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

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3366 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 3366

 To permit the use of NATO and major non-NATO ally dredge ships in the 
                             United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            December 9, 2021

    Mr. Lee introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
   referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To permit the use of NATO and major non-NATO ally dredge ships in the 
                             United States.

    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 ``Allied Partnership and Port 
Modernization Act''.

SEC. 2. DREDGING; DREDGED MATERIAL.

    (a) Dredging.--Section 55109 of title 46, United States Code, is 
amended--
            (1) in subsection (a), by inserting ``or (c)'' after 
        ``subsection (b)'';
            (2) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d); and
            (3) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
    ``(c) Dredging by NATO-Affiliated Vessels.--
            ``(1) In general.--A vessel described in paragraph (2) may 
        engage in dredging in the navigable waters of the United 
        States.
            ``(2) Vessels.--A vessel described in this paragraph is a 
        vessel--
                    ``(A) documented under the laws of a country that 
                is a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization;
                    ``(B) built by a country that is a member of the 
                North Atlantic Treaty Organization or a major non-NATO 
                ally (as defined in section 2350a(i) of title 10); and
                    ``(C) for which a majority of the owners and 
                operators of the vessel are entities incorporated in a 
                country that is a member of the North Atlantic Treaty 
                Organization.''.
    (b) Excluding Dredged Material From Transportation Requirements.--
            (1) In general.--Section 55110 of title 46, United States 
        Code, is amended--
                    (A) in the section heading, by striking ``or 
                dredged material'' and inserting ``(excluding dredged 
                material)''; and
                    (B) by striking ``or dredged material'' and 
                inserting ``(excluding dredged material)''.
            (2) Conforming amendment.--The analysis for chapter 551 of 
        title 46, United States Code, is amended by striking the item 
        relating to section 55110 and inserting the following:

``Sec. 55110. Transportation of valueless material (excluding dredged 
                            material).''.
                                 <all>
```
* Local rule 47.5 provides: “The publication of opinions that have no precedential value

and merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settle d principles of law imposes

needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession.” Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-20390 Summary Calendar

MARK A. HUGHES, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

ANGELA PORTER; WARREN KROLL;

CALVIN LEE JOHNSON; KELLY

HARRIS; WILLIAM TUTOR,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Southern District of Texas
(CA-H-93-2471)

November 22, 1995

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, JONES and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Mark A. Hughes, a Texas state prisoner, invokes 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and complains of2

injuries sustained when he was subdued after acting with sexual improprieties towards a

female guard. The circumstances surrounding the subdual were videotaped. The district

court granted summary judgment to the defendants and Hughes timely appealed. Undisputed

facts reflect that Hughes’ injuries were minimal. On the facts as found and authorities cited

by the district court the judgment appealed is AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 31.1**
**CERTIFICATIONS**
I, Mark N. Schwartz, certify that:
 1. I have reviewed this Form 10-QSB of Hypertension Diagnostics, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under whichsuch statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations andcash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented inthis report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:
(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made knownto us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared;
(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and
(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and
(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.
Date: November 12, 2004    /s/ Mark N. Schwartz   Mark N. Schwartz
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 38 (Monday, February 27, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 10629]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-4779]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration
[Summary Notice No. PE-95-9]


Petitions for Exemption; Summary of Petitions Received; 
Dispositions of Petitions Issued

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of petitions for exemption received and of dispositions 
of prior petitions.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to FAA's rulemaking provisions governing the 
application, processing, and disposition of petitions for exemption (14 
CFR Part 11), this notice contains a summary of certain petitions 
seeking relief from specified requirements of the Federal Aviation 
Regulations (14 CFR Chapter I), dispositions of certain petitions 
previously received, and corrections. The purpose of this notice is to 
improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of 
FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the 
inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to 
affect the legal status of any petition or its final disposition.

DATES: Comments on petitions received must identify the petition docket 
number involved and must be received on or before March 20, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on any petition in triplicate to:

Federal Aviation Administration, Office of the Chief Counsel, Attn: 
Rule Docket (AGC-200), Petition Docket No. ________, 800 Independence 
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591.

    The petition, any comments received, and a copy of any final 
disposition are filed in the assigned regulatory docket and are 
available for examination in the Rules Docket (AGC-200), Room 915G, FAA 
Headquarters Building (FOB 10A), 800 Independence Avenue, SW., 
Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-3132.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. D. Michael Smith, Office of Rulemaking (ARM-1), Federal Aviation 
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; 
telephone (202) 267-7470.
    This notice is published pursuant to paragraphs (c), (e), and (g) 
of Sec. 11.27 of Part 11 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 
Part 11).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 22, 1995.
Donald P. Byrne,
Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations.

Petitions for Exemption

    Docket No.: 28078.
    Petitioner: The Boeing Company.
    Sections of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR 25.810(a)(1)(iv) and 
25.1309(a).
    Description of Relief Sought: To allow the Boeing Company temporary 
relief from the requirements mandated by close proximity of door 2 
escape slides to engine inlets that slides successfully deploy in 25 
knot winds with engines running at idle. This request is for the Boeing 
777-200 airplane.

[FR Doc. 95-4779 Filed 2-24-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 242 (Monday, December 18, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65060-65061]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30621]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. ER96-25-000]


Coral Power, L.L.C.; Notice of Issuance of Order

December 12, 1995.
    On October 3, 1995, as amended October 31, 1995, Coral Power, 
L.L.C. (Coral Power) submitted for filing a rate schedule under which 
Coral Power will engage in wholesale electric power and energy 
transactions as a marketer. Coral Power also requested waiver of 
various Commission regulations. In particular, Coral Power requested 
that the Commission grant blanket approval under 18 CFR Part 34 of all 
future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability by Coral 
Power.
    On December 6, 1995, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director, 
Division of Applications, Office of Electric Power Regulation, granted 
requests for blanket approval under Part 34, subject to the following:
    Within thirty days of the date of the order, any person desiring to 
be heard or to protest the blanket approval of issuances of securities 
or assumptions of liability by Coral Power should file a motion to 
intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 
First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Rules 
211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 
385.211 and 385.214).
    Absent a request for hearing within this period, Coral Power is 
authorized to issue securities and assume obligations or liabilities as 
a guarantor, indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect of any security 
of another person; provided that such issuance or assumption is for 
some lawful object within the corporate purposes of the applicant, and 
compatible with the public interest, and is reasonably necessary or 
appropriate for such purposes.
    The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that 
neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by 
continued 

[[Page 65061]]
approval of Coral Power's issuances of securities or assumptions of 
liability.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to 
intervene or protests, as set forth above, is January 5, 1996.
    Copies of the full text of the order are available from the 
Commission's Public Reference Branch, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-30621 Filed 12-15-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
| Skip to contentSocial Security Online | Actuarial Publications |
|---------------------------------------|------------------------|

| www.socialsecurity.gov | Home  FAQs  Contact Us  Search | **Search**  |
|------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|------------------|

| Solvency provisions | Summary Measures and Graphs |
|---------------------|-----------------------------|

| Taxation of Benefits | Description of Proposed Provision:      Tax Social Security benefits in a manner similar to private pension income beginning in 2010.  Phase out the lower-income thresholds during 2010-2019. |
|----------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                      |

*Estimates based on the intermediate assumptions        of the 2009 Trustees Report*

|  |  |
|--|--|

|        |
|--------|
|   | Privacy Policy      | Website Policies        & Other Important Information      | Site Map     Last reviewed or modified August 26, 2009 |
EXHIBIT
      32





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350











We, each hereby certify to the best of
our knowledge that the Amended Annual Report of Form 10-K/A of Gateway Tax
Credit Fund III, Ltd. for the year ended March 31, 2008 containing the financial
statements fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o (d)) and that information
contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Gateway.








/s/ Ronald M.
      Diner
              Ronald
      M. Diner
              President
              Raymond
      James Tax Credit Funds, Inc.
              (Managing
      General Partner)
              January
      20, 2009/s/ Jonathan
      Oorlog
              Jonathan
      Oorlog
              Vice
      President and Chief Financial Officer
              Raymond
      James Tax Credit Funds, Inc.
              (Managing
      General Partner)
              January
      20, 2009
## Detailed Single Year Tables

- Individual Provisions
- Level of Monthly Benefits

### **Description of Proposed Provision:						B3.15: Increase the 90 percent PIA formula factor to 91 percent for beneficiaries newly eligible in 2028, 92 percent for those newly eligible in 2029, ..., reaching 95 percent for those newly eligible in 2032 and later.**

### Financial Estimates for the OASDI Trust Fund Program

### Summarized Estimates
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

                  SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Ilia Lekach, certify that:

1.       I have  reviewed  this  amendment  no. 2 to the  annual  report on Form
         10-K/A of E Com Ventures, Inc. (the "Company"); and

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.


Date: August 29, 2003              /S/  ILIA LEKACH
                                   -----------------------------------
                                   Ilia Lekach
                                   Chief Executive Officer


                                       7
**Exhibit32**

** **

**CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

**ChiefExecutive Officer and Chief Financial Officer Certification**

 

The certification set forth below is being submittedin connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K (the “Report”) for thepurpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 ofTitle 18 of the United States Code.

 

R. Jack DeCrane, the Chief Executive Officer andRichard J. Kaplan, the Chief Financial Officer of DeCrane Aircraft Holdings,Inc., each certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:

 

1.         the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and

 

2.         the information contained in the Report fairly presents, inall material respects, the financial condition and results of operations ofDeCrane Aircraft Holdings, Inc.

 
| Date: March 25, 2004 |                                                                      |
|----------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                 |                                                                      |
|                 | /s/  R. JACK DECRANE                                                 |   |
|                 | R. Jack DeCrane                                                           |
|                 | Chief Executive Officer                                                   |
|                 |                                                                      |
|                 | /s/  RICHARD J. KAPLAN                                               |   |
|                 | Richard J. Kaplan                                                         |
|                 | Senior Vice President,  Chief Financial Officer,  Secretary and Treasurer |

 

----
#### NATIONAL DRUG COMPANY v. J. B. McCREARY, Sheriff, and CASEY MYERS, Deputy Sheriff and A. R. MYERS, Surety.

(Filed 9 November, 1932.)

Appeal by defendants from *Harding, J.,*at February Term, 1932, of Forsyth.

No error.

Judgment was rendered upon the following verdict and the defendants appealed:

Was the plaintiff injured by the negligence of the defendants in failing to serve the execution upon the Eureka Drug Company and levy upon the property of the Eureka Drug Company as alleged? Answer: Yes.

What damage, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to recover? Answer: $263.72.

*Manly, Hmdren & Womble for plaintiff.*

*Hllege & Wells and Fred S. Hutchins for defendants.*

Per Curiam.

We find no error that would entitle the defendants to a nonsuit or a new trial.

No error.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

929 

TP 16-00074 

PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., CENTRA, CARNI, CURRAN, AND TROUTMAN, JJ. 

 

IN THE MATTER OF BRANDON KING, PETITIONER, 

V ORDER

ANTHONY ANNUCCI, ACTING COMMISSIONER, 

NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS 

AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION, RESPONDENT. 

 

WYOMING COUNTY-ATTICA LEGAL AID BUREAU, WARSAW (LEAH R. NOWOTARSKI OF

COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER. 

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (MARCUS J. MASTRACCO OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to the

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial

Department by order of the Supreme Court, Wyoming County [Michael M.

Mohun, A.J.], entered January 12, 2016) to review a determination of

respondent. The determination found after a tier III hearing that

petitioner had violated various inmate rules. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the determination is unanimously

confirmed without costs and the petition is dismissed. 

Entered: November 10, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-1864

JAMES AUSTIN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

RICHARD FOSTER; JOHN KELLY; ROCKY HAYNES,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CA-98-3811-0-17)

Submitted: January 23, 2001 Decided: February 15, 2001

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

J. Dennis Bolt, BOLT LAW FIRM, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. J. Rene Josey, United States Attorney, Barbara M. Bowens,

Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S.

388 (1971).

2

PER CURIAM:

James Austin appeals the district court’s orders dismissing

his Bivens* action based upon his treatment as an employee of the

United States Postal Service and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the

reasoning of the district court. See Austin v. Foster, No. CA-98-

3811-0-17 (D.S.C. May 19 & June 9, 2000). 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
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ CONSENT**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-04203, 333-09283, 333-75485,333-49399, 333-89057, 333-89059, 333-43308 and 333-70986 of Vertel Corporation filed on Form S-8 and Registration Statement Nos. 333-70896 and 333-96639 of Vertel Corporation filed on Form S-3, of our report dated February 7, 2002 (which reportexpresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to Vertel’s ability to continue as a going concern) appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Vertel Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2002.

 

/s/    Deloitte & Touche LLP

 

Los Angeles, California 

April 15, 2003
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.



## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2009-1541

MTS SYSTEMS CORPORATION,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

HYSITRON INCORPORATED,

Defendant-Appellant.

Nicholas S. Boebel , Myers, Boebel & MacLeod L.L. P., of Minneapolis, Minnesota,

argued for plaintiff-appellee.

David P. Pearson , Winthrop & Weinstine, P.A., of Minneapolis, Minnesota, argued

for defendant-appellant. With him on the brief were Thomas H. Boyd and Brent A. Lorentz

.

Appealed from: United St ates District Court for the District of Minnesota

Chief Judge Michael J. DavisNOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.



## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2009-1541

MTS SYSTEMS CORPORATION,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

HYSITRON INCORPORATED,

Defendant-Appellant.



## Judgment

ON APPEAL from the United States Distr ict Court for the Dis trict of Minnesota

in CASE NO(S). 06-CV-3853

This CAUSE having been hear d and considered, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

Per Curiam (LOURIE, RADER, and GAJARSA, Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

DATED April 8, 2010 /s/ Jan Horbaly

Jan Horbaly, Clerk