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

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7049 

To repeal the Department of Veterans Affairs directive relating to the 

COVID–19 vaccination program for Veterans Health Administration 

health care personnel, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 18, 2024 

Mr. ROY (for himself, Mr. CRANE, Mr. PERRY, Mr. CLOUD, Mr. CLYDE, Mrs. 

MILLER of Illinois, Mr. ROSENDALE, Mr. GOOD of Virginia, Mr. OGLES, 

Mr. RUTHERFORD, Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina, Mr. JACKSON of 

Texas, Mr. COLLINS, Mr. GOSAR, Mr. BURLISON, Mr. JOHNSON of South 

Dakota, and Mr. WILLIAMS of Texas) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To repeal the Department of Veterans Affairs directive relating to the COVID–19 vaccination program for Veterans 

Health Administration health care personnel, 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, 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 7049 IH

1 SECTION 1. REPEAL OF DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AF2 FAIRS DIRECTIVE RELATING TO COVID–19 

3 VACCINATION PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN PER4 SONNEL. 

5 The Secretary of Veterans Affairs— 

6 (1) shall repeal Veterans Health Administration 

7 Directive 1193.01(1) titled ‘‘Coronavirus Disease 

8 2019 Vaccination Program for Veterans Health Ad9 ministration Health Care Personnel’’ and published 

10 on January 27, 2022 (as amended on December 1, 

11 2022); and 

12 (2) may not issue any substantially similar di13 rective. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Daniel McCoy, Chief Executive Officer of Keegan Resources Inc. (the Company) do 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 my knowledge:



1.

This Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Company for the period ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (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.





Date: September 27, 2007





/s/  Daniel McCoy

Daniel McCoy, Chief Executive Officer













#
Exhibit 31.1 CERTIFICATION I, Clifford S. Feibus, certify that:  1.  I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of the Corporate Backed Callable Trust Certificates, J.C. Penney Debenture-Backed Series 2006-1 Trust (the "Exchange Act periodic reports");  2.  Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;  3.  Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;  4.  Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing, or similar, agreement in all material respects; and  5.  All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.  In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated party: U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee.  Date: March 28, 2018 By:  /s/ Clifford S. FeibusName:  Clifford S. Feibus Title: Senior Vice President and Controller (Senior Officer of the Depositor)
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7011 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7011

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 209 Main Street in Duncan, Arizona, as the ``Sandra Day O'Connor 
                             Post Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 17, 2024

 Mr. Ciscomani (for himself, Mrs. Lesko, Mr. Schweikert, Mr. Stanton, 
and Mr. Grijalva) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
             the Committee on Oversight and Accountability

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 209 Main Street in Duncan, Arizona, as the ``Sandra Day O'Connor 
                             Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 209 Main Street in Duncan, Arizona, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Sandra Day O'Connor Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Sandra Day 
O'Connor Post Office''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Louise BIGGERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WELLS FARGO BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION; Government National Mortgage Association, as Trustee for Securitized Trust Ginnie Mae Remic Trust 2011-002; Ginnie Mae; Wells Fargo Home Mortgage; Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., a/k/a MERS; Does 1 Through 100, inclusive, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-1275

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 25, 2017

Decided: May 30, 2017

Louise Biggers, Appellant Pro Se. Terry Catherine Frank, KAUFMAN *&*CA-ÑOLES, PC, Richmond, Virginia, for Ap-pellees.

Before MOTZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges,

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Louise Biggers appeals the district court’s order dismissing her complaint seeking to forestall the foreclosure of her home for failure to state a claim and as barred by res judicata. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. *See*4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Biggers’ informal brief does not challenge the district court’s dispositive conclusion that her claims are barred by res judieata, Biggers has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. *See Williams v. Giant Food Inc.,*370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4 (4th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                             142
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,624
<ALLOWANCES>                                        65
<INVENTORY>                                     10,733
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                16,530
<PP&E>                                           9,886
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,249
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  35,129
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,815
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             4
<OTHER-SE>                                      15,066
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    35,129
<SALES>                                         18,927
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                18,927
<CGS>                                           17,022
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   17,022
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,184
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    67
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,084
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,140)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       810
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,331)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,331)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.32)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.32)
        

</TABLE>
#### Donavon HENDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICES, INC.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-15935

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 26, 2017 *

Filed July 5, 2017

Donavon Henderson, Pro Se

Bryan L. Hawkins, Stoel Rives LLP, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees Select Portfolio Services, Inc., U.S. Bank

Leslie M. Werlin, Esquire, McGuire-Woods LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Alison Valerie Lippa, Attorney, McGuireWoods LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appel-lee Bank of America, N.A.

Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Donavon Henderson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing for failure to prosecute his action alleging federal claims arising out of a residential home loan transaction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

*898We do not consider the merits of the district court’s dismissal of Henderson’s action because Henderson does not raise any argument in his opening brief concerning the district court’s dismissal of his action. *See Smith v. Marsh,*194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[Arguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are deemed waived.”); *Greenwood v. FAA,*28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994) (“We will not manufacture arguments for an appellant, and a bare, assertion does not preserve a claim....”).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Rehema MUSOKE, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 16-2446

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 16, 2017

Decided: May 24, 2017

Rehema Musoke, Petitioner Pro Se. Stefanie N. Hennes, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,-Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Rehema Musoke, a native and citizen of Uganda, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration'Appeals (Board) denying her second motion to reopen. For the reasons set forth below, we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

Before this court, Musoke argues that she was denied a full and fair hearing on her applications for relief in violation of the Due Process Clause and that she was entitled to reopening based upon' prior counsel’s alleged ineffective assistance. Only the Board’s denial of Musoke’s second motion to reopen is properly before us, however, as she failed to timely petition this court for review of either the Board’s decision of December 11, 2015 (upholding the immigration judge’s determination that Musoke abandoned her applications for relief) or its decision of March 23, 2016 (denying her jpro se motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel). *See*8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (2012); *Stone v. INS,*514 U.S. 386, 405, 115 S.Ct. 1537, 131 L.Ed.2d 465 (1995). Accordingly, we now limit our review to the Board’s denial of Musoke’s second motion to reopen, and we dismiss the petition for review to the extent she challenges the earlier decisions. We also dismiss the petition for review to the extent Musoke challenges the Board’s refusal to exercise its sua sponte authority to reopen. *See Mosere v, Mukasey,*552 F.3d 397, 400-01 (4th Cir. 2009) (holding that the court lacks jurisdiction to review the Board’s refusal to sua sponte reopen proceedings).

Turning to the Board’s denial of Mu-soke’s motion to reopen, we have reviewed Musoke’s claims in conjunction with the administrative record and conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion as untimely and number-barred. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a), (c) (2016); *Mosere v. Mukasey,*552 F.3d 397, 400 (4th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review in part for the reasons stated by the Board. *See In re Musoke*(B.I.A. Nov. 30, 2016). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*PETITION DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART*
**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 this Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-K/A to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Bridgeline Digital, Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended September 30, 2017, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Michael Prinn, Co-Chief Executive Officer and President, and Chief Financial Officer of the Company certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:

 

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

 

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition of the Company as of the dates presented and result of operations of the Company for the periods presented. 

 

|       Date:       January 26, 2018 |   |  

/s/ Michael Prinn                                                           |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                                                     | Name:  | Michael Prinn                                                                       |
|                                                                                                     | Title: | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Financial Officer) |

 

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.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 12
 
                    CASE CREDIT CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
 
               COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
 
                             (DOLLARS IN MILLIONS)
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                    NINE MONTHS
                                                                       ENDED
                                                                     SEPTEMBER
                                                                        30,
                                                                    -----------
                                                                    1998  1997
                                                                    ----- -----
<S>                                                                 <C>   <C>
Net Income......................................................... $  62 $  62
Add:
  Interest expense.................................................   103    72
  Amortization of capitalized debt expense.........................     1     1
  Portion of rentals representative of interest factor.............   --    --
  Income tax expense and other taxes on income.....................    34    29
  Fixed charges of unconsolidated subsidiaries.....................   --    --
                                                                    ----- -----
    Earnings as defined............................................ $ 200 $ 164
                                                                    ===== =====
Interest expense................................................... $ 103 $  72
Amortization of capitalized debt expense...........................     1     1
Portion of rentals representative of interest factor...............   --    --
Fixed charges of unconsolidated subsidiaries.......................   --    --
                                                                    ----- -----
    Fixed charges as defined....................................... $ 104 $  73
                                                                    ===== =====
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges................................. 1.92x 2.25x
                                                                    ===== =====
</TABLE>
 
                                       15
# L_2005077DE.01001501.xml

| 23.3.2005 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 77/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.3.2005

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 77/15

---

Berichtigung der Richtlinie 2002/85/EG des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates vom 5. November 2002 zur Änderung der Richtlinie 92/6/EWG des Rates über Einbau und Benutzung von Geschwindigkeitsbegrenzern für bestimmte Kraftfahrzeugklassen in der Gemeinschaft

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 327 vom 4. Dezember 2002
  )

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 327 vom 4. Dezember 2002

Seite 8, Artikel 1 Nummer 1 (Artikel 2 Absatz 1 der Richtlinie 92/6/EWG):

anstatt:

„Die Mitgliedstaaten treffen die erforderlichen Maßnahmen, damit Kraftfahrzeuge der Klassen M2 und M3 im Sinne des Artikels 1 nur dann im Straßenverkehr eingesetzt werden dürfen, wenn ein Geschwindigkeitsbegrenzer eingebaut ist, für den die Höchstgeschwindigkeit auf 100 km/h einzustellen ist.“

muss es heißen:

„Die Mitgliedstaaten treffen die erforderlichen Maßnahmen, damit Kraftfahrzeuge der Klassen M2 und M3 im Sinne des Artikels 1 nur dann im Straßenverkehr eingesetzt werden dürfen, wenn ein Geschwindigkeitsbegrenzer eingebaut ist, der so eingestellt ist, dass das Fahrzeug eine Höchstgeschwindigkeit von 100 km/h nicht überschreiten kann.“

Seite 8, Artikel 1 Nummer 1 (Artikel 3 Absatz 1 der Richtlinie 92/6/EWG):

anstatt:

„(1)   Die Mitgliedstaaten treffen die erforderlichen Maßnahmen, damit Kraftfahrzeuge der Klassen N2 und N3 nur dann im Straßenverkehr eingesetzt werden dürfen, wenn ein Geschwindigkeitsbegrenzer eingebaut ist, für den die Höchstgeschwindigkeit auf 90 km/h einzustellen ist.“

muss es heißen:

„(1)   Die Mitgliedstaaten treffen die erforderlichen Maßnahmen, damit Kraftfahrzeuge der Klassen N2 und N3 nur dann im Straßenverkehr eingesetzt werden dürfen, wenn ein Geschwindigkeitsbegrenzer eingebaut ist, der so eingestellt ist, dass das Fahrzeug eine Höchstgeschwindigkeit von 90 km/h nicht überschreiten kann.“

---
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 740 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 740

For the relief of Inslaw, Inc., and William A. Hamilton and Nancy Burke 
                               Hamilton.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 1, 1995

   Mr. Hatch introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
For the relief of Inslaw, Inc., and William A. Hamilton and Nancy Burke 
                               Hamilton.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
    Section 1. The Secretary of the Treasury shall pay, out of any 
money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum due, if any, 
jointly to Inslaw, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, and William A. 
Hamilton and Nancy Burke Hamilton for damages incurred arising from 
claims relating to the furnishing of computer software and services to 
the United States Department of Justice.
    Sec. 2. (a) The payment made pursuant to the first section of this 
Act shall constitute full settlement of all legal and equitable claims 
by Inslaw, Inc., and William A. Hamilton and Nancy Burke Hamilton 
against the United States, or any agency, official, officer, employee, 
or agent thereof.
    (b) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as an inference of 
liability on the part of the United States.
                                 <all>
```
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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Saratoga Investment Corp. (the Company) for the annual period ended
February 28, 2017, as filed with the Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Christian L. Oberbeck, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and I, Henri J. Steenkamp, Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, each certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to our knowledge:

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.

Date: May 16, 2017



/s/ CHRISTIAN L. OBERBECKChristian L. OberbeckChief Executive Officer/s/ HENRI J. STEENKAMPName: Henri J. SteenkampChief Financial Officer and Chief Compliance Officer