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

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3956 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to provide that interest shall 

not accrue on Federal Direct Loans for members of the Armed Forces 

on active duty regardless of the date of disbursement. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 28, 2009 

Mrs. DAVIS of California (for herself, Mr. BISHOP of New York, and Mr. FILNER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Education and Labor 

A BILL 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to provide 

that interest shall not accrue on Federal Direct Loans 

for members of the Armed Forces on active duty regardless of the date of disbursement. 

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 ‘‘Servicemember Stu5 dent Loan Interest Relief Act’’. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3956 IH

1 SEC. 2. NO ACCRUAL OF INTEREST FOR MEMBERS OF THE 

2 ARMED FORCES ON ACTIVE DUTY. 

3 Section 455(o) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 

4 (20 U.S.C. 1087e(o)) is amended— 

5 (1) in paragraph (1)— 

6 (A) by striking ‘‘paragraphs (2) and (4)’’ 

7 and inserting ‘‘paragraph (3)’’; and 

8 (B) by striking ‘‘for which the first dis9 bursement is made on or after October 1, 

10 2008’’; 

11 (2) by striking paragraph (2); and 

12 (3) by redesignating paragraphs (3) and (4) as 

13 paragraphs (2) and (3), respectively. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 3-Mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             Dec-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                Jan-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                  Mar-31-1999
<CASH>                        1,502
<SECURITIES>                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                 6,374
<ALLOWANCES>                   (166)
<INVENTORY>                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              9,644
<PP&E>                      310,741
<DEPRECIATION>              (85,597)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>              259,855
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>        12,470
<BONDS>                     187,555
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>             0
<PREFERRED>                       1
<COMMON>                         43
<OTHER-SE>                   59,645
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>259,855
<SALES>                      12,947
<TOTAL-REVENUES>             13,105
<CGS>                         5,934
<TOTAL-COSTS>                11,839
<OTHER-EXPENSES>               (132)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            6,317
<INCOME-PRETAX>              (4,919)
<INCOME-TAX>                      0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>          (4,962)
<DISCONTINUED>                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                   0
<CHANGES>                         0
<NET-INCOME>                 (4,962)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                 (0.29)
<EPS-DILUTED>                 (0.29)
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 18.1


November 18, 1999



Global Diamond Resources, Inc.
836 Prospect Street
Suite 2B
La Jolla, CA  92037

Ladies and Gentlemen:

We have audited the consolidated balance sheets of Global Diamond Resources,
Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1998 and 1997, and the related
consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity, and cash flows for
each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 1998 and have
reported thereon under date of March 5, 1999, except as to notes 2, 4, 6, 7, 10
and 13 as to which the date is July 16, 1999.  The aforementioned consolidated
financial statements and our audit report thereon are included in the Company's
annual report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 1998.  As stated in
Note 1 to those financial statements, the Company changed its method of
accounting for exploration and related costs on unproven properties from
capitalizing all expenditures to expensing all costs, other than acquisition
costs, prior to the completion of a definitive feasibility study which
establishes proven and probable reserves.  The note states that the Company's
newly adopted accounting method is preferable because it is the predominant
method of accounting used in the mining industry and will better reflect
operating income and cash flow. In accordance with your request, we have
reviewed and discussed with Company officials the circumstances and business
judgment and planning upon which the decision to make this change in the method
of accounting was based.

With regard to the aforementioned accounting change, authoritative criteria have
not been established for evaluating the preferability of one acceptable method
of accounting over another acceptable method.  However, for purposes of Global
Diamond Resources, Inc.'s compliance with the requirement of the Securities and
Exchange Commission, we are furnishing this letter.

Based on our review and discussion, with reliance on management's business
judgment and planning, we concur that the newly adopted method of accounting is
preferable in the circumstances.

Very truly yours,



KPMG LLP
gss_ex10-2.htm












 


July 28, 2008 


 


Dear David,







This is in clarification of our Agreement, dated July 13, 2008 in connection with the future purchase of Blendtec products by GSS.







Blendtec hereby grants GSS the first right to purchase Blendtec's production of its Self Serve Smoothie blender (S3).







If Blendtec's production of the S3 exceeds GSS's orders for such production for more than any 30-day period then GSS shall lose its right of first purchase of such S3 production upon notice to that effect by Blendtec to GSS.







Please indicate Blendtec's approval of this amendment to its agreements regarding its production with GSS by signing in the space provided below.







Sincerely,







Global Smoothie Supply, Inc.


 


/s/ John W. Gohsman President












Read, Approved & Agreed:












K-Tec, Inc., d/b/a Blendtec







/s/ David Beck


By: David Beck


President
Exhibit 32.2

          CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13A - 14(b) OF THE SECURITIES
           EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 AND AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
               OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Spear & Jackson, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Patrick J. Dyson,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to 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/ Patrick J. Dyson
--------------------
Patrick J. Dyson
Chief Financial Officer

February 14, 2006
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 6 (Monday, January 10, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 1247]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-00159]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice: 11624]


Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Objects Being 
Imported for Exhibition--Determinations: ``Fictions of Emancipation: 
Carpeaux Recast'' Exhibition

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I 
hereby determine that certain objects being imported from abroad 
pursuant to agreements with their foreign owners or custodians for 
temporary display in the exhibition ``Fictions of Emancipation: 
Carpeaux Recast'' at The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, New 
York, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be 
determined, are of cultural significance, and, further, that their 
temporary exhibition or display within the United States as 
aforementioned is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public 
Notice of these determinations be published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chi D. Tran, Program Administrator, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-
632-6471; email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7c0f191f081513124e4849453c0f081d0819521b130a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="acdfc9cfd8c5c3c29e989995ecdfd8cdd8c982cbc3da">[email protected]</span></a>). The mailing address is U.S. 
Department of State, L/PD, 2200 C Street NW (SA-5), Suite 5H03, 
Washington, DC 20522-0505.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The foregoing determinations were made 
pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), E.O. 12047 of March 27, 1978, the 
Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 stat. 2681, 
et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of Authority No. 234 
of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 of August 28, 
2000, and Delegation of Authority No. 523 of December 22, 2021.

Stacy E. White,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Professional and Cultural Exchanges, 
Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2022-00159 Filed 1-7-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Jehiel Burt v. The Commissioners of Highways of Sumpter and Van Buren.

*Iicrnedy: Laying out highways: Appeal:*' *Certiorari,*where one feeling himself aggrieved. t>y tlie action of highway commissioners in the matter of laying out a road, on a town line, had taken advantage of the appropriate statutory remedy by appeal to the township hoards, there being no showing of peculiar and exceptional circumstances, the court declined to order a writ of *certiorari*to review the proceedings.

*Heard and decided June 9.*

Application for *Certiorari.*

This writ was sought to review proceedings of the high*191way commissioners to lay out a road on tbe town line between tlie townships of Sumpter and Van Burén, in Wayne county. To lay out the proposed highway, lands of the relator were required to be taken, and he was awarded damages for the taking. Not being satisfied with the action of the commissioners, he took an appeal under the statute to the township boards of the two townships, where the proceedings of the commissioners were confirmed, except as to the amount of the award to the relator.

*James 8. Dewey,*for relator, made the application *ex parte.*

The Ooukt

held that where one has thus taken advantage of the appropriate statutory remedy by appeal, a writ of *certiorari*will not be allowed to renew the proceedings, unless there are peculiar and exceptional circumstances existing indicating that some special grievance will result from the denial of the remedy.

Writ denied.
#### Jay M. Rowland *v.*The Bar Rules Committee of Arkansas.

5-878

288 S. W. 2d 330

Opinion delivered March 26, 1956.

*Harry E. Meek, A. F. Triplett, J. H. Lookadoo, Harry T. Wooldridge, Cooper B. Land, Eugene A. Matthews*and *John Harris Jones,*for petitioner.

*John P. Woods, Howard Cockrill, John D. Eldridge, Jr., J. B. Baggett, A. L. Smith, 0. A. Graves*and *Abner McGehee,*for respondent.

Per Curiam.

The petition by Jay M. Rowland for reinstatement, as an attorney, is denied. This denial is based on the following record: Affirmance by this court on June 28, 1948 of petitioner’s conviction óf a felony in the case of *Rowland*v. *State,*213 Ark. 780, 213 S. W. 2d 370 — reference is made to that case for a full statement of facts on which the opinion was based — the denial of Petition for Certiorari by the Supreme Court of the United States on March 4, 1949, and a subsequent denial of a similar Petition by the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas; the Bar Rules Committee’s Petition for Disbarment filed on May 2, 1949; this court’s Order of Permanent Disbarment on June 27, 1949; Petitioner’s application for Reinstatement and this court’s subsequent denial thereof on February 18, 1952; and the present Application for Reinstatement filed November 4, 1955.

It could serve no useful purpose to spread again on the records of this court the facts leading up to and bringing about petitioner’s permanent disbarment on June 27, 1949. In that order we said: “The clerk of this Court is directed to enter an order of permanent disbarment of Jay M. Rowland, under authority of 3 Ark. Stats. Secs. 25-401, et seq, and Amendment No. 28 to the Constitution. See *Rowland*v. *State,*213 Ark. 780, 213 *144S. W. 2d 370. Order effective as of this date. Mr. Justice Mill wee dissents from that part of the order making the disbarment permanent.”

We now decline to modify or change that order in any respect.

Justices Millwee and RobiNsok dissent.

Justice George Rose Smith not participating.
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 Quintek  Technologies,  Inc. on Form
10-QSB for the period ending  December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof,  I, Robert  Steele,  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:

1. The Report  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.





Date: February 14, 2005


/S/ ROBERT STEELE
-------------------------------
Robert Steele,
Chief Executive Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v William Eldridge, Appellant.

[774 NYS2d 683]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Brenda Soloff, J., on speedy trial motion; John Stackhouse, J., at jury trial and sentence), rendered May 18, 2001, convicting defendant of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 4 to 8 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly granted the People’s *reverse-Batson*application *(Batson v Kentucky,*476 US 79 [1986]; *People v Kern,*75 NY2d 638 [1990], *cert denied*498 US 824 [1990]). The record supports the court’s finding of pretext. Such a finding, based primarily on the court’s assessment of counsel’s credibility, is entitled to great deference *(see People v Hernandez,*75 NY2d 350 [1990], *affd*500 US 352, 356-357 [1991]).

The court properly submitted to the jury the lesser offense of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, since there was a reasonable view of the evidence that defendant committed the lesser but not the greater crime *(see People v Scarborough,*49 NY2d 364 [1980]). Under the circumstances of the case, the jury could have reasonably concluded that defendant only possessed the portion of the drugs that an officer observed in defendant’s physical possession.

The court properly denied defendant’s speedy trial motion. The record supports the court’s finding that the period during which defendant was incarcerated in Pennsylvania is excludable because the People exercised due diligence in securing his presence (CPL 30.30 [4] [e]). The People sufficiently established that the Pennsylvania authorities would not permit defendant to be extradited until at least January 2000, and that further efforts to extradite defendant would have been futile *(see People v Gonzalez,*235 AD2d 366 [1997], *lv denied*89 NY2d 1093 [1997]). *283We note that while the People made no showing of their efforts to secure defendant’s presence from January 1, 2000 to March 23, 2000, when he signed the waiver of extradition, that 82-day period is not dispositive. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Ellerin and Gonzalez, JJ.
MD Filed by Filing Services Canada Inc.  (403) 717-3898


 

SENTRY PETROLEUM LTD. 

SHARE OPTION PLAN 

February 28, 2009

 

OPTION COMMITMENT 

 

Notice is hereby given that, effective this 28th day of February, 2009 (the “Effective Date”) SENTRY PETROLEUM LTD. (the “Company”) has granted to Alan Hart, an Option to acquire 150,000 Common Shares (“Optioned Shares”) up to 5:00 p.m. Pacific time on the 28th day of February, 2014 (the “Expiry Date”) at a Exercise Price of US$1.04 per share. Optioned Shares may be acquired as follows: 

			
	 

	(a) 

	1/3 of the total number of Optioned Shares granted will vest twelve months after the Effective Date;


	 

	 

	 


	 

	(b) 

	a further 1/3 of the total number of Optioned Shares granted will vest 24 months after the Effective Date; and


	 

	 

	 


	 

	(c) 

	the remaining 1/3 of the total number of Optioned Shares granted will vest 36 months after the Effective Date.




The grant of the Optioned Shares evidenced hereby is made subject to the terms and conditions of the Company’s Share Option Plan, the terms and conditions of which are hereby incorporated in this Option Commitment. 

To exercise your Option, deliver to the Company at its then principal business office, a written notice specifying the number of Optioned Shares you wish to acquire, together with cash or a certified cheque payable to the Company for the aggregate Exercise Price. A certificate for the Optioned Shares so acquired will be issued by the transfer agent as soon as practicable thereafter and will bear a legend stipulating any resale restrictions required under applicable securities laws. 

 

SENTRY PETROLEUM LTD. 



President

 

I hereby acknowledge receipt of a copy of the Plan and agree to be bound by the terms of the Plan. This commitment supersedes any prior Option or commitment made to me.

 

OPTIONEE 

_ALAN HART________________________________

Name:       _Alan Hart___________________________

Address:   ___________________________________

                 ___________________________________
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 96-50053

No. 96-50147

Summary Calendar

__________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ABRAHAM RIVAS,

 Defendant-Appellant.

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

ABRAHAM RIVAS,

 Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

WACKENHUT PAROLE VIOLATOR FACILITY;

U.S. MARSHAL SERVICE, Western District

of Texas,

 Respondent-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. SA-95-CR-170-1 cons. w/

No. SA-96-CV-2

- - - - - - - - - -

September 11, 1996

Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

In this consolidated appeal, Abraham Rivas appeals his

conviction and sentence for possession of marijuana with intent
No. 96-50053

No. 96-50147

-2-

to distribute and conspiracy to distribute and possess with

intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 

§§ 841(a)(1) and 846 (No. 96-50053), and the denial of his 28

U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition attacking the same

conviction and sentence (No. 96-50147). 

Rivas has not shown “plain error” as to his contention that

the district court’s jury instruction on the conspiracy count

“constructively amended” the indictment. See United States v.

Calverley, 37 F.3d 160, 162-64 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc), cert.

denied, 115 S. Ct. 1266 (1995); United States v. Devoll, 39 F.3d

575, 579 (5th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 1701 (1995). 

Rivas’ claim that the enhancement of his sentence was based on a

state conviction that was imposed in violation of the Double

Jeopardy Clause is meritless. See United States v. Ursery, 116

S. Ct. 2135, 2147-49 (1996).

Assuming that Rivas properly raised his double-jeopardy

claim in a § 2241 petition, such claim is meritless under the

“dual sovereign” rule. See United States v. Moore, 958 F.2d 646,

650 (5th Cir. 1992); see Department of Revenue of Mont. v. Kurth

Ranch, 114 S. Ct. 1937, 1947 n.22 (1994).

AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement on Form S-8(File Nos. 333-135731, 333-107005, 333-39974, 333-33760, 333-80691, 333-28435, 333-20925) of our report relating to the financial statements of Pharmaceutical Product Development, Inc. dated February 26, 2007, (which report expresses anunqualified opinion and includes explanatory paragraphs relating to the adoption of Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Statement No. 158, “Employers’ Accounting for Defined Benefit Pension and Other PostretirementPlans – an amendment of FASB Statements No. 87, 88, 106, and 132 (R)” and FASB Statement No. 123 (revised), “Share-Based Payment”) and management’s report on the effectiveness of internal control over financialreporting also dated February 26, 2007, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Pharmaceutical Product Development, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2006. 

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP 

Raleigh, North Carolina 

February 26, 2007
<Page>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.7

          CERTIFICATION REQUIRED BY RULE 13a-14(b) AND SECTION 1350 OF
                CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE

In connection with the annual report of Acetex Corporation ("Acetex") on Form
40-F for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Lori Bondar, Chief
Financial Officer of Acetex, 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 sections 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 Acetex.



"Lori Bondar"
-------------------------------
Name:  Lori Bondar
Title:  Chief Financial Officer

March 29, 2005
# Death of Harry Reid

From humble roots in Searchlight, Nevada, Harry Reid rose to become one of the great Senate Majority Leaders in American history. He was a man of action, and a man of his word—guided by faith, loyalty, and unshakeable resolve.

Throughout his long career of public service, Harry Reid was instrumental in passing landmark legislation that made a positive difference in the lives of countless Americans and made our Nation stronger and safer. His devoted service to our Nation was not about power for power's sake. It was about the power to do right by the American people.

As a mark of respect for his memory, I hereby order, by the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, that on the day of his interment, the flag of the United States shall be flown at half-staff at the White House and upon all public buildings and grounds, at all military posts and naval stations, and on all naval vessels of the Federal Government in the District of Columbia and throughout the United States and its Territories and possessions until sunset on such day. I also direct that the flag shall be flown at half-staff for the same period at all United States embassies, legations, consular offices, and other facilities abroad, including all military facilities and naval vessels and stations.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-ninth day of December, in the year of our Lord two thousand twenty-one, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and forty-sixth.

[FR Doc. 2021-28554

Billing code 3395-F2-P