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

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3689 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3689

To provide for an extension of the legislative authority of the Vietnam 
 Veterans Memorial Fund, Inc. to establish a Vietnam Veterans Memorial 
                visitor center, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 1, 2009

Mr. Rahall (for himself and Mr. Hastings of Washington) introduced the 
    following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural 
                               Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for an extension of the legislative authority of the Vietnam 
 Veterans Memorial Fund, Inc. to establish a Vietnam Veterans Memorial 
                visitor center, 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. EXTENSION OF LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY FOR VIETNAM MEMORIAL 
              VISITOR CENTER.

    Section 6(b) of Public Law 96-297 (16 U.S.C. 431 note) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (3), by striking ``and'' at the end;
            (2) in paragraph (4), by striking the period and inserting 
        ``; and''; and
            (3) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following:
            ``(5) any reference in section 8903(e) of title 40, United 
        States Code, to the expiration at the end of or extension 
        beyond a seven-year period shall be considered to be a 
        reference to an expiration on or extension beyond November 17, 
        2014.''.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>


                                                                 Exhibit 10.22

May 21, 1999

Dr. Adrian Otte
109 Kelly Drive
Chadds Ford, PA 19317

Dear Adrian:

We are very pleased to extend an offer of employment to you for the position of
Chief Operating Officer of Pharmaceutical Services, PhyMatrix. The terms are as
follows:

         Base Salary:        $250,000

         Bonus Potential:    Guaranteed target bonus of $50,000 to be paid
                             quarterly. (Guaranteed for 1st year only). At 120%
                             of target, an additional $25,000.

         Equity:             a. An initial grant of 200,000 shares at market
                             price. Priced as of close of business May 28, 1999.

                             b. Options will be vested over a three year period
                             in equal increments. If there is a material change
                             in ownership of the company, all outstanding
                             options will vest with change of control.

         Benefits:           Per PhyMatrix policies

         Severance:          One year of base compensation for termination by
                             the company without cause.

         Relocation:         1.  Pack and move of household goods.

                             2. Closing costs at sell end, including
                             realtors fees.

                             3. Two house hunting trips for family.

                             4. $10,000 in temporary living expenses for
                             residence, transportation, meals, etc. Receipts for
                             expenses need to be submitted for reimbursement.

                             5. Tax gross up for taxable relocation items.

We are very excited about the prospect of working with you and look forward to
you joining our team. This offer is contingent upon the completion of
referencing. Please sign and return this letter as your acceptance of these
terms by Tuesday, June 1, 1999.

Best Regards,

Michael Heffernan

I acknowledge and agree to the terms stated above.

Dr. Adrian Otte
# Puerto Rico's adjutant general visits Dominican Republic under State Partnership Program

/ Published Oct. 5, 2016

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico - The adjutant general of Puerto Rico, Brig. Gen. Marta Carcana, concluded an official two-day leadership visit to the Dominican Republic as part of the National Guard Bureau's State Partnership Program.

 During the visit to the Caribbean partner nation, Carcana visited many military and civilian leaders, to include the Office of the Commandant of the Dominican Republic Armed Forces, Office of the Vice Minister of Terrestrial Affairs, the Dominican Air Force and the Dominican Emergency Operations Center. United States Ambassador James W. Brewster met with Brig. Gen. Carcana to discuss the military exchanges between the Puerto Rico National Guard and Dominican Armed Forces.

 Presently, 18 US states have active partnerships with defense and security forces of 27 countries in the Caribbean, Central America and South America.

 "The relationship between the Dominican Republic and our Puerto Rican brothers and sisters goes beyond sharing and exchanging knowledge on emergency management in the face of natural disasters, it is a bond of brotherhood and fraternity as we are both Caribbean," said Brig. Gen. Juan M. Méndez, director of emergency operations for the Dominican Republic.

"Our Citizen-Soldiers and Airmen firmly believe in the importance and benefits of the State Partnership Program. By having partners like the Dominican Republic so close to us, it allows us to exchange ideas and conduct workshops with subject matter experts, especially on the topic of emergencies during natural catastrophes," said Carcana.

 During the last 13 years this program has had different events in terms of military exchanges, and workshops with experts in various topics of common interest like security, aviation, logistics, engineering, communications, medical attention, humanitarian assistance, operation planning, professional development, immediate response exercises, as well as mission command at the operational and tactical levels.
Exhibit 32



CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND CFO PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. § 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

§ 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Form 10-Q of Sonic Innovations, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company), for the quarter ended June 30, 2005, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Andrew G. Raguskus, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Stephen L. Wilson, Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and
Secretary of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge, 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/    ANDREW G.
RAGUSKUSAndrew G. RaguskusPresident and Chief Executive OfficerAugust 9, 2005/s/    STEPHEN L. WILSONStephen L. WilsonSenior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and SecretaryAugust 9, 2005




This
certification accompanies this Report pursuant to § 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 § 18 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.



A signed original of this
written statement required by § 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 99.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 Quarterly Report of Boston Capital Tax Credit Fund II Limited Partnership (the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John P. Manning, Director, Principal and Principal Executive Officer of C&M Management Inc., 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, after due inquiry:



|(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 Partnership.



|                | Boston Capital Tax Credit Fund II Limited Partnership
|--------------- | -----------------------------------------------------
|                |                                                      
|                | By:                                                  
|                |                                                      
|                |                                                      
|                | By:                                                  
|                |                                                      
|                |                                                      
|                | By:                                                  
|                |                                                      
|                |                                                      
|Date:           |                                                      
|August 20, 2002 | By:                                                  
|                |                                                      
|                |                                                      
|                |
# Respite child care expands to all 50 states

/ Published Nov. 30, 2009

WASHINGTON - It's a few hours a month, but the break the Armed Services YMCA Respite Child Care program provides parents with a deployed spouse always is welcome. And since the program's Oct. 1 nationwide expansion, many more parents will benefit.

The Armed Services YMCA, as part of a Defense Department contract, provides health and wellness opportunities, including the Respite Child Care program, for reserve-component servicemembers and their families across the country through their local YMCAs.

This means deploying Guardsmen and reservists and their families are eligible for a full YMCA membership for three months before deployment, the 12 months of deployment, and three months after, said Mike Landers, deputy national director of the Armed Services YMCA.

"This entire health and wellness contract was designed for them because they don't have the infrastructure that the active-duty families that live near major military installations have," Landers said. "So the YMCAs, the Pentagon thought, would be a great place for them to be able to connect with other Guard and reserve families who have their same circumstance."

The Respite Child Care program, part of that contract, provides up to 16 hours of child care for families of deployed Guard and reserve personnel. It's meant to be a "short break" for the parent or guardian responsible the child's care, Landers said, and not a substitute for full-time or daily care.

"The respite care was designed to be an opportunity for the mom, whose husband is deployed, or the [dad] whose wife is deployed, to be able to drop their kids off to just have a little peace and quiet, to go to the commissary, to go shopping, to do whatever they need to do," Landers said.

During the first year, however, only the families in 10 pilot states were able to take advantage of the program, which must be offered through state licensed and certified programs and is free to parents. More than 220 children were served. Since Oct. 1, when the program expanded to all 50 states, another 200 children have taken advantage of the program.

"We saw a pretty significant uptick in the demand during the month of October," he said. "There are hundreds and hundreds of YMCAs that are now signed up to do this. I think we'll see a big uptick for the remainder of the year."

Armed Services YMCA officials said they would like to see those using the program establish a monthly routine. This, they explained, makes it easier for the participating YMCAs, since most don't have much excess capacity in their child care programs.
#### Eugene S. Ballin & Company *et al.,*plaintiffs in error, *vs.*M. Ferst & Company *et al.,*defendants in error.

The refusal of a motion to dissolve an injunction, granted on order to show cause, is not subject to review by this court, under sections 3212 *et seq.*of the Code, even though said motion may have been made by defendants who have had themselves made parties since said writ was ordered to issue. This principle applies as well to a motion to vacate the appointment of a receiver. (R.)

Injunction. Receiver. Before the Supreme Court. January Term, 1875.

The above head-note explains itself.

West & Cunningham; A. T. Akebman, for plaintiffs in error.

J. R. Saussy; Howell *&*Denmark; Jackson, Law-ton & Basinger; George A. Mercer, for defendants.
August 18, 2005

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
Office of the Chief Accountant
450 Fifth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20549

Re:  Technology Funding Venture Partners V, An Aggressive Growth Fund, L.P.
       File No. 814-82

Dear Sir or Madam:

We have read Item 4.01 of Form 8-K/A of Technology Funding Venture Partners V,
An Aggressive Growth Fund, L.P., dated August 18, 2005, and agree with the
statements concerning our Firm contained therein.

Very truly yours,

/s/ Grant Thornton LLP


Copies to:
Mr. Harry E. Kitch, P.E.
Audit Committee Chairman
Technology Funding Venture Partners V, An Aggressive Growth Fund, L.P.

Mr. Charles Kokesh
Managing General Partner
<PAGE>
                                                                    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 of Pyramid Breweries Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, James
K. Hilger, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

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

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

/s/ JAMES K. HILGER
James K. Hilger
Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer
April 8, 2005
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

LEONARD D. BERNARD,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 721 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 8th day of April, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
#### Edwin P. Williams, plaintiff in error, *vs.*Charles J. Jenkins, governor, defendant in error.

An entry by the solicitor general upon the original *soi. fa.*upon a forfeited recognizance, that he had “received $5 00 as his cost, the defendant having appeared in court,” is no discharge of the bond, nor any suspension Of the proceedings to take final judgment on the same.

Criminal law. Bail. Bond. Before Judge Knight. Towns Superior Court. November Term, 1873.

George W. Caradine entered into two recognizances with Edwin P. Williams as security, for his appearance at the superior court of Towns county to answer to two indictments, each for the offense of assault and battery. He failed to appear, and the bonds were forfeited. Executions issued and were levied upon the property of the security. He moved to vacate the judgments upon the ground that a compromise was pending between him and the solicitor general at the time the rules absolute were entered. In support of this motion, coun*167sel for Williams relied upon the following entry, which appeared upon each *scire facias:*

*“*Received my cost, $5 00, on this *scire facias,*the defendant having appeared in court. October term, 1868.

(Signed) “S. C. Johnson, solicitor general.”

The motion was overruled, and Williams excepted.

Wier Boyd, for plaintiff in error.

C. D. Phillips, solicitor general, for the defendant.

McCay, Judge.

We see no good reason why this judgment should not be affirmed. The entry of the solicitor general that the costs were paid, *“*the defendant having appeared in court,” is no discharge of the bond or satisfaction of the estreatment. The condition is'not only that he shall appear but that he shall not depart without leave of the court. There can be no discharge of the forfeited recognizance, but by the surrender of-the defendant into the custody of the court or its officers. The highest evidence of this is an entry on the minutes. There is no evidence here at all of a surrender into *custody.*Being in court is one thing, being in custody another. Nor is the solicitor general the judge of such surrender. His entry cannot charge the sheriff, even did his entry go so far as to declare him in custody, and this it does not do. We doubt not that there was no surrender. There was probably a talk of a settlement, bat it was not effected. To permit so loose a discharge of bonds as this would be bad public policy, and we cannot say it was error in the judge to refuse to sanction it. The authority of the attorney to acknowledge service was admitted on the argument, and any point upon it was waived.

Judgment affirmed.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A22A0957. ANDRIAN OLDHAM v. JUDY WILDER.

In this civil matter, Andrian Oldham appeals from a trial court order denying

her motion (i) to quash a subpoena issued by appellee Judy Wilder’s counsel and

(ii) for a protective order barring further post-judgment discovery from being sought

from her. Wilder has filed a motion to remand this case to the trial court so that she

may (i) withdraw the subpoena issued by her counsel and directed to Oldham and

(ii) ask the trial court to dismiss as moot Oldham’s motion to quash and for a

protective order. Wilder’s motion is hereby GRANTED. Upon entry of a trial court

order disposing of Wilder’s motion to dismiss, any party aggrieved by such order may

seek further appellate review by either (i) seeking a certificate of immediate review

from the trial court and, if one is obtained, by filing an application for interlocutory

review in this Court, see OCGA § 5-6-34 (b), or (ii) if the order is subject to

immediate review, by filing a timely notice of appeal referencing such order, see

OCGA § 5-6-38 (a); Hickey v. RREF BB SBL Acquisitions, 336 Ga. App. 411, 412-

414 (1) (785 SE2d 72) (2016).

In the event that, within 30 days of the date of this order, Wilder’s counsel has

not withdrawn the subpoena and filed a motion in the trial court seeking to dismiss

Oldham’s motion to quash and for a protective order, the trial court is hereby

DIRECTED to re-transmit the record to this Court based on the trial court’s prior

April 28, 2022
order denying Oldham’s motion, at which point Oldham’s appeal from that order will

be reinstated.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

04/28/2022
**Exhibit 31.2**

** **

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

** **

I, A. MarkAbramovic, certify that:

1. I have reviewedthis quarterly report on Form 10-Q of NUI Corporation;

2.Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

3.Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas 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 (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a)Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared;

b)Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and 

c)Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscalquarter (the registrant's fourth quarter in the case of an annual report) thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5.The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

a)All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

b)Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financialreporting.

Date: August 14, 2003

/s/ A. MarkAbramovic Sr. Vice President, Chief OperatingOfficer & ChiefFinancial Officer