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

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6012 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6012

 To direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services to review uptake 
    and utilization of diabetes screening benefits and establish an 
outreach program with respect to such benefits, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 30, 2010

    Mr. Space (for himself, Mr. Terry, Ms. DeGette, and Mr. Castle) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                          Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services to review uptake 
    and utilization of diabetes screening benefits and establish an 
outreach program with respect to such benefits, 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. DIABETES SCREENING EVALUATION AND OUTREACH PROGRAM.

    (a) Establishment.--With respect to diabetes screening tests and 
for the purposes of reducing the number of undiagnosed seniors with 
diabetes or prediabetes, the Secretary of Health and Human Services 
(referred to in this section as the ``Secretary''), in collaboration 
with the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 
(referred to in this section as the ``Director''), shall--
            (1) review uptake and utilization of diabetes screening 
        benefits to identify and address any existing problems with 
        regard to uptake and utilization and related data collection 
        mechanisms; and
            (2) establish an outreach program to identify existing 
        efforts by agencies of the Department of Health and Human 
        Services and by the private and nonprofit sectors to increase 
        awareness among seniors and providers of diabetes screening 
        benefits.
    (b) Consultation.--The Secretary shall carry out this section in 
consultation with--
            (1) the heads of appropriate health agencies and offices in 
        the Department of Health and Human Services; and
            (2) entities with an interest in diabetes, including 
        industry, voluntary health organizations, trade associations, 
        and professional societies.
    (c) Report.--The Secretary shall submit an annual report to the 
Congress on the activities carried out under this section.
                                 <all>
```
##### 



EXHIBIT 23.1

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration
Statements and Amendments of Nortel Networks Limited (the Company) of our report dated
February 10, 2003 (February 14, 2003 as to note 21, December 23, 2003 as
to the effects of the restatements described in note 3)
(which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes explanatory
paragraphs relating to the change in method of accounting for
goodwill and the restatements described in note 3), appearing in
this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of
the Company for the year ended December 31, 2002:



| |  |  | Registration Statement on Form S-8 and all Post-Effective Amendments thereto
(Nortel Networks U.S. Deferred Compensation Plan)
(333-11558)
| | - |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Registration Statement on Form S-3 and all Post-Effective Amendments thereto
(Common Shares, Preferred Shares, Debt Securities, Guarantees,
Warrants to Purchase Equity Securities, Warrants to Purchase Debt Securities,
Share Purchase Contracts, Share Purchase or Equity Units of Nortel Networks Corporation and
Guaranteed Debt Securities of Nortel Networks Limited)
(333-88164)
| | - |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

Chartered Accountants

Toronto, Canada
December 23, 2003
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

[MISC. NO. 07-07 has been revoked]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

 

MISC. NO. 06 -21

IN RE: RULES ADVISORY COMMITTEE

O R D E R

It is ORDERED, pursuant to Rule 40(b) and (c)(1) of the Court's Rules of Practice and 

Procedure (Rules), that the following individual is reappointed by the Board of Judges to serve as 

chair of the Court's Rules Advisory Committee for a term as indicated:

Amy B. Kretkowski, Esq., of Iowa City, Iowa, for a term as chair ending December 7, 

2022;

Further, it is ORDERED, pursuant to Rule 40(b) and (c)(1) of the Court's Rules, that the 

following members of the Court's Bar are reappointed to the Court's Rules Advisory Committee 

for a term as indicated:

Christopher W. Wallace, Esq., Deputy Chief Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, 

Department of Veterans Affairs, for a term ending December 6, 2021;

Kenneth Carpenter, Esq., of Topeka, Kansas, for a term ending December 7, 2022;

 Judy Donegan, Esq., of the Veterans Consortium Pro Bono Program, for a term ending 

December 7, 2022;

 Selket N. Cottle, Esq., Deputy Chief Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, Department 

of Veterans Affairs, for a term ending January 11, 2023;

Kristen King-Holland, Esq., Appellate Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, 

Department of Veterans Affairs, for a term ending March 25, 2023.

 

 

DATED: February 10, 2021 FOR THE COURT:

 /s/Gregory O. Block

 GREGORY O. BLOCK

 Clerk of the Court
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6056 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to treat certain employeefunded pensions created before June 25, 1959, in the same manner 

as qualified trusts for purposes of unrelated debt-financed income derived 

from real property, and to increase the limitation on elective deferrals 

to such employee-funded pensions. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 30, 2010 

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to treat certain employee-funded pensions created before June 25, 

1959, in the same manner as qualified trusts for purposes of unrelated debt-financed income derived from 

real property, and to increase the limitation on elective 

deferrals to such employee-funded pensions. 

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

3 SECTION 1. EXEMPTION FOR INCOME FROM LEVERAGED 

4 REAL ESTATE HELD BY 501(c)(18) TRUST. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subparagraph (C) of section 

6 514(c)(9) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6056 IH

1 to real property acquired by a qualified organization) is 

2 amended by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end of clause (iii), by 

3 striking the period at the end of clause (iv) and inserting 

4 ‘‘; or’’, and by adding at the end the following new clause: 

5 ‘‘(v) a trust described in section 

6 501(c)(18).’’. 

7 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

8 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

9 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

10 SEC. 2. ELECTIVE DEFERRAL PARITY FOR 501(c)(18) 

11 TRUSTS. 

12 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subparagraph (A) of section 

13 219(b)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating 

14 to plans under section 501(c)(18)) is amended by striking 

15 ‘‘$7,000’’ and inserting ‘‘the amount in effect for the tax16 able year under section 402(g)(1)(B)’’. 

17 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

18 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

19 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 99.3

                          SARBANES-OXLEY CERTIFICATION

            I, Gerald Holzmann, certify that:

           1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports
on Form 8-K containing distribution or servicing reports filed in respect of
periods included in the year covered by this annual report, of BMW Vehicle Lease
Trust 2000-A, BMW Auto Leasing LLC, Financial Services Vehicle Trust and BMW
Manufacturing LP;

           2. Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as
a whole, does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to
state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading as of the
last day of the period covered by this annual report;

           3. Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information
required to be provided to the trustee by the servicer under the pooling and
servicing, or similar, agreement, for inclusion in these reports is included in
these reports;

           4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
servicer under the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement and based upon
my knowledge and the annual compliance review required under that agreement, and
except as disclosed in the reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations
under that agreement; and

           5. The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the
servicer's compliance with the minimum servicing standards based upon the report
provided by an independent public accountant, after conducting a review in
compliance with the Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers or
similar procedure, as set forth in the pooling and servicing, or similar,
agreement, that is included in these reports.

Date: September 9, 2003                     By: /s/ Gerald Holzmann
                                                --------------------------------
                                                   Gerald Holzmann
                                                   Chief Financial Officer
#### RICKERSON, Appellant, v. HARTFORD FIRE INS. CO., Respondent.

(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department.

May 18, 1894.)

Action by Martin L. Rickerson against the Hartford Fire Insurance Company.

Argued before O’BRIEN, FOLLETT, and PARKER, JJ.

G. Richards, for appellant.

W. D. Murray, for respondent.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                                                      <C>             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                              3-MOS           3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                    DEC-31-2000     DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                       JAN-01-2000     JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                         MAR-31-2000     MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                                    471028          562916
<SECURITIES>                                                   0               0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            2158174         1468927
<ALLOWANCES>                                               88491           43628
<INVENTORY>                                              1818129         2000498
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                         4787593         4175051
<PP&E>                                                   1033551          758938
<DEPRECIATION>                                            436344          285799
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                           5384800         4648190
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                    1480850         1515520
<BONDS>                                                        0               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                          0               0
<PREFERRED>                                                    0               0
<COMMON>                                                    9160            9160
<OTHER-SE>                                               3880389         3105569
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                             5384800         4648190
<SALES>                                                  3406421         2065705
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                         3411454         2128391
<CGS>                                                    1797211         1163747
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            2531680         1816028
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                               0               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                               0               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                             0               0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                           691773          312363
<INCOME-TAX>                                              256890          106203
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                       434883          206160
<DISCONTINUED>                                                 0               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                0               0
<CHANGES>                                                      0               0
<NET-INCOME>                                              434883          206160
<EPS-BASIC>                                                .05             .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                .05             .02



</TABLE>
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

MISC. NO. 8-16

IN RE: COURT'S CHIEF JUDGE

Before DAVIS, Chief Judge, and KASOLD, LANCE, SCHOELEN, 

PIETSCH, BARTLEY, and GREENBERG, Judges.

O R D E R

Pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7253(d)(1), the chief judge of the Court shall be the judge of the Court

in regular active service who is senior in commission among the Court's judges, has served for one or

more years as a judge of the Court, and has not previously served as chief judge. The Honorable

Lawrence B. Hagel served as the Court's seventh chief judge until his retirement on October 7, 2016. 

The Honorable Alan G. Lance, Sr., served as the Court's eighth chief judge on October 8-9, 2016. The

Honorable Robert N. Davis now meets the statutory criteria for chief judge. 

On consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby

ORDERED that effective October 10, 2016,the Honorable Robert N. Davis commence service

as the Court's ninth chief judge.

DATED: October 10, 2016 PER CURIAM.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS 

No. 00-1985

ROBERT J. TAYLOR, APPELLANT,

V.

ANTHONY J. PRINCIPI,

SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, APPELLEE.

Before FARLEY, IVERS, and GREENE, Judges.

O R D E R

The appellant, through counsel, seeks review of two Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board or

BVA) decisions, both dated July 27, 2000. In the first Board decision, the Board construed the

appellant's arguments as a motion to vacate pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.904. The Board rejected the

argument that an April 12, 1984, Statement of the Case (SOC) was so deficient that it constituted

a denial of due process, and it denied the construed motion to vacate. In the second Board decision,

the Board concluded that there was no basis for an earlier effective date, and it also rejected the

appellant's argument that a January 1985 Board decision was not final because the SOC did not

address the issue presented in the appellant's NOD. 

Following oral argument before this Court on September 18, 2002, the Federal Circuit issued

Herndon v. Principi, 311 F.3d 1121 (Fed. Cir. 2002). While we might have reached a different

conclusion were we writing on a clean slate, Herndon compels us to reject the appellant's arguments

that (1) the April 12, 1984, SOC denied the appellant due process and required the Board to vacate

the January 1985 Board decision, and (2) the same SOC rendered the January 1985 decision nonfinal. For the reasons stated by the Federal Circuit in Herndon, the two July 27, 2000, Board

decisions must be affirmed. 

The appellant also submitted an opposed motion for leave to submit an illustrative Board

decision. That Board decision is not binding on this Court, and it was not of record at the time of

the Board decisions in this case.

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is

ORDERED that the appellant's motion to file an illustrative Board decision is denied. It is

further

ORDERED that both Board decisions dated July 27, 2000, are AFFIRMED.

DATED: June 12, 2003 PER CURIAM.
##### 



Exhibit 32.2

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 Covad Communications Group,
Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending
June 30, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Mark A. Richman, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18. U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 represents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Company.

|                    |  |  |                                  |                                                                     |  | 
|------------------- |  |  | -------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|                    |  |  | COVAD COMMUNICATIONS GROUP, INC.
|                   
|                    |  |  |                                  |                                                                     |  | 
|                    |  |  | By:                              | /s/ MARK A. RICHMAN                                                 |  | 
|                    |  |  |                                  |                                                                     |  | 
|                    |  |  |                                  | Mark A. RichmanExecutive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer |  | 
|Date: July 31, 2003 |  |  |                                  |                                                                     |  |
Third June 24, 1936 74 Cong. Ch. 753 May 31, 1938 75 Cong. Ch. 290

Fifth March 18, 1966 89-372 June 18, 1968 90-347

Fifth March 18, 1966 89-372 June 18, 1968 90-347

Fifth March 18, 1966 89-372 June 18, 1968 90-347

Fifth March 18, 1966 89-372 June 18, 1968 90-347

Ninth March 1, 1929 70 Cong. Ch. 413 June 16, 1933 73 Cong. Ch. 102

U.S. Courts of Appeals

Authorized Temporary Judgeships

Judgeship Made Permanent

Date Judgeship 

Lost

Created By 

Circuit Date Pub. L. No. Pub. L. No.

Date Judgeship 

Eligible to 

Date Authorized Lapse

uscourts.gov
Exhibit 13.2

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 Annual Report of Stora Enso Oyj (the Company) on Form 20-F for the period ended
December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Hannu Ryöppönen, Senior Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



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



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



|                    |  |  |  |                        
|------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|Date: June 21, 2006 |  |  |  |                        
|                    |  | 
|                    |  |  |  | /S/ HANNU RYÖPPÖNEN    
|                    |  |  |  | Hannu Ryöppönen        
|                    |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this certification 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.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee, v. Floyd E. BURDEN, Private U. S. Army, Appellant.

No. 29,571.

U. S. Court of Military Appeals.

Aug. 1, 1975.

*Captain Ronald Lewis Gallant*argued the cause for Appellant, Accused. With him on the brief were *Colonel Victor A. DeFiori, Lieutenant Colonel James Kucera,*and *Major Richard J. Goddard.*

*Captain Larry R. McDowell*argued the cause for Appellee, United States. With him on the brief were *Lieutenant Colonel Ronald M. Holdaway, Lieutenant Colonel Donald W. Hansen, Captain Richard S. Kleager,*and *Captain David A. Schlueter.*

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

At the time of appellant’s induction into the armed forces, failure to pass the Armed Forces Qualifications Test coupled with an inability to read and write in the English language was a nonwaivable bar to induction.1 The uncontested evidence of record indicates that appellant advised an induction official of his reading and writing disability. The official, in turn, directed appellant “to sign the test, and the dude would take care of it.” For substantially the same reasons we enunciated in *United States v. Russo,*23 U.S.C.M.A. 511, 50 C.M.R. 650, 1 M.J. 134 (1975), appellant’s induction was void.2 Consequently, the court-martial which tried him lacked jurisdiction.

The decision of the United States Army Court of Military Review is reversed. The findings of guilty and the sentence are set aside, and the charges are ordered dismissed.

1

. Paragraph 4-12, Army Regulation 601-270, Personnel Procurement, Armed Forces Examining and Induction Stations (March 18, 1969).

2

. Fraudulent induction is a criminal offense under Article 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 934, as well as under the Selective Service Act, 50 U.S.C. App. § 462 (1968).
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS 

Misc. No. 13-03 

IN RE: STANDING PANEL ON ADMISSION AND DISCIPLINE 

ORDER 

Pursuant to Rule 1(c) of the Court's Rules of Admission and Practice (Rules), the Court 

created a Standing Panel on Admission and Discipline (Standing Panel) to consider disciplinary 

cases coming before the Court. The Court's March 11, 20 II, Resolution, regarding the Standing 

Panel provides that on " [ e ]ach August I, the longest serving member of the Standing Panel will be 

removed automatically from the Standing Panel with regard to any new cases assigned to the 

Standing Panel." It further provides that " ... the Clerk shall designate as the next member of the 

Standing Panel the regular active judge with highest precedence among judges who have not yet 

been designated as a member ofthe Standing Panel ... " 

Judge Hagel is currently the longest serving member, and Judge Bartley is the regular active 

judge with highest precedence among judges who have not yet been designated as a member of the 

Standing Panel. Accordingly, the current Standing Panel, comprised of Judges Hagel, Moorman, 

and Pietsch, will be reconstituted effective August 1, 2013 to comprise Judges Moorman, Pietsch, 

and Bartley. 

Upon consideration ofthe foregoing, it is 

ORDERED that, effective August 1, 2013, the Standing Panel will consist of Judges 

Moorman, Pietsch, and Bartley. 

DATED: August I, 2013 FOR THE COURT: 

YO. BLOCK