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

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2383 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2383

  To redesignate the facility of the Bureau of Reclamation located at 
   19550 Kelso Road in Byron, California, as the ``C.W. `Bill' Jones 
                            Pumping Plant''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 16, 2005

 Mr. Nunes (for himself, Mr. Radanovich, Mr. Doolittle, Mr. Costa, and 
 Mr. Cardoza) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                         Committee on Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To redesignate the facility of the Bureau of Reclamation located at 
   19550 Kelso Road in Byron, California, as the ``C.W. `Bill' Jones 
                            Pumping Plant''.

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

SECTION 1. REDESIGNATION OF FACILITY.

    The facility of the Bureau of Reclamation located at 15990 Kelso 
Road in Byron, California, and known as the Tracy Pumping Plant, shall 
be known and designated as the ``C.W. `Bill' Jones Pumping Plant''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper or other 
record of the United States to the facility referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``C.W. `Bill' Jones Pumping 
Plant''.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION SECTION 1350

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Penns Woods Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2006, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, RonaldA. Walko, Chief Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

 

(1)                                  the Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange 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/ Ronald A. Walko     |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| Ronald A. Walko         |
| Chief Executive Officer |

 

August 8,2006

 

----
#### CLOTHIER, Respondent, v. HUDSON RIVER TELEPHONE CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, t

November 13, 1907.)

Action by Henry Clothier, j an infant, by Harry J. Raymond, his guardian ! ad litem, against the Hudson River Telephone ¡ Company.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with ■ *1121$10 costs and disbursements, on authority _ of Acardo v. New York Contracting & Trucking Co., 116 App. Div. 793, 102 N. Y. Supp. 7.
#### VAN BEUREN v. LAZARUS et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

February 18, 1898.)

Action by Elizabeth S. Van Beuren against Sarah Lazarus and others.

No opinion. Motion denied, with $10 costs. See 42 N. Y. Supp. 1134; 48 N. Y. Supp. 1117; and 49 N. Y. Supp. 1150.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Timothy Towns, Appellant.

— Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Pizzuto, J.), rendered September 28, 1983, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 10 to 20 years.

Judgment affirmed.

Defendant’s claims regarding the sufficiency of the plea allocution are unpreserved for appellate review as a matter of law (CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Pellegrino,*60 NY2d 636; *People v Mattocks,*100 AD2d 944). In any event, reversal is not warranted in the interest of justice because the record of the allocution establishes that defendant knowingly and voluntarily pleaded guilty *(see, People v Harris,*61 NY2d 9; *People v Nixon,*21 NY2d 338, *cert denied sub nom. Robinson v New York,*393 US 1067).

*765We also find no merit to defendant’s contention that the second violent felony offender statute (Penal Law § 70.04) is unconstitutional because it requires the imposition of mandatory incarceration without regard to mitigating factors *(People v Vasquez,*104 AD2d 1012; *see also, People v Cates,*104 AD2d 895; *People v Kepple,*98 AD2d 783; *People v Bryant,*47 AD2d 51). Moreover, the fact that a felony may serve as a valid predicate for a second violent felony offender adjudication, even though the predicate crime was not designated as a “violent felony offense” when committed, does not violate the prohibition against ex post facto laws in US Constitution, article 1, § 10 (1) *(People v Morse,*62 NY2d 205, 216-218).

Finally, we perceive no basis for concluding that the sentence imposed, which was the product of a negotiated plea, warrants modification in the interest of justice *(People v Kazepis,*101 AD2d 816; *People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80). Lazer, J. P., Mangano, Bracken and Niehoff, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 384 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 384

 To amend title 39, United States Code, to extend the authority of the 
 United States Postal Service to issue a semipostal to raise funds for 
                        breast cancer research.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 17, 2011

  Mrs. Feinstein (for herself, Mrs. Hutchison, Mrs. Boxer, Ms. Snowe, 
Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Portman, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Blumenthal, 
   Mr. Udall of New Mexico, Mr. Begich, Mr. Coons, Mr. Barrasso, Ms. 
  Mikulski, Mr. Burr, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Johnson of South 
Dakota, Mr. Tester, Mr. Merkley, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Moran, Mr. Cochran, 
    Mrs. Murray, Mr. Ensign, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, and Mr. Hatch) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
        Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 39, United States Code, to extend the authority of the 
 United States Postal Service to issue a semipostal to raise funds for 
                        breast cancer research.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF POSTAGE STAMP FOR BREAST CANCER RESEARCH.

    Section 414(h) of title 39, United States Code, is amended by 
striking ``2011'' and inserting ``2015''.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 32 (i)**

 

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

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Penns Woods Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q forthe period ending September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Ronald A. Walko, ChiefExecutive Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section ‘ 1350, as adoptedpursuant to section ‘ 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

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

 

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

 

 
| /s/ Ronald  A. Walko     |   |
|--------------------------|--------|
| Ronald A.  Walko         |
| Chief  Executive Officer |
|                     |
| November 13,  2003       |

 

1

----
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 19 - 0 710 CITY OF MISSOULA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. CHRISTIAN BRIDENSTINE ,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of c ounsel’s motion to withdraw as counsel of record, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Defendant and Appellant in this matter shall file a response to this motion within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order. The response must be served upon all counsel of record, including the Attorney General, the County Attorney, and the Appellate Defender Division . IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court give notice of this Order by mail to all counsel of record and to the Defendant and Appellant at his last known address. Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 13 2020

10/13/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0710
Exhibit 32



SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER



Statement



Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C.§1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, we, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of Sonic Foundry, Inc. (the Company), hereby certify, based on our knowledge, that the Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2004 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|Dated: | August 6, 2004
|------ | --------------



|       |  |                           |  | 
|------ |  | ------------------------- |  | 
|By:    |  | /s/ Rimas P. Buineivicius
|By:    |  | Rimas P. Buineivicius    
|Title: |  | Chief Executive Officer  
|       | 
|By     |  | /s/ Kenneth A. Minor     
|By:    |  | Kenneth A. Minor         
|Title: |  | Chief Financial Officer
# C_2008202EN.01000701.xml

| 8.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/7

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5139 — Empik/HDS/JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 202/03)

On 28 July 2008, 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 32008M5139. 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 32008M5139. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
(23 Misc. Rep. 121.)

#### PENNIMAN v. LA GRANGE.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

March 28, 1898.)

Appeal prom Justice—Reversal.

Where the failure of the trial justice to render judgment within eight days after the trial, and the submission of the case to him for decision, resulting, under Consolidation Act, § 1384, in a loss of jurisdiction, appears upon the face of the return, the judgment must, upon appeal to the appellate term of the supreme court, be reversed.

Appeal from Eighth district court.

Action by Samuel Penniman against Amelia J. La Grange. From a judgment in favor of defendant, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

Argued before BEEKMAN, P. J., and GILDERSLEEVE and GIEGERIOH, JJ.

William L. Mathot, for appellant.

William J. Walsh, for respondent.

BEEKMAN, P. J.

The record before us shows that the trial justice lost jurisdiction of the action by his failure to render judgment within eight days after the trial, and the submission of the case to him for decision. Section 1384 of the consolidation act of the city of New York; Bloomer v. Merrill, 1 Daly, 485; Orvis v. Curtiss, 28 N. Y. Supp. 728. In the case last cited, which was decided by the general term of the court of common pleas, it was held that, where this omission appears upon the face of the return, the judgment should be re*711versed. Such must therefore he our disposition of this appeal. The conclusion to which we have come precludes us from reviewing the judgment on the merits.

Judgment reversed, with costs. All concur.
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Foreign Disease-Weed Science Research: Frederick, MD
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Northeast Area Frederick, Maryland Foreign Disease-Weed Science Research Docs







Map Templateheadline bar /ARSUserFiles/80440500/images/Maps/new map.png


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
#### CEFOLA, Respondent, v. SIEGElL-COOPER CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

October 15, 1907.)

Action by Donat Oefola against the SiegelCooper Company.

No opinion. Blotion granted, with costs.
```

[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 129 (Friday, July 9, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36271-36272]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-14669]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL21-88-000]

Great River Energy; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on July 1, 2021, Great River Energy (GRE), filed a 
revised revenue requirement for providing Reactive Supply and Voltage 
Control from Generation or Other Sources Service (Reactive Power 
Service) supplied by GRE's generation resources located in the 
Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.'s region.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or 
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to 
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 
20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed proceedings should be 
delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, 
Rockville, Maryland 20852.

[[Page 36272]]

    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the 
Federal Register, The Commission provides all interested persons an 
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the 
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) using 
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three 
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time, 
the Commission has suspended access to Commission's Public Reference 
Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency concerning 
the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the President on 
March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact FERC at 
[email protected] or call toll-free, (886) 208-3676 or TYY, 
(202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on July 22, 2021.

    Dated: July 2, 2021.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-14669 Filed 7-8-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
```
Exhibit 32.1

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

I, Carl F. Fahrenkrug, Chief Executive Officer of Microwave Filter Company,
Inc. (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

(1) the quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended
    March 31, 2006 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
    Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
    78m or 78o(d); and

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

Dated: May 12, 2006                         /s/ Carl F. Fahrenkrug
                                                Carl F. Fahrenkrug
                                                Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     US Dollar
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                MAR-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         116,899
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,426
<ALLOWANCES>                                       177
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               177,644
<PP&E>                                         363,162
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (43,824)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 926,398
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           34,638
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    113,653
<COMMON>                                           114
<OTHER-SE>                                     (16,775)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   926,398
<SALES>                                          3,882
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                20,233
<CGS>                                            1,877
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   28,550
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                14,572
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   200
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              14,158
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (25,984)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (25,984)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 15,763
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (25,984)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (2.48)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (2.48)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.37


2012 Corporate Goals for Strategic Leadership Team


Approved by the Compensation Committee on February 7, 2012


Revenue Growth versus Prior Year (60%)





Total Revenue Growth Vs. Prior YearFunding*≥ 21% growth200%≥ 19% growth175%≥ 17% growth150%≥ 16% growth125%≥ 14% (Budgeted Revenue Growth)100%≥ 13% growth (Street)50%≥ 12% growth25%≥ 12% growthNo Payout


*Subject to a cash override: must maintain cash above 95% of year-end cash budget—otherwise the achieved revenue payout ($) will be discounted by 20%.


Vantera Clearance and Launch (30%)


|  |                                                 
|- | ------------------------------------------------
|• | Q2: CLIA registration of Vantera (10% weighting)

|  |                                                                                                
|- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|• | Q2: Internal launch of Vantera for use in reporting clinical commercial results (20% weighting)

|  |                                  
|- | ---------------------------------
|• | Q3: FDA clearance (50% weighting)

|  |                                                                                             
|- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|• | Q4: LabCorp initial satisfaction levels support positive external references (20% weighting)

For purposes of these metrics, Q2, Q3, and Q4 are defined as the last day of each respective quarter.


Furthermore, for each component a 10% increase/decrease in bonus will be applied for beating/missing the timeline goal by 30 days, 20% increase/decrease for 31 to 60 days, 25% increase/decrease for 61 to 90 days. The bonus amount will be at the discretion of the compensation committee for any overachievement or delay greater than 91 days.


If Vantera is not FDA approved in 2012, the entire Vantera payout will be zero.


Third Component: Successful IPO (10%)


While the Board is evaluating several pathways to ensure that the company is adequately capitalized, the IPO is the clear preference, and this component reflects that desired outcome.


The exact determination of whether the IPO was a successful IPO will be decided by the Board Compensation Committee in consultation with the Pricing Committee following completion of the IPO.