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

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2288 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

<DOC>
114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2288

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            December 1, 2015

   Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
     To remove the use restrictions on certain land transferred to 
          Rockingham County, Virginia, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. REMOVAL OF USE RESTRICTION.

    Public Law 101-479 (104 Stat. 1158) is amended--
            (1) by striking section 2(d); and
            (2) by adding the following new section at the end:

``SEC. 4. REMOVAL OF USE RESTRICTION.

    ``(a) The approximately 1-acre portion of the land referred to in 
section 3 that is used for purposes of a child care center, as 
authorized by this Act, shall not be subject to the use restriction 
imposed in the deed referred to in section 3.
    ``(b) Upon enactment of this section, the Secretary of the Interior 
shall execute an instrument to carry out subsection (a).''.

            Passed the House of Representatives November 30, 2015.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### POWERS, Appellant, v. EVELINE, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

September 29, 1896.)

Action by William F. Powers, by guardian, against Mary S. Eveline.

No opinion. Order affirmed, without costs to either party. All concur.
# C_2021514EN.01000101.xml

| 21.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 514/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 514/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10557 – CPP INVESTMENTS / VOTORANTIM / VOTENER)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 514/01)

On 15 December 2021, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). 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:

| — | in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/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 (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10557. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10557. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
#### Gregory VAUGHN, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Respondent.

Nos. 2007-3206, 2007-3207.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

June 27, 2007.

Gregory Vaughn, pro se.

Before NEWMAN, Circuit Judge, FRIEDMAN, Senior Circuit Judge, and MAYER, Circuit Judge.

*ORDER*

PER curiam:.

The United States Postal Service responds to this court’s order that directed Gregory Vaughn to show cause why his petitions for review should not be dismissed as untimely. Vaughn has not responded.

On January 31, 2007, the Merit Systems Protection Board issued two decisions. The United States Postal Service’s response demonstrates that the Board’s decisions were mailed to Vaughn and that he received them on February 2 and 3, 2007. The court received Vaughn’s petitions for review on April 10, 2007, or 66 days after he received the Board’s second decision.

A petition for review must be received by this court “within 60 days after the date the petitioner received notice of the final order or decision of the Board.” 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1). This filing period is “statutory, mandatory, [and] jurisdictional.” *Monzo v. Dept. of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration,*735 F.2d 1335, 1336 (Fed.Cir.1984).

Because Vaughn’s petitions for review were received by the court on April 10, 2007, more than 60 days after he received the Board’s decisions, Vaughn’s petitions for review are untimely.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The petitions for review are dismissed.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
1 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD 

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD 

Complainant 

vs. 

CURTIS J. LITTLE 

Respondent 

Docket Number 2023-0391 

Enforcement Activity No. 7799857 

CONSENT ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 

On October 25, 2023, the parties in this case submitted a Motion for Approval of a 

Settlement Agreement and Entry of Consent Order to be approved as a settlement of the case 

under 33 C.F.R. § 20.502. After carefully reviewing the terms of the Settlement Agreement, I 

find that it is fair, reasonable, and in substantial compliance with the requirements of 33 C.F.R. 

§ 20.502. 

ORDER 

Upon consideration of the record, it is hereby ORDERED the Settlement Agreement is 

APPROVED in full and incorporated herein by reference. This Consent Order shall constitute 

full, final, and complete adjudication of this proceeding. 

Done and dated this 22nd day of December 2023, 

at Houston, Texas 

______________________________ 

HON. TOMMY CANTRELL 

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE 

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD
**Code of Ethics**

**For Senior Officers of**

**Patient Infosystems, Inc.**

 

It is the policy of Patient Infosystems, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as the “Company”) that each Senior Officer, to include Chief Executive Officer, Chief Operating Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Principal Accounting Officer and Controller (hereinafter individually referred to as the “Officer”) share adhere to and advocate the following principals governing their professional and ethical conduct in the fulfillment of their responsibilities:

1.    Act with honesty and integrity, avoiding actual or apparent conflicts between the Officer’s personal, private interests and the interests of the Company, including receiving improper personal benefits as a result the Officers position.

2.    Perform responsibilities with a view to causing periodic reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission to contain information that is accurate, complete, fair and understandable.

3.    Comply with laws of federal, state and local governments applicable to the Company, and the rules and regulations of private and public regulatory agencies having jurisdiction over the Company.

4.    Act in good faith, responsibly, with due care and diligence, without misrepresenting or omitting facts or allowing independent judgment to be compromised.

5.    Respect the confidentiality of information acquired in the course of the performance of responsibilities except when authorized or otherwise legally obligated to disclose.

6.    Do not use confidential information acquired in the course of the performance of responsibilities for personal advantage.

|   | 7. | Proactively promote ethical behavior among subordinates and peers. |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------|

8.    Use corporate assets and resources employed or entrusted in a responsible manner.

Any violation of this Code should promptly be reported to the Chief Financial Officer and/or the Company’s Audit Committee.  To encourage each Officer to report any violation of this Code, the Company will not permit any retaliation for reports made in good faith.****It is also the Policy of the Company that each Officer individually acknowledge and certify to the foregoing and that a copy of such certification be filed with the Company’s Audit Committee and be placed in the Officer’s permanent record.

**(this space intentionally left blank)**

 

 

 

 

RESOLVED that the Company’s Audit Committee shall have the power to monitor, make determinations and recommend action to the Board of Directors with respect to any violations of the foregoing Code of Ethics.

APPROVED:

 

| ____________________________  | __________________________ |
|-------------------------------|----------------------------|
| Derace Schaffer, MD, Chairman | John Pappajohn, Director   |  
 

____________________________

Roger Chaufournier, Director

 

ACKNOWLEDGED:

 

Signed:

____________________________

 

Name:

____________________________

 

Title:

____________________________

 

 

 

 

  |
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Theodore Mierzwa, Appellant.

Memorandum: On this appeal of defendant’s conviction of attempted murder in the second degree, evidence that he fired his gun at a police officer at close range is sufficient to support the inference that his intent was to cause the death of another, notwithstanding the proof of his suicidal intent. The *1039jury could reasonably have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that, despite defendant’s underlying intent to cause his own death, he intended to engage in a shootout with police.

Moreover, we may not modify his conviction to attempted manslaughter in the first degree under Penal Law § 125.20 (2). Although the record is sufficient to support defendant’s claim that he acted under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance, we may only modify a conviction to a lesser included offense "[u]pon a determination that the trial evidence adduced in support of a verdict is not legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt of an offense of which he was convicted but is legally sufficient to establish his guilt of a lesser included offense” (CPL 470.15 [2] [a]). Here, the lesser offense of attempted manslaughter requires proof of an additional element, i.e., extreme emotional disturbance. The claim that a defendant acted under extreme emotional disturbance presupposes guilt of the greater offense of attempted murder, and "allows [defendant] an option to choose to avail himself of a defense in mitigation and to make a plea for leniency” *(People v Herloski,*112 AD2d 5). Unlike other affirmative defenses, extreme emotional disturbance does not negate any element of the greater crime charged. We are not authorized "to extend mercy to an accused by finding a lesser degree of crime than is established by the evidence” *(People v Potskowski,*298 NY 299, 303). Thus, despite the strong evidence of extreme emotional disturbance, we cannot modify the judgment because the proof is legally sufficient to establish defendant’s guilt of attempted murder in the second degree.

Defendant’s claim that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel is without merit. Defense counsel followed a trial strategy of contesting the People’s proof that defendant had an intent to kill Deputy Margolis or that he fired the rifle. Counsel’s use of defendant’s hospital records and his election not to use expert psychiatric testimony or to claim defendant acted under extreme emotional disturbance were reasonable choices in accordance with his strategy. With the benefit of hindsight it appears he may have pursued the wrong defenses but defendant was not denied meaningful representation. Defense counsel was unsuccessful, not inept *(see, People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137).

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Onondaga County Court, Hurlbutt, J. — attempted murder, second degree, and other offenses.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Denman, Boomer and Schnepp, JJ.
Exhibit 32

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

The following statement is provided by the undersigned to accompany the foregoing Report on Form 10-Q pursuant to Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350
of the United States Code, as amended by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not be deemed filed pursuant to any provision of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or any other securities law.

Each of the undersigned certifies that the foregoing Report on Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Broadway Financial Corporation at the dates and for the periods indicated.



|                      |  |  |  |     |  |                        
|--------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | -----------------------
|Date: August 15, 2011 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Paul C. Hudson     
|                      |  |  |  |     |  | Paul C. Hudson         
|                      |  |  |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer
|                      |  |  | 
|Date: August 15, 2011 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Samuel Sarpong     
|                      |  |  |  |     |  | Samuel Sarpong         
|                      |  |  |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2301 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2301

To designate Union Station in Washington, DC, as the ``Harry S. Truman 
                            Union Station''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 13, 2015

   Mr. Cleaver (for himself, Mr. Clay, Mr. Graves of Missouri, Mrs. 
Hartzler, Mrs. Wagner, Mr. Huffman, Mr. Luetkemeyer, Mr. Long, and Mr. 
Smith of Missouri) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
           the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To designate Union Station in Washington, DC, as the ``Harry S. Truman 
                            Union Station''.

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

SECTION 1. HARRY S. TRUMAN UNION STATION.

    (a) Designation.--Union Station, located at 405 Massachusetts 
Avenue, NE., Washington, DC, shall be known and designated as the 
``Harry S. Truman Union Station''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Harry S. 
Truman Union Station''.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 23.1**

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm 

The Board of Directors 

Dover Motorsports, Inc.: 

We consent to theincorporation by reference in the registration statement (No. 333-58779) on Form S-8 of Dover Motorsports, Inc. of our reports dated March 5, 2010, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Dover Motorsports, Inc. and subsidiaries as ofDecember 31, 2009 and 2008, and the related consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive (loss) earnings and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2009, and the effectiveness of internal control overfinancial reporting as of December 31, 2009, which reports appear in the December 31, 2009 annual report on Form 10-K of Dover Motorsports, Inc. 

KPMG LLP 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

March 5, 2010
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2288 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2288

     To remove the use restrictions on certain land transferred to 
          Rockingham County, Virginia, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 13, 2015

Mr. Goodlatte introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To remove the use restrictions on certain land transferred to 
          Rockingham County, Virginia, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. REMOVAL OF USE RESTRICTION.

    Public Law 101-479 (104 Stat. 1158) is amended to read as follows:

``SEC. 1. REMOVAL OF USE RESTRICTION.

    ``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any restrictions in the deed in 
existence on or after the date of enactment of this Act, the parcel 
comprised of approximately 3.03 acres of land (including any 
improvements to the land) transferred by the United States to 
Rockingham County, Virginia (referred to in this section as the 
`County') on April 11, 1989, as described in deed book number 953 at 
page 600, may be used by the County as if the land had been transferred 
in fee simple with no use or other restrictions.
    ``(b) Documentation.--As soon as practicable after the date of 
enactment of this subsection, the Secretary of the Interior shall take 
such actions as are necessary to issue to the County a fee simple deed 
to the land described in subsection (a) with no restrictions to the use 
of the land.''.
                                 <all>
```
**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**
 
 
 In
        connection
        with the quarterly report of eLinear, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB/A for
        the quarter ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
        Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael Lewis, 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 to the best
        of
        my knowledge:
 
 (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/
        Michael Lewis ___________________
 Michael
        Lewis,
 Chief
        Executive Officer
 June
        20,
        2005
 
 
 A
        signed
        original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
        to
        eLinear, Inc. and will be retained by eLinear, Inc. and furnished to the
        Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2021083EN.01000401.xml

| 12.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 83/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 83/4

---

Summary of European Union decisions on marketing authorisations in respect of medicinal products on 11 March 2021

(Published pursuant to Article 13 or Article 38 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1)
  )

(2021/C 83/04)

| — | Issuing of a marketing authorisation (Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council): Accepted













  Date of the decision | Name of the medicinal product | INN (International Non-Proprietary Name) | Holder of the marketing authorisation | Number of the entry in the Community Register | Pharmaceutical form | ATC code (Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Code) | Date of notification |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 11.3.2021 | COVID-19 Vaccine Janssen | COVID-19 vaccine (Ad26.COV2-S [recombinant]) | Janssen-Cilag International NV
  Turnhoutseweg 30, 2340 Beerse, België | EU/1/20/1525 | Suspension for injection | J07BX03 | 11.3.2021 |

—

Issuing of a marketing authorisation (Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council): Accepted

Date of the decision

Name of the medicinal product

INN (International Non-Proprietary Name)

Holder of the marketing authorisation

Number of the entry in the Community Register

Pharmaceutical form

ATC code (Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Code)

Date of notification

11.3.2021

COVID-19 Vaccine Janssen

COVID-19 vaccine (Ad26.COV2-S [recombinant])

Janssen-Cilag International NV

Turnhoutseweg 30, 2340 Beerse, België

EU/1/20/1525

Suspension for injection

J07BX03

11.3.2021

Anyone wishing to consult the public assessment report on the medicinal products in question and the decisions relating thereto is invited to contact:

| European Medicines Agency |
| --- |
| Domenico Scarlattilaan 6 |
| 1083 HS Amsterdam |
| NETHERLANDS |

European Medicines Agency

Domenico Scarlattilaan 6

1083 HS Amsterdam

NETHERLANDS

---

(1)  OJ L 136, 30.4.2004, p. 1.

---
# C_2021076EN.01001601.xml

| 5.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 76/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 76/16

---

Commission notice pursuant to Article 17(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community

Invitation to tender in respect of the operation of scheduled air services in accordance with public service obligations

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 76/05)

| Member State | Spain |
| --- | --- |
| Concerned route | La Gomera – Tenerife Norte / La Gomera – Gran Canaria |
| Period of validity of the contract | From 1 August 2021 to 31 July 2024 |
| Deadline for submission of tenders | 2 months following the date of publication of this notice |
| Address where the text of the invitation to tender and any relevant information and/or documentation related to the public tender and the public service obligation can be obtained | Ministerio de Transportes, Movilidad y Agenda
  Urbana





  Dirección General de Aviación Civil |
| Subdirección General de Transporte Aéreo |
| Paseo de la Castellana 67 |
| 28071 Madrid |
| ESPAÑA |

Member State

Spain

Concerned route

La Gomera – Tenerife Norte / La Gomera – Gran Canaria

Period of validity of the contract

From 1 August 2021 to 31 July 2024

Deadline for submission of tenders

2 months following the date of publication of this notice

Address where the text of the invitation to tender and any relevant information and/or documentation related to the public tender and the public service obligation can be obtained

Ministerio de Transportes, Movilidad y Agenda

Urbana

Dirección General de Aviación Civil

Subdirección General de Transporte Aéreo

Paseo de la Castellana 67

28071 Madrid

ESPAÑA

Email: osp.dgac@mitma.es

---