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

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1657 

To ensure financial regulations do not harm economic competitiveness, nor 

deprive Americans of due process of law, by repealing provisions of 

Federal law that hold corporate chief executive officers criminally liable 

for the content and quality of their companies’ financial report, even 

when the chief executive officers had no intention to engage in criminal 

behavior, and had taken all reasonable steps to assure the accuracy 

of the statement. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 14, 2005 

Mr. PAUL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To ensure financial regulations do not harm economic competitiveness, nor deprive Americans of due process of 

law, by repealing provisions of Federal law that hold 

corporate chief executive officers criminally liable for the 

content and quality of their companies’ financial report, 

even when the chief executive officers had no intention 

to engage in criminal behavior, and had taken all reasonable steps to assure the accuracy of the statement. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 1657 IH 

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Due Process and Eco3 nomic Competitiveness Restoration Act ’’. 

4 SEC. 2. REPEAL. 

5 Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (15 

6 U.S.C. 7262) is repealed. 

Æ
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 26, 2016

N o. 04

- 16

- 00139

- CR

Virginia Shanta MCKINLEY,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014CR5186 Honorable Lorina I. Rummel, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellant’s brief was originally due September 22, 2016, but was not filed. On the due date, appellant filed her first motion to extend time to file appellant’s brief, asking for an additional thirty

- two days in which to file the brief. We granted appellant’s motion and ordered

her to file her brief in this court on or before Octobe r 24, 2016. Appellant has now filed a second motion for extension of time, asking for an additional thirty days in which to file her brief. After review, we GRANT appellant’s motion and ORDER appellant to file her brief in this court on

or before Novembe r 23, 2016.

_________________________________ Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 26th day of October, 2016

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
#### SZEL IMPORT & EXPORT CO. et al. v. CORN et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

July 11, 1913.)

Action by the Szel Import & Export Company and others against Morris Corn and others.

No opinion. Motion denied, with $10 costs. Order filed.
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT 

Marketing Orders for 

Logic Vapeleaf Regular Cartridge/Capsule Package, Logic Vapeleaf Regular Cartridge/Capsule 

Package, Logic Vapeleaf Tobacco Vapor System, Logic Pro Tobacco e-Liquid Package, Logic Pro 

Capsule Tank System, Logic Pro Capsule Tank System, Logic Power Tobacco e-Liquid Package, 

Logic Power Cherry Rechargeable Kit 

Marketed by Logic Technology Development LLC 

The Center for Tobacco Products of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has carefully considered 

the potential environmental impacts of these actions and has concluded that these actions will not have 

significant effects on the quality of the human environment. Therefore, environmental impact 

statements are not required. 

Logic Technology Development LLC wishes to market five electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) 

components and three closed e-liquids products into interstate commerce for commercial distribution in 

the United States and submitted to FDA premarket tobacco product applications to obtain marketing 

orders under the provisions of section 910 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. 

FDA reviewed the applicant’s environmental assessments (EAs), dated December 3, 2020, for the eight 

ENDS tobacco products in accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality's regulations (40 CFR 

Part 1500-1508) implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and FDA’s NEPA 

regulations (21 CFR 25.40). The EAs concluded that the marketing orders would have no significant 

impact. The applicant’s EAs are available to the public upon request. 

The applicant’s EAs evaluated potential environmental effects due to manufacturing, use, and disposal 

of the new products. No increased or new types of environmental impacts due to manufacturing the 

new products are anticipated. FDA does not foresee that use of the new products would result in new or 

different environmental impacts. FDA believes that the disposal of the new products is the same as the 

disposal conditions of other ENDS components and closed e-liquids that are currently marketed in the 

United States. Therefore, FDA does not foresee significant adverse impacts to the environment due to 

the proposed actions from manufacturing, use, and disposal of the new product. 

Digitally signed by Hans M. Rosenfeldt 

-S 

Approved by Date: 2022.03.18 14:24:07 -04'00'

Luis G. Valerio Jr., PhD, ATS 

Associate Director 

Division of Nonclinical Science 

Office of Science 

Center for Tobacco Products 

U.S. Food and Drug Administration
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6149
WILLIAM ALLEN LEGG, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STATE OF MARYLAND, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA99-3765-DKC) Submitted: May 11, 2000 Decided: May 18, 2000 Before MURNAGHAN, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Allen Legg, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:William Allen Legg appeals the district court’s order dismissing his mandamus petition. We have reviewed the record and thedistrict court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Legg v. Maryland , No. CA-99-3765-DKC (D. Md. Dec. 29, 1999). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 12



            INTERNATIONAL LEASE FINANCE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
     COMPUTATION OF RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES AND PREFERRED STOCK
            DIVIDENDS FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 2000 AND 1999
                             (DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                             2000           1999
                                           --------       --------
                                                (Unaudited)
<S>                                        <C>            <C>
Earnings:
Net Income                                 $206,022       $197,075
  Add:
    Provision for income taxes              112,256        108,822
    Fixed charges                           425,268        395,540
  Less:
    Capitalized interest                     22,976         23,159
                                           --------       --------
  Earnings as adjusted (A)                 $720,570       $678,278
                                           ========       ========
Preferred dividend requirements            $  8,523       $  7,827
Ratio of income before provision
    for income taxes to net income              154%           155%
                                           --------       --------
  Preferred dividend factor on pretax
    basis                                    13,125         12,132
                                           --------       --------
Fixed Charges:
  Interest expense                          359,323        335,471
  Capitalized interest                       22,976         23,159
  Interest factor of rents                   42,969         36,910
                                           --------       --------
  Fixed charges as adjusted (B)             425,268        395,540
                                           --------       --------
Fixed charges and preferred stock
    dividends (C)                          $438,393       $407,672
                                           ========       ========
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges
    (A) divided by (B)                        1.69x          1.71x
                                           ========       ========
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges
    and preferred stock dividends
    (A) divided by (C)                        1.64x          1.66x
                                           ========       ========

</TABLE>
Awards and Contact Information for FDIC’s Information Technology and Application Services (ITAS) Next

Generation (NG) Contractors 

ITAS NG services are organized into five Workstreams. Workstream 1 is for legacy application services; 

Workstream 2 is for cloud platform services; Workstream 3 is for shared IT services; Workstream 4 for is data 

management services, and Workstream 5 is for emerging services. There are currently 17 contractors qualified to 

compete for task orders issued under the ITAS NG Basic Ordering Agreement (BOA). Their eligible Workstream 

and contact information is provided below: 

1. Acuity, Inc. – Workstreams 1 and 4

Eric Holbrook

11710 Plaza America Dr. STE 700

Reston, Virginia 20190-4473

FDIC_ITASNG@myacuity.com

2. Capgemini Government Solutions LLC – Workstreams 2 and 5

Kathleen Flynn

1765 Greensboro Station PL, STE 300

McLean, Virginia 22102

FDIC_ITASNG@capgemini-gs.com

3. Cascades Technologies – Workstream 3

Joseph Morris

2121 Cooperative Way, STE 200

Herndon, Virginia 20171

FDIC_ITASNG@cascadestech.com

4. CGI Federal Inc. – Workstreams 1, 3, 4 and 5

Keshia Hogue

12601 Fair lakes Circle

Fairfax, Virginia 22033

FDIC_ITASNG@cgifederal.com

5. CollabraLink Technologies Inc. – Workstream 1

Darren Devereaux

8405 Greensboro Dr. Suite 600

McLean, Virginia 22102

FDIC_ITASNG@collabralink.com

6. Creative Systems and Consulting, L.L.C. – Workstreams 1

Vishal Khera

2550 S Clark St FL 12

Arlington, VA 22202 USA

FDIC_ITASNG @creativesyscon.com

7. CTIS Inc. – Workstream 1

Carlos Rivera

One Research Ct, Suite 200

Rockville, MD 20850

FDIC_ITASNG@ctisinc.com

8. Deloitte Consulting – Workstreams 1, 3 and 4

Jennifer Mayers

1919 N Lynn St

Arlington, Virginia 22209

USFDICITASNG@deloitte.com
9. Guidehouse LLP – Workstreams 1, 2, 3 and 5

Arjun Reddy

1676 International Dr. STE 800

McLean, Virginia 22102

FDIC_ITASNG@guidehouse.com 

10. Harmonia – Workstreams 3, 4 and 5

Indu Shekhar

2020 Kraft Dr. STE 2400

Blacksburg, Virginia 24060

FDIC_ITASNG@harmonia.com 

11. Macro Solutions (MSOL) – Workstreams 1 and 3

John Blatchford

800 Maryland Ave. NE

Washington, DC 20002

FDIC_ITASNG@macrosolutions.com 

12. Maximus – Workstreams 1, 2 and 3

Gabrielle Rivera

1600 Tysons Blvd

McLean, VA 22102

FDIC_ITASNG@maximus.com 

13. Navitas Business Consulting Inc. – Workstreams 1, 3, 4 and 5

Shashi Goli

13454 Sunrise Valley Dr. STE 240

Herndon, Virginia 20171

FDIC_ITASNG@navitastech.com 

14. Octo Consulting Group LLC – Workstream 2

Brian Funk

10780 Parkridge Blvd 4th Fl. 

Reston, Virginia 20191

FDIC_ITASNG@octo.us

15. Perspecta Enterprise Solutions LLC (Peraton) – Workstreams 3 and 4

Earl Joki

250 Burlington Dr. 

Clarksville, VA 23927

FDIC_ITASNG@mail.peraton.com 

16. Pyramid Systems, Inc. – Workstream 2

Aaron Amos

2677 Prosperity Ave STE 700

Fairfax, Virginia 22031

FDIC_ITASNG@psi-it.com 

17. Synergy BIS – Workstream 3

Steven Hofinger

1902 Campus Commons Dr. 

Reston, VA 20191

FDIC_ITASNG@synergybis.com
**Exhibit31.2**

**ASPYRA, INC.**

**CERTIFICATION**

I,Anahita Villafane, certify that:

1.             I have reviewed this quarterly report onForm 10-QSB of Aspyra, Inc.;

2.             Based on my knowledge, this report doesnot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

3.             Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;

4.             The small business issuer’s othercertifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:

(a)           Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to thesmall business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made knownto us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in whichthis report is being prepared;

(b)           Evaluated the effectiveness of the smallbusiness issuer’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in thisreport our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

(c)           Disclosed in this report any change inthe small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the small business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (thesmall business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, thesmall business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.             The small business issuer’s othercertifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’sauditors and the audit committee of small business issuer’s board of directors(or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)           All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small businessissuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and

(b)           Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in the smallbusiness issuer’s internal control over financial reporting.
| Date: May 21, 2007 | /S/ Anahita Villafane    |   |
|--------------------|--------------------------|--------|
|               | Anahita  Villafane       |
|               | Chief Financial  Officer |

 

 

1

----
EXHIBIT 32.2

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

      I, Robert W. Cook, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:

      (i)   The accompanying quarterly report on Form 10-QSB for the fiscal
            quarter ended June 30, 2003, fully complies with the requirements of
            Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
            1934, as amended; and

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


                                /s/ Robert W. Cook
                                ----------------------------------
                                Robert W. Cook, Chief Financial Officer
                                August 13, 2003

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version 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.
[No. 15523-4-III.

Division Three.

October 21, 1997.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Ezekiel Martinez, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Franklin County, No. 95-8-50292-4, Lonna Malone, J. Pro Tern., entered February 16, 1996. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Thompson, J. Pro Tern., concurred in by Sweeney, C.J., and Brown, J.
Herman MINOR, petitioner, v. Michael D. CREWS, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.

No. 13-6758.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 9, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Florida denied.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED BY

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Amendment No. 1 of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of Flow International Corporation, a Washington corporation (the Company), for the quarter ending July 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Stephen R. Light, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Douglas P. Fletcher, the Principal Financial Officer of the Company certify, pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), 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 result of operations of the Company.



|                                                           
|-----------------------------------------------------------
|/S/ STEPHEN R. LIGHT                                       
|Stephen R. Light Principal Executive Officer March 29, 2007



|                                                              
|--------------------------------------------------------------
|/S/ DOUGLAS P. FLETCHER                                       
|Douglas P. Fletcher Principal Financial Officer March 29, 2007
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1874 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1874

       To improve national pier inspections and safety standards.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 27, 2005

 Mr. Andrews introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
       To improve national pier inspections and safety standards.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    To be supplied.

SEC. 2. STANDARDS.

    Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, 
the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, shall 
establish standards and regulations regarding the inspection and safety 
of piers and waterfront structures. To assist in the development of 
such standards and regulations, the Chief of Engineers shall use as a 
guide, bill number 020310, adopted by the City of Philadelphia, 
Pennsylvania, which amends title 4 of the Philadelphia Code (the 
Philadelphia Building Construction and Occupancy Code).

SEC. 3. ELIGIBILITY FOR FUNDS.

    To be eligible to receive funds for a project funded through the 
Army Corps of Engineers each State shall provide annual documentation 
to the Chief of Engineers that the State has adopted and is enforcing 
standards and regulations that are at least as rigorous as those 
established pursuant to section 2.

SEC. 4. REPORTS.

    Beginning in January of 2007, and each year thereafter, the Chief 
of Engineers shall submit a report to the appropriate Committees of 
Congress regarding State compliance with pier and waterfront inspection 
and safety.

SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    This Act shall apply to projects to be funded through the Army 
Corps of Engineers beginning in 2007.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32

November 15,
2010

Via
EDGAR

Securities
and Exchange Commission
Judiciary Plaza
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549



Ladies
and Gentlemen:

In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Mesa Offshore Trust (the "Trust") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, not in its individual capacity but solely as the trustee of the Trust, certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to its knowledge:



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

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., Trustee for Mesa Offshore Trust/s/ MIKE ULRICH Mike Ulrich Vice President and Trust OfficerThe Bank of New York Trust Company, N.A., as attorney-in-fact for the Trustee


---



QuickLinks