alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 21 - SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

Subsidiary  corporations that serve as general partners of limited  partnerships
are listed with those partnerships.


Name of subsidiary              Type of             Jurisdiction of
                                 entity              organization

Pittsfield Investors Limited   limited partnership  Delaware Partnership

B-3 Limited Partnership        limited partnership  Delaware
Berkshire B-3 Inc.             corporation          Delaware (general partner)

Sunnyside Cogeneration         limited partnership  Delaware Partners, L.P.
RW Monterey, Inc.              corporation          Delaware (general partner)

Pump Services Company, L.P.    limited partnership  Delawar
Ridgewood Pump Services        corporation          Delaware Corporation
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5408 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 5408

 To amend title XVI of the Social Security Act to update the resource 
          limit for supplemental security income eligibility.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 12, 2023

 Mr. Higgins of New York (for himself and Mr. Fitzpatrick) introduced 
  the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and 
                                 Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title XVI of the Social Security Act to update the resource 
          limit for supplemental security income eligibility.

    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 ``SSI Savings Penalty Elimination 
Act''.

SEC. 2. UPDATE IN ELIGIBILITY FOR THE SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY INCOME 
              PROGRAM.

    (a) Update in Resource Limit for Individuals and Couples.--Section 
1611(a)(3) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1382(a)(3)) is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``$2,250'' and all 
        that follows through the end of the subparagraph and inserting 
        ``$20,000 in calendar year 2023, and shall be increased as 
        described in section 1617(d) for each subsequent calendar 
        year.''; and
            (2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``$1,500'' and all 
        that follows through the end of the subparagraph and inserting 
        ``$10,000 in calendar year 2023, and shall be increased as 
        described in section 1617(d) for each subsequent calendar 
        year.''.
    (b) Inflation Adjustment.--Section 1617 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
1382f) is amended--
            (1) in the section heading, by inserting ``; inflation 
        adjustment'' after ``benefits''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(d) In the case of any calendar year after 2023, each of the 
amounts specified in section 1611(a)(3) shall be increased by 
multiplying each such amount by the quotient (not less than 1) obtained 
by dividing--
            ``(1) the average of the consumer price index for all urban 
        consumers (all items; United States city average, as published 
        by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the Department of Labor) 
        for the 12-month period ending with September of the preceding 
        calendar year, by
            ``(2) such average for the 12-month period ending with 
        September 2022.''.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6964

BRYANT KEITH BENTLEY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

DR. COLON, former Chief Dental Officer; MR. SMITH, Dental 

Hygienist,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. 

(0:13-cv-02322-RBH)

Submitted: October 20, 2015 Decided: October 23, 2015

Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bryant Keith Bentley, Appellant Pro Se. Marshall Prince, II, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Bryant Keith Bentley appeals the district court’s order 

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying 

relief on his complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown 

Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). 

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district 

court. See Bentley v. Colon, No. 0:13-cv-02322-RBH (D.S.C. May 

27, 2015). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED
#### STATE of Texas, Appellant, v. Rhodney Gene STONE, Appellee.

No. 11-89-156-CR.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Eastland.

Feb. 15, 1990.

Phil Nichols, Nichols *&*Weaver, Stephen-ville, for appellant.

T.E. Shell, Stephenville, for appellee.

McCLOUD, Chief Justice.

A complaint and an information were filed alleging that Rhodney Gene Stone had committed the misdemeanor offense of driving while intoxicated. During the prosecuting attorney’s cross-examination of Stone, the trial court declared a mistrial. The State appeals.

In its sole point of error, the State contends that the trial court dismissed the information when it declared a “mistrial with prejudice.” Therefore, the State argues that an appeal is proper under TEX. CODE CRIM.PRO.ANN. art. 44.01 (Vernon Supp.1990). We disagree.

Article 44.01(a) provides:

> The state is entitled to appeal an order of a court in a criminal case if the order:

> (1) dismisses an indictment, information, or complaint or any portion of an indictment, information, or complaint;

> (2) arrests or modifies a judgment;

> (3) grants a new trial;

> (4) sustains a claim of former jeopardy; or

> (5) grants a motion to suppress evidence, a confession, or an admission, if jeopardy has not attached in the case and if the prosecuting attorney certifies to the trial court that the appeal is not taken for the purpose of delay and that the evidence, confession, or admission is of substantial importance in the case.

Article 44.01 does not provide that the State can appeal from an order granting a mistrial. We disagree with the State’s argument that the words “mistrial with prejudice” are tantamount to a dismissal of the information. In the event of a retrial and a granting of a claim of former jeopardy, Article 44.01 would allow the State to then appeal.

An order granting a mistrial is not one of the appealable orders listed in Article 44.-01; therefore, the State is not entitled to appeal.

The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
[Exhibit 32.1]


                    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                     18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                     AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
          SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Film and Music
Entertainment, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the
quarter ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of
the undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated
below, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to his knowledge:

(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.


Dated:  January 23, 2006      By:  /s/ John Daly
                                 -------------------------------
                                   John Daly
                                   Chairman, President and CEO

Dated:  January 23, 2006      By:  /s/ Lawrence S. Lotman
                                   -----------------------------
                                   Lawrence S. Lotman
                                   Chief Financial Officer
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

September 17, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-5276

HoMedics USA 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/%2434_Billion_Exclusions_Gr

anted_September.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,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
---

Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Electrum Mining
Limited (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30,
2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here
of (the "report"), I, Douglas Scheving, Chief Executive Officer of the Company
and Chief Financial Officer certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and

(2) The information contained in this
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.

Dated this 14thday of August, 2006.

/s/ Douglas W. Scheving Douglas W.
Scheving Chief Executive Officer Chief Financial Officer

---
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



         In connection with the Quarterly Report of North Penn Bancorp, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2005, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Philip O. Farr, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         (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.



Date:         November 10, 2005                       /s/ Philip O. Farr
              ------------------------                --------------------------
                                                      Philip O. Farr
                                                      Senior Vice President and
                                                      Chief Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-5197

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MIKE ANTHONY BROWN, a/k/a Michael Anthony

Brown,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg,

District Judge. (CR-04-93)

Submitted: August 31, 2006 Decided: September 5, 2006

Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Claire J. Rauscher, FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA,

INC., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Gretchen C.F.

Shappert, United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, Amy E.

Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Mike Anthony Brown pled guilty to conspiracy to possess

with intent to distribute at least fifty grams of a mixture or

substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine base, in

violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846 (2000). The district court

sentenced Brown to 210 months’ imprisonment, five years of

supervised release, and ordered payment of a $100 statutory

assessment. Brown has appealed, challenging the district court’s

denial of his motion for new counsel. We find no abuse of the

district court’s discretion. See United States v. Gallop, 838 F.2d

105, 108 (4th Cir. 1988). The district court conducted an adequate

inquiry into Brown’s complaint and properly determined that: (1)

counsel was diligent in his efforts to represent Brown; (2) Brown’s

motion for substitute counsel was not timely filed; (3) there was

not a total lack of communication between Brown and his attorney;

(4) Brown’s own behavior created the conflict that was present; and

(5) Brown put forth no valid reason why new counsel should be

appointed. Id.

Accordingly, we affirm Brown’s conviction and sentence.

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
ex1026.htm


Exhibit 10.26



AGREEMENT







PartA: Yangling Dongke Madisen Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.


Address: 8 Xinqiao Road Yangling Demonstration Zone


 


Party B: Dongke Zhao


ID No.: 610113541118041


 


 


According to the people’s republic of china contract law and other applicable law, both parties are agreed to abide by the following items:


 


1  PartyA consign partyB to apply for patent for the following products: Yiganshukang Capsule ( cure hepatitis B), Xianchan Tablets (Chinese traditional medicine cure cancer), Ganhanweikang Capsule ( cure chronic stomach disease).


 


2  PartyA provide all the necessary document, and cover the fees. The annual fee of patent is also paid by PartyA.


 


3 When the patent application is approved, its ownership belongs to PartyA. PartyB only represent the PartyA to apply and temporarily keep, and do not have any right related to the patent.


 


4  When the patent is approved, PartyB can not use, or transform it without the consent of PartyA.


 


5  When the patent need to transform to PartyA, the PartyB must provide assistant unconditionally. PartyA paid the related expenses.


 


6  Both Parties are entitled to rights and obligations according to this agreement, any party can not violate.


 


7 Both parties are entitled to reach additional agreement to cover the unmentioned items in the agreement. The additional one has the same legal effect.


 


8  This agreement has two copies, which have the same effect.


 


 


 




	 	 	 	 	 
	
 

	 	 	
 

	 
	PartA(signature sealed)	 	 	Party B(Signature)	 
	February 16, 2005       	 	 	February 16, 2005
Ninth Court of Appeals

BE IT REMEMBERED:

THAT at the term of the Honorable Ninth Court of Appeals of the State of Texas, 

begun and holden at Beaumont on the 1st day of January, A.D. 2013, present, Chief Justice 

STEVE MCKEITHEN and Justices DAVID B. GAULTNEY, CHARLES KREGER and 

HOLLIS HORTON.

“Pursuant to and in compliance with an Order of the Supreme Court of Texas, 

dated October 17, 2013, it is ordered that these causes be transferred to the First Court of 

Appeals, at Houston, Texas, and that the Clerk of this Court certify all orders made in this Court, 

and transmit all records and papers in said cause to the Clerk of the First Court of Appeals.

09-13-416-CV Robert Earl Wade v. Carolyn Louise Wade

09-13-418-CR Carroll Louis v. State of Texas

09-13-419-CR Adrian Jamison Banks v. State of Texas

09-13-420-CR Joshua Booker-Lomax v. State of Texas

09-13-422-CR Hance Anthony Rogers v. State of Texas

09-13-424-CR Keith Ladale Wilson v. State of Texas

09-13-425-CV In Re Commitment of Thomas Lee Roberts

09-13-426-CV In Re Commitment of John Edward Letkiewi

09-13-427-CV In Re Commitment of Dennis Ray Stutevill

09-13-428-CR Lydell Anton Jones v. State of Texas

I, Carol Anne Harley, Clerk of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth District of 

Texas, at the City of Beaumont, herein certify that the foregoing is a true copy of this Court’s 

order entered from this Court to the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas at Houston as 

appears of record in Minute Book Volume 18.”

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of this Court 

at Beaumont this 21st of October 2013.

__________________________

Carol Anne Harley

Clerk of the Court
----

----

| 1.     | Such      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A2 for the quarter ended March 31,      2008, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, except as otherwise noted in Item      4(A); and                                        |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           |
| 2.     | The      information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A2 for      the quarter ended March 31, 2008, fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Universal      Fog Inc., except as otherwise noted in Item  4(A). |

| By: | /s/ Tom      BontemsTom      BontemsChief Executive      Officer |
|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated: | August      11, 2008 |
|--------|----------------------|
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 5304 

To amend section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 1941 to impose a deadline 

for initiating the repair or restoration of project under such section, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

AUGUST 29, 2023 

Mr. HARDER of California (for himself and Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 1941 to 

impose a deadline for initiating the repair or restoration 

of project under such section, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Safeguarding Our Lev5 ees Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EMERGENCY RESPONSE TO NATURAL DISASTERS. 

7 Section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 1941 (33 

8 U.S.C. 701n(a)) is amended— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5304 IH

1 (1) in subsection (a) by adding at the end the 

2 following: 

3 ‘‘(6) DEADLINE.—Not later than 180 days 

4 after receiving from a non-Federal sponsor of a 

5 project a request to repair or rehabilitate a flood 

6 control work described in paragraph (1), the Sec7 retary shall initiate the repair or restoration of such 

8 flood control work.’’; and 

9 (2) in subsection (d)(2) by inserting ‘‘25 per10 cent of’’ before ‘‘the difference’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

September 26, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-7071

Gatekeeper Systems, Inc:

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,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
#### In re Murl TACKETT, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 49337.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

March 14, 1995.

Mark C. Evans, Asst. Public Defender, Fulton, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Hugh L.'Marshall, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before SPINDEN, P.J., and ULRICH and SMART, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

Murl Tackett appeals from the denial of his application for conditional release from a mental health facility. He contends that the hearing court erred in not granting him a conditional release because: (1) the Public Safety Interest did not prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Tackett was likely to be a danger to others; (2) the court used an improper standard in its determination; and (3) the court did not make a specific finding that Tackett suffered from a mental disease or defect.

Affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).