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

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5850 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 5850

 To nullify modifications made by the Food and Drug Administration on 
 January 3, 2023, to the risk evaluation and mitigation strategy under 
 section 505-1 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 
            355-1) for mifepristone, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 29, 2023

Mr. Mann (for himself and Mr. Moolenaar) introduced the following bill; 
       which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To nullify modifications made by the Food and Drug Administration on 
 January 3, 2023, to the risk evaluation and mitigation strategy under 
 section 505-1 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 
            355-1) for mifepristone, 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. NULLIFICATION OF REMS MODIFICATIONS FOR MIFEPRISTONE; NO 
              FEDERAL FUNDING TO IMPLEMENT REMS FOR MIFEPRISTONE.

    (a) In General.--The modifications made by the Food and Drug 
Administration on January 3, 2023, to the risk evaluation and 
mitigation strategy under section 505-1 of the Federal Food, Drug, and 
Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355-1) for mifepristone are hereby nullified.
    (b) Prohibition on Federal Funds.--No Federal funds may be used to 
establish, implement, or enforce--
            (1) any provision of a risk evaluation and mitigation 
        strategy under section 505-1 of the Federal Food, Drug, and 
        Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355-1) for mifepristone that is 
        substantially similar to any of the modifications nullified by 
        subsection (a); or
            (2) any non-enforcement or enforcement discretion policy 
        for any provision of a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy 
        under such section for mifepristone.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

EASTERN DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

 Respondent 

 v. 

KYLE REED, 

 Petitioner 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 421 EAL 2015 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 8th day of February, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

is DENIED. 

Mr. Justice Eakin did not participate in the consideration or decision of this 

matter.
#### Frank HOWARD, Appellant, v. Michael GROOSE, et al., Respondents.

No. WD 46462.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Oct. 27, 1992.

Frank Howard, pro se.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Andrea K. Spillars, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondents.

Before FENNER, P.J., and TURNAGE and KENNEDY, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from dismissal of civil action for failure to state grounds upon which relief can be granted.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
EXHIBIT
      32.2





**CERTIFICATIONS
      PURSUANT TO**


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


**(18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**




In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Marani Brands, Inc. (“Marani”), on Form
      10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission (the "Report"), Ani Kevorkian, Chief Financial Officer
      of
      Marani, does hereby certify, pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
      (18 U.S.C. 1350), that to her 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 result of operations of the Company.





Date:
      November 14, 2008





By:
            /s/Ani
                KevorkianAni
                KevorkianChief
                Financial Officer
##### 



SEPARATION AGREEMENT AND  GENERAL MUTUAL RELEASE OF CLAIMS
        1. Resignation
 Basis for Resignation
 Resignation as Officer
 1




---



##### 



Resignation as Director
 2. Termination Benefits
 Cash Compensation
 Non-Cash Compensation Previously Granted
 Additional Non-Cash Compensation
 2




---



##### 



Other Compensation
 Other Benefits
 3. Claims
 Waiver of Claims
 Section 1542
  No Other Relief
 3




---



##### 



Indemnification by the Company
 Indemnification by Eichler
 Statutory Indemnification
 Definitions
 4. Miscellaneous
 Nondisclosure
 Severability
 Disputes; Applicable Law
 Counterparts
 4




---



##### 



Authorization
 Conflicts
  5




---



##### 



Entire Agreement
  SAVE THE WORLD AIR, INC.By:
    -s- Bruce H. McKinnonBruce H. McKinnonTitle:
    President -s- Eugene E. EichlerEugene E. Eichler 6
----

Exhibit 32.1

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, Graham Alexander, Chief Executive Officer and Chief FinancialOfficer of Rancho Santa Monica Developments, Inc. (the "Company"), herebycertify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge: 

(i) 

The QuarterlyReport on Form 10-Q of the Company, for the three months ending February 28th ,2009, and to which this certification is attached as Exhibit 32 (the "Report")fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 

(ii)

the information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.  

| By: *               /s/ Graham G. Alexander*Name:     Graham Alexander       Title:       Chief Executive Officer and      Chief Financial Officer       Date:      April 14th, 2009 |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

----
Exhibit 32.2
------------


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

In  connection  with  the  Quarterly  Report  of  Fortune  Partners,  Inc.  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the six months ended March 31, 2005 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Donald M. Prest,  Secretary/Treasurer  of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18
U.S.C. section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)  The Report fully complies with the  requirements of section 13(a) and 15(d)
     of the Securities and 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:  May 6, 2005                   By:  /s/ Donald M. Prest
                                         -------------------------
                                         Donald M. Prest
                                         Secretary/Treasurer
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 92 (Friday, May 10, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 21534]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11673]



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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
[Treasury Order Number 102-17]


Delegation of Authority Concerning the Personnel Security Program

May 2, 1996.
    By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of the Treasury, 
including the authority vested by 31 U.S.C. 321(d), it is ordered that:
    1. The Department shall maintain a personnel security program to 
fulfill the responsibilities imposed by 5 U.S.C. 7531-7533; Executive 
Order (E.O.) 12968, ``Access to Classified Information,'' dated August 
2, 1995; E.O. 10450, ``Security Requirements for Government 
Employees,'' dated April 27, 1953, as amended; and any other applicable 
authorities. The program shall be applicable throughout the Department.
    2. The Assistant Secretary for Management & CFO is delegated the 
authority of the Secretary to exercise and perform all duties, rights, 
powers, and obligations under the above-referenced authorities. This 
delegation includes making all determinations and appointments and 
issuing any regulations required to implement the Department's 
personnel security program, except for any matter in which, by law, 
executive order, or regulation of outside agencies, the personal 
decision of the head of the agency or principal deputy is required.
    3. The Assistant Secretary for Management & CFO is designated 
pursuant to Section 6.1 of E.O. 12968 as the Senior Agency Official to 
direct and administer the Department's personnel security program.
    4. The responsibilities of the Special Assistant to the Secretary 
(National Security) continue uninterrupted and are not affected by this 
Order.
    5. The authority delegated by this Order may be redelegated.
Robert E. Rubin,
Secretary of the Treasury.
[FR Doc. 96-11673 Filed 5-9-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-25-P
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

SUPREME COURT CAUSE NO. DA 22-0616

IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP 

OF:

M.H.O.

ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

On appeal from the Montana Eighteenth Judicial District, In and for the County of 

Gallatin, Cause No. DG-21-43; Honorable Peter B. Ohman

Appellee/Petitioner Christopher Monaco has filed an unopposed motion for 

a thirty (30) day extension of the deadline to file his appellee brief from February 

24, 2023 until March 27, 2023. Appellant Michael H. Oudens, pro se, does not 

oppose the motion.

For good cause appearing, IT IS ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. 

Appellee’s deadline for filing his appellee brief is extended from February 24, 

2023 until March 27, 2023. Appellant shall file and serve any reply brief in 

accordance with the deadlines set forth in Rule 13, M. R. App. P.

True and correct copies of this order are being provided to counsel of record 

for the parties.

02/22/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0616
DATED this ____ day of February, 2023.

By: _________________________

 Clerk of the Supreme Court

cc: Michael H. Oudens

 Kelsey Bunkers

Electronically signed by:

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of the Supreme Court

February 22 2023
Amendment to Accounts Receivable and Inventory Security Agreement



 EXHIBIT 10.1 

AMENDMENT TO ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE 

AND INVENTORY SECURITY AGREEMENT 

FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, First Community Financial, a division of Pacific Western Bank (“Lender”), and Phoenix Footwear
Group, Inc., Belt Company fka Chambers Belt Company, Penobscot Shoe Company, H.S. Trask & Company, and Phoenix Delaware Acquisition, Inc. (individually and collectively, the “Borrower”) do hereby agree to amend the Accounts
Receivable and Inventory Security Agreement dated December 4, 2009 between the parties (as the same may previously have been amended from time to time) as follows, effective April 29, 2010: 

A. Replace paragraph 1.12.1 in its entirety with the following: 

“Eligible Inventory” means that portion of finished goods inventory in which a valid and perfected
security interest has been granted to Lender and which strictly complies with all of Borrower’s warranties and representations set forth in Section 6.3. of this Agreement. “Loan Value of Eligible Inventory” means an amount
equal to forty percent (40%) of the value of Eligible Inventory, valued at the lesser of net cost or net book value; provided that said amount does not exceed the lesser of (i) $700,000.00, which shall be reduced by $40,000.00 per week
beginning on Friday, December 3, 2010 and continuing on the Friday of each week thereafter until such amount is reduced to $500,000.00 or (ii) 75% of the net orderly liquidation value of Eligible Inventory. 

Except as amended hereby, all other terms and provisions of the Accounts Receivable and Inventory Security Agreement (as the same may
have been amended from time to time) shall continue in full force and effect and are hereby ratified, confirmed and approved. 
 Dated this 29th
day of April, 2010. 
  

									
	Phoenix Footwear Group, Inc.,	 		 	Belt Company fka Chambers Belt Company,
	a Delaware corporation	 		 	a Delaware corporation
					
	By:	 	/s/ James R. Riedman	 		 	By:	 	/s/ James R. Riedman
		 	James R. Riedman	 		 		 	James R. Riedman
	Title:	 	Chairman	 		 	Title:	 	Chairman
			
	Penobscot Shoe Company,	 		 	H.S. Trask & Co.,
	a Maine corporation	 		 	a Montana corporation
					
	By:	 	/s/ James R. Riedman	 		 	By:	 	/s/ James R. Riedman
		 	James R. Riedman	 		 		 	James R. Riedman
	Title:	 	Chairman	 		 	Title:	 	Chairman
			
	Phoenix Delaware Acquisition, Inc.,	 		 	First Community Financial,
	a Delaware corporation	 		 	a division of Pacific Western Bank
					
	By:	 	/s/ James R. Riedman	 		 	By:	 	/s/ Gregg A. Sharp
		 	James R. Riedman	 		 		 	Gregg A. Sharp
	Title:	 	Chairman	 		 	Title:	 	Executive Vice President









 AMENDMENT TO ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE 

AND INVENTORY SECURITY AGREEMENT 

(continued) 
  

 ACKNOWLEDGMENT & CONSENT OF VALIDITY GUARANTORS 

 

									
					
	By:	 	/s/ James R. Riedman	 		 	By:	 	/s/ Russell D. Hall
		 	James R. Riedman	 		 		 	Russell D. Hall
					
	By:	 	/s/ Dennis T. Nelson	 		 		 	
		 	Dennis T. Nelson
#### ELLIS COUNTY STATE BANK et al., Petitioners, v. Glenn KEEVER, Respondent.

No. 95-0859.

Supreme Court of Texas.

Nov. 16, 1995.

Rehearing Overruled March 7, 1996.

*479Ben Taylor, Dallas, for Petitioner.

Robert E. Wood, Dallas, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

We again consider whether the court of appeals correctly reviewed punitive damages. *See Transportation Ins. Co. v. Moriel,*879 S.W.2d 10, 31 (Tex.1994). Without hearing oral argument, a majority of the Court reverses the court of appeals’ judgment and remands this case for further proceedings. Tex.R.App.P. 170.

Glenn Keever sued Ellis County State Bank and others for malicious prosecution. The trial court granted judgment for Keever on the jury’s verdict and awarded him actual damages, punitive damages and interest. On the first appeal, the court of appeals reversed the judgment for prejudgment interest on punitive damages but otherwise affirmed. 870 S.W.2d 63. This Court affirmed the actual damage awards against the Bank, defendant Hastings, and defendant Fletcher. 888 S.W.2d 790. However, we found no evidence to support liability against defendant Harris. 888 S.W.2d at 794. We remanded the case for the court of appeals to reconsider the punitive damage award under the *Moriel*standard. 888 S.W.2d at 799.

*Moriel*requires a court of appeals to detail the relevant evidence in its opinion. The court of appeals must explain why that evidence either supports or does not support the punitive damages award in light of the *Kraus*(616 S.W.2d 908 (Tex.1981)) factors. *Moriel,*879 S.W.2d at 31.

This Court fashioned the *Moriel*standard from *Pool v. Ford Motor Co.,*715 S.W.2d 629 (Tex.1986). In *Pool,*we held that a court of appeals must detail the evidence relevant to the issue when it reverses a jury’s decision for factually insufficient evidence. *Pool,*715 S.W.2d at 635. We later interpreted *Pool*to require a court of appeals to also detail the relevant evidence in support of the jury’s answer to the issue in question. *Jaffe Aircraft Corp. v. Carr,*867 S.W.2d 27, 28 (Tex.1993). Finally, in *Moriel*we stated that a *“[Pool*] review is appropriate when a court of appeals is *affirming*[a punitive damage] award over a challenge that it is based on insufficient evidence or is against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence.” *Moriel,*879 S.W.2d at 31. Therefore, *Moriel*requires the court of appeals, when conducting a factual sufficiency review of a punitive damages award, to detail all the relevant evidence and explain why that evidence supports or does not support the punitive damages award. *Moriel,*879 S.W.2d at 31.

On the first remand, the court of appeals noted only evidence supporting the punitive damages award. We again remand for the court of appeals to detail all the evidence and explain why that evidence either supports or does not support the punitive damages award. Also, on remand, the court of appeals should vacate the entire damage award against defendant Harris. 888 S.W.2d at 794.
Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of VeriFone Holdings, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects
the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over
financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and
15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
     5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the
registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
   By:
    /s/  Douglas G. BergeronDouglas G. BergeronChief Executive OfficerDate: August 19, 2008
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 95 (Wednesday, May 15, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 24515]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12122]



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


DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Manufacturer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Application

    Pursuant to Section 1301.43(a) of Title 21 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR), this is notice that on March 27, 1996, Research 
Biochemicals, Limited Partnership, Attn: Richard Milius, One Strathmore 
Road, Natick, Massachusetts 01760, made application to the Drug 
Enforcement Administration (DEA) for registration as a bulk 
manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed 
below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Drug                               Schedule 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cathinone (1235)...........................................           I 
Methcathinone (1237).......................................           I 
Alpha-Ethyltryptamine (7249)...............................           I 
Lysergic acid diethylamide (7315)..........................           I 
4-Bromo-2,5-dimethoxyamphetamine (7391)....................           I 
2,5-Dimethoxyamphetamine (7396)............................           I 
3,4-Methylenedioxymeth- amphetamine (7405).................           I 
Dimethyltryptamine (7435)..................................           I 
1-[1-(2-Thienyl) cyclohexyl] piperidine (7470).............           I 
Heroin (9200)..............................................           I 
Normorphine (9313).........................................           I 
Phencyclidine (7471).......................................          II 
Benzoylecgonine (9180).....................................          II 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The firm plans to manufacture the listed controlled substances for 
laboratory reference standards and neurochemicals.
    Any other such applicant and any person who is presently registered 
with DEA to manufacture such substances may file comments or objections 
to the issuance of the above application.
    Any such comments or objections may be addressed, in quintuplicate, 
to the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, 
Drug Enforcement Administration, United States Department of Justice, 
Washington, DC 20537, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative 
(CCR), and must be filed no later than July 15, 1996.

    Dated: May 6, 1996.
Gene R. Haislip,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug 
Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-12122 Filed 5-14-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-M
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 94 (Tuesday, May 14, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 24331]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12007]



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


DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993; FED Corporation Joint Venture

    Notice is hereby given that, on April 18, 1996, pursuant to section 
6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 
15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), the FED Corporation Joint Venture 
(``FED'') has filed written notifications simultaneously with the 
Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in 
its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of 
extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust 
plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. 
Specifically, the changes are as follows: Analog Devices, Greensboro, 
NC has withdrawn from the venture.
    On July 28, 1995, FED filed its original notification pursuant to 
Sec. 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in 
the Federal Register pursuant to Sec. 6(b) of the Act on December 6, 
1995 (60 FR 62477).
Constance K. Robinson,
Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 96-12007 Filed 5-13-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-01-M
Exhibit
32.2





CERTIFICATION




Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


(Section
1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)




In
connection with the Quarterly Report of New Oriental Energy & Chemical Corp.
(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2009, as filed
with the Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Donglai Li 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:
February 16, 2010


By:
              /s/Donglai LiDonglai
      LiChief
      Financial Officer





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