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

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1553 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1553

  To amend the National Labor Relations Act and the Labor Management 
 Relations Act, 1947, to permit additional remedies in certain unfair 
             labor practice cases, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

             October 18 (legislative day, October 13), 1993

   Mr. Simon introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
         referred to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the National Labor Relations Act and the Labor Management 
 Relations Act, 1947, to permit additional remedies in certain unfair 
             labor practice cases, 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 ``Labor Relations Remedies Act of 
1993''.

SEC. 2. BOARD REMEDIES.

    Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 
160(c)) is amended by inserting after the fourth sentence the following 
new sentence: ``If the Board finds that an employee was discharged in 
violation of this Act, the Board in such order shall (1) award back pay 
in an amount equal to three times the employee's wage rate at the time 
of the unfair labor practice and (2) notify such employee of the 
employee's right to sue for punitive damages and damages with respect 
to a wrongful discharge under section 303 of the Labor Management 
Relations Act, 1947 (29 U.S.C. 187), as amended by the Labor Relations 
Remedies Act of 1993.''.

SEC. 3. COURT REMEDIES.

    Section 303 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947 (29 U.S.C. 
187), is amended by adding at the end the following new subsections:
    ``(c) It shall be unlawful, for purposes of this section, for an 
employer to discharge an employee for exercising rights protected under 
the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 158).
    ``(d) An employee whose discharge is determined by the National 
Labor Relations Board under section 10(c) to be a violation of this Act 
may sue therefore in any district court of the United States without 
respect to the amount in controversy, or in any other court having 
jurisdiction over the parties to recover compensatory and punitive 
damages in addition to the back pay ordered by the Board.
    ``(e) Nothing contained in section 8 or section 10 of the National 
Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 158), or in this section shall limit the 
rights and remedies under any State or Federal law or before any court 
or other tribunal of an employee discharged by an employer.''.

                                 <all>
```
### ~ a ~ 0
~ = ~ ~ w 

### H 1 ~ (~1 

### N

~ U Q

T N 

### a

~ O 

### 0 N M N ~ p U 

### 0 N N O y m F 6 y
~ 6 

# ~ 3 0 

### h m W a 

## 2 ti N O 

## ° a v t « N d W C~ 0 H W
~ 

## N N

. d . 

### ~ a N O 

### N O 

### W U r rA p i7 X G LYI o0

~ ~ O W N ~ o0 ~
~ .-N y ti l~ ~ 0 V't "'~ [~

7 V~ O

Vl O O O N O 0~0 W L d ~ ~ N O Q LtM pNi l~ O O N O 

### r4
W O .--i N N 0~0

~ S7 

## ta

p U q CO N ~

~ v~

U O U p U U U

Vi 

# O

v V

~ 

# o"

t p C a ' 

# z .°\_.

l p d

79 0 

### W 0 

### W 7~

p ~ 

### r p . q 

### U F F ~ ~ U i ~ N 

### aM O
~ O 

### U ~ ~ G w b 1~ 

### U N Q E 

## U
~ Q



### W 

# rn a

<0 O 

## N M N a 0
~ O 

## ui m ~ N N
~ n ~

~ a 6 

### 3 U e
~ + [d A a ~ N O M ~ 

### z s 4 .7 N 

### d Fil y 

### .~ 

### W N 

### fV [V .G
~ ~ 

### N O, N Q O O Cd
~ 7 x 

### en L1 O ~

N M 

### O oN0 

### M r N 

### N ~ .-~-i 

### o0 ~ M O .-

M -. ~ ~ 

### t- '~ 0 ~ O O 

### W L Y 00 

### CD N O
a .--i .--i p Vl

~ ~"ca

j 7 .y

~ ~

fd 

# ~ CJ x V ~ ~¢ rn 

### x >

~ 9 0



### o

m V c~~'



### x

tO '3 y „~C

a 

## N

x V]

p ~ °~, V



### O 

## o

t7 N
t0 v~ 

### O

o

V1

N

~ '~

o 

### + 

### ° v

V7

~ 

## b



# ~ A 

## N 0 

## A 

## q O
, D N U

4 

## A G U N 

### a

## TABLE 1 PR9CESS DATA 

## 1. Scrubber "C" 2. Date 6/2/95 3. Scrubber Water Flow 260 (GPM) 4. Air Flow (KCFM) 25 5. Dryer Feed Rate 1795 (lb/hr) Urea Formaldehyde -- (lbs/hr) Melamine Formaldehyde 1632 (lbs/hr) Steam Sparging and Water . 163 (lbs/hr)

## TABLE 3 "C" SCRUBBER EMISSION SUMMARY 

## A. GENERAL 

## 1. Test No. 2. Test Date 3. Test Start (hrs) 4. Avg. Gas Velocity (fps) 5. Avg. Gas Temp. (°F) 6. Avg. Gas Vol. (acfm)

(dscfm) 7. Isokinetic Variation (
~ 

## ) 1 2 3 Avg ------- 6/2/95------- 0923 1110 1255 27.0 27.2 27.7 27.3 90 90 90 90 18,000 18,100 18,500 18,200 16,100 16,300 16,500 16,300 105 99 101 

## B. EMISSIONS



## Front Half 1. Particulate 

## (gr/dscf) (lb/hr) Back Half 2. Oraanic Residue" ) 

## (gr/dscf) (lb/hr) 3. Back Half H 2 

### 0 Residue ( ' ) 

## (gr/dscf) (lb/hr) C. STACK GAS ANALYSIS 1. H 2 0 (Vol $) 2. 0 2 (Vol % dry) 3. CO 2 (Vol % dry) 0.0064 0.0057 0.0053 0.0058 0.884 0.794 0.749 0.809

0.00032 0.00026 0.00019 0.00026 0.043 0.037 0.027 0.036

0.00057 0.00096 0.00080 0.00078 0.078 0.134 0.113 0.108
5.3 4.9 5.3 5.2 20.5 20.5 20.5 20.5 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 

## ") Reported but not included with the particulate emissions.
No. 12-8337.

#### Samuel *v.*Texas (two judgments).

Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certiorari denied.
No. 12-7035.

#### Lucas *v.*Tucker, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
##### 



Exhibit 31.1 Certification of Principal Executive Officer
Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 I, John W. Hayden, the principal executive officer of The Midland Company,
certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of The Midland
Company; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does 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, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects
the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant
as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,
to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including
its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared; (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions
about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of
the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;
and (c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants
most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably
likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over
financial reporting; and 32




---



##### 



5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which
are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial information; and (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting. Date: August 5, 2004/s/ John W. HaydenPrincipal Executive Officer 33
#### Tradex USA Corp. v. Gleemer Glass

09/30/2015

395 MAL (2015)

Denied

No. 518 EDA 2015
#### People v Pavia

2d Dept: 142 AD3d 655

denied
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY RESTATED FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED
SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           2,326
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,917
<ALLOWANCES>                                        50
<INVENTORY>                                        438
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 5,427
<PP&E>                                             780
<DEPRECIATION>                                     201
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  11,738
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,838
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            42
<OTHER-SE>                                      17,574
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    11,738
<SALES>                                          6,721
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,721
<CGS>                                            3,513
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,513
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  71
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    322
<INCOME-TAX>                                        92
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       230
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .06
        

</TABLE>
#### Com. v. Redonggo-Beffert29

12/29/2015

838 MAL (2015)

29

. Justice EAKIN did not participate in the decision of this matter.

Denied
Exhibit 32.2

                            MICROPAC INDUSTRIES, INC.

                             CERTICATION 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 Micropac  Industries,  Inc.  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period  ending  August 25, 2007 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Patrick Cefalu, CFO 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 fully complies with the  requirements  of section 13(a) or 15(d)
     of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


 /s/ Patrick Cefalu
----------------------
Patrick Cefalu, CFO
(Principal Financial Officer)
DLA Land and Maritime Police Week Spotlight
 
  By Dana Thornbury
  National Police Week takes place May 12 - 18 in 2019. As part of Police Week observances, Defense Logistics Agency Land and Maritime will spotlight officers who selflessly secure and protect the Defense Supply Center Columbus and its people every day. According to policeweek.org, in 1962, President John F. Kennedy signed a proclamation that designated May 15 as Peace Officers Memorial Day and the week in which that date falls as Police Week  **Meet Kevin Novak** *Sergeant* Police Sergeant Novak next to police car**How long have you been a police officer?** 20 years combined experience between military and DLA police units. **How long have you worked for DSCC?** 10 years **Why did you decide to become a police officer****?**  I wanted to become a DLA Police officer because I served as a police officer in the military (Air Force), and I think it’s a unique and sometimes exciting profession with great camaraderie that takes a lot of dedication and responsibility. **What is the most rewarding part of your****job?** The most rewarding aspects of my job are protecting and serving those in the DLA community and having the chance to make an impact or help others on any given day.  **Meet Gregory Adams** *Police Officer* **studio photo of Gregory AdamsHow long have you been a police officer?** 6 months **How long have you worked for DSCC?** 6 months **Why did you decide to become a police officer****?**  I’ve always enjoyed helping people. I’m tired of seeing police officers portrayed in a negative light, and I’ve personally wanted to help change that narrative. **What is the most****rewarding part of your job?** The most rewarding thing about my job at DSCC is making peoples days a little brighter, whether that’s a surprise happy birthday or picking a random child and making them an honorary officer for the day. I also enjoy interacting with kids at the MWR Child Development Center.  **Meet Sara Hedrick** *Police Officer* **studio photo of Sara HedrickHow long have you been a police officer?** 7 years as military police **How long have you worked for DSCC?** 5 months **Why did you decide to become a police officer****?**  One reason I chose to become a police officer was the dynamic work flow, each day has the potential to be different from the last. People also typically look to officers for answers, reassurance and help. I’ve always wanted the opportunity to make that positive impact on others. **What is the most****rewarding part of your job?** One of the most rewarding aspects of our job is the camaraderie within the department. Working as an officer offers a sense of belonging and family that you won't find in many other careers. Our work here at DLA also provides us the opportunity to nurture our relationships within the community of DSCC and its’ associates.
|                                                                                                 
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                 
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                         
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                   
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                   
|View History:                                                                                    
|                                                                                                 
|Price of Freeport, TX Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to Thailand (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                 
|                                                                                                 
|Price of Freeport, TX Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to Thailand (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                 

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | --    
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 4.28   | 7.35   | 13.83  | 6.93   |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
#### Capezzano Construction Corporation, Appellant, v Ellen Weinberger, Also Known as Ellen Weinberger Vera, et al., Respondents.

[51 NYS3d 893]

In an action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Spodek, J.), dated June 23, 2015, which granted the defendants’ motion for leave to amend their answer.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Leave to amend a pleading shall be freely given absent prejudice or surprise resulting directly from the delay “unless the proposed amendment is palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit” *(Lucido v Mancuso,*49 AD3d 220, 222 [2008]; *see*CPLR 3025 [b]; *McCaskey, Davies & Assoc. v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp.,*59 NY2d 755, 757 [1983]; *Fahey v County of Ontario,*44 NY2d 934, 935 [1978]). “The granting of such leave is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court and must be determined on a case-by-case basis” *(Skinner v Scobbo,*221 AD2d 334, 335 [1995]).

In this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the defendants’ motion for leave to *812amend their answer to assert additional counterclaims against the plaintiff. The counterclaims sought to be interposed were not palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit. In addition, the plaintiff cannot claim either prejudice or surprise as a result of the amendment.

Chambers, J.P., Sgroi, Duffy and Barros, JJ., concur.
No. 12-7852.

#### Hudgins *v.*Cartledge, Warden.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 12-8010.

#### Bach *v.*Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, et al.

Sup. Ct. Wis. Certiorari denied.
#### Nefertari Whitney, Appellant, v The Bronx-Lebanon Hospital Center et al., Respondents.

[55 NYS3d 206]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lizbeth Gonzalez, J.), entered on or about December 7, 2016, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff failed to make a prima facie showing of discrimination because she failed to plead facts demonstrating that she had any “disability” within the meaning of the New York State Human Rights Law or the New York City Human Rights Law *(Matter of McEniry v Landi,*84 NY2d 554, 558 [1994]; *Pimentel v Citibank, N.A.,*29 AD3d 141, 145 [1st Dept 2006], *lv denied*7 *588NY3d 707 [2006]; *see*Executive Law §§ 292 [21] [a]; 296 [1] [a]; Administrative Code of City of NY §§ 8-102 [16]; 8-107 [1] [a]). Plaintiff relies solely on a nurse’s note that states that plaintiff suffers from unspecified “chronic medical conditions,” and that her inability to sleep during the day was making those conditions worse. The nurse’s unsworn, conclusory allegations do not suffice to defeat defendants’ motion for summary judgment *(Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr.,*64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]).

Because plaintiff failed to raise triable issues of fact whether she is an individual with a disability, the motion court also correctly dismissed her reasonable accommodation claim. Moreover, to the extent she ever properly requested a transfer to an earlier, evening shift, defendants were aware that there was no position available on the evening shift, and they were not required to reassign her if no position was open (Pimentel, 29 AD3d at 147-148).

Concur—Friedman, J.P., Moskowitz, Fein-man, Gische and Kahn, JJ.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                       SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,
                                 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                              SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, as chief financial officer of
Microvision, Inc. (the "Company"), does hereby certify that to the undersigned's knowledge:

1)     the Company's Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2010
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 Company's Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2010
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|Date:August 9, 2010 | By: /s/ Jeff T. Wilson   Jeff T. Wilson
 Chief Financial Officer
|------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------

---
<PAGE>
                                                                  Exhibit 32.2

                      Statement of Chief Financial Officer

         Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code



Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, the undersigned,
Bruce Johnson, the Sr. Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of
eResearchTechnology, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certifies that to the
undersigned's knowledge:

     The Company's Form 10-K Annual Report for the period ended December 31,
     2003 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
     of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


Dated:  March 15, 2004                                     Bruce Johnson
                                                   -----------------------------
                                                   Bruce Johnson,
                                                   Sr. Vice President and Chief
                                                   Financial Officer