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

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1622 

To amend the Animal Welfare Act to limit experimentation on cats. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 7, 2019 

Mr. PANETTA (for himself, Mr. MAST, Ms. SLOTKIN, and Mr. HURD of Texas) 

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture 

A BILL 

To amend the Animal Welfare Act to limit experimentation 

on cats. 

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 ‘‘Kittens In Traumatic 

5 Testing Ends Now Act of 2019’’ or the ‘‘KITTEN Act 

6 of 2019’’. 

7 SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON EXPERIMENTATION ON CATS. 

8 Section 14 of the Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 

9 2144) is amended— 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1622 IH

1 (1) in the first sentence, by striking ‘‘Any de2 partment’’ and inserting the following: 

3 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Any department’’; 

4 (2) in subsection (a) (as so designated), in the 

5 second sentence, by striking ‘‘Any department’’ and 

6 inserting the following: 

7 ‘‘(b) EXHIBITING ANIMALS.—Any department’’; and 

8 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

9 ‘‘(c) DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE EXPERIMEN10 TATION ON CATS.—Not later than 90 days after the date 

11 of enactment of this subsection, the Secretary shall not 

12 purchase, breed, transport, house, feed, maintain, dispose 

13 of, or conduct an experiment on a cat as part of any study 

14 or research that would subject that cat to a procedure that 

15 may cause pain or stress, including pain or stress that 

16 may be mitigated by anesthetics, analgesics, or tranquil17 izer drugs, unless the pain or stress is a result of a phys18 ical exam or training program.’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 21.1

                 Subsidiaries of Midcoast Energy Resources, Inc.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                            State of                 Year of                  Ownership Interest
         SUBSIDIARIES                    INCORPORATION            INCORPORATION              BY MIDCOAST ENERGY


<S>                                        <C>                         <C>                          <C>
Midcoast Holding No. One, Inc.             Delaware                    1993                         100%
Midcoast Marketing, Inc.                   Texas                       1991                         100%
Magnolia Pipeline Corporation              Alabama                     1989                         100%
Magnolia Resources, Inc.                   Mississippi                 1996                         100%
Magnolia Gathering, Inc.                   Alabama                     1996                         100%
Starr County Gathering System,
 A Joint Venture                           Texas                       1996                          60%
Pan Grande Pipeline, L.L.C.                Texas                       1996                          50%
Nugget Drilling Corporation*               Minnesota                   1982                         100%
H & W Pipeline Corporation*                Alabama                     1976                         100%
</TABLE>
----------
* Presently Inactive

<PAGE>
#### DAKE, Appellant, v. BUTLER, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Third Department.

July 14, 1894.)

Action by Warren Dake against Prescott Hall Butler.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. For decision at special term, see 28 N. Y. Supp. 134.
Exhibit 31.2
CERTIFICATION
I, Laura M. Bray, certify that:
1) I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of CLAIMSNET.COM INC.; 2) Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presentedin this report; 4) The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:
 a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;  b) [Reserved]  c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  d) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recentfiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, thesmall business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and
5) The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’sauditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):
 a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonable likely to adversely affectthe small business issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over financialreporting.
Date: July 26, 2005   /s/ Laura M. Bray  Laura M. Bray  Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 92 (Friday, May 11, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 24146]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-11880]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Health Resources and Services Administration


HRSA AIDS Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting; Correction

    In Federal Register Document 01-10229 appearing on page 20820 in 
the issue for Wednesday, April 25, 2001, the location of the meeting 
scheduled on June 4, 2001, from 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m. has changed. This 
meeting will be held at: Holiday Inn Select (Conference Plaza),130 
Claremont Avenue,Decatur, Georgia 30030,Telephone: 800-225-6079.

    Dated: May 7, 2001.
Jane M. Harrison,
Director, Division of Policy Review and Coordination.
[FR Doc. 01-11880 Filed 5-10-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-15-P
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 92 (Friday, May 11, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 24175]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-11947]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration


Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    In accordance with Part 219 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations 
(CFR), notice is hereby given that the Federal Railroad Administration 
(FRA) received a request for a waiver of compliance with certain 
requirements of its safety standards. The individual petition is 
described below, including the party seeking relief, the regulatory 
provisions involved, the nature of the relief being requested, and the 
petitioner's arguments in favor of relief.

Indiana Northeastern Railroad Company

[Docket Number FRA-2001-9014]

    The Indiana Northeastern Railroad Company (IN) seeks a permanent 
waiver of compliance, docket number FRA-2001-9014, from the 
requirements of the Control of Alcohol and Drug Use, 49 CFR Part 219, 
Subpart G, which requires the railroad to have a random alcohol and 
drug testing program. In seeks a waiver for total relief from the 
requirement to have a random alcohol and drug testing program because 
of the serious financial burdens the costs of both the training and the 
hours involved to implement this program will place on the railroad 
operation as a small entity.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings 
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate 
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since 
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party 
desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in 
writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for 
their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the 
appropriate docket number (e.g., Waiver Petition Docket Number FRA-
2001-9014) and must be submitted to the Docket Clerk, DOT Central 
Docket Management Facility, Room PI-401, Washington, DC, 20590-0001. 
Communications received within 45 days of the date of this notice will 
be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received 
after that date will be considered as far as practicable. All written 
communications concerning these proceedings are available for 
examination during regular business hours (9 a.m.-5 p.m.) at the above 
facility. All documents in the public docket are also available for 
inspection and copying on the Internet at the docket facility's Web 
site at 
http://dms.dot.gov.

    Issued in Washington, DC on May 7, 2001.
Grady C. Cothen, Jr.,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety Standards, and Program 
Development.
[FR Doc. 01-11947 Filed 5-10-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Glen Dorch, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hanophy, J.), rendered October 28, 1987, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, robbery in the third degree, grand larceny in the fourth degree, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We find that the hearing court erred in denying the defendant’s motion to suppress testimony regarding the showup identification of the defendant at the police precinct. The People failed to establish the existence of exigent circumstances warranting a showup procedure. Nor did they establish that it would have been unduly burdensome to conduct a lineup procedure in its stead. The record, moreover, supports a finding that the station house identification of the defendant was unduly suggestive. Accordingly, evidence relating thereto should not have been admitted at trial *(People v Riley,*70 NY2d 523; *People v Adams,*53 NY2d 241; *People v Liano,*142 AD2d 602; *People v Osgood,*89 AD2d 76).

Despite the foregoing, we conclude that reversal of the defendant’s conviction is not warranted since the People established, by clear and convincing evidence, that the complainant had an independent source for her in-court identification of the defendant *(see, People v Riley, supra; People v Ballott,*20 NY2d 600). Although the hearing court made no finding as to independent source, the record provides an adequate basis for this court to make its own factual determination *(see, People v Minota,*137 AD2d 837; *People v Joy,*114 AD2d 517). Specifically, the record reveals that the complainant observed the defendant’s face and clothing as he approached her on an otherwise empty street at approximately 8:00 a.m. The defendant pushed the complainant, snatched her *704purse and ran to a waiting car. The complainant was able to describe the defendant as well as the vehicle and the police were also provided with the license plate number of the vehicle. The defendant was apprehended approximately 30 seconds after the police received a radio transmission relating the details of the incident. Property which had been taken from the complainant during the robbery was ultimately recovered from the floor of the car. We find that the foregoing evidence, coupled with the complainant’s unequivocal in-court identification of the defendant, renders the erroneous admission of the showup identification harmless beyond a reasonable doubt *(see, People v Ballott, supra; People v Friday,*114 AD2d 970).

We have examined the defendant’s remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Mangano, J. P., Eiber, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Edwardo Perez, Also Known as Edwardo Reyes, Appellant.

*548Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Alvin Schlesinger, J.), rendered on December 2, 1985, unanimously affirmed.

Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted. *(See, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833.) We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous points which could be raised on this appeal. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Carro, Rosenberger, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.
IIB 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 182 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 21, 2019 

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

Resources 

AN ACT 

To extend the authorization for the Cape Cod National 

Seashore Advisory Commission. 

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


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

HR 182 RFS

1 SECTION 1. CAPE COD NATIONAL SEASHORE ADVISORY 

2 COMMISSION. 

3 Effective September 26, 2018, section 8(a) of Public 

4 Law 87–126 (16 U.S.C. 459b–7(a)) is amended in the sec5 ond sentence by striking ‘‘2018’’ and inserting ‘‘2028’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives November 20, 

2019. 

Attest: CHERYL L. JOHNSON, 

Clerk. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
Case 1:07-cv-05363-AKH Document 15-2 Filed 10/12/2007 Page 1 of 1
Case 1:07-cv-05377-AKH     Document 6      Filed 09/06/2007     Page 1 of 2

Case 1:07-cv-05377-AKH     Document 6      Filed 09/06/2007     Page 2 of 2
```

                                                                      EXHIBIT 32

        CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section
1350), the undersigned certifies that (1) this Quarterly Report of W. R. Grace &
Co. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2005, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (this "Report"),
fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and (2) the information contained
in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.

/s/ Paul J. Norris
------------------------------------
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

/s/ Robert M. Tarola
------------------------------------
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

Date: May 6, 2005

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
```
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.1


                             SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE
                            PER-SE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
                       EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SAVINGS PLAN

         THIS SECOND AMENDMENT made on this 14th day of December, 2005, by
PER-SE TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a corporation organized and existing under the laws
of the State of Delaware (the "Primary Sponsor");

                              W I T N E S S E T H:

         WHEREAS, the Primary Sponsor maintains the Per-Se Technologies, Inc.
Employees' Retirement Savings Plan (the "Plan"), which was last amended and
restated on January 31, 2005; and

         WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan to allow for matching
contributions based on compensation paid for a payroll period.

         NOW, THEREFORE, the Primary Sponsor does hereby amend the Plan,
effective as of January 1, 2006:

         1. By deleting the existing Section 3.2 and substituting the following:

         "3.2 Matching Contributions. Following the completion of a year of
         Service by a Participant, the Plan Sponsor shall make contributions for
         each Plan Year to the Company Match Account of each Participant in an
         amount equal to one hundred percent (100%) of the contribution made on
         behalf of a Participant pursuant to Section 3.1(a) for each payroll
         period, to the extent the contribution under Section 3.1(a) does not
         exceed four percent (4%) of the portion of the Participant's Annual
         Compensation payable for such payroll period."

         Except as specifically amended hereby, the Plan shall remain in full
force and effect as prior to this Second Amendment.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Primary Sponsor hereto has caused this Second
Amendment to be executed as of the day and year first above written.

                                                PER-SE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.



                                                By: /s/ PHILIP M. PEAD
                                                    ----------------------------
                                                    Philip M. Pead
                                                    Chairman, President and
                                                    Chief Executive Officer

[CORPORATE SEAL]

ATTEST:



By: /s/ PAUL J. QUINER
    --------------------------------
    Paul J. Quiner
    Corporate Secretary
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation by reference inRegistration Statement No. 333-118857 on Form S-3 and Registration Statements No. 333-69103 and 333-63913 on Form S-8 of Baylake Corp. of our reports dated March 14, 2007 with respect to the consolidated financial statements ofBaylake Corp., and management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which reports appear in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of BaylakeCorp. for the year ended December 31, 2006. 

Crowe Chizek and Company LLC 

/s/ Crowe Chizek and Company LLC 

Oak Brook, Illinois 

March 14, 2007
## IN THE UNI TED STATES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 11-20096 PATTI WHITMIRE CARLTON; CAROLE KEENEY HARRINGTON; PAMELA REED; Plaintiffs - Appellants v. HOUSTON COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM; CHRIS OLIVER; NORMAN NIELSEN; MARY SPANGLER; DANIEL SEYMOUR, Defendants - Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:08-CV-3239 Before REAVLEY, ELROD, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * 

### Patti Whitmire Carlton, Carole Keeney Harrington, and Pamela Reed
a ppeal the district court’s summary judgment on their First Amendment retaliation claims. We have carefully considered the pe rt i n e n t portions of the record in light of the parties’ briefs and oral arguments. We conclude Appellants have not demonstrated any error warranting reversal. AFFIRMED. U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

## F I L E D March 13 , 20 12 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Pursua nt to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the cour t hasd ete rm inedthat this op inion s houldnot * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### Case: 11-20096 Document: 00511787113 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/13/2012
### NUMBER 13 - 16 - 00670 - CR COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE RAYMOND DEBA

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza , and Longoria Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam 1
Relator Raymond Deba, proceeding pro se, filed a document in this Court seeking to compel the trial court to comply with an order issued by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in cause number WR

- 85,151

- 04 which granted relator habeas relief under article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. See T EX

. C ODE C RIM

. P ROC

. a rt. 11.07 (West, Westlaw through 2015 R.S.) . Because the document does not reference an order or judg ment subject to appeal and relator asks us to command a public officer to perform

1 See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 52.8(d) ( “ When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do so. ” ); T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).2

an act, we construe this document as a petition for writ of mandamus. See generally T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 25.1(a), (d); In re Castle Tex. Prod. Ltd. P'ship , 189 S.W.3d 400, 403 (Tex. App.

— Tyler 2006, orig. proceeding) (“The function of the writ of mandamus is to compel action by those who by virtue of their official or quasi

- official positions are charged with a positive duty to act.”) (citing Boston v. Garrison , 152 Tex. 253, 25 6 S.W.2d 67, 70 (1953)). The document filed by relator is unsupp orted by a record or appendix; however, it appears that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted relator’s application for writ of habeas corpus relief and mandate has now issued in that c ase. See generally Ex Parte Deba , No. WR

- 85,151

- 04, 2016 WL 4938346, at *1 (Tex. Crim. App. Sept. 14, 2016) (per curiam) (not designated for publication). We have no jurisdiction over post

- conviction matters in final felony cases. T EX

. C ODE C RIM

. P ROC

. A NN

. art. 11.07 ; Ater v. Eighth Ct

. of Apps

. , 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) ( stating that the exclusive authority to grant post

- conviction relief rests with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals); In re Coronado , 980 S.W.2d 691, 692 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 1998, orig. proceeding). Moreover, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has the extraordinary writ power to compel compliance with its mandate. State ex rel. Wilson v. Harris, 555 S.W.2d 470, 472 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977)

. The Court, having exa mined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus and the applicable law, is of the opinion that th is Court lacks jurisdiction over this matter. See T EX

. C ODE C RIM

. P ROC

. A NN

. art. 11.07 ; State ex rel. Wilson , 555 S.W.2d at 472. Accordingly, r elator’s petitio n for writ of mandamus is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM3

Do not publish. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b). D elivered and filed the 9 th day of December , 2016

.