehicle reweighed, it does not require the Commonwealth to so advise him, creating a situation similar to that under section 624.1(g) of the old Vehicle Code of April 29, 1959, *528P. L. 58, 75 P. S. § 624.1, wherein defendant, having undergone a breathalyzer test, has the right to go to a doctor of his own choosing for a blood test. However, in that situation, the Commonwealth is not required to advise him of this right, and this court is of the opinion that the Commonwealth, in this situation, does not have the burden of advising the defendant of his right of reweighing his vehicle.

Therefore, the court enters the following

ORDER

Now, September 23, 1977, following hearing into the above-captioned appeal from summary conviction, it is the order of this court that said appeal be and is hereby dismissed.

Footnote: Also see Commonwealth v. Smith, 3 D. & C. 3d 263 (1974).
**Exhibit99(iv)**

 

**Certification**

 

 

**STATEMENT OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**OF OCEAN WEST HOLDING CORPORATION**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report ofOcean West Holding Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Daryl S. Meddings, Executive Vice President and ChiefFinancial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge: 

 

1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities and 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. 

 

Date: May 16, 2003
#### People of the State of New York, Appl’ts, *v.*Henry K. Stevens, Resp’t.1

*(Court of Appeals,*

*Filed February*1, 1887.)

Criminal Law — Appeal — Supreme coubt must exebcise its discretion —Coubt op appeals.

On an appeal from a verdict In a criminal case the prisoner is entitled to a review of the facts and an exercise of the discretionary power vested in the general term of the supreme court. Where the reversal is made hy said court solely on questions of law the court of appeals will not review it, hut remit it to the general term to consider the questions of fact and to exercise its discretion.

Appeal by tbe People from an order of tbe supreme court, general term, fifth department, reversing “ upon grounds of error of law and not of fact or as matter of discretion ” a judgment of tbe Erie county court of sessions and granting a new trial on a conviction of a person under indictment for grand larceny.

*Geo. T.*Quimby, Dist. Atty., for appl’t; *John*Laughlin, for resp’t.

1

 Reported below, 38 Hun, 62.

Per Curiam.

Tbe order of reversal states merely that it was made on questions of law. It does not state that the court has considered tbe questions of fact or exercised the discretion which the statute confers upon it. We have decided that this court will not review an order of reversal in such' a case, unless it shows that the court has exercised its discretionary powers. See *People*v. *Boas,*92 N. Y. 560-564; *Same*v. *Conroy,*97 N. Y. 62-72; *Harris v. Burdett,*73 N. Y. 136. Although the court in *721tbe present case puts its decision npon a question of law, we cannot say it would not have reached the same result had it exercised its discretion,.and entertained a different opinion on the question of law. The prisoner was entitled to a review of the facts, and the exercise of the discretionary power of the court, which he might lose if the case should be disposed of solely on a question of law.

The case should therefore be remitted to the general term to consider the questions of fact, and exercise its discretion.

All concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                  JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                    MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                               70,963
<SECURITIES>                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       267,550
<ALLOWANCES>                                         57,500
<INVENTORY>                                               0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    797,174
<PP&E>                                               61,864
<DEPRECIATION>                                       21,540
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    1,332,538
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               720,513
<BONDS>                                             500,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                            653,806
<OTHER-SE>                                         (41,781)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      1,332,538
<SALES>                                             397,348
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    397,348
<CGS>                                               101,677
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       586,637
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  144,250
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (435,216)
<INCOME-TAX>                                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (435,216)
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   (435,216)
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (435,216)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (0.01)



</TABLE>
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2


                            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 Panavision Inc. (the
"Company") for the period ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Bobby G. Jenkins,
Office of the President of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:


              (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
     13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and


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



         /S/ BOBBY G. JENKINS
     ------------------------------
             Bobby G. Jenkins
             Office of the President
             March 28, 2003

     This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
     Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by
     the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes
     of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 297 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 297

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To make exclusive the authority of the Federal Government to regulate 
 the labeling of products made in the United States and introduced in 
        interstate or foreign commerce, 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 ``Reinforcing American-Made Products 
Act''.

SEC. 2. EXCLUSIVITY OF FEDERAL AUTHORITY TO REGULATE LABELING OF 
              PRODUCTS MADE IN THE UNITED STATES AND INTRODUCED IN 
              INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE.

    Section 320933 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act 
of 1994 (15 U.S.C. 45a) is amended--
            (1) in the first sentence, by striking ``To the extent'' 
        and inserting the following:
    ``(a) In General.--To the extent'';
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(b) Effect on State Law.--
            ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
        provisions of this section shall supersede any provisions of 
        the law of any State expressly relating to the extent to which 
        a product is introduced, delivered for introduction, sold, 
        advertised, or offered for sale in interstate or foreign 
        commerce with a `Made in the U.S.A.' or `Made in America' 
        label, or the equivalent thereof, in order to represent that 
        such product was in whole or substantial part of domestic 
        origin.
            ``(2) Enforcement.--Nothing in this section shall preclude 
        the application of the law of any State to the use of a label 
        not in compliance with subsection (a).''; and
            (3) in the third sentence of subsection (a), as so 
        designated by paragraph (1), by striking ``Nothing in this 
        section'' and inserting ``Except as provided in subsection (b), 
        nothing in this section''.

            Passed the Senate September 14, 2021.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
117th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                 S. 297

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To make exclusive the authority of the Federal Government to regulate 
 the labeling of products made in the United States and introduced in 
        interstate or foreign commerce, and for other purposes.
```
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

      ( print page 17749)    
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than April 17, 2015.

A. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Jacquelyn K. Brunmeier, Assistant Vice President) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480-0291:

                    1.                     *Elizabeth J. Hyduke-Kelm, Golden Valley, Minnesota, individually and as co-Trustee of a trust benefiting Elizabeth J. Hyduke-Kelm, and Elizabeth J. Hyduke-Kelm as co-Trustee of three family trusts, Minneapolis, Minnesota; and Stephen P. Hyduke, individually and as co-Trustee of a trust benefiting Stephen P. Hyduke,*                     Minneapolis, Minnesota; to each acquire voting shares of Duke Financial Group, Inc., Minneapolis, Minnesota, and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of Peoples Bank of Commerce, Cambridge, Minnesota, and State Bank of New Prague, New Prague, Minnesota.                

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 30, 2015.

Michael J. Lewandowski,

Associate Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 2015-07556 Filed 4-1-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE CODE 6210-01-P
EX-32



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 Protagenic Therapeutics, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A (Amendment No. 1
to Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2018) as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the “Report”), we, Garo H. Armen Executive Chairman, and Alexander K. Arrow, Chief Financial Officer,
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, as amended;
    and                   
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|    |                                                                                                                                                             
|(2) | The
    information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
    of the Company.



A
signed original of this certification 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.



|July
    3, 2019 | By: | /s/
    Garo H. Armen            
|---------------- | --- | ---------------------------------
|                 |     | Garo
    H. Armen, PhD           
|                 |     | Executive
    Chairman           
|                 |     | (Principal
    Executive Officer)



|July
    3, 2019 | By: | /s/
    Alexander K. Arrow       
|---------------- | --- | ---------------------------------
|                 |     | Alexander
    K. Arrow, MD, CFA  
|                 |     | Chief
    Financial Officer      
|                 |     | (Principal
    Financial Officer)