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

### S UPREME 

### C OURT OF 

### I OWA

No. 22

– 1927

Submitted November 15 , 202 3

— Filed Dec ember 22 , 202 3



### B RITNI 

### H ILTS , Appellee,

vs.


### A DAM 

### B. S MITH , 

### A DAM 

### S MITH , 

### M.D. , 

### P.C. , 

### and T RI 

### - S TATE 

### S PECIALISTS , 

### L.L.P. , Appellant s
.

Appeal from the I owa District Court for Woodbury County, James N.
Daane , Judge. The defendants in a medical malpractice case seek interlocutory review of an order denying their motion to strike and for summary judgment because the expert who signed the plaintiff’s certif icate of merit did not have an active license to practice medicine. 

### R EVERSED AND 

### R EMANDED . Per curiam. Jeff W. Wright and Zach A. Martin of Heidman Law Firm, P.L.L.C., Sioux City , for appellant s
. Jon Specht of Trial Lawyers for Justice, Decorah , for appellee.2



### P ER 

### C URIAM . Iowa law requires an expert witness on standard of care or its breach by a health care provider to be “licensed to practice in the same or a substantially
similar field as the defendant.” Iowa Code § 147.139(1) (202 0 ). In this medical malpractice case, the plaintiff submitted a certificate of
merit affidavit signed by a physician who formerly practiced in the same field as the defendant, plastic surgery . But due to his retirement, the physician’s active practice licenses had expired and become inactive, meaning that he was no longer able to practice medicine. The defendants moved to strike the expert and for summary judgment on this ground. After the district court denied the defendants’ motion, we granted their applicati on for an interlocutory appeal. In a companion case decided today, Hummel v. Smith , _

_ _ N.W.2d ___, ___ (Iowa 2023), we have concluded that the phrase “licensed to practice , ” as used in Iowa Code section 147.139(1) , requires the expert to have an active li cense that authorizes the actual practice of medicine; an inactive license not authorizing practice is insufficient. This case involves the same named expert as
Hummel

. Id. at ___. The expert signed the affidavit in 2020, when he was retired,
as in Hummel. Id. at ___. Therefore, for the reasons stated in Hummel , we reverse the district court’s ruling and remand for entry of judgment in favor of the
defendants.


### R EVERSED AND 

### R EMANDED . This opinion shall not be published.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 93 (Friday, May 13, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 29414]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-10296]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-123, OMB Control No. 3235-0105]


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange 
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 
20549-2736

Extension:
    Form T-3

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction 
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange 
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management 
and Budget this request for extension of the previously approved 
collections of information discussed below.
    Form T-3 (17 CFR 269.3) is an application for qualification of an 
indenture under the Trust Indenture Act of 1939 (15 U.S.C. 77aaa et 
seq.). The information provided under Form T-3 is used by the 
Commission to determine whether to qualify an indenture relating to an 
offering of debt securities that is not required to be registered under 
the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.). Form T-3 is filed 
on occasion. The information required by Form T-3 is mandatory. This 
information is publicly available on EDGAR. Form T-3 takes 
approximately 43 hours per response to prepare and is filed by 
approximately 11 respondents. We estimate that 25% of the 43 hours per 
response (11 hours) is prepared by the filer for a total annual 
reporting burden of 121 hours (11 hours per response x 11 responses).
    An agency may conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to 
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently 
valid control number.
    The public may view background documentation for this information 
collection at the following website: www.reginfo.gov. Find this 
particular information collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day 
Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function. 
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information 
collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice 
by June 13, 2022 to (i) www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain and (ii) 
David Bottom, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and 
Exchange Commission, c/o John Pezzullo, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 
20549, or by sending an email to: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ffafadbea0b29e96939d9087bf8c9a9cd1989089"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a8f8fae9f7e5c9c1c4cac7d0e8dbcdcb86cfc7de">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: May 9, 2022.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-10296 Filed 5-12-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1428 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1428

 To amend title 18, United States Code, to strengthen the ban against 
  assault weapons by restricting the availability of such weapons and 
                   certain of their component parts.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 15, 1999

  Mr. Lantos introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 18, United States Code, to strengthen the ban against 
  assault weapons by restricting the availability of such weapons and 
                   certain of their component parts.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``David Chetcuti Firearm Modification 
Act''.

SEC. 2. BACKGROUND CHECK REQUIRED BEFORE TRANSFER OF ASSAULT WEAPON 
              COMPONENT BY DEALER.

    Section 922(t) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
adding at the end the following:
    ``(7) For purposes of this subsection, the term `firearm' includes 
a detachable ammunition magazine and any item described in any clause 
of subparagraph (B), (C), or (D) of section 921(a)(30).''.

SEC. 3. DEALER SALES OF ASSAULT WEAPONS AND THEIR COMPONENTS REQUIRED 
              TO BE MADE IN PERSON.

    Section 922(v) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
adding at the end the following:
    ``(5) It shall be unlawful for a licensed dealer to sell to any 
person a semiautomatic assault weapon to which paragraph (1) of this 
subsection does not apply, a detachable ammunition magazine, or any 
item described in any clause of subparagraph (B), (C), or (D) of 
section 921(a)(30), unless the person appears in person at the business 
premises of the licensed dealer and the sale is made to the person at 
the time of such appearance.''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.2 Certification by the Chief Financial Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002  In connection with the Annual Report of International Energy, Inc. (the Company) on the Form 10-KSB for the period ending March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Harmel S. Rayat, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (i) the Report filed by the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (ii) The information contained in that Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company on the dates and for the periods presented therein.  INTERNATIONAL ENERGY, INC.Date:  June 26, 2007By:/s/ Harmel S. RayatHarmel S. Rayat
Chief Financial Officer   This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version 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.
I

★

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 146

To authorize the President to consent to third party transfer of the exUSS Bowman County to the USS LST Ship Memorial, Inc.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 6, 1999

Mr. HALL of Texas introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Armed Services

A BILL

To authorize the President to consent to third party transfer

of the ex-USS Bowman County to the USS LST Ship

Memorial, Inc.

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

3 SECTION 1. AUTHORITY TO CONSENT TO THIRD PARTY

4 TRANSFER OF EX-USS BOWMAN COUNTY TO

5 USS LST SHIP MEMORIAL, INC.

6 (a) FINDINGS.—Congress makes the following find7 ings:

8 (1) It is the long-standing policy of the United

9 States Government to deny requests for the retrans-
2

•HR 146 IH1S

1 fer of significant military equipment that originated

2 in the United States to private entities.

3 (2) In very exceptional circumstances, when the

4 United States public interest would be served by the

5 proposed retransfer and end-use, such requests may

6 be favorably considered.

7 (3) Such retransfers to private entities have

8 been authorized in very exceptional circumstances

9 following appropriate demilitarization and receipt of

10 assurances from the private entity that the item to

11 be transferred would be used solely in furtherance of

12 Federal Government contracts or for static museum

13 display.

14 (4) Nothing in this section should be construed

15 as a revision of long-standing policy referred to in

16 paragraph (1).

17 (5) The Government of Greece has requested

18 the consent of the United States Government to the

19 retransfer of HS Rodos (ex-USS Bowman County

20 (LST 391)) to the USS LST Ship Memorial, Inc.

21 (b) AUTHORITY TO CONSENT TO RETRANSFER.—

22 (1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to paragraph (2),

23 the President may consent to the retransfer by the

24 Government of Greece of HS Rodos (ex-USS Bow-
3

•HR 146 IH1S

1 man County (LST 391)) to the USS LST Ship Me2 morial, Inc.

3 (2) CONDITIONS FOR CONSENT.—The President

4 should not exercise the authority under paragraph

5 (1) unless the USS LST Memorial, Inc.—

6 (A) utilizes the vessel for public, nonprofit,

7 museum-related purposes; and

8 (B) complies with applicable law with re9 spect to the vessel, including those requirements

10 related to facilitating monitoring by the Federal

11 Government of, and mitigating potential envi12 ronmental hazards associated with, aging ves13 sels, and has a demonstrated financial capabil14 ity to so comply.

Æ
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1394 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1394

To provide for the appointment of additional Federal district judges in 
             the State of Florida, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 13, 1999

 Mr. McCollum (for himself, Mr. Canady of Florida, Mr. Goss, Mr. Young 
of Florida, Ms. Brown of Florida, Mrs. Meek of Florida, Mr. Foley, Mr. 
 Davis of Florida, Mr. Bilirakis, Mr. Mica, Mr. Weldon of Florida, Mr. 
   Stearns, Mr. Deutsch, Mr. Miller of Florida, and Mr. Hastings of 
   Florida) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for the appointment of additional Federal district judges in 
             the State of Florida, 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. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Federal Judges for Florida Act of 
1999''.

SEC. 2. DISTRICT JUDGES FOR THE FLORIDA DISTRICT COURTS.

    (a) In General.--The President shall appoint, by and with the 
advice and consent of the Senate--
            (1) 5 additional district judges for the middle district of 
        Florida; and
            (2) 2 additional district judges for the southern district 
        of Florida.
    (b) Tables.--In order that the table contained in section 133 of 
title 28, United States Code, will reflect the changes in the total 
number of permanent district judgeships authorized as a result of 
subsection (a) of this section, the item relating to Florida in such 
table is amended to read as follows:

``Florida:
    Northern................................................         4 
    Middle..................................................        16 
    Southern................................................     18.''.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be 
necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act, including such sums 
as may be necessary to provide appropriate space and facilities for the 
judicial positions created by this Act.

SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    This Act shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Alicja HERRIOTT, petitioner, v. Paul HERRIOTT.

No. 18-8105.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 24, 2019.

Petition for rehearing denied.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, Kay L. Toolson, CEO of Monaco Coach Corporation,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant  to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that the Quarterly Report of Monaco Coach Corporation on Form 10-Q forthe quarterly period ended March 31, 2007 fully complies with the requirementsof Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that theinformation contained in such Quarterly Report of Monaco Coach Corporation onForm 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of Monaco Coach Corporation.

 
|        | By:    | /s/ Kay L. Toolson      |
|--------|--------|-------------------------|
|   |   | Kay L. Toolson          |
|   |   | Chief Executive Officer |

 

 

I, P. Martin Daley, CFO of Monaco Coach Corporation,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant  to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that the Quarterly Report of Monaco Coach Corporation on Form 10-Q forthe quarterly period ended March 31, 2007 fully complies with the requirementsof Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that theinformation contained in such Quarterly Report of Monaco Coach Corporation onForm 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of Monaco Coach Corporation.

 
|        | By:    | /s/ P. Martin Daley     |
|--------|--------|-------------------------|
|   |   | P. Martin Daley         |
|   |   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
II

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 1715

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

SEPTEMBER 19, 2000

Received

AN ACT

To extend and reauthorize the Defense Production Act of

1950.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

HR 1715 RDS

1 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF TERMINATION DATE.

2 Section 717(a) of the Defense Production Act of

3 1950 (50 U.S.C. App. 2166(a)) is amended by striking

4 ‘‘September 30, 2000’’ and inserting ‘‘September 30,

5 2001’’.

6 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATION.

7 Section 711(b) of the Defense Production Act of

8 1950 (50 U.S.C. App. 2161(b)) is amended by striking

9 ‘‘2000’’ and inserting ‘‘2001’’.

Passed the House of Representatives September 18,

2000.

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL,

Clerk.
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeal of--

W.M. Jordan Company, Inc. 

Under Contract No. N40085-09-D-5034 

APPEARANCE FOR THE 'APPELLANT: 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

ASBCA No. 60029 

William E. Franczek, Esq. 

Vandeventer Black LLP 

Norfolk, VA 

Ronald J. Borro, Esq. 

Navy Chief Trial Attorney 

David M. Marquez, Esq. 

Trial Attorney 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

The appeal has been withdrawn. Accordingly, it is dismissed from the Board's 

docket with prejudice. 

Dated: 23 September 2015 

4:~~---- Administrative Judge 

Acting Chairman 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 60029, Appeal ofW.M. Jordan 

Company, Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

JEFFREY D. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals
Exhibit 4.5


 


Eltek Ltd.


 


20 Ben Zion Gelis Street, Sgoola Industrial Zone,


Petach Tikva 4927920, Israel


 


________, 2019


 


To Securities Dealers, Commercial Banks, Trust Companies, and Other Nominees:






 


 This letter is being distributed to securities dealers, commercial banks, trust companies and other nominees in connection with the Rights Offering by Eltek Ltd. (“Eltek”) of an aggregate of 3,380,920 ordinary shares, par value NIS 3.00, of Eltek (“Ordinary Shares”) at a subscription price of $1.464 per Ordinary Share (the “Subscription Price”), pursuant to the exercise of non-transferable subscription rights (“Subscription Rights”) distributed to all holders of record of Ordinary Shares of Eltek as of the close of business on March 18, 2019 (the “Record Date”). The Subscription Rights are described in the enclosed prospectus and evidenced by a Subscription Certificate registered in your name or in the name of your nominee. 


 


 Each beneficial owner of Ordinary Shares registered in your name or the name of your nominee is entitled to five Subscription Right for every three Ordinary Shares owned by such beneficial owner on the Record Date (the “Subscription Rights”). Each Subscription Right also carries the right to over-subscribe at the Subscription Price for additional Ordinary Shares (subject to proration if necessary) up to the total amount of Ordinary Shares remaining upon completion of the Subscription Rights. Holders of Ordinary Shares will not receive fractional Subscription Rights, but instead Subscription Rights will be rounded down to the nearest whole number. 


 




We are asking you to contact your clients for whom you hold Ordinary Shares registered in your name or in the name of your nominee as of the Record Date to obtain instructions with respect to the Subscription Rights.


 


Enclosed are copies of the following documents:


 


	
 

	
1.

	
Prospectus;







	
 

	
2.

	
Subscription Rights Certificate;







	
 

	
3.

	
Instructions as to Use of Subscription Certificates;







	
 

	
4.

	
Form of Letter to Clients of Nominee Holders;







	
 

	
5.

	
Form of Beneficial Owner Election Form; and







	
 

	
6.

	
Form of Nominee Holder Certification.









 


 Your prompt action is requested. The Subscription Rights will expire at 5:00 P.M., New York City Time, on April 9, 2019 (the “Expiration Date”). 


 


To exercise Subscription Rights, properly completed and executed Subscription Certificates and payment in full for all Subscription Rights exercised must be delivered to the Subscription Agent as indicated in the prospectus supplement prior to the Expiration Date.


 


 Additional copies of the enclosed materials may be obtained by contacting us at (972) 3-9395025 or the Information Agent for the Rights Offering, D.F. King, toll free at: (808)-283-2170. 


 




	
 

	
Very truly yours,


 


ELTEK LTD.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7851

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MICHAEL L. SHORT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James P. Jones, Chief District Judge. (CR-01-10039; CA-04-642-7) Submitted: September 6, 2006 Decided: September 27, 2006 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael L. Short, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer Rebecca Bockhorst, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Michael L. Short seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Short has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED