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

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5162 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 5162

 To amend the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching 
Policy Act of 1977 to extend education grant programs for Alaska Native 
serving institutions and Native Hawaiian serving institutions, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             August 4, 2023

  Ms. Tokuda (for herself, Mr. Case, and Mrs. Peltola) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching 
Policy Act of 1977 to extend education grant programs for Alaska Native 
serving institutions and Native Hawaiian serving institutions, and for 
                            other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Parity for Alaska Native and Native 
Hawaiian Students in Agriculture Act''.

SEC. 2. EDUCATION GRANTS TO ALASKA NATIVE SERVING INSTITUTIONS AND 
              NATIVE HAWAIIAN SERVING INSTITUTIONS.

    Section 1419B of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and 
Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3156) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a)--
                    (A) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph 
                (4);
                    (B) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
            ``(3) Grant period.--A grant made under this subsection 
        shall be for a period of not more than 3 years.''; and
                    (C) in paragraph (4) (as so redesignated), by 
                striking ``$10,000,000 in fiscal years 2001 through 
                2023'' and inserting ``$10,000,000 for fiscal year 2023 
                and $15,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2024 through 
                2028''; and
            (2) in subsection (b)--
                    (A) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph 
                (4);
                    (B) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
            ``(3) Grant period.--A grant made under this subsection 
        shall be for a period of not more than 3 years.''; and
                    (C) in paragraph (4) (as so redesignated), by 
                striking ``$10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2001 
                through 2023'' and inserting ``$10,000,000 for fiscal 
                year 2023 and $15,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2024 
                through 2028''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Vito Lafata, Respondent, v Steven Broder, Doing Business as Lafata Broder & Co., Appellant, et al., Defendant.

Order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Diane A. Lebedeff, J.), entered August 9, 1989, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint as against defendant Scott Broder, denied defendants’ motion for a default judgment on the counterclaims, directed plaintiff to answer the counterclaims, and denied the balance of defendants’ motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The defendants’ notice of motion is dated June 23, 1989, only one day beyond the June 22, 1989 date extended to plaintiff to reply to the counterclaims asserted by defendants. Counsel for plaintiff, having affirmed the fact of her contemporaneous hospitalization and inability to work during the period of extension, has set forth a meritorious excuse for the default. Accordingly, it was not an abuse of discretion for the IAS court to deny defendants’ motion for a default judgment against plaintiff on the counterclaims, and to further extend plaintiff’s time to reply.

It further appears that there are issues of fact regarding whether or not plaintiff’s actions in soliciting clients fall within the prohibitions of a restrictive covenant set forth in the parties’ agreement dated March 31, 1987, and whether the provisions of such restrictive covenant were in effect at the time of the alleged acts by plaintiff. Concur—Ross, J. P., Carro, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.
Exhibit 3.1
 STATE OF DELAWARESECRETARY OF STATEDIVISION OF CORPORATIONSFILED 04:33 PM 09/21/2000001477840  2125868
 RESTATED
CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
 OF
 SUPERCONDUCTOR TECHNOLOGIES INC.
(Originally incorporated on May 11, 1987)
        Section 1




---



##### 



Section 1
 Section 2 .
 -2-




---



##### 



-3-




---



##### 



SUPERCONDUCTOR TECHNOLOGIES INC./s/ Martin S. McDermutName:
    Martin S. McDermutTitle:
    Vice President, Finance and Administration -4-




---



##### 



STATE OF DELAWARESECRETARY OF STATEDIVISION OF CORPORATIONSFILED 09:00 AM 06/11/2001010279493  2125868
 Superconductor Technologies Inc.
 Company
      Superconductor Technologies Inc.By:
    /s/ Martin S. McDermutMartin S. McDermutVice President, Chief Financial Officer
and Secretary




---



##### 



STATE OF DELAWARESECRETARY OF STATEDIVISION OF CORPORATIONSFILED 06:50 PM 12/17/2002020778031  2125868
 Superconductor Technologies Inc.
 Company
 Section 1
    Superconductor Technologies Inc.By:
    /s/ Martin S. McDermutMartin S. McDermut, Senior Vice President,Chief Financial Officer and Secretary




---



##### 



Superconductor Technologies Inc.
 Company
 Section 1
    Superconductor Technologies Inc.By:
    /s/ Martin S. McDermutMartin S. McDermut, Senior Vice President,Chief Financial Officer and Secretary State of DelawareSecretary of StateDivision of CorporationsDelivered 06:45 PM 06/02/2005FILED 06:35 PM 06/02/2005SRV 050464069  2125868 FILE




---



##### 



State of DelawareSecretary of StateDivision of CorporationsDelivered 11:31 AM 03/01/2006FILED 11:31 AM 03/01/2006SRV 060201352  2125868 FILE
 Superconductor Technologies Inc.
 Company
  Section 2. Reverse Stock Split
  th
 Superconductor Technologies Inc.By:
    /s/ Martin S. McDermutMartin S. McDermut, Senior Vice President,Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

April 12, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4421

ECM Industries LLC: 

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/Notice_of_Product_Exclusions

_04.15.19.pdf.

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs products covered by a specially drafted description contained in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
EXHIBIT 32.1
                           ============

        Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
----------------------------------------------------------------------

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Lam Liang
Corp. (Registrant), as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Dr. Anchana Chayawatana,
Chief Executive Officer, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

   (1)  the quarterly 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 quarterly report fairly
        presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
        results of operations of Registrant.

                              LAM LIANG CORP., Registrant

Date:  June 10, 2005         /s/ Anchana Chayawatana
                              -----------------------------------------
                              By: Dr. Anchana Chayawatana, Chief
                                  Executive Officer













<PAGE>
### UNPUBLISHED



# UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



#  U NITED S TATES OF A MERICA ,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 02-4142



# 

S HERWOOD R UTHERFORD ,

Defendant-Appellant. 

# 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge.

(CR-96-328)
Submitted: September 5, 2002
Decided: September 12, 2002

Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

COUNSEL
W. Reynolds Williams, WILLCOX, BUYCK & WILLIAMS, P.A., Florence, South Carolina, for Appellant. Mark C. Moore, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).OPINION

PER CURIAM:
Sherwood Rutherford appeals his conviction and sentence of fiftyseven months imprisonment following his guilty plea to distribution and possession with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2000). Rutherford’s attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting there was not a sufficient factual basis for the finding of guilt and the computation of relevant conduct, but stating that, in his view, there are no meritorious grounds for appeal. Advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, Rutherford has not done so. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. Rutherford contests the facts supporting his finding of guilt. A valid guilty plea constitutes admission of the material elements of the offense and precludes a challenge of the factual merits of the charge. See United States v. Willis , 992 F.2d 489, 490-91 (4th Cir. 1993). We have reviewed the record and the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing and find Rutherford’s guilty plea was valid. As to the determination of relevant conduct, Rutherford withdrew his objections to the presentence report’s attribution of relevant conduct, and he fails to allege on appeal any specific facts contesting the accuracy of the amount of drugs attributed to him. See United States v. Terry , 916 F.2d 157, 162 (4th Cir. 1990). As required by Anders , we have examined the entire record and find no other meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm Rutherford’s conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client.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 2 U NITED S TATES v. R UTHERFORD
##### 



Exhibit 10.20
 AMSURG CORP.
RESTRICTED SHARE AWARD AGREEMENT
 THIS RESTRICTED SHARE AWARD AGREEMENT st
 WHEREAS,
 WHEREAS,
 NOW, THEREFORE,
 Grant of Restricted Shares
  Sections 2 3
 Terms and Rights as a Stockholder




---



##### 



Termination of Restrictions
 Delivery of Shares
     2




---



##### 



Effect of Lapse of Restrictions
 No Right to Continued Employment or Service on the Board
 Adjustments Section 4.2
 Amendment to Award
 Withholding of Taxes ab initio
 3




---



##### 



Plan Governs
 Severability
 Notices
 To the Company:
    
    AmSurg Corp.20 Burton Hills BoulevardNashville, Tennessee 37215Attn: Director of Human ResourcesTo the Grantee:
    
    The address then maintained with respect to the Grantee in the
Companys records.
 Governing Law
 Successors in Interest
 Resolution of Disputes
 4




---



##### 



IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
 AMSURG CORP.By:
Name:
    
    /s/ Christopher A. Holden

Christopher A. HoldenTitle:
    
    Chief Executive OfficerGRANTEE/s/ Ken P. McDonaldKen P. McDonald
 5
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS  OF  SIMIONE  CENTRAL  HOLDINGS,  INC.  FOR THE YEAR ENDED
DECEMBER  31,  1999,  AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY BY  REFERENCE  TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000896157
<NAME>                        SIMIONE CENTRAL HOLDINGS, INC.

<S>                                        <C>

<PERIOD-TYPE>                              12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1999

<CASH>                                            620,000
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   8,834,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                    3,582,000
<INVENTORY>                                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                6,576,000
<PP&E>                                          1,339,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                  3,621,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 26,242,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          16,780,000
<BONDS>                                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                            9,000
<OTHER-SE>                                      6,829,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   26,242,000
<SALES>                                        25,783,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               25,783,000
<CGS>                                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  16,447,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               19,720,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                242,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (10,422,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                     0
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (10,422,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (5.95)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       (5.95)



</TABLE>
Opinion issued December 9, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-14-00608-CR

NO. 01-14-00609-CR

NO. 01-14-00610-CR

———————————

KIM LY LIM, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 262nd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case Nos. 1419352, 1419353, and 1419354

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Kim Ly Lim, has filed a motion to dismiss the appeals. The 

motion is signed by the appellant and his attorney, in compliance with Texas Rule 

of Appellate Procedure 42.2(a). See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a). No opinion has 
2

issued, and more than 10 days have passed and no party has responded to the 

motion. See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.3(a). 

Accordingly, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeals. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 42.2(a), 43.2(f). We dismiss all other pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Bland and Huddle.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS**

 

This Certificate is being delivered pursuant to the requirements of Section 1350 of Chapter 63 (Mail Fraud) of Title 18 (Crimes and Criminal Procedures) of the United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

 

The undersigned, who is the Chief Financial Officer of Behringer Harvard Opportunity REIT I, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certifies to her knowledge:

 

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company (the “Report”), which accompanies this Certificate, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and all information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 

Dated this 16th day of May, 2011.

 

 
|   | /s/   Kymberlyn K. Janney                                    |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Kymberlyn   K. Janney, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer |

 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the registrant and will be retained by the registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 19-0588

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

KACEY LEE SECREASE,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and 

good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including June 12, 2020, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 7 2020

05/07/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0588
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 66 (Thursday, April 6, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 17604]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-8479]



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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration


Environmental Impact Statement, Dallas County; the Cities of 
Carrollton, Farmers Branch, and Irving, TX

AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of intent.

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

SUMMARY: The FHWA is issuing this notice to advise the public that an 
environmental impact statement will be prepared for a proposed highway 
project in Dallas County, Texas.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ms. Kathy Dimpsey, Environmental Coordinator, Federal Highway 
Administration, 826 Federal Building, 300 East 8th Street, Austin, 
Texas 78701, or Mr. James W. Griffin, Executive Director, Texas 
Turnpike Authority, P.O. Box 190369, Dallas, Texas 75219.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The proposed project is the construction of 
a limited access highway on new right-of-way which would connect the 
planned S.H. 190 at I.H. 35E in the city of Carrollton with the planned 
S.H. 161 at I.H. 635 in the City of Irving, Texas. The study segment is 
slightly more than five miles in length. If feasible, the proposed 
facility will be constructed as a toll road with provision for multi-
modal operation. When constructed, the facility will be an integral 
part of the regional transportation plan, relieving the already 
congested I.H. 35E (Stemmens Freeway) corridor and provide an 
additional outer loop through Dallas County.
    Alternatives under consideration include (1) do nothing, (2) 
constructing a limited access highway, (3) construct a limited access 
highway with provisions for high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes or 
transit, and (4) alternative alignments.
    Scoping meetings will be held to provide other federal and State 
agencies and the general public opportunities to review the proposed 
project and to provide early input with regard to areas of concern. The 
draft EIS and other pertinent materials will be made available for 
public and agency review and comment prior to a public hearing.
    To ensure that the full range of issues related to this proposed 
action are addressed and all significant issues are identified, 
comments and suggestions are invited from all interested parties. 
Comments or questions concerning this proposed action and the EIS 
should be directed to the FHWA at the address provided above. (Catalog 
of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205, Highway Research, 
Planning and Construction. The regulations implementing Executive Order 
12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and 
activities apply to this program.

    Issued on: March 30, 1995.
Peter A. Lombard,
Director, Office of Planning and Program Development, Fort Worth, 
Texas.
[FR Doc. 95-8479 Filed 4-5-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-M
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

November 19, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2677

Reelcraft Industries:

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 did not contain a sufficient product identification or was 

determined to be non-administrable.

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