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

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1852 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1852

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to enter into contracts with 
 the Weber Basin Water Conservancy District, Utah, to use Weber Basin 
    Project facilities for the impounding, storage, and carriage of 
    nonproject water for domestic, municipal, industrial, and other 
                          beneficial purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            November 4, 1999

  Mr. Bennett introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to enter into contracts with 
 the Weber Basin Water Conservancy District, Utah, to use Weber Basin 
    Project facilities for the impounding, storage, and carriage of 
    nonproject water for domestic, municipal, industrial, and other 
                          beneficial purposes.

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

SECTION 1. USE OF WEBER BASIN PROJECT FACILITIES FOR NONPROJECT WATER.

    The Secretary of the Interior may enter into contracts with the 
Weber Basin Water Conservancy District or any of its member unit 
contractors for water from Weber Basin, Utah, under the Act of February 
21, 1911 (43 U.S.C. 523), for--
            (1) the impounding, storage, and carriage of nonproject 
        water for domestic, municipal, industrial, and other beneficial 
        purposes, using facilities associated with Weber Basin Project, 
        Utah; and
            (2) the exchange of water among Weber Basin Project 
        contractors, for the purposes set forth in paragraph (1), using 
        facilities associated with the Weber Basin Project, Utah.
                                 <all>
```
II

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 164

To improve mathematics and science instruction.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 19, 1999

Mr. MOYNIHAN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and

referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

A BILL

To improve mathematics and science instruction.

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

3 SECTION 1. GRANTS TO IMPROVE MATHEMATICS AND

4 SCIENCE INSTRUCTION.

5 (a) GRANTS AUTHORIZED.—The Secretary of Edu6 cation is authorized to award a grant to the Governor or

7 State educational agency of a State if the Secretary deter8 mines that the average score of 8th grade students in the

9 State on the 1999 retake of the Third International Math10 ematics and Science Study (TIMSS) is or would be lower

11 than the median of the scores of the countries participat-
2

•S 164 IS

1 ing in the 1999 retake of the Third International Mathe2 matics and Science Study.

3 (b) AMOUNT.—The Secretary of Education shall

4 award a grant under this section in an amount not less

5 than $500,000 and not more than $1,000,000.

6 (c) COMPARISON.—The Secretary of Education shall

7 use the results of the most recent National Assessment

8 of Educational Progress for comparisons between States

9 and countries with respect to the 1999 retake of the Third

10 International Mathematics and Science Study.

11 (d) COMPETITIVE BASIS.—The Secretary shall award

12 grants under this section on a competitive basis.

13 (e) USES.—Each Governor or State educational

14 agency receiving a grant under this section shall use the

15 grant funds to improve mathematics and science instruc16 tion in the State.

17 (f) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There

18 are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be

19 necessary to carry out this section for each of the fiscal

20 years 2000 through 2003.

21 SEC. 2. SHORT TITLE.

22 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Math and Science

23 Learning Improvement Act of 1999’’.

Æ
___________________ _________________ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

July 21, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

127983 Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver & (38) Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, IN RE FORFEITURE OF $180,975.00 Justices

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 127983 COA: 249699 Van Buren CC: 02-500459-CF $180,975.00 IN U.S. CURRENCY, Defendant,

and

TAMIKA SHANTE SMITH, Claimant-Appellant,

and

TODD FITZGERARLD FLETCHER, Claimant.

________________ _______________ __________/

By order of November 2, 2005, this Court directed the Van Buren County Prosecuting Attorney to answer the application for leave to appeal. On order of the Court, the brief having been filed, the app lication for leave to ap peal the December 28, 2004 judgment of the Court of Appeals is again considered, and it is GRANTED. The parties shall include among the issues to be a ddressed: (1) the proper application of the exclusionary rule in a forfeiture proceeding in which the property subj ect to forfeiture has been illegally seized, and (2) whether In re Forfeiture of United States Currency , 166 Mich App 81 (1988), was correctly decided.

The Criminal Defense Attorneys of Mi chigan and the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan are inv ited to file briefs amicus curiae. Other persons or groups_______________________________________ __ 2

interested in the determinati on of the issues presented in this case may move the Court for permission to file briefs amicus curiae.

l0718 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

July 21, 2006

Clerk
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 Hooper Holmes, Inc., (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I James M.
McNamee, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(i) the Report 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 the Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Dated: May10, 2004



/s/ Fred LashFred LashSenior Vice President, Treasurer, and Chief Financial Officer




A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Hooper Holmes, Inc. and will be retained by Hooper Holmes, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
(October 31, 1923.)

#### DAVE DANIELS, Respondent, v. W. S. WRIGHTON, Sheriff of Butte County, Idaho, Appellant.

[220 Pac. 110.]

OeficeR — Removal—Illegal Dees.

*Held,*that evidence fails to show charging and collecting fee, following *Hudson v. Bertsch, ante,*p. 52.

APPEAL from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, for Butte County. Hon. F. J. Cowen, Judge.

Proceeding to remove sheriff. Judgment for plaintiff.

*Reversed.*

E. J. Dockery, for Appellant.

Wilful intent and had faith on the part of the officer must he proven in order to justify removal. *(Pouting v. Isaman,*7 Ida. 581, 65 Pac. 434; *Walton v. Channel,*34 Ida. 532, 204 Pac. 661; Cal. Pen. Code, sec. 772; *Triplett v. Munter,*50 Cal. 644; *McNally v. Connolly,*2 Cal. Unrep. 621, 9 Pac. 169; 1923 Sess. Laws (Ida.), p. 121; *Corker v. Pence,*12 Ida. 152, 85 Pac. 388; *Coliman v. Wanamaher,*27 Ida. 342, 149 Pac. 292; *McRoberts v. Hoar,*28 Ida. 163, 152 Pac. 1046; *Corker v. Cowen,*30 Ida. 213, 164 Pac. 85.)

Proceeding is criminal in nature. *(Daugherty v. Nagel,*28 Ida. 302, 154 Pac. 375.)

Chase A. Clark,’ Solon B. Clark and W. J. Lamme, for Respondent,

file no brief.

DUNN, J.

— This action was brought -by respondent to remove appellant from the office of sheriff of Butte county. The third count set forth that appellant had charged and collected an illegal fee of $12 for services claimed to have been rendered in his office, the first that appellant had neglected to perform an official duty pertaining to his office *56by failing to pay said fee into the eonnty treasury, and the second that appellant had been guilty of neglect to perforin an official duty by failing to file with the district clerk a sworn statement showing that such fee had been collected.

It is undisputed that the sum of money that is the basis of this action was collected by the sheriff from one Hudson as the actual expense incurred by him in making a trip from Arco to Howe and seizing something called a multi-seller, which it is claimed was a gambling device, in Hudson’s pool-hall. For some reason not clearly shown in the record it seems to have been decided that no prosecution should be started against Hudson, but that the matter should be terminated if he would pay the actual expenses of the sheriff’s trip, which he did.

While it would have been the part of wisdom, if not of duty, for the sheriff to include this in his report of expenses incurred and paid by him as sheriff, it was in no sense a fee for services rendered in his office, and therefore is not ground for his removal from office.

What we have said as to the word “fee” in the case of *Hudson v. Bertsch, ante,*p. 52, 220 Pac. 109, applies to this case also.

The irregular manner of handling public business disclosed in this case is not to be commended. A public record should be made of every cent of money received by a public officer in his official capacity, showing the source from which it came and the disposition made of it.

The judgment is reversed, with costs to appellant.

Budge, C. J., and McCarthy, William A. Lee and Wm. E. Lee, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       2,114,449
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,430,790
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (69,163)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,510,984
<PP&E>                                       6,514,898
<DEPRECIATION>                               (489,468)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              55,180,251
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,866,372
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        13,157
<OTHER-SE>                                  35,479,616
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                55,180,251
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            19,254,713
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               17,962,700
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                15,994
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              (69,163)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (82,837)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,156,007
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (439,282)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            716,725
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   716,725
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.09
        


</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

We consent to the incorporation byreference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No.’s 333-98263, 333-97765, 333-83993, 333-50217, 333-50381, 333-107320, 333-63440, 333-39376, 333-121508, 333-116605, 333-115629, 333-127916, 333-136718, 333-134166 and 333-63426) and FormS-3 (No.’s 333-109508, 333-111945, 333-67948, 333-121511, 333-121509, 333-114249, 333-125975, 333-133935, 333-132562, 333-134131 and 333-30778), of our reports dated March 14, 2007, with respect to the consolidated financial statements andschedule of Nanogen, Inc., Nanogen, Inc. management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Nanogen, Inc., included in this AnnualReport (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2006. 

/s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

San Diego, California 

March 14, 2007
(No. 5749.

May 27, 1931.)

#### NORTHWESTERN & PACIFIC HYPOTHEEKBANK, a Corporation, Plaintiff, v. D. H. SUTPHEN, Judge of the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District of the State of Idaho, in and for Blaine County, and B. P. THAMM, Clerk of the District Court, Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, County of Blaine, Defendants.

[300 Pac. 496.]

A. F. James, for Plaintiff.

W. A. Brodhead, for Defendants.

McNAUGHTON, J.

This is an application for writ of *certiorari*in a condemnation proceeding. The application is pursuant to C. S., sec. 7243, for review of the order of the defendant district judge finding necessity for the taking of the land sought to be condemned and appointing commissioners to view the premises, hear the testimony and *721assess the value and damages resulting from taking and appropriating the land to a highway use.

The right to a writ of *certiorari*in this state is statutory and lies only when authorized by C. S., sec. 7243, which provides:

> “A writ of review may be granted by any court except a probate or justice’s court, when an inferior tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial functions, has exceeded the jurisdiction of such tribunal, board or officer, and there is no appeal, nor, in the judgment of the court, any plain, speedy and adequate remedy.”

The petition here is upon the ground that the district judge was without jurisdiction to make an order in the premises for want of statutory notice to the bank. It is claimed appeal does not lie directly from the order but that the order is subject to review only upon appeal from the final judgment entered at the final conclusion of the litigation. Under the authority of *Hay v. Hay,*40 Ida. 159, 232 Pac. 895, it is pointed out the writ of *certiorari*lies for review of an intermediate order which deprives a party of property right, provided a direct appeal does not lie from such order. It is claimed this is such a case. In the last premise the attorney for the plaintiff in this proceeding is in error. This court has held the order adjudging necessity and appointing commissioners in condemnation proceedings “is a final order or judgment affecting a substantial right made in a special proceeding and may be reviewed on an appeal from such judgment or order.” *(McLean v. District Court,*24 Ida. 441, Ann. Cas. 1915D, 543, 134 Pac. 536.)

It is claimed further that even if the order in question be appealable, to appeal would amount to an appearance and result in submitting to the jurisdiction of the court. This point is unavailing because before entering the order complained of the court had acquired jurisdiction of the action and all parties to it by statutory service of the summons and complaint, which service is not questioned.

*722Inasmuch as the order complained of is reviewable by direct appeal, the application for a writ of review is denied, with costs to defendant.

Budge, Givens and Yarian, JJ., concur.

Petition for rehearing denied.
EXHIBIT 32.1


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Annual Report of St. Jude Medical, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 29, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Daniel J. Starks, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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 Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





/s/ DANIEL J. STARKSDaniel J. StarksChairman, President and ChiefExecutive OfficerFebruary 26, 2013
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1778 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.1778

                       One Hundred Sixth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

           Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday,
             the twenty-fourth day of January, two thousand

                                 An Act

 
  To provide for equal exchanges of land around the Cascade Reservoir.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. EXCHANGES OF LAND EXCESS TO CASCADE RESERVOIR RECLAMATION 
PROJECT.
    Section 5 of Public Law 86-92 (73 Stat. 219) is amended by striking 
subsection (b) and inserting the following:
    ``(b) Land Exchanges.--
        ``(1) In general.--The Secretary may exchange land of either 
    class described in subsection (a) for non-Federal land of not less 
    than approximately equal value, as determined by an appraisal 
    carried out in accordance with--
            ``(A) the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property 
        Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601 et seq.); and
            ``(B) the publication entitled `Uniform Appraisal Standards 
        for Federal Land Acquisitions', as amended by the Interagency 
        Land Acquisition Conference in consultation with the Department 
        of Justice.
        ``(2) Equalization.--If the land exchanged under paragraph (1) 
    is not of equal value, the values shall be equalized by the payment 
    of funds by the Secretary or the grantor, as appropriate, in an 
    amount equal to the amount by which the values of the land 
    differ.''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1998                DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                    SEP-30-1998                SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           82029                   82029
<SECURITIES>                                    288180                  288180
<RECEIVABLES>                                   108986                  108986
<ALLOWANCES>                                      2324                    2324
<INVENTORY>                                      11396                   11396
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                502107                  502107
<PP&E>                                          302937                  302937
<DEPRECIATION>                                  148447                  148447
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  784118                  784118
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           216281                  216281
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                         42646                   42646
<OTHER-SE>                                      317889                  259840
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    784118                  784118
<SALES>                                         167555                  457479
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                167555                  457479
<CGS>                                           118033                  322318
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   130609                  360575
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   588                     954
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                3767                   10772
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  37789                   98696
<INCOME-TAX>                                     14024                   36251
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              23765                   62445
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                     23765                   62445
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.12                    0.33
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.12                    0.32


</TABLE>
**FORM 18-K/A**