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

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1896 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1896

To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for a presumption of 
    service connected disability for certain veterans who served in 
               Palomares, Spain, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 19, 2019

Mr. Blumenthal (for himself, Ms. Warren, and Mrs. Feinstein) introduced 
the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee 
                          on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for a presumption of 
    service connected disability for certain veterans who served in 
               Palomares, Spain, 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 ``Palomares Veterans Act of 2019''.

SEC. 2. PRESUMPTION OF SERVICE CONNECTED DISABILITY FOR CERTAIN 
              VETERANS WHO SERVED IN PALOMARES, SPAIN.

    (a) Disability Compensation.--Section 1112(c)(3)(B) of title 38, 
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new 
clause:
                    ``(v) Onsite participation in the response effort 
                following the collision of a United States Air Force B-
                52 bomber and refueling plane that caused the release 
                of four thermonuclear weapons in the vicinity of 
                Palomares, Spain, during the period beginning January 
                17, 1966, and ending March 31, 1967.''.
    (b) Effective Date and Applicability.--
            (1) Effective date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
        shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
            (2) Applicability concerning dependency and indemnity 
        compensation.--For purposes of section 1310 of title 38, United 
        States Code, the amendment made by subsection (a) shall apply 
        with respect to a death notwithstanding whether such death 
        occurred before, on, or after such date.
                                 <all>
```
#### STATE v. OWEN

No. 322 PC.

Case below: 53 N.C. App. 121.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 6 October 1981.
.- :-- T..-,. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ,I 8. 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

............................................................... S 

IN RE: Fosamax Products Liability : 

Lltlgation 

1:06-md-1789 (JFK) 

Order -------.--------------------------- X 

This Document Relates to: All Actions : 

--.--------.----------------.-.---- X 

JOHN F. KEENAN, United States District Judge: 

Anthony G. Brazil's application for admission pro hac 

vice is DENIED because the applicant has not submitted a 

certificate of good standing "which has been issued within thirty 

(30) days" by a court in the state to which he is a member of the 

bar, as requlred by Rule 1.3(c) of the Local Rules of the United 

States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of 

New York. 

SO ORDERED. 

Dated: New York, New York 

November LL, 2007 

JOHN F. KEENAN '. 

United States District Judge 

Case 1:07-cv-03464-JFK Document 16 Filed 11/26/2007 Page 1 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 228 (Tuesday, November 29, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 71609]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-23463]


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

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

Office of Research and Development


Government Owned Invention Available for Licensing

AGENCY: Office of Research and Development, VA.

ACTION:  Notice of Government Owned Invention Available for Licensing.

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

SUMMARY: The invention listed below is owned by the U.S. Government as 
represented by the Department of Veterans Affairs, and is available for 
licensing in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 207 and 37 CFR part 404 and/or 
Cooperative Research and Development Agreements (CRADA) Collaboration 
under 15 U.S.C. 3710a to achieve expeditious commercialization of 
results of Federally-funded research and development. Foreign patents 
are filed on selected inventions to extend market coverage for U.S. 
companies and may also be available for licensing.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Technical and licensing information on 
the invention may be obtained by writing to: Amy E. Centanni, 
Department of Veterans Affairs, Director, Technology Transfer Program, 
Office of Research and Development, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, 
DC 20420; fax: 202-254-0255; e-mail at: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2c4d4155024f4942584d4242456c414d4540025a4d024b435a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3e5f5347105d5b504a5f5050577e535f575210485f10595148">[email protected]</span></a>.
    Any request for information should include the Number and Title for 
the relevant invention as indicated below. Issued patents may be 
obtained from the Commissioner of Patents, U.S. Patent and Trademark 
Office, Washington, DC 20231.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The invention available for licensing is: 
U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/702,874 ``Agents for 
Inhibiting Lymphocyte or Tumor Proliferation and Methods Thereof.''

    Dated: November 22, 2005.
Gordon H. Mansfield,
Deputy Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
[FR Doc. 05-23463 Filed 11-28-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-M


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

No. 52.

Case below: 26 N.C. App. 440.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 7 October 1975.
Exhibit 32

             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 Louisville Gas and Electric
Company and Kentucky Utilities Company (the "Companies") on Form 10-Q for
the period ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned does
hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to such officer's
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
Companies as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.


May 13, 2005

                         /s/  Victor A. Staffieri
                     Chairman of the Board, President
                        and Chief Executive Officer
                    Louisville Gas and Electric Company
                        Kentucky Utilities Company




                          /s/  S. Bradford Rives
                          Chief Financial Officer
                    Louisville Gas and Electric Company
                        Kentucky Utilities Company


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate
disclosure document.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

EAST EL PASO PHYSICIANS

MEDICAL CENTER, L.L.C.

.,

Appellant,

v.

OLIVIA VARGAS

,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 1 3

- 00 358

- CV

Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 5

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 2011

- DCV00117 )

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the

judgment. We therefore affirm the j udgment of the court below. We further order that Appellee

recover from Appellant and its sureties, if any, see T EX .R.A PP .P. 43.5, on the judgment and all

costs, for which let execution issue. This decision shall be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2014.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, J., and Larsen, J. (Senior Judge)

Larsen, J. (Senior Judge, sitting by assignment)
#### FONVILLE v. DIXON

No. 133 PC.

Case below: 16 N.C. App. 664.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 6 February 1973.
Case 1:07-cv-03528-CM     Document 5      Filed 06/05/2008     Page 1 of 3

Case 1:07-cv-03528-CM     Document 5      Filed 06/05/2008     Page 2 of 3

Case 1:07-cv-03528-CM     Document 5      Filed 06/05/2008     Page 3 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-03495-SHS Document 7 Filed 09/04/2007 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-25-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-25-1997
<CASH>                                             586
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,882
<ALLOWANCES>                                       224
<INVENTORY>                                      3,805
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 6,302
<PP&E>                                           8,595
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,027
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   9,541
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           25,589
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        10,754
<OTHER-SE>                                      44,363
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     9,541
<SALES>                                          8,278
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 8,278
<CGS>                                            7,575
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,057
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (10)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 879
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,223)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,223)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,223)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.11)
        

</TABLE>
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 17

- 2775

_____________________________
R OGER E ARL B ENDER J R , Appellant,

v.

S TATE O F F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County

. Darlene F. Dickey , Judge

. December 19, 2018

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. B.L. T HOMAS , C.J.
, and R OBERTS and O STERHAUS , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Kathleen Stover, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee
, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bond i, Attorney General, and Steven Edward Woods, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
#### STATE v. SPICER

No. 6PC

Case below: 50 NC App 214

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 7 April 1981. Motion of Attorney General to dismiss appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 7 April 1981.
Case 1:07-cv-03400-RWS     Document 3      Filed 01/18/2008     Page 1 of 1
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm 

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 Nos. 333-75854 and 333-48316) pertaining to 1999 StockOption Plan and 1999 Performance Equity Plan of IVAX Diagnostics, Inc., of our report dated March 13, 2006, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of IVAX Diagnostics, Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)for the year ended December 31, 2005. 

 

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP 

Certified Public Accountants 

 

Miami, Florida 

March 29, 2006
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-7538
JAMES L. BOULER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versusI. STEVEN COUNTS, Disciplinary Hearing Officer; M. E. RAY, Warden; MARGARET C. HAMBRICK,Regional Director; N. G. TRUDEL, National Inmate Appeals; EPHRAIM W. GREEN, Correctional Officer; STEVEN LARBER, Unit Manager, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CA-96-3673-6-18AK) Submitted: May 28, 1998 Decided: June 9, 1998 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James L. Bouler, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier Bowens, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: James L. Bouler appeals the district court's order dismissing his civil action challenging his prison disciplinary conviction. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Bouler v. Counts , No. CA-96-3673-6-18AK (D.S.C. Sept. 2, 1997). We deny Bouler's motion to supplement the record.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.

AFFIRMED
#### MATTHEWS v. TRANSIT CO.

No. 212 PC.

Case below: 37 N.C. App. 59.

Petition by plaintiffs for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 4 October 1978.
#### STATE v. ODIS HENRY WRIGHT.

(Filed 2 December, 1964.)

Appeal by defendant from *Johnson, J.,*August Regular Mixed Session 1964 of Bladen.

The defendant was tried upon a bill of indictment charging that he unlawfully, wilfully and feloniously did commit the abominable and detestable crime against nature with a thirteen-year-old boy (naming him), against the form of the statute, *et cetera.*

The jury returned a verdict of guilty of an attempt to commit a crime against nature.

The defendant was sentenced to not less than three nor more than five years in the State’s prison. He appeals, assigning error.

*Attorney General Bruton, Asst. Attorney General Richard T. Sanders for the State.*

*Holland & Faircloth; Nance, Barrington, Collier & Singleton for defendant.*

PeR CuRiam.

The State’s evidence was sufficient to carry the case to the jury and to support the verdict rendered. No error sufficiently prejudicial to justify a new trial has been shown.

We deem it inappropriate to include herein a recital of the sordid evidence revealed by the record.

The verdict and judgment are upheld on authority of *S. v. Spivey,*213 N.C. 45, 195 S.E. 1.

No error.
#### STATE v. CUMBER

No. 73.

Case below: 11 N.C. App. 302.

Petition for writ of *certiorari*to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 30 July 1971.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

December 27, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 129069 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 129069 

 COA: 259734 

Genesee CC: 81-030181-FC 

WILLIAM B. KISSANE,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 24, 2005 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). To 

the extent that the defendant challenges the denial of relief under MCL 770.16, the 

application is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the 

questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

d1219 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

December 27, 2005 

Clerk
Case 1:07-cv-03417-DAB-DCF Document 7 Filed 05/25/2007 Page 1 of 3Case 1:07-cv-03417-DAB-DCF Document 7 Filed 05/25/2007 Page 2 of 3Case 1:07-cv-03417-DAB-DCF Document 7 Filed 05/25/2007 Page 3 of 3
#### STATE v. RICE

No. 290PC

Case below: 47 N.C. App. 208

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 7 October 1980.
Case 7:07-cv-03509-SCR-LMS Document 3 Filed 05/02/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 7:07-cv-03509-SCR-LMS Document 3 Filed 05/02/2007 Page 2 of 2
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1876 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to direct the Secretary of 

the Treasury to establish uniform standards for the use of electronic 

signatures with respect to any request for disclosure of a taxpayer’s 

return or return information to a practitioner. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 18, 2019 

Mr. PORTMAN (for himself and Mr. BENNET) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to direct 

the Secretary of the Treasury to establish uniform standards for the use of electronic signatures with respect 

to any request for disclosure of a taxpayer’s return or 

return information to a practitioner. 

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 ‘‘Electronic Signature 

5 Standards Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•S 1876 IS

1 SEC. 2. UNIFORM STANDARDS FOR THE USE OF ELEC2 TRONIC SIGNATURES FOR DISCLOSURE AU3 THORIZATIONS TO, AND OTHER AUTHORIZA4 TIONS OF, PRACTITIONERS. 

5 Section 6061(b)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 

6 1986 is amended to read as follows: 

7 ‘‘(3) PUBLISHED GUIDANCE.— 

8 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall 

9 publish guidance as appropriate to define and 

10 implement any waiver of the signature require11 ments or any method adopted under paragraph 

12 (1). 

13 ‘‘(B) ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES FOR DIS14 CLOSURE AUTHORIZATIONS TO, AND OTHER AU15 THORIZATIONS OF, PRACTITIONERS.—Not later 

16 than 6 months after the date of the enactment 

17 of this subparagraph, the Secretary shall pub18 lish guidance to establish uniform standards 

19 and procedures for the acceptance of taxpayers’ 

20 signatures appearing in electronic form with re21 spect to any request for disclosure of a tax22 payer’s return or return information under sec23 tion 6103(c) to a practitioner or any power of 

24 attorney granted by a taxpayer to a practi25 tioner. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•S 1876 IS

1 ‘‘(C) PRACTITIONER.—For purposes of 

2 subparagraph (B), the term ‘practitioner’ 

3 means any individual in good standing who is 

4 regulated under section 330 of title 31, United 

5 States Code.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
EXHIBIT 31.2
                           SECTION 302 CERTIFICATIONS

I, Scott Thompson, certify that:

1. I have  reviewed  this  quarterly  report  on  form  10-QSB  of The  X-Change
Corporation,

2.Based on my knowledge,  this report 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 with respect to the period covered by this report.

3.Based  on  my  knowledge,  the  financial  statements,   and  other  financial
information included in this report,
fairly  present in all material  respects the  financial  condition,  results of
operations  and cash  flows of the small  business  issuer as of,  and for,  the
periods presented in this report.

4.The small business  issuer's other  certifying  officers and I are responsible
for establishing and 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
controls and  procedures to be designed  under our  supervision,  to ensure that
material  information  relating  to the small  business  issuer,  including  its
consolidated subsidiaries,  is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b)evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure controls
and  procedures  and  presented  in  this  report  our  conclusions   about  the
effectiveness  of the disclosure  controls and procedures,  as of the end of the
period covered by this report on such evaluation; and

c)disclosed  in this report any change in the small business  issuer's  internal
control  over  financial  reporting  that  occurred  during  the small  business
issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business  issuer's  fourth fiscal
quarter in the case of an annual  report) that has  materially  affected,  or is
reasonably  likely to materially  affect,  the small business  issuer's internal
control over financial reporting; and

5.The small business  issuer's other  certifying  officers and I have disclosed,
based  on  our  most  recent  evaluation  of  internal  control  over  financial
reporting,  to the small business  issuer's  auditors and the audit committee of
small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

a)all  significant  deficiencies  and  material  weaknesses  in  the  design  or
operation of internal  control over  financial  reporting  which are  reasonably
likely to  adversely  affect  the small  business  issuer's  ability  to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and

b)any  fraud,  whether  or not  material,  that  involves  management  or  other
employees who have a significant  role in the small business  issuer's  internal
control over financial reporting.


Date: August 15, 2005


By:/s/ Scott R. Thompson
Scott R. Thompson,
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 17-20 Filed 06/26/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 17-20 Filed 06/26/2007 Page 2 of 2