alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q (the "Report") of America First Real Estate Investment Partners, L.P. (the "Company") for the quarter ended June 30, 2003, I, Lisa Y. Roskens, Chief Executive Officer of the general partner of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge, that:

 (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(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/ Lisa Y. Roskens

Lisa Y. Roskens

Chief Executive Officer

August 6, 2003

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to America First Real Estate Investment Partners, L.P.. and will be retained by America First Real Estate Investment Partners, L.P. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

 

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 accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q (the "Report") of America First Real Estate Investment Partners, L.P. (the "Company") for the quarter ended June 30, 2003, I, Mark A. Hiatt, Chief Financial Officer of the general partner of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge, that:

 (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(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/ Mark A. Hiatt

Mark A. Hiatt

Chief Financial Officer

August 6, 2003

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to America First Real Estate Investment Partners, L.P. and will be retained by America First Real Estate Investment Partners, L.P. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4341 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4341

 To require the Government Accountability Office to issue a report on 
                nonprofit pharmaceutical organizations.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 26, 2022

 Ms. Rosen (for herself and Mr. Romney) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, 
                     Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To require the Government Accountability Office to issue a report on 
                nonprofit pharmaceutical organizations.

    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 ``Advancing Affordable Medicines for 
Families Act''.

SEC. 2. GAO REPORT ON NONPROFIT PHARMACEUTICAL ORGANIZATIONS.

    The Comptroller General of the United States shall submit a report 
to Congress on the following:
            (1) The potential impact of nonprofit pharmaceutical 
        organizations on the availability and cost of drugs, including 
        on drug shortages, consumer costs, and costs to Federal 
        programs.
            (2) The potential of nonprofit pharmaceutical organizations 
        to accelerate development of new drugs, generic drugs, new 
        biological products, biosimilar biological products, cell-based 
        therapies, and devices.
            (3) Existing barriers to the success of nonprofit 
        pharmaceutical organizations, including the ability of such 
        organizations to obtain tax-exempt status, access to capital, 
        and access to markets.
            (4) Potential actions by Congress that would allow 
        nonprofit pharmaceutical organizations to deliver benefits to 
        the pharmaceutical market.
                                 <all>
```
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-2018-0025-2300

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
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

January 23, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4157

Tianhai Electric North America:

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 concerns a product strategically important or related to 

‘‘Made in China 2025’’ or other Chinese industrial programs.

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

General Counsel
Electronically Filed 

Supreme Court 

SCWC-14-0000919 

02-DEC-2014 

10:14 AM 

SCWC-14-0000919
 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I 

MARILYN H. MITCHELL, Individually and as Personal Representative


of the ESTATE OF GILBERT MINORU SUGAI, Deceased, ANNA SUGAI, DON


P. SUGAI, and DIANA SUGAI, Respondents/Plaintiffs-Appellees,
 

vs.
 

AURORA C. MARIANI, M.D., Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant,
 

and
 

WAHIAWA GENERAL HOSPITAL, WAHIAWA NURSING AND REHABILITATION


CENTER, and BARON C.K.W. WONG, M.D., Defendants-Appellees. 


 

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
 

(CAAP-14-0000919; CIVIL NO. 12-1-2190-08)
 

ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
 

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)
 

The application for writ of certiorari, filed on
 

October 24, 2014, is hereby rejected.
 

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, December 2, 2014. 

Kelvin H. Kaneshiro, 

for petitioner
 

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald


/s/ Paula A. Nakayama
 

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna


/s/ Richard W. Pollack


/s/ Michael D. Wilson
 

David L. Fairbanks and 

Gregory Y. P. Tom, 


for respondents
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 49 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to postpone the effective date of 

high-impact rules pending judicial review. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 9, 2023 

Mr. BERGMAN (for himself, Mr. GUEST, Ms. DE LA CRUZ, Mr. HUIZENGA, 

and Mr. WALBERG) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to postpone the 

effective date of high-impact rules pending judicial review. 

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 ‘‘Require Evaluation 

5 before Implementing Executive Wishlists Act of 2023’’ or 

6 the ‘‘REVIEW Act of 2023’’. 

7 SEC. 2. RELIEF PENDING REVIEW. 

8 Section 705 of title 5, United States Code, is amend9 ed— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 49 IH

1 (1) by striking ‘‘When’’ and inserting the fol2 lowing: 

3 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—When’’; and 

4 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

5 ‘‘(b) HIGH-IMPACT RULES.— 

6 ‘‘(1) DEFINITIONS.—In this subsection— 

7 ‘‘(A) the term ‘Administrator’ means the 

8 Administrator of the Office of Information and 

9 Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management 

10 and Budget; and 

11 ‘‘(B) the term ‘high-impact rule’ means 

12 any rule that the Administrator determines may 

13 impose an annual cost on the economy of not 

14 less than $1,000,000,000. 

15 ‘‘(2) IDENTIFICATION.—A final rule may not be 

16 published or take effect until— 

17 ‘‘(A) the agency making the rule submits 

18 the rule to the Administrator; and 

19 ‘‘(B) the Administrator makes a deter20 mination as to whether the rule is a high-im21 pact rule, which shall be published by the agen22 cy with the final rule. 

23 ‘‘(3) RELIEF.— 

24 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in 

25 subparagraph (B), an agency shall postpone the 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 49 IH

1 effective date of a high-impact rule of the agen2 cy until the final disposition of all actions seek3 ing judicial review of the rule. 

4 ‘‘(B) FAILURE TO TIMELY SEEK JUDICIAL

5 REVIEW.—Notwithstanding section 553(d), if 

6 no person seeks judicial review of a high-impact 

7 rule— 

8 ‘‘(i) during any period explicitly pro9 vided for judicial review under the statute 

10 authorizing the making of the rule; or 

11 ‘‘(ii) if no such period is explicitly pro12 vided for, during the 60-day period begin13 ning on the date on which the high-impact 

14 rule is published in the Federal Register, 

15 the high-impact rule may take effect as early as 

16 the date on which the applicable period ends. 

17 ‘‘(4) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in 

18 this subsection may be construed to impose any limi19 tation under law on any court against the issuance 

20 of any order enjoining the implementation of any 

21 rule.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
ex10-2.htm


Exhibit 10.2


 


EXTENSION AGREEMENT


 


This Extension Agreement (this “Agreement”), dated as of June 30, 2011, is entered into by and among Robertson Health Services, Inc. (formerly NxOpinion, LLC), a Nevada corporation (“Company”) and ________________________________ (“Consultant”).


 


RECITALS:


 


WHEREAS, the Company is indebted to the Consultant in the amount of $________ for management consulting services rendered by the Consultant as evidenced by an Amended and Restated Promissory Note Agreement dated May 28, 2010 with maturity date of June 30, 2011 (“Note”); and


 


WHEREAS, the Company and Consultant agree to extend the maturity date of the Note in accordance with the terms hereof.


 


AGREEMENT:


 


NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises and the mutual covenants set forth in this Agreement, the parties hereto agree as follows:


 



	
  

	
1.

	
Extension of Maturity Date.  The Maturity Date under the Note is hereby extended for an additional 3 months until September 30, 2011.







 



	
  

	
2.

	
Interest.  The unpaid principal balance shall continue to accrue interest at a rate of 5%.







 



	
  

	
3.

	
Full Force and Effect.  Except as otherwise expressly provided herein, the Note shall remain in full force and effect.  Except for any waivers and modifications contained herein, this Agreement shall not in any way waive or prejudice any of the rights or obligations of the Consultant or the Company under the Note, under any law, in equity or otherwise, and such waivers and modifications shall not constitute a waiver or modification of any other provision of the Note nor a waiver or modification of any subsequent default or breach of any obligation of the Company or of any subsequent right of Consultant.







 


 


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed and delivered this Agreement as of June 30, 2011.


 




	

Company:


Robertson Health Services Inc.


 


 


 

	 	 	
Consultant:


 


 


 

	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	
[Name, Title]

	 	 	
[Name]
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

November 13, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4938

Duravant LLC and FMH Conveyors Americas:

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 and the 

request failed to show that this particular product is available only from China.

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
May 31, 2012

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

RONNIE LEE ODOM, Appellant

NO. 14-11-00206-CR V.

NO. 14-11-00207-CR

NO. 14-11-00208-CR

NO. 14-11-00209-CR

NO. 14-11-00210-CR

NO. 14-11-00211-CR

NO. 14-11-00212-CR

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

____________________

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. Having 

considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the judgment. The 

Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED, and that this decision be certified below for 

observance.
3XEOLF9HUVLRQRI%&,

38030$1,)2/'&$67,1*35(6685(&217$,1,1*$$/80,180



3,$==$52%(57

35,&(3803&203$1<

2WKHU

12

3XEOLF9HUVLRQRI%&,


12

12

 .*

 .*

,03257,1*7+,63$57)520&+,1$&2676
exv10w6






Exhibit 10.6




THIRD AMENDMENT TO

CRUDE OIL SUPPLY AGREEMENT




     THIS THIRD AMENDMENT TO CRUDE OIL SUPPLY AGREEMENT is entered into effective as of January 1,
2010 (this “Amendment”), between Vitol Inc. (“Vitol”) and Coffeyville Resources Refining &
Marketing, LLC (“Coffeyville”).



     WHEREAS, Vitol and Coffeyville are parties to a Crude Oil Supply Agreement dated December 2,
2008 (the “Supply Agreement”), as amended pursuant to that certain First Amendment dated effective
January 1, 2009 ( “First Amendment”) and that certain Second Amendment dated effective July 7, 2009
(“Second Amendment”), and clarified pursuant to that certain Memorandum of Clarification dated
December 31, 2008; and



     WHEREAS, Vitol and Coffeyville have agreed to further amend certain terms and conditions of
the Supply Agreement;



     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the respective promises, conditions,
terms and agreements contained herein, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and
adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, Vitol and Coffeyville do hereby agree as follows:



     1. The First Amendment at Section 2 provided that it would continue for a second term, January
1, 2010 through December 31, 2010, unless either party terminated the First Amendment prior to
November 1, 2009. The parties agree that the terms of the First Amendment shall continue through
December 31, 2009. The parties further agree to continue the terms of the First Amendment for the
period January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2010 on the same terms and conditions as set forth in
the First Amendment except that the term “$396,000.00” se forth in Section 3 of the First Amendment
is deleted and replaced with the term “$305,200.00”.



     2. The definitions contained in the Supply Agreement will have the same meaning in this
Amendment unless otherwise stated in this Amendment.



     3. Except as otherwise stated in this Amendment, all terms and conditions of the Supply
Agreement will remain in full force and effect.



     4. This Amendment may be executed by the Parties in separate counterparts and initially
delivered by facsimile transmission or otherwise, with original signature pages to follow, and all
such counterparts will together constitute one and the same instruments.



     5. This Amendment will be governed by, construed and enforced under the laws of the State of
New York without giving effect to its conflicts of laws principles.



 









 





[Signature Page to Follow]







-2-









 








     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each Party has caused this Amendment to be executed by its duly authorized
representative, effective as of the Effective Date.



Vitol Inc.




	 	 	 	 	 

	By:

	 	/s/ James C. Dyer, IV
 

James C. Dyer, IV
	 	 
	Title:

	 	Vice President	 	 
	Date:

	 	11 January 2010	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	Coffeyville Resources Refining & Marketing, LLC	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	By: 

Title:

	 	/s/ John J. Lipinski
 

CEO
	 	 
	Date:

	 	1/5/10	 	 







-3-
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5076 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 5076

To clarify that, in awarding funding under title X of the Public Health 
    Service Act, the Secretary of Health and Human Services may not 
 discriminate against eligible States, individuals, or other entities 
            for refusing to counsel or refer for abortions.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 28, 2023

Mr. Cole (for himself, Mrs. Bice, Mr. Brecheen, Mr. Babin, Mrs. Wagner, 
 Mr. Luetkemeyer, Mr. Hern, Mr. LaTurner, Mr. Ogles, Mr. Burchett, and 
 Mr. Rutherford) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                  the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To clarify that, in awarding funding under title X of the Public Health 
    Service Act, the Secretary of Health and Human Services may not 
 discriminate against eligible States, individuals, or other entities 
            for refusing to counsel or refer for abortions.

    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 ``Prevent Discrimination in Title X 
Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON DISCRIMINATION.

    Section 1006 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300a-4) is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(e) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary may 
not require any State, individual, or other entity to counsel or refer 
for abortions as a condition for receiving funding under this title.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Raymond L. HAMPTON, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. GUARANTEE TRUST LIFE INS. CO., Defendant/Respondent.

No. 62808.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

May 25, 1993.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied June 23, 1993.

Application to Transfer Denied Aug. 17, 1993.

Raymond Hampton, pro se.

Francis G. Slay, Carol L. Stanton, Guil-foil, Petzall & • Shoemake, St. Louis, for defendant/respondent.

Before AHRENS, P.J., and REINHARD and CRIST, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff appeals the trial court’s order granting defendant summary judgment on plaintiff’s petition for breach of insurance contract. We affirm. Our review reveals no error of law; we believe an opinion would not have any precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order *435affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).