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

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6075 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6075

To clarify the United States interest in certain submerged lands in the 
 area of the Monomoy National Wildlife Refuge, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 20, 2016

 Mr. Keating introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To clarify the United States interest in certain submerged lands in the 
 area of the Monomoy National Wildlife Refuge, 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. UNITED STATES INTEREST IN CERTAIN SUBMERGED LANDS.

    The Congress finds that the United States did not acquire any 
right, title, or interest in or to submerged lands in Nantucket Sound 
or the waters above such submerged lands as a result of the taking 
described in United States v. 3,000 Acres of Land, Misc. Civil Action 
No. 6340 (D. Mass., dated June 1, 1944).
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer 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 OnePak, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2009,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Steven V. Andon, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(i) the Report fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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



|                     |  |  |  |                                         
|-------------------- |  |  |  | ----------------------------------------
|                     |  | 
|Date: April 23, 2010 |  |  |  | /s/ Steven V. Andon                     
|                     |  |  |  | Steven V. Andon, Chief Executive Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C §1350 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended or incorporated by reference in any registration statement of the Company filed under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the
Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 830 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 830

To amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to fraud and false 
                              statements.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                 May 18 (legislative day, May 15), 1995

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to fraud and false 
                              statements.
    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. FRAUD AND FALSE STATEMENTS IN MATTERS WITHIN THE 
              JURISDICTION OF THE COURTS OR CONGRESS.

    Section 1001 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
striking ``any department or agency of the United States'' and 
inserting ``any department, agency, or court of the United States, or 
of Congress or any duly constituted committee or subcommittee of 
Congress,''.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 47 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.Con.Res.47
                                        Agreed to August 2, 1996        

                       One Hundred Fourth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

         Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
   the third day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-six

                          Concurrent Resolution

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That a Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies consisting 
of 3 Senators and 3 Representatives, to be appointed by the President 
of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, 
respectively, is authorized to make the necessary arrangements for the 
inauguration of the President-elect and Vice President-elect of the 
United States on the 20th day of January 1997.
  Attest:

                                               Secretary of the Senate.

  Attest:

                                 Clerk of the House of Representatives.
```
Final Notes July 9, 2010

Steam Study Data Review Notes

Total Dissolved Solids Standard Method 2540C (1991)

(Dried at 180°C)

1. The sample should be brought to room temperature before analysis.

2. Sample volumes should be selected so that 10-200 mg of dry residue would be acquired. 

If the filtration took longer than 10 minutes, the filter size should be increased or the 

sample volume decreased (2540C/3c). The sample size should be decreased if 

evaporation of the filtrate resulted in more than 200 mg of residue (2540C/1b).

3. After filtration, at least three aliquots of 10 ml of reagent-grade water should be added to 

the sample/filter and suction continued for 3 minutes after washing (2540C/3d).

4. The filtrate and all washings should be transferred to the evaporating dish and dried with 

a steam bath or drying oven? The evaporated sample should be further dried in an oven 

for 1 hour at 180 ± 2°C, cooled in a desiccator, and weighed. The above process should 

be repeated until the weight change is less than 4% of the previous weight or 0.5 mg 

(whichever is less).

5. If laboratory duplicates were run, duplicate weights should be within 5% of their average. 

If applicable, indicate whether this criteria was met and specify the average and percent 

recovery from the average for each of the samples.

6. Samples may contain calcium, magnesium, chloride and/or sulfate. Such species may 

make the sample hygroscopic. The following procedures should be done in order to 

prevent errors: drying time increased, proper dessication procedures used, and samples 

weighed rapidly (2540C/ 1b).

7. The oven thermometer should be immersed in a sand bath or other suitable thermal mass. 

8. The desiccator should have a good seal (vacuum or grease).

9. Desiccant should be kept inside the balance to maintain humidity control in the balance.

10. The oven temperature should be checked for proper setting and stability and the 

temperature recorded. If reported, indicate the oven temperature.

11. The balance should be checked with “S” class weights (100 mg, 1 g, and 100 g).

12. The analytical balance should have been serviced and calibrated within the last year. If 

provided, indicate the last date of service.
#### Gregory STESHENKO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Geraldine M. ALBEE; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Gregory Steshenko, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Suzanne Gayrard; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-16379, No. 15-16397

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 24, 2017 *

Filed May 31, 2017

Gregory Steshenko, Pro Se

Jeffrey R. Vincent, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA — Office of the Attorney General, Oakland, CA, for Defendants-Ap-pellees

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes these cases are suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

*870In these consolidated appeals, Gregory Steshenko appeals pro se from the district court’s orders dismissing for untrue allegations of poverty under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(A) his actions alleging claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and other federal laws. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

Under any potentially applicable standard of review, the district court did not err in dismissing Steshenko’s actions on the basis of its finding that Steshenko made untrue allegations of poverty because Steshenko failed to disclose on his applications to proceed in forma pauperis that he owned a home. *See*28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(A) (“[T]he court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that ... the allegation of poverty is untrue[.]”); *Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co.,*335 U.S. 331, 338, 69 S.Ct. 85, 93 L.Ed. 43 (1948) (explaining that the dismissal of an action where the allegation of poverty is untrue is a “sanction[] to protect against false affidavits”).

We reject as without merit Steshenko’s contention that the district court was required to hold a hearing or oral argument before ruling on defendants’ motions to dismiss. *See*Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b).

We do not consider Steshenko’s challenges to Judge Seeborg’s rulings in an unrelated action because they are not within the scope of this appeal.

We do not consider Steshenko’s arguments regarding the disclosure of his marital status on his applications to proceed in forma pauperis because the district court did not reach that issue.

We do not consider issues not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid*870ed by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### In the Matter of National Surety Company. Department of Banking, State of Nebraska, as Receiver and Liquidating Agent of Farmers State Bank, Collaway, Nebraska, Appellant. Louis H. Pink, Superintendent of Insurance of the State of New York, as Liquidator of National Surety Company, Respondent.

Submitted February 23, 1943;

decided March 4, 1943.

Motion for reargument of motion to further amend the remittitur denied with ten dollars costs and necessary printing disbursements. (See 289 N. Y. 624, 841.)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>           5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THERMOQUEST
CORPORATION'S QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JULY 3, 1999
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>        1,000

<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                  JUL-03-1999
<CASH>                                                 46,920
<SECURITIES>                                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                                          94,373
<ALLOWANCES>                                            3,428
<INVENTORY>                                            68,984
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      321,692
<PP&E>                                                 89,367
<DEPRECIATION>                                         29,425
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        624,986
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                 107,059
<BONDS>                                                73,413
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                       0
<PREFERRED>                                                 0
<COMMON>                                                  515
<OTHER-SE>                                            420,530
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                          624,986
<SALES>                                               213,472
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                      213,472
<CGS>                                                 111,299
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                         111,299
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       15,001
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          129
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      2,633
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                        36,292
<INCOME-TAX>                                           15,243
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    21,049
<DISCONTINUED>                                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                             0
<CHANGES>                                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                           21,049
<EPS-BASIC>                                            0.41
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0.40


</TABLE>
#### Sandra WILSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AIR SERV CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.

16-3454

16-3454

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

December 5, 2017

*44For Plaintiff-Appellant: Sandra Wilson, pro se, Brooklyn, NY.

For Defendant-Appellee: Craig R. Benson, Joseph E. Field, Littler Mendelson P.C., New York, NY.

PRESENT: ROBERT A. KATZMANN, Chief Judge, JOHN M. WALKER, JR., GUIDO CALABRESI, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant Sandra Wilson, proceeding *pro se,*appeals from the district court’s grant of summary judgment to appellee Air Serv Corporation (“Air Serv”), Wilson’s former employer. Wilson sued Air Serv under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e *et seq.,*asserting claims for wage discrimination, race and sex discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation. Wilson failed to respond to Air Serv’s motion for summary judgment. After an independent examination of the record, the district court granted Air Serv’s motion. This appeal follows. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment *de novo,*“resolv[ing] all ambiguities and drawing] all inferences against the moving party.” *Garcia v. Hartford Police Dep’t,*706 F.3d 120, 126-27 (2d Cir. 2013) (per curiam). “Summary judgment is proper only when, construing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-movant, ‘there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’ ” *Doninger v. Niehoff,*642 F.3d 334, 344 (2d Cir. 2011) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)). “Even when a motion for summary judgment is unopposed, the district court is not relieved of its duty to decide whether the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” *Vt. Teddy Bear Co. v. 1-800 Beargram Co.,*373 F.3d 241, 242 (2d Cir. 2004). “If the evidence submitted in support of the summary judgment motion does not meet the movant’s burden of production, then summary judgment must be denied even if no opposing evidentiary matter is presented.” *Id.*at 244 (internal quotation marks and emphasis omitted).

Upon review, we conclude that the district court properly granted summary judgment to Air Serv and affirm for essentially the reasons given by the district court in its well-reasoned and thorough September 9,2016 decision.

We have considered all of Wilson’s arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)


     In  connection  with  the   accompanying   Quarterly  Report  of  Concierge
Technologies,  Inc.  (the  "Company")  on  Form  10-QSB  for the  quarter  ended
September 30, 2005 (the "Report"),  I, Allen E. Kahn, Chief Financial Officer of
the Company, hereby certify that to my knowledge:

     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. ss.78o(d)); and

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

Dated:  November 8, 2005
                                                          /s/ Allen E. Kahn
                                                         -----------------------
                                                         Allen E. Kahn
                                                         Chief Financial Officer


     The above  certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss.1350) and is not being filed as part of
the Form 10-QSB or as a separate disclosure document.











                                                                    Exhibit 32.1
                                                                Page 1 of 1 Page
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT R OB ER TO SILVA-M ONDR A GON, Pe titione r, v. ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 12-71454 Age n c y No. A087-526-573 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d Oc tobe r 15, 2013 ** B e fore : FISHER , GOULD, a nd B YB EE, C irc uit Judge s. R obe rto Silva -M ondra g on, a native and c itiz e n of M e x ic o, pe titions for re vie w of the B oa

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ orde r dism issing his a p pe a l from

an im m igration judge ’ s re m ova l orde r. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252. 

# FIL ED OCT 25 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).W e re vie wde novo que stions of la w, inc luding c o nstitutiona l c la im s . Mohamme d v . Gonzale

s , 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th C ir. 2005). W e de ny the pe tition for re vie w. The a ge n c y

did not e rr in a dm i tting Silva -M ondra gon’ s Form I-213 whe re Silva -M ondra gon did not dem onstra te tha t the Form

I-213 wa s obta ine d through a n e gre gious viola

tion of theFourth Am e ndm e nt. Se e Orhorhaghe v . IN S, 38 F.3d 488, 492-93 (9th C ir. 1994). TheForm I-213 wa s proba t ive an d Silva -M o ndra gon doe s not c la im

tha t he wa s c oe rc e d into giving the inform ation in the

I-213 or tha

t the i nform ation it c o nta ins is inc orre c t. Se e Espinoza v . IN S , 45 F.3d 308, 310 (9th C ir. 1995) (Admission of a Form I-213 “ is fa i r a

bse nt e vide nc e of c o e rc ion or tha t the s tat e m e nts a

re not those of the pe titione r.” ); se e also Lope z-C hav e z v . IN S , 259 F.3d 1176, 1178 (9th C ir. 2001) (a lie na ge c an be prove n with a prope rly a uthe ntic ate d Form

I-213). Silva -M ondra gon’ s c la im tha t he wa s pre ve nte d from

e xe rc ising his right to a dm it or de ny

the fa c tua l a lle gations a

nd c ha rge of re m ova

bility c onta ine d in the Notic e to Appe ar is be lie d by the re c ord, a nd he ha s not e sta

blishe d pre

judic e from the a dm ission of the

re q ue st for a prom pt he aring. Se e Lata v . IN S , 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th C ir. 2000) (a

n a lie n m ust show e rror and pre

judic e to pre va il on a

due proc e s s c la im ). 1 2 - 7 1 4 5 4 2In light of our disposition, we ne e d not re a c h Silva -M ondra gon’ s re m a ining c la im . PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

1 2 - 7 1 4 5 4 3
Exhibit 32.2

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

Certification of Chief
Financial Officer

In connection with the Quarterly
Report of Pure Bioscience (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the fiscal quarter
ended October 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Andrew J. Buckland, Chief Financial Officer certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

|                  |                                                                  
|----------------- | -----------------------------------------------------------------
|December 13, 2006 | /s/ Andrew J. Buckland
Andrew J. Buckland
Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           1,177
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   28,825
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,137
<INVENTORY>                                     35,235
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                69,312
<PP&E>                                          51,357
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 292,768
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           37,939
<BONDS>                                         98,529
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            17
<OTHER-SE>                                     137,368
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   292,768
<SALES>                                        165,278
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               165,278
<CGS>                                           79,284
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   79,284
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,601
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 21,758
<INCOME-TAX>                                     7,852
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             13,906
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    13,906
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.79
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.79
        

</TABLE>