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

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3999 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3999

  To prohibit Amnesty International and its employees from receiving 
        financial assistance from the United States Government.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 5, 2022

    Mr. Scott of Florida (for himself and Mr. Braun) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
               Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To prohibit Amnesty International and its employees from receiving 
        financial assistance from the United States Government.

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

SECTION 1. INELIGIBILITY OF AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL AND ITS EMPLOYEES FOR 
              FEDERAL ASSISTANCE.

    (a) Amnesty International.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
law, Amnesty International is ineligible to receive any money or assets 
from the United States Government.
    (b) Employees of Amnesty International.--Notwithstanding any other 
provision of law, any employee of Amnesty International is ineligible 
to receive any direct financial benefit from the United States 
Government.
                                 <all>
```
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14

- 50222 Summary Calendar

HANFORD

- SOUTHPORT, L.L.C.,

Plaintiff

- Appellant

v. CITY OF SAN ANTONIO; PATRICK O'CONNOR, In His Official and Individual Capacity; SAN ANTONIO WATER SYSTEMS; BRICE MOCZYGEMBA, P.E.; PAPE DAWSON ENGINEERS, INCORPORATED; PIPELAYERS, INCORPORATED; S.J. LOUIS CON STRUCTION OF TEXAS, LIMITED,

Defendants

- Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5:11

- CV

- 1007

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM: * Plaintiff

- Appellant Hanford

- Southport, L.L.C. (“Hanford”) appeals the several February 10, 2014 rulings of the district court, e ffectively rejecting and

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED August 7, 2014 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 14-50222 Document: 00512725909 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/07/2014No. 14

- 50222 dismissing all of Hanford’s claims against the numerous Defendants

Appellees. We affirm.
This protrac ted kerfuffle began in 2010 with a routine condemnation proceeding instituted by the City of San Antonio through its Water System (“S AWS”), seeking an easement in state court across some of Hanford’s real
estate . Unsatisfied with the award proposed by spe cial commissioners, Hanford contested the quantum of damages, but the trial court granted the permanent easement sought by SAWS, including the right to clear brush and trees, and awarded damages to Hanford in excess of $600,000. Hanford appealed , but the state appellate court affirmed the trial court. Hanford then sought review in the Texas Supreme Court which refused to hear the case. Hanford next sought relief in the United States Supreme Court , but it too declined to hear the case. That, however, was not enough for Hanford: It prosecuted its previously filed federal case arising under the same facts, but like the four courts before it, the district court rejected Han ford’s claims, largely by granting summary judgment s an d dismissal orders. Despite t hat solid string of rejections by five courts, Hanford nevertheless appealed to us.
Enough is enough! In addition to affirming the district court’s rulings for essentially the reasons patiently set forth earlier this year in its February Order, we cautio n Hanford and its counsel that frivolous or contumacious prolongation of its litigation in this court, such as seeking reconsideration or rehearing , could lead to disciplinary actions, including fines or sanctions

. The district court’s dismissal of Hanford ’s action with prejudice is, in all respects,

AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 14-50222 Document: 00512725909 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/07/2014
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. §1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|   | 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                Company. |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/                W. Bruce Comer III                                                                                                        |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| W.                Bruce Comer III                                                                                                                 |
| Chief                Executive Officer (Principal                Executive Officer and Principal Financial and Accounting                Officer) |
| March                31, 2008                                                                                                                     |

----
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 57 (Friday, March 24, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15567-15568]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7225]



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

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

[Docket No. 95-05]


Great Eastern Shipping, Inc. and Nordstar Line v. Vladimir 
Pisarenko and Spark International Trading, Inc.; Notice of Filing of 
Complaint and Assignment

    Notice is given that a complaint filed by Great Eastern Shipping, 
Inc. and Nordstar line (``Complainants'') against Vladimir Pisarenko 
and Spark International Trading, Inc. (``Respondents'') was served 
March 10, [[Page 15568]] 1995. Complainants allege that Respondents, 
jointly and severally have violated section 10(a)(1) of the Shipping 
Act of 1984, 46 U.S.C. app. Sec. 1709(a)(1) by knowingly and willfully 
and fraudulently attempting to obtain, by means of a false 
classification and/or by other unjust and unfair means, ocean 
transportation of cargo of less than the rate and charges otherwise 
applicable.
    This proceeding has been assigned to the office of Administrative 
Law Judges. Hearing in this matter, if any is held, shall commence 
within the time limitations prescribed in 46 CFR 502.61, and only after 
consideration has been given by the parties and the presiding officer 
to the use of alternative forms of dispute resolution. The hearing 
shall include oral testimony and cross-examination in the discretion of 
the presiding officer only upon proper showing that there are genuine 
issues of material fact that cannot be resolved on the basis of sworn 
statements, affidavits, depositions, or other documents or that the 
nature of the matter in issue is such that an oral hearing and cross-
examination are necessary for the development of an adequate record. 
Pursuant to the further terms of 46 CFR 502.61, the initial decision of 
the presiding officer in this proceeding shall be issued by March 20, 
1996, and the final decision of the Commission shall be issued by June 
20, 1996.
Joseph C. Polking,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-7225 Filed 3-23-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-M
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 Annual Report of Aethlon Medical, Inc. (the “Registrant”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, James B. Frakes, Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





1. Based on my knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and





2. The information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Aethlon Medical, Inc.








Dated: July 14, 2011
/s/ JAMES B. FRAKESJames B. FrakesChief Financial OfficerAethlon Medical, Inc.
#### Kenneth SMITH, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Dan MURPHY d/b/a Bill and Dan’s Transmission, Defendant/Appellant.

No. 68694.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Five.

May 14, 1996.

Isadore Scher, St. Louis, for appellant.

Larry A. Bagsby, St. Charles, for respondent.

Before CRANE, C.J., AHRENS, J. and HAROLD L. LOWENSTEIN, Special Judge.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

The defendant, a repairman, appeals from a judgment in a court-tried action where the respondent alleged damages to his car, and the loss of use of his car caused by the defendant.

No error of law appears and no jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FILED AS
PART OF THE ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S.DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       7,825,801
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               31,118,482
<ALLOWANCES>                                 3,951,008
<INVENTORY>                                 18,380,520
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            58,151,700
<PP&E>                                      15,122,638
<DEPRECIATION>                               8,070,398
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              66,065,854
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       10,903,854
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        86,789
<OTHER-SE>                                  55,075,211
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                66,065,854
<SALES>                                    153,523,545
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           153,523,545
<CGS>                                      122,854,506
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              122,854,506
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            21,624,266
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               602,584
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              35,749
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              9,640,660
<INCOME-TAX>                                 3,190,562
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          6,450,098
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 6,450,098
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .75
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .72
        

</TABLE>
<page>
									     EXHIBIT 31.02

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Jeffrey D. Hahn, Chief Financial Officer of Demeter Management
Corporation ("Demeter"), the general partner of the registrant,
certify that:

1.	I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of the
registrant;

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 registrant as of, and for, the
periods presented in this report;

4.	The registrant's other certifying officer 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 registrant 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 registrant, 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 registrant'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 based on such evaluation; and

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




<page>
5.	The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit
committee of Demeter's board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):

   a)	All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design or operation of internal controls over financial
reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrant'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
registrant's internal control over financial reporting.





Date:   March 30, 2004     /s/	Jeffrey D. Hahn
	Jeffrey D. Hahn
	Chief Financial Officer,
	Demeter Management Corporation,
	general partner of the registrant
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

      ( print page 6872)    
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health Special Emphasis Panel; TRAINING.                    

*Date:*                         March 17, 2016.                    

*Time:*                         12:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, Two Democracy Plaza, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Martina Schmidt, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Scientific Review, National Center for Complementary & Integrative Health, NIH, 6707 Democracy Blvd., Suite 401, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-594-3456,                         *schmidma@mail.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.213, Research and Training in Complementary and Alternative Medicine, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated:  February 3, 2016. 

Michelle Trout, 

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2016-02459 Filed 2-8-16; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

CHRISTOPHER LEE LIPPETT, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D19-1025

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

___________________________________)

Opinion filed October 16, 2019.

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P.

9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court 

for Polk County; J. Kevin Abdoney, 

Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See McDonald v. State, 957 So. 2d 605 (Fla. 2007); Knight v. 

State, 808 So. 2d 210 (Fla. 2002); Ward v. State, 946 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); 

Steward v. State, 931 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Ives v. State, 993 So. 2d 117 

(Fla. 4th DCA 2008); Rangel v. State, 937 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006).

KHOUZAM, C.J., and CASANUEVA and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Philip Harvey, Respondent, v Allegany Timber & Land Company, Inc., et al., Appellants. Workers’ Compensation Board, Respondent.

Kane, J. P.

Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed October 3,1988.

Claimant, a logger, was severely injured when a tree fell upon him while he was cutting wood for Allegany Timber & Land Company, Inc. (hereinafter Allegany). The sole issue on this appeal is whether there is substantial evidence in the record to support the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board that claimant was, at the time of his injury, an employee of Allegany and not an independent contractor.

The record demonstrates that while at work for Allegany, claimant was supplied with a bulldozer where necessary, was directed what type and size of tree to cut and was subject to being discharged by Allegany upon their determination that his work was unsatisfactory. There was other evidence in the record which would support a finding that claimant was an independent contractor. However, the resolution of such a factual issue is within the exclusive fact-finding function of the Board *(see, Matter of Agnello v Ippolito,*132 AD2d 733; *Matter of Hopkins v Players’ Three,*99 AD2d 912) and, where, as here, there is substantial evidence to support its decision, it must be affirmed.

Decision affirmed, with costs to the Workers’ Compensation Board. Kane, J. P., Weiss, Levine, Mercure and Harvey, JJ., concur.
#### Hilda Bent, Respondent, v Nydrel Witter, Appellant.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.), entered on or about July 18, 1989, which, *inter alia,*denied defendant’s motion to strike the action from the calendar because discovery was not complete and further denied defendant’s motion to. strike plaintiff’s jury demand, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of striking plaintiff’s demand for a jury trial, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

While the parties differ as to the exact nature of this action, its essence appears to be that the plaintiff, a woman in her eighties, and the defendant, a relative, entered into a partnership agreement to purchase a building, that plaintiff provided money to purchase and manage the building and that defendant fraudulently induced plaintiff not to appear at the closing, kept her name off the deed, and when the building was sold, failed to provide her with her share of the proceeds. Thus an accounting is sought. This being so, the action is equitable in nature and the jury demand should have been stricken even if legal claims for money damages were also asserted. *(Marcus v Fabrikant,*81 AD2d 527 [1st Dept 1981]; *Trepuk v Frank,*104 AD2d 780 [1st Dept 1984]; *Kaplan v Long Is. Univ.,*116 AD2d 508 [1st Dept 1986].) Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Kassal, Wallach and Smith, JJ.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

January 4, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2164

Primex Family of Companies:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn