alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned officer of Advanced ID Corporation (the "Company"),
hereby certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that the Company's
Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the nine months ended September 30,
2007 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

                                 /s/Dan Finch
                                 ----------------------
                                 Dan Finch
                                 Chief Executive Officer

November 19, 2007

                             CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned officer of Advanced ID Corporation (the "Company"),
hereby certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that the Company's
Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the nine months ended September 30,
2007 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

                                 /s/Sudeep Bhargava
                                 ----------------------
                                 Sudeep Bhargava
                                 Interim Chief Financial Officer

November 19, 2007
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6223 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6223

 To amend title 28, United States Code, to provide that a national of 
the United States may only bring a claim against a foreign state for an 
 injury which was caused by international terrorism and which occurred 
             on September 11, 2001, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 28, 2016

 Mr. Issa (for himself and Mr. Vargas) introduced the following bill; 
          which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 28, United States Code, to provide that a national of 
the United States may only bring a claim against a foreign state for an 
 injury which was caused by international terrorism and which occurred 
             on September 11, 2001, 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 ``Safeguarding America's Armed Forces 
and Effectiveness Act'' or the ``SAAFE Act''.

SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON CLAIMS BY NATIONALS OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST 
              FOREIGN STATES ARISING OUT OF INJURY CAUSED BY 
              INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM.

    (a) In General.--Section 1605B(b) of title 28, United States Code, 
is amended by inserting after ``occurring in the United States'' the 
following: ``on September 11, 2001''.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 7(2) of the Justice Against 
Sponsors of Terrorism Act is amended by striking ``on or after 
September 11, 2001'' and inserting ``on September 11, 2001''.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 795 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 795

                  For the relief of Pandelis Perdikis.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                 May 1 (legislative day, May 11), 1995

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
                  For the relief of Pandelis Perdikis.
    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENCE.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for purposes of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), Pandelis 
Perdikis shall be held and considered to have been lawfully admitted to 
the United States for permanent residence as of the date of the 
enactment of this Act upon payment of the required visa fee.

SEC. 2. REDUCTION OF NUMBER OF AVAILABLE VISAS.

    Upon the granting of permanent residence to Pandelis Perdikis as 
provided in this Act, the Secretary of State shall instruct the proper 
officer to reduce by one number during the current fiscal year the 
total number of immigrant visas available to natives of the country of 
the alien's birth under section 203(a) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(a)).
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE QUARTERLY
REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE FISCAL QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 1997, AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           3,257
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           1,858
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     88,230
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          83,276
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            83,290
<LOANS>                                        104,895
<ALLOWANCE>                                    (1,075)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 288,089
<DEPOSITS>                                     204,156
<SHORT-TERM>                                    39,859
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              1,160
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            36
<OTHER-SE>                                      42,878
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 268,089
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  2,132
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                3,107
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   100
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 5,339
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               1,992
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,588
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            2,751
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       75
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                (18)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  1,569
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,306
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,306
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       793
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.27
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.27
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.64
<LOANS-NON>                                      1,225
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                    813
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               (1,078)
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       79
<RECOVERIES>                                       (1)
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              (1,075)
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           (1,075)
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 80 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 80

To amend the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, 1930, to include 
marketing of fresh cut flowers and fresh cut foliage in the coverage of 
                    the Act, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 4, 1995

  Mr. Inouye introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
   referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, 1930, to include 
marketing of fresh cut flowers and fresh cut foliage in the coverage of 
                    the Act, 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. INCLUSION OF FRESH CUT FLOWERS AND FRESH CUT FOLIAGE IN PACA 
              COVERAGE.

    Section 1(b)(4)(A) of the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, 
1930 (7 U.S.C. 499a(b)(4)(A)), is amended by striking ``fruits and 
fresh vegetables'' and inserting ``fruits, fresh vegetables, fresh cut 
flowers, and fresh cut foliage''.
                                 <all>
```
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

________________________

No. 07-14-00049-CV 

________________________

BRIAN KERN, O.D., PETER M. HO, M.D., D/B/A TEXAS VISION ASSOCIATES, P.A. 

 AND MING-TAO HO, M.D., A/K/A “PETER” M. HO, M.D., APPELLANTS 

 

V. 

 

THE TEXAS OPTOMETRY BOARD, ET AL., APPELLEES 

 

 

On Appeal from the 99th District Court 

Lubbock County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 2013-508,829; Honorable William C. Sowder, Presiding 

 

December 1, 2014 

 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

 

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ.

Appellants, Brian Kern, O.D. and Peter M. Ho, M.D., P.A., d/b/a Texas Vision 

Associates, P.A., and Ming-Tao Ho, M.D., a/k/a “Peter” M. Ho, M.D., filed Appellants’ 

Motion for Voluntary Dismissal of this appeal on November 25, 2014. The motion 

includes a certificate of conference indicating that counsel for Appellees does not 

oppose the relief requested. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is granted and the 
2

appeal is dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). The motion does not indicate an 

agreement of the parties with regard to the allocation of costs of the appeal. We 

therefore tax costs of the appeal against Appellants. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(d).

Having dismissed the appeal at the request of Appellants, we will not entertain a 

motion for rehearing, and our mandate will issue forthwith.

Patrick A. Pirtle

 Justice
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 721 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 721

  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend and modify the 
                   railroad track maintenance credit.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 4, 2015

Ms. Jenkins of Kansas (for herself, Mr. Blumenauer, Mr. Rodney Davis of 
 Illinois, and Mr. Lipinski) introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend and modify the 
                   railroad track maintenance credit.

    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 ``Short Line Railroad Rehabilitation 
and Investment Act of 2015''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION AND MODIFICATION OF RAILROAD TRACK MAINTENANCE 
              CREDIT.

    (a) Extension of Credit.--Section 45G(f) of the Internal Revenue 
Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``January 1, 2015'' and inserting 
``January 1, 2017''.
    (b) Expenditures.--Subsection (d) of section 45G of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to qualified railroad track maintenance 
expenditures) is amended by striking ``for maintaining'' and all that 
follows and inserting ``for maintaining--
                    ``(A) in the case of taxable years beginning after 
                December 31, 2004, and before January 1, 2015, railroad 
                track (including roadbed, bridges, and related track 
                structures) owned or leased as of January 1, 2005, by a 
                Class II or Class III railroad (determined without 
                regard to any consideration for such expenditures given 
                by the Class II or Class III railroad which made the 
                assignment of such track), and
                    ``(B) in the case of taxable years beginning after 
                December 31, 2014, railroad track (including roadbed, 
                bridges, and related track structures) owned or leased 
                as of January 1, 2015, by a Class II or Class III 
                railroad (determined without regard to any 
                consideration for such expenditures given by the Class 
                II or Class III railroad which made the assignment of 
                such track).''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2014.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.2

# CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly
Report of Buckeye Ventures, Inc. (the Corporation) on Form 10-QSB
for the period ended March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the Report), I, Paul D. Hancock, Vice Chairman of the Board of Directors and Finance Committee Chairman of the Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to
§ 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my 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 Corporation.

|                                                                                                                              
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Paul D. Hancock
Paul D. Hancock
Vice Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chairman of the Finance Committee
May 21, 2006
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

**JOSEPH BAUER,**

**Petitioner**

**v.**

**UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW,** 

**Respondent**

**PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,** 

**Intervenor :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 914 MAL 2015** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from**

**the Order of the Commonwealth Court**

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 11th day of April, 2016, the Petition for All owance of Appeal is** 

DENIED

**.**
# EUR-Lex - 32002D0416 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32002D0416

**2002/416/EC: Commission Decision of 6 June 2002 amending for the 10th time Decision 2000/284/EC establishing the list of approved semen collection centres for imports of equine semen from third countries (Text with EEA relevance) (notified under document number C(2002) 2041) **

*
Official Journal L 150 , 08/06/2002 P. 0056 - 0067 *

Commission Decision

of 6 June 2002

amending for the 10th time Decision 2000/284/EC establishing the list of approved semen collection centres for imports of equine semen from third countries

(notified under document number C(2002) 2041)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2002/416/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 92/65/EEC of 13 July 1992, laying down animal health requirements governing trade in and imports into the Community of animals, semen, ova and embryos not subject to animal health requirements laid down in specific Community rules referred to in Annex A (I) to Directive 90/425/EEC(1), as last amended by Commission Decision 2001/298/EC(2), and in particular Articles 17(3)(b) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Commission Decision 2000/284/EC(3), as last amended by Decision 2002/339/EC(4), established the list of approved semen collection centres for imports of equine semen from third countries.

(2) The competent authorities of New Zealand officially informed the Commission of the approval in accordance with the provisions of Directive 92/65/EEC of an equine semen collection centre.

(3) It is appropriate to amend the list in the light of new information received from the third country concerned, and to highlight the amendments in the Annex for clarity.

(4) The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The Annex to Decision 2000/284/EC is replaced by the Annex to this Decision.

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 6 June 2002.

For the Commission

David Byrne

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 268, 14.9.1992, p. 54.

(2) OJ L 102, 12.4.2001, p. 63.

(3) OJ L 94, 14.4.2000, p. 35.

(4) OJ L 116, 3.5.2002, p. 63.

ANEXO/BILAG/ANHANG/ΠΑΡΑΡΤΗΜΑ/ANNEX/ANNEXE/ALLEGATO/BIJLAGE/ANEXO/LIITE/BILAGA

>TABLE>

ANNEX

>TABLE>

>TABLE>

>TABLE>

>TABLE>

>TABLE>
#### Melissa Priscilla MORALES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Nancy A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-55393

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted November 7, 2017 * Pasadena, California

Filed November 20, 2017

Young Chul Cho, Attorney, Law Offices of Lawrence Rohlfing, Santa Fe Springs, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Shea Lita Bond, Elizabeth Firer, Special Assistant U.S. Attorneys, Social Security Administration, Office of the General Counsel, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee

Before; REINHARDT, GILMAN,** and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.

*

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

**

 The Honorable Ronald Lee Gilman, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

Melissa Morales appeals the district court’s decision affirming the denial of her application for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C, § 1291, we review the district court’s order *de novo, Trevizo v. Berryhill,*871 F.3d 664, 674 (9th Cir. 2017), and we affirm.

1. The ALJ did not err in discounting Dr. Shinada’s residual functional capacity evaluation (“RFC”). The ALJ gave “specific and legitimate reasons” for discounting Dr. Shinada’s RFC; it conflicted with his own treatment notes, the records of other examining physicians, and Morales’ testimony about her activities. *Id,*at 675. In contrast with the severe disability depicted in Dr. Shinada’s RFC, his treatment notes document reasonably stable, well-controlled lupus. Furthermore, the limitations in Dr. Shinada’s RFC were not corroborat*526ed by Dr. Lai, Dr. Wallace, Dr. Hwang, or Dr. Abejuela, none of whom reported significant limitations in Morales’ hands, arms, joints, or legs, or by Morales’ testimony, which did not mention any such limitations but recounted daily exercise, errands, and weekly classes. The ALJ’s reasons were set out with a “detailed and thorough summary of the facts and conflicting clinical evidence,” followed by the ALJ’s interpretation of that evidence and the ALJ’s findings. *Id.*(quoting *Magallanes v. Bowen,*881 F.2d 747, 751 (9th Cir. 1989)). Therefore the ALJ’s discounting of Dr. Shinada’s RFC was not erroneous.

2. Nor did the ALJ err by finding Morales not wholly credible. The ALJ offered four “specific, clear and convincing” reasons for his credibility determination. *Id.*at 679. Morales’ claim that she was continuously too fatigued to work was inconsistent with her symptom reports of intermittent and mild joint pain and fatigue, her daily activities, the lack of objective clinical findings, and her intermittent discontinuation of her medication. The constellation of all four sources of inconsistency, presented in detail and at length by the ALJ, present sufficiently clear and convincing reasons to find Morales not wholly credible.

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### WORLDWIDE OILFIELD MACHINE, INC., Appellant v. AMERIFORGE GROUP, INC., Appellee

2016-2344

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

October 24, 2017

*1037Aaron E. Homer, Hirsch & Westheimer, PC, Houston, TX, argued for appellant. Also represented by Sandeep Seth, Seth-Law, Houston, TX.

Eagle Howard Robinson, Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, Austin, TX, argued for appellee. Also represented by Stephanie Debrow, Mark T. Garrett; ' Jonathan S. Franklin,. Washington, DC; Charles Bruce Walker, Jr., Houston, TX.

(Moore, Chen, and Hughes, Circuit Judges).

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 677

To repeal a redundant venue provision, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

APRIL 5, 1995

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

to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To repeal a redundant venue provision, and for other

purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. REPEAL.

4 (a) REPEAL.—Subsection (a) of section 1392 of title

5 28, United States Code, is repealed.

6 (b) TECHNICAL AMENDMENT.—Subsection (b) of

7 section 1392 of title 28, United States Code, is amended

8 by striking ‘‘(b) Any’’ and inserting ‘‘Any’’.

Æ