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

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5441 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 9, 2024 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 

Public Works 

AN ACT 

To reauthorize Long Island Sound programs, 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, 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 5441 RFS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Long Island Sound 

3 Restoration and Stewardship Reauthorization Act of 

4 2023’’. 

5 SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF LONG ISLAND SOUND PRO6 GRAMS. 

7 (a) LONG ISLAND SOUND GRANTS.—Section 119(h) 

8 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 

9 1269(h)) is amended by striking ‘‘2019 through 2023’’ 

10 and inserting ‘‘2024 through 2028’’. 

11 (b) LONG ISLAND SOUND STEWARDSHIP GRANTS.— 

12 Section 11(a) of the Long Island Sound Stewardship Act 

13 of 2006 (33 U.S.C. 1269 note; Public Law 109–359) is 

14 amended, in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by strik15 ing ‘‘2019 through 2023’’ and inserting ‘‘2024 through 

16 2028’’. 

17 (c) TECHNICAL AMENDMENT.—Section 119(g) of the 

18 Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1269(g)) 

19 is amended by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph 

20 (3). 

Passed the House of Representatives July 8, 2024. 

Attest: KEVIN F. MCCUMBER, 

Clerk. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
#### Barry A. BRINER, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. BANK OF ST. CHARLES COUNTY, Defendant/Respondent.

No. 66042.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.

Feb. 14, 1995.

Barry A. Briner, pro se.

Lyndon P. Sommer, Michael W. Forster, Sandberg, Phoenix & Vongotard, St. Louis, for respondent.

Before CRANE, P.J., and CRANDALL and DOWD, JJ.

*MEMORANDUM DECISION*

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal of a summary judgment in favor of note holder on notes. We have reviewed the record and the briefs filed by the parties and find the trial court’s judgment is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. No error of law appears. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential valué. 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). Further, because plaintiff’s brief fails to comply with appellate procedure, presents an issue on appeal that was not raised in the court below, and is wholly without merit, we find plaintiffs appeal frivolous and assess damages against plaintiff and in favor of defendant in the amount of $1,000.00. Rule 84.19; *Snelling v. Chrysler Motors Corp.,*859 S.W.2d 755 (Mo.App.1993).
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

- - - - - - - -

NO. 21-0854

REAGAN FLOREY AND NEILA 

FLOREY, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS 

TRUSTEES FOR THE MERCEDES 

2004 TRUST # 6438

v.

U.S. BANK NATIONAL 

ASSOCIATION, TRUSTEE FOR 

THE RMAC TRUST, SERIES 2016-

CCT AND NATIONSTAR 

MORTGAGE, L.L.C.

§

§

§

§

§

§

Dallas County,

5th District.

January 21, 2022

Petitioners' petition for review, filed herein in the above numbered and styled case, 

having been duly considered, is ordered, and hereby is, denied.



I, BLAKE A. HAWTHORNE, Clerk of the Supreme Court of Texas, do hereby certify 

that the above is a true and correct copy of the orders of the Supreme Court of Texas in the case 

numbered and styled as above, as the same appear of record in the minutes of said Court under 

the date shown.

It is further ordered that petitioners, REAGAN FLOREY AND NEILA FLOREY, 

INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEES FOR THE MERCEDES 2004 TRUST # 6438, pay all 

costs incurred on this petition.

WITNESS my hand and seal of the Supreme Court of Texas, at the City of Austin, this 

the 21st day of April, 2022.

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

By Monica Zamarripa, Deputy Clerk

FILE COPY
#### John L. DRIVER, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 52314.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Nov. 19, 1996.

Jeannie Arterburn, Asst. Public Defender, Kansas City, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., John M. Morris, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before HANNA, P.J., and SMART and EDWIN H. SMITH, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The defendant appeals the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing. Affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
EXHIBIT 32.1


I, Chuen Huei (Kevin) Lee, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(c) The quarterly report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2005
of Bio-Bridge Science, Inc. (the "Company") fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(d) Information contained in such Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Dated:  November 14, 2005

/s/ Chuen Huei (Kevin) Lee
--------------------------
By: Chuen Huei (Kevin) Lee
Chief Financial Officer and
Principal Accounting Officer
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21

                                THE GEON COMPANY
                                  SUBSIDIARIES


                                                               Jurisdiction of
Name                                                           Incorporation
----                                                           -------------

1997 Chloralkali Venture Inc.                                  Alabama
The Geon Company Australia Limited                             Australia
Auseon Limited                                                 Australia
Australian Vinyls Corporation (1)                              Australia
Geon Canada Inc.                                               Canada
Synergistics Industries Limited                                Canada
LP Holdings, Inc.                                              Canada
Geon Engineering Vinyls Limited                                England
Hydro Geon (2)                                                 England (3)
Geon Development Inc.                                          Delaware
Synergistics Chemicals Inc.                                    Delaware
La Porte Chemicals Corp.                                       Delaware
Lincoln & Southern Railroad Company                            Delaware
Polymer Diagnostics Inc.                                       Delaware
Sunbelt Chlor Alkali Partnership (2)                           Delaware (3)
Synergistics Industries (NJ), Inc.                             New Jersey
SPC Geon PTE LTD. (2)                                          Singapore
Synergistics Industries (TX), Inc.                             Texas
Invversiones The Geon Company de Venezuela C.A.                Venezuela

Notes:
------

(1) Owned 37.4% by the Company
(2) Owned 50% by the Company.
(3) Partnership
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 77 (Friday, April 21, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 19966]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-9868]



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


NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Special Emphasis Panel in Research, Evaluation and Dissemination 
Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting:

    Name: Special Emphasis Panel in Research, Evaluation and 
Dissemination.
    Date and Time: May 8, 1995; 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
    Place: Room 855, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson 
Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230.
    Type of Meeting: Closed.
    Contact Person: Ms. Barbara Lovitts, Assistant Program Director, 
4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 855, Arlington, VA 22230. Telephone 
(703) 306-1652.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations 
concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate proposals and provide advice and 
recommendations as part of the selection process for proposals 
submitted to the Research in Teaching and Learning Program.
    Reason for Closing: Because the proposals reviewed include 
information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including 
technical information financial data, such as salaries; and personal 
information concerning individuals associated with proposals, the 
meetings are closed to the public. These matters are within 
exemptions (4) and (6) of 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), Government in the 
Sunshine Act.

    Dated: April 17, 1995.

M. Rebecca Winkler,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 95-9868 Filed 4-20-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 7656** 

MARCUS DORAN BARLEY , Petitioner

- Appellant ,
v. ERIC WILSON, Warden , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria
. James C. Cacheris , Senior District Judge. ( 1:13

- cv - 01111

- JCC

- IDD )

Submitted : December 19, 2013 Decided: December 24, 2013

Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Marcus Doran Barley , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Marcus Doran Barley seeks to appeal the district court’s order constr uing his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West 2006 & Supp. 2013) petition as a 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2013) motion and dismissing it for failure to first obtain authorization from this court to file a successive § 2255 motion. The order is not appealable unle ss a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) . When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Barley has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in3 forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 31.1



I, Larry Dillaha, M.D., certify that:



1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on
Form 10-K/A of Repros Therapeutics Inc.; and



2. Based on my knowledge, this report does
not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.



|Dated: April 28, 2017 | By: | /s/ Larry Dillaha, M.D.              
|--------------------- | --- | -------------------------------------
|                      |     | Larry Dillaha, M.D.                  
|                      |     | President and Chief Executive Officer
|                      |     | Repros Therapeutics Inc.             
|                      |     | (Principal Executive Officer)
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kevin McLean, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Thorp, J.), rendered June 17, 1987, convicting him of attempted assault in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no meritorious issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631; *cf., People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606). Bracken, J. P., Lawrence, Eiber, Harwood and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit
31.1**
 
 I,
Richard T. Brock, Chief Executive Officer of Firstwave Technologies, Inc.,
certify that:
 
 1. I have
reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Firstwave Technologies,
Inc.;
 
 2. Based
on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual
report;
 
 3. Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this annual 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 annual report;
 
 4. The
registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing
and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:
 
 a)
designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 annual report is being prepared;
 
 b)
evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual
report (the “Evaluation Date”); and
 
 c)
presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation
Date;
 
 5. The
registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of
registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
function):
 
 a) all
significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which
could adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize
and report financial data and have identified for the registrant’s auditors any
material weaknesses in internal controls; and
 
 b) any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls; and
 
 6. The
registrant’s other certifying officers and I have indicated in this annual
report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in
other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to
the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.
 
 Date:
April 12, 2005
 
 /s/
Richard T. Brock
 Richard
T. Brock
 Chairman
and Chief Executive Officer
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

March 15, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-7029

Magna Electronics Technology, 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 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
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 70 (Wednesday, April 12, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18612-18613]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-9002]



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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


Notice of Lodging of the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement 
Pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
Liability Act of 1980

    Notice is hereby given that on March 28, 1995, a proposed 
Stipulation and Settlement Agreement in In Re Carl Subler Trucking, 
Inc., et al., (S.D. Ohio, Bankruptcy Ct., Case Nos. 3-87-02026), was 
lodged with the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern 
District of Ohio. The United States, pursuant to Section 107 of the 
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 
of 1980, as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act 
of 1986 (``CERCLA''), 42 U.S.C. 9607, seeks recovery of past response 
costs incurred and costs to be incurred by the United States in 
connection with the Peak Oil Superfund Site, Tampa, Florida (the 
``Site''). The Site is located in Hillsborough County, Florida, and 
occupies approximately 4 acres. From the mid-1950's until the mid-
1980's, the Site was used for recovery and storage of waste oil.
    The Stipulation and Settlement Agreement in In Re Carl Subler 
Trucking, Inc., et al, provides that the Debtor will pay a total of 
$25,000.
    The Department of Justice will receive, for a period of thirty (30) 
days from the date of this publication, comments relating to the 
proposed Stipulation and Settlement Agreement. Comments should be 
addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environmental and Natural 
Resources Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20530. 
Comments should refer to In Re Carl Subler Trucking, Inc., et al, 
D.O.J. Ref. 90-11-2-897F.
    The proposed Stipulation and Settlement Agreement may be examined 
at the Office of the United States Attorney, Southern District of Ohio, 
200 W. Second Street, Rm. 602, Dayton, Ohio 45402; Office of the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV, 345 Courtland Street NE., 
Atlanta, GA 30365; and at the Consent Decree Library, 1120 G Street 
NW., [[Page 18613]] Washington, DC 20005, (202) 624-0892. A copy of the 
proposed Stipulation and Settlement Agreement may be obtained in person 
or by mail from the Consent Decree Library, 1120 G Street NW., 4th 
floor, Washington, DC 20005. In requesting a copy, please refer to the 
referenced case and enclose a check in the amount of $1.50 for the 
Stipulation and Settlement Agreement (25 cents per page reproduction 
costs), payable to the Consent Decree Library.
Joel M. Gross,
Acting Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and 
Natural Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 95-9002 Filed 4-11-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-01-M
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 99.1
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. ss.1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Stratosphere Corporation (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2001 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard Brown,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.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.


                                /s/ Richard Brown
                                -----------------------------------
                                Richard Brown
                                Chief Executive Officer
                                November 22, 2002
Exhibit 10.1


 


2010 EXECUTIVE INCENTIVE PAYMENT PLAN


 


1.             Target Award
for each Participant


 


·        17.5 percent of
annual base salary


·        Additional 17.5
percent of annual base salary (Michael Smith and Anthony Mirabelli) -  if pre-tax profit exceeds a higher pre-established
performance level


 


2.             Criteria


 


100
percent of the “target” award for each participant tied to Cobra Electronics
Corporation exceeding target pre-tax profit levels without regard to
extraordinary or other nonrecurring or unusual items in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles unless the Compensation Committee
determines that any such item shall not be disregarded.


 


3.             Payments


 


If
performance goal is exceeded, each participant will receive his pro rata
portion (calculated based on the “target” award of such participant measured
against the aggregate target awards of all participants) of such excess until
all of the participants in the plan receive their full “target” awards.


 


4.             Other Terms


 


·        Pre-tax profit
will be calculated based on Cobra Electronics’ consolidated results


·        Incentive
payments will be processed with the next regularly scheduled payroll after the
approval by the Board of Directors of 2010 audited consolidated results, but
not later than March 15, 2011, subject to changes approved by the
Compensation Committee


 


1