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

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2387 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2387

   To provide an exemption from certain requirements under the Gramm-
                           Leach-Bliley Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 17, 2005

 Mr. Kennedy of Minnesota (for himself and Mr. Peterson of Minnesota) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                           Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To provide an exemption from certain requirements under the Gramm-
                           Leach-Bliley Act.

    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 ``Privacy Protection Act of 2005''.

SEC. 2. EXEMPTION.

    Section 509(3) of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (15 U.S.C. 6809(3)) is 
amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
                    ``(E) Certain financial institutions.--
                Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), the term `financial 
                institution' does not include any provider of financial 
                services, or any affiliate thereof, that is subject to 
                regulation of client confidentiality that prohibits 
                unauthorized disclosure of confidential client 
                information without the consent of the client in the 
                form of laws, rules, or regulation of professional 
                conduct or ethics promulgated either by the court of 
                highest appellate authority or by the principal 
                legislative body or regulatory agency or body of any 
                State of the United States, the District of Columbia, 
                any territory of the United States, Puerto Rico, Guam, 
                American Samoa, the Trust Territory of the Pacific 
                Islands, the Virgin Islands, or the Northern Mariana 
                Islands, or by the laws of the United States.''.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 32 (ii)**

 

CERTIFICATION SECTION 1350

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Penns Woods Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Brian L. Knepp,Vice President of Finance, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(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 resultof operations of the Company.

 
| /s/  Brian L. Knepp                                        |   |
|------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Brian  L. Knepp                                            |
| Vice  President of Finance and Principal Financial Officer |
|                                                       |
| May  9, 2006                                               |

 

----
[No. 39191-7-I.

Division One.

August 11, 1997.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Scott Francis Ford, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 95-1-07418-5, Leroy McCullough, J., entered July 31, 1996. *Remanded*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Exhibit 32.1
                                  ------------

                      Statement of Chief Executive 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,
Denis A.  Krusos,  the  Chairman  of the Board and Chief  Executive  Officer  of
CopyTele, Inc., hereby certifies that:

1.       The Company's Form 10-Q Quarterly Report for the period ended January
         31, 2005 (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/ Denis A. Krusos
                                        Denis A. Krusos
                                        Chairman of the Board and
March 10, 2005                          Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                             575
<SECURITIES>                                         3
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,515
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        209
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 7,419
<PP&E>                                           7,450
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (6,544)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  10,814
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,145
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           142
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,937
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    10,814
<SALES>                                          5,224
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,224
<CGS>                                            2,383
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,049
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (35)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (264)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        44
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (308)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.11)
        

</TABLE>
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1790 

To protect children and their parents from being coerced into administering 

a controlled substance or a psychotropic drug in order to attend school, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 21, 2005 

Mr. KLINE (for himself, Mr. PAUL, Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota, Mr. SAM

JOHNSON of Texas, Mrs. EMERSON, Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Mr. LATOURETTE, Mr. SOUDER, Mr. GUTKNECHT, Mr. 

BARRETT of South Carolina, Mr. PENCE, Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky, Mr. 

HOSTETTLER, Mr. WICKER, Mr. WILSON of South Carolina, and Mr. 

BOEHNER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To protect children and their parents from being coerced 

into administering a controlled substance or a psychotropic drug in order to attend school, and for other 

purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Child Medication Safe5 ty Act of 2005’’. 
2 

•HR 1790 IH 

1 SEC. 2. REQUIRED POLICIES AND PROCEDURES. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—As a condition of receiving funds 

3 under any program or activity administered by the Sec4 retary of Education, not later than 1 year after the date 

5 of the enactment of this Act, each State shall develop and 

6 implement policies and procedures prohibiting school per7 sonnel from requiring a child to obtain a prescription for 

8 a controlled substance or a psychotropic drug as a condi9 tion of attending school or receiving services. 

10 (b) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in sub11 section (a) shall be construed to create a Federal prohibi12 tion against teachers and other school personnel con13 sulting or sharing classroom-based observations with par14 ents or guardians regarding a student’s academic perform15 ance or behavior in the classroom or school, or regarding 

16 the need for evaluation for special education or related 

17 services under section 612(a)(3) of the Individuals with 

18 Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1412(a)(3)). 

19 SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS. 

20 In this Act: 

21 (1) The term ‘‘child’’ means any person within 

22 the age limits for which the State provides free pub23 lic education. 

24 (2) The term ‘‘controlled substance’’ means a 

25 controlled substance covered by schedule I, II, III, 
3 

•HR 1790 IH 

1 IV, or V of section 202 of the Controlled Substances 

2 Act (21 U.S.C. 812). 

3 (3) The term ‘‘psychotropic drug’’ means a 

4 drug subject to section 505 of the Federal Food, 

5 Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355) that is— 

6 (A) used in the diagnosis, treatment, or 

7 prevention of a disease; and 

8 (B) intended to have an altering effect on 

9 perception, emotion, or behavior. 

10 (4) The term ‘‘State’’ means each of the 50 

11 States, the District of Columbia, and the Common12 wealth of Puerto Rico. 

Æ
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

HENRY FRANK LENT,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

Nos. 4D17-2157 and 4D17-2158

[April 26, 2018]

Consolidated appeals from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial 

Circuit, St. Lucie County; James W. McCann, Judge; L.T. Case Nos. 

562016CF002500A and 562016CF000834A.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Peggy Natale, Assistant Public 

Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Alexandra A. 

Folley, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

LEVINE, CONNER and FORST, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
# C_2009056EN.01002801.xml

| 10.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 56/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 56/28

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5475 — Atlantia/Acciona/Itínere Chilean Assets)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2009/C 56/03)

On 26 February 2009, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32009M5475. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32009M5475. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 6862** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. CHRISTOPHER J. RUFFIN , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond
. Henry E. Hudson , District Judge. ( 3:09

- cr - 00335

- HEH

- 1; 3:12

- cv - 00432

- HEH )

Submitted : November 20, 2014 Decided: November 26, 2014

Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Christopher J. Ruffin, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Wiley Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Christopher J. Ruffin seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ( 2012 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (B) (20 12 ). A certificate of appe alability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (20 12 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable juris ts would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedura l grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Ruffin has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
[No. 39066-0-I.

Division One.

August 11, 1997.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Michael E. Hall, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 95-1-06959-9, Marilyn R. Sellers, J., entered July 1, 1996. *Dismissed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF WYNDHAM, INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000             DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000             MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          94,471                 144,333
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  255,846                 186,321
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                     22,103                  23,304
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               525,392                 477,635
<PP&E>                                       5,936,825               5,891,672
<DEPRECIATION>                                 543,749                 478,494
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,997,074               7,003,490
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          448,260                 491,824
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                        105                     103
<COMMON>                                         1,673                   1,672
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,141,853               2,135,087
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,997,074               7,003,490
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               653,626                 671,075
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               545,329                 574,132
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              91,863                  90,215
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 16,924                   9,429
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (2,945)                 (8,943)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             13,979                     486
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                    11,597                     572
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.08)                  (0.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.08)                  (0.13)


</TABLE>
(56 Misc. Rep. 61.)

#### COLTON v. SULLIVAN.

(Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County.

September, 1907.)

Bail—Exoneration.

Under Code Civ. Proc. § 601, the bail should be exonerated on the vacating of an order of arrest which works a legal discharge of defendant from the obligation to render himself amenable to the process with respect to which the bail was given.

Action by Frank S. Colton against Lawrence M. Sullivan, sued as “Larry M. Sullivan.” Motion for exoneration of bail granted.

Samuel M. Fischer, for John J. White and Antonio .Cardone.

James C. Lenney, for sheriff of New York county.

*940BRADY, J.

A careful reconsideration of section 601, Code of Civil Procedure, impels the conclusion that the vacation of ,the order of arrest herein worked a legal discharge of the defendant from the obligation to render himself amenable to the process with respect to-which the undertaking of the bail was given, and that the bail must be-exonerated.

Motion granted, and bail exonerated.
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 124 (Thursday, July 1, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 35113]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-14100]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4602-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2021-0001]


Virginia; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the Commonwealth of Virginia (FEMA-4602-DR), dated May 10, 2021, 
and related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued June 10, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and 
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the Commonwealth of Virginia is hereby amended to include the 
following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely 
affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his 
declaration of May 10, 2021.

    Chesterfield and Hanover Counties for Public Assistance.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, 
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis 
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster 
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance 
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and 
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, 
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing 
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially 
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other 
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially 
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2021-14100 Filed 6-30-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2083 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2083

              To extend the duty suspension on cyprodinil.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 4, 2005

  Mr. Coble introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
              To extend the duty suspension on cyprodinil.

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

SECTION 1. CYPRODINIL.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.02.08 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to cyprodinil) is amended by 
striking ``12/31/2006'' and inserting ``12/31/2008''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
# L_2008282EN.01003701.xml

| 25.10.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 282/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.10.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 282/37

---

Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1039/2008 of 22 October 2008 reintroducing customs duties on imports of certain cereals for the 2008/09 marketing year

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 280 of 23 October 2008
  )

On page 5, Article 1(2) (and footnote (3)):

3

for:

‘2.   In accordance with Articles 135 and 136 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, the customs duties are reintroduced at the levels as last laid down by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1026/2008 (1).

read:

‘2.   In accordance with Articles 135 and 136 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, the customs duties are reintroduced at the levels laid down by the Commission (2).

---

(1)  
  OJ L 277, 18.10.2008, p. 31.’,

1

(2)  As last laid down by Regulation (EC) No 1026/2008 (OJ L 277, 18.10.2008, p. 31).’

2

---