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

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2114 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2114

  To provide for the payment to States of plot allowances for certain 
 veterans eligible for burial in a national cemetery who are buried in 
                       cemeteries of such States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                 May 12 (legislative day, May 2), 1994

   Mr. Biden introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
             referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To provide for the payment to States of plot allowances for certain 
 veterans eligible for burial in a national cemetery who are buried in 
                       cemeteries of such States.

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

SECTION 1. PAYMENT OF PLOT OR INTERMENT ALLOWANCE.

    Section 2303 of title 38, United States Code, is amended by adding 
at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(c)(1) Subject to paragraph (3) of this subsection, the Secretary 
shall pay to any State, or agency or political subdivision of such 
State, a plot or interment allowance of $150 for the burial of any 
veteran who--
            ``(A) is eligible for burial in a national cemetery under 
        section 2402 of this title; and
            ``(B) is buried (without charge for the cost of a plot or 
        interment) in a cemetery, or a section of a cemetery, that--
                    ``(i) is used solely for the interment of persons 
                eligible for burial in a national cemetery; and
                    ``(ii) is owned by such State, or agency or 
                political subdivision.
    ``(2) The payment of a plot or interment allowance under this 
subsection shall be in addition to any benefits provided under section 
2303 or 2307 of this title, or subsection (a) of this section.
    ``(3) The Secretary may not pay a plot or interment allowance under 
this subsection for the burial of any veteran for which the Secretary 
pays a plot or interment allowance under subsection (b)(1) of this 
section.''.

                                 <all>
```
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of MOCON, Inc. on Form 10-Q forthe quarter ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Darrell B. Lee, ChiefFinancial Officer of MOCON, Inc., hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002that, to the best of my knowledge:

 

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

 

(2)          The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of MOCON, Inc.

 

 

Date:  May 15, 2006

 
| /s/ Darrell B. Lee      |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| Darrell B. Lee          |
| Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
#### N.D.B., In re; A.A.B., In re 27

08/31/2016

546 MAL (2016)

27

. Justice MUNDY did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.

Denied
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 105 (Tuesday, June 2, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 29974]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-14489]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ASSASSINATION RECORDS REVIEW BOARD


Request for Comments on Review Board's Final Report

AGENCY: Assassination Records Review Board.

SUMMARY: The Assassination Records Review Board (``Review Board''), 
established by the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records 
Collection Act of 1992, (Supp. V 1994) (``JFK Act'') is currently in 
the process of drafting its final report. The Review Board proposes to 
include in its final report recommendations that arise out of the 
Review Board's experiences in releasing records. By issuing this 
notice, the Review Board wishes to solicit comments from the public 
concerning the types of recommendations that the Review Board should 
make as part of its report.

DATES: Comments should be received on or before July 1, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be mailed to the Assassination Records 
Review Board at 600 E Street, NW., Second Floor, Washington, DC 20530. 
Comments may also be faxed to the Board at (202) 724-0457.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
T. Jeremy Gunn, Executive Director and General Counsel, Assassination 
Records Review Board, Second Floor, 600 E Street, NW., Washington, DC 
20530, (202) 724-0088, fax (202) 724-0457.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 12, 1998, the Assassination Records 
Review Board (Review Board) held an open meeting in which it discussed 
possible recommendations for its Final Report. At that meeting, Review 
Board members stated that they wish to solicit comments from the public 
concerning the types of recommendations that the Review Board should 
make in its report. By this notice, the Review Board solicits 
suggestions from the public for potential recommendations.

    Dated: May 28, 1998.
T. Jeremy Gunn,
Executive Director and General Counsel, Assassination Records Review 
Board.
[FR Doc. 98-14489 Filed 6-1-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-TD-M
EXHIBIT 32.2

STATEMENT OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

OF AMERIPATH, INC.

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO

§ 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of AmeriPath, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), the undersigned David L. Redmond, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



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



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



/s/ David L. RedmondDavid L. RedmondChief Financial OfficerAmeriPath, Inc.March 29, 2007
<PAGE>   13

                            THIRD AMENDMENT 
                                 TO THE
               PAUL MUELLER COMPANY EMPLOYEE BENEFIT PLAN
                 AMENDED AND RESTATED AS OF MAY 22, 1995

Whereas Article VI of the Paul Mueller Company Employee Benefit Plan 
(referred to hereafter as the "Plan") provides that the Plan may be 
amended by resolution of the Trustees in accordance with the provi-
sions of the Declaration of Trust, be it resolved that the Plan is 
amended,as follows:

The Section entitled MEDICAL LIMITATIONS AND EXCLUSIONS of Article III 
is amended with respect to benefits paid on or after February 1, 1997, 
as follows:

     The following sentence is added to exclusion 20) "Treatment of 
     conduct or behavioral disorders":

          However, such treatment which has been precertified 
          and approved as medically necessary by the Plan's 
          employee assistance program is covered subject to all 
          other Plan provisions.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Trustees of the PAUL MUELLER COMPANY EMPLOYEE 
BENEFIT PLAN cause this Third Amendment to be duly executed this 2nd 
day of June, 1997.

By:   /S/  DONALD E. GOLIK              By:   /S/  GERALD S. MILLER
    --------------------------              --------------------------
    Donald E. Golik - Trustee               Gerald S. Miller - Trustee

By:   /S/  MICHAEL W. YOUNG             By:   /S/  GAIL HENRICHS
    --------------------------              --------------------------
    Michael W. Young - Trustee              Gail Henrichs - Trustee
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Micropac  Industries,  Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period  ending  February 28, 2009 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Mark King,  Chief  Executive  Officer of the  Company,  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.



   Date:  April 13, 2009                             /s/ Mark King
                                                     ------------------------
                                                     Mark King
                                                     Chief Executive Officer
#### Ward v. Energy West, et al.

DA 16-0520

06/13/17

2017 MT 146N

Affirmed

Dist. 8 (Cascade)
|                                                                             
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                             
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                     
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                               
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                               
|View History:                                                                
|                                                                             
|No chart available.                                                          
|No chart available.                                                          
|                                                                             
|                                                                             
|Alaska Natural Gas Gross Withdrawals from Coalbed Wells  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                             

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      | 0      |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
1The Honorable Ann D. Montgomery, United States District Judge for the

District of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 99-3148

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota

Edward Allan Willoughby, also known *

as #Eddie-Boy,& also known as #Bobo,& * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: March 22, 2000

 Filed: April 13, 2000 

___________

Before McMILLIAN, BRIGHT, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Edward Allan Willoughby appeals from the final judgment entered in the District

Court1for the District of Minnesota upon his guilty plea to conspiring to distribute and

possess with intent to distribute cocaine and cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§ 846. The district court sentenced appellant to 210 months imprisonment and five

years supervised release. Counsel has filed a brief and moved to withdraw pursuant
-2-

to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). For reversal, counsel argues that the

district court erred in denying Willoughby a mitigating-role reduction and in calculating

Willoughby’s criminal history as Category III and that Willoughby received ineffective

assistance of counsel. In his pro se supplemental filing, Willoughby contends that the

sentencing issues raised by counsel are meritorious and that the ineffective-assistance

claim should be deferred to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceedings. For the reasons discussed

below, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

We conclude that the sentencing issues were waived below. Although counsel

included them in his objections to the presentence report, he did not pursue them or

request rulings on them at the sentencing hearing, he declined the opportunity for an

evidentiary hearing, and he allowed sentencing to be completed without drawing the

district court’s attention to the objected-to matters. See United States v. Hester, 140

F.3d 753, 761-62 (8th Cir. 1998) (defendant waived objections, precluding appellate

review, where he objected to various aspects of PSR, but declined district court’s

invitation to be heard on objections at sentencing, did not request rulings on objections,

and allowed sentencing to be completed without drawing court’s attention to objectedto matters). Willoughby’s ineffective-assistance claim should be deferred to § 2255

proceedings. See United States v. Martin, 59 F.3d 767, 771 (8th Cir. 1995).

After review of counsel’s Anders brief, along with our independent review of the

record in accordance with Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous

issues. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court, and we grant

counsel’s motion to withdraw.

A true copy.

Attest:

 CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
-3-
#### Willy Rodriguez et al., Appellants, v KGA Inc. et al., Respondents.

[64 NYS3d 11]—

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Kathryn Freed, J.), entered July 8, 2016, which to the extent appealed from, granted defendants KGA Inc. (KGA) and Simon Werner’s (Werner) motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Under New York law, it is a “settled rule of statutory interpretation, that unless expressly stated otherwise, no legislation is presumed to be intended to operate outside the territorial jurisdiction of the state enacting it” *(Goshen v Mutual Life Ins. Co. of N.Y.,*286 AD2d 229, 230 [1st Dept 2001] [internal quotation marks, ellipsis and citations omitted], *affd*98 NY2d 314 [2002]; *see also*McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes § 149 [“The laws of one state can have no force and effect in the territorial limits of another jurisdiction, in the absence of the consent of the latter”]).

Article 6 of the New York Labor Law, which contains the unlawful deductions, notice, and record keeping provisions which plaintiffs claim were violated, contains no indication that the provisions were intended to apply when the work in question is performed outside the state. Article 19 of the New York Labor Law, which contains the minimum wage, overtime, and spread *453of hours provisions identified in the complaint, includes a “Statement of public policy” which states, in relevant part: “There are persons employed in some occupations in the state of New York at wages insufficient to provide adequate maintenance for themselves and their families. . . . Employment of persons at these insufficient rates of pay threatens the health and well-being of the people of this state and injures the overall economy” (Labor Law § 650).

Since these statutes do not expressly apply on an extraterritorial basis, plaintiffs’ claims under these provisions, based on labor performed exclusively outside New York, do not state a cause of action under article 6 or article 19 of the New York Labor Law *(see O’Neill v Mermaid Touring*Inc., 968 F Supp 2d 572, 578-579 [SD NY 2013]).

Plaintiffs’ claims for breach of contract and for application of the minimum wage laws of another jurisdiction are asserted for the first time on appeal, and on this record, are unavailing.

Concur—Kapnick, J.P., Webber, Gesmer and Oing, JJ.
## 1188

Date: April 14, 2008 (M)
**SUBJECT :**  **EMERGENCY GEAR EXTENSION CABLE ROUTING MODIFICATION**  **MODELS AFFECTED: SERIAL NUMBERS AFFECTED:**  PA-44-180 Seminole 44-7995001 through 4496244 PA-44-180T Seminole 44-8107001 through 44-8207020 **COMPLIANCE TIME:**  To coincide with the next regularly scheduled maintenance event, but not to exceed the next one hundred (100) hours time in service. **APPR O** **V AL:**  The technical content of this Service Bulletin has been shown to comply with the applicable Federal Aviation Regulations and is FAA approved. **PURPOSE:** Under a specific set of operating conditions the Emergency Gear Extension Cable may not provide adequate co-pilot left rudder pedal clearance. An improved method of securing the Emergency Gear Extension Cable will eliminate the possibility of interference. This Service Bulletin requires modification to the hardware that routes and restrains the Emergency Gear Extension Cable. **INSTR UCTIONS:**  1. Order and install MOD KIT – EMER GEAR EXT CABLE, Piper part number 88433-002, which provides parts and instructions for modifications to the routing and restraining of the Emergency Gear Extension Cable, in the vicinity of the co-pilot’s rudder pedal. 2. Make a logbook entry indicating compliance with this Service Bulletin. **Piper Aircraft, Inc.** 2926 Piper Drive Vero Beach, Florida, U.S.A. 32960

(OVER) ATA: 3200**SERVICE BULLETIN NO. 1188 PAGE 2 OF 2** 

**MA TERIAL REQ**  **UIRED:** Qty Piper P/N Nomenclature 1 88433-002 MOD KIT – EMER GEAR EXT CABLE
**A**

**V**

**AILABILITY OF P AR**  **TS:** Your Piper Service Facility. **EFFECTIVITY D A**  **TE:** This Service Bulletin is effective upon receipt. **SUMMAR Y**  **:** Applicable Factory Participation is limited to new aircraft in warranty at the time of compliance. Factory Participation will remain in effect for a period of time not to exceed 180 days from the date of this Service Bulletin. Please contact your Factory Authorized Piper Service Facility to make arrangements for compliance with this Service Bulletin in accordance with the compliance time indicated. **NO TE:**  If you are no longer in possession of this aircraft, please forward this information to the present owner/operator and notify the factory of address/ownership corrections. Changes should include aircraft model, serial number, current owner's name and address. Corrections and/or changes should be directed to: PIPER AIRCRAFT, INC. Attn: Customer Service 2926 Piper Drive Vero Beach, FL 32960
#### People v Alexander

2d Dept: 144 AD3d 1008

denied*

*

 Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic or denied.
----

----

| Name of company                                      |   | Direct and indirect ownership percentage |   | Country of organization |
|------------------------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------|
|                                                 |   |                                     |   |                    |
| Elscint Ltd.                                         |   | 100                                      |   | Israel                  |
|  Bea Hotels N.V.                                |   |  100                                |   |  The Netherlands   |
|  Elbit Ultrasound (Netherlands) B.V.            |   |  100                                |   |  The Netherlands   |
|  Elbit Plaza India Real Estate Holdings Limited |   |  50.0 (1)                           |   |  Cyprus            |
|   InSightec Ltd.                           |   |  71.2 (2)                           |   |  Israel            |
|    Plaza Centers N.V.                 |   |  67.5 (3)                           |   |  The Netherlands   |
|   Elbit Trade & Retail Ltd.            |   |  100                                |   |  Israel            |
|  Elbit Plaza USA, L.P.                          |   |  100 (4)                            |   |  USA               |

| (1) | We hold 47.5% of the shares in Elbit Plaza India Real Estate Holdings Limited directly, and an additional 47.5% through Plaza Centers N.V. |
|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (2) | Approximately 60% on a fully diluted basis, including warrants granted by InSightec Ltd. contingent upon certain rates of return as well as 2,000,000 options exercisable into InSightec Ltd.'s ordinary shares which vest upon the initial public offering of InSightec Ltd. |
|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (3) | Approximately 63% on a fully diluted basis. |
|-----|---------------------------------------------|

| (4) | We hold 50% in Elbit Plaza USA, L.P. directly, and an additional 50% through Plaza Centers N.V. |
|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----

----
ALASKA SEAFOOD C B I R E P L AC E M E NT P A G E

EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2013

- 0652

DCN: 000 61 CBI

T H E FO LL OW ING H AS BEE N R E M O V E D BE CAUSE IT

C O N T AINS C O N F ID E N T IAL B USIN E SS IN FO RMA T I O N

(C B I) P E R 4 0 C F R P ART 2

, SU B P ART B

.
160 A.3d 695

#### KEVIN D. KELLY, PLAINTIFF-PETITIONER, v. DEBORAH E. KELLY, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

February 13, 2017

ON PETITION FOR CERTIFICATION

To the Appellate Division, Superior Court:

A petition for certification of the judgment in [ A-XXXXXX-XX ] having been submitted to this Court, and the Court having considered the same;

It is ORDERED that the petition for certification is denied, with costs.