alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1A

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 36

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing

the Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the

United States.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 13, 2001

Mr. CUNNINGHAM (for himself, Mr. MURTHA, Mr. KANJORSKI, Mr. SHIMKUS,

Mr. SHOWS, Mr. ROHRABACHER, Mr. RYUN of Kansas, Mr. BURTON of

Indiana, Ms. HART, Mr. BARCIA, Mr. CROWLEY, Mr. DOOLEY of California, Mr. THUNE, Mr. BEREUTER, Mr. GUTKNECHT, Mr. HUNTER, Mr.

MCCRERY, Mr. BOEHLERT, Mr. SAXTON, Mr. RAMSTAD, Mr. GOODE,

Mr. FOSSELLA, Mr. TOOMEY, Mr. BACHUS, Mr. LOBIONDO, Mr.

GANSKE, Mr. DUNCAN, Mr. CRAMER, Mr. GREEN of Texas, Mr. KING,

Mr. SMITH of Texas, Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN, Mr. HILLEARY, Mrs. KELLY,

Mr. GILMAN, Mr. ENGLISH, Mr. OSBORNE, Mr. BUYER, Mr. SUNUNU,

Mr. CAMP, Mr. SWEENEY, Mr. FOLEY, Mr. COOKSEY, Mr. DEAL of Georgia, Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina, Mr. ROGERS of Michigan, Mr.

RILEY, Mr. SMITH of New Jersey, Mr. ISAKSON, Mr. EVERETT, Mr. REYNOLDS, Mr. RAHALL, Mr. STENHOLM, Mr. BILIRAKIS, Mr. DOYLE, Mr.

WICKER, Mr. SIMMONS, Mrs. MCCARTHY of New York, Mr. STUMP, Mr.

TOM DAVIS of Virginia, Mrs. THURMAN, Mr. SKELTON, Mr. LIPINSKI,

Mr. GARY MILLER of California, Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi, Mr. WALDEN of Oregon, Mr. WOLF, Mr. MCNULTY, Mr. HUTCHINSON, Mrs.

MYRICK, Mr. CRENSHAW, Mr. BISHOP, Mr. EHRLICH, Mr. SCHROCK, Mr.

BARTON of Texas, Mr. SOUDER, Mr. EDWARDS, Mr. FLETCHER, Mr.

SIMPSON, Mr. GILLMOR, Mr. BACA, Mr. OXLEY, Mr. HULSHOF, Mr.

TANCREDO, Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia, Mr. HINOJOSA, Mr. GREEN

of Wisconsin, Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky, Mrs. EMERSON, Mr. BAKER, Mr.

ADERHOLT, Mr. HORN, Mrs. WILSON, Mr. RADANOVICH, Mr. ISSA, Mr.

YOUNG of Alaska, Mr. QUINN, Mr. AKIN, Mr. KERNS, Mr. GRUCCI, Mr.

GRAHAM, Mr. MOLLOHAN, Mr. HAYWORTH, Mr. HEFLEY, Mr. BROWN of

Ohio, Mr. TURNER, Mr. SHAW, Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky, and Mr. GORDON) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
2

•HJ 36 IH

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United

States authorizing the Congress to prohibit the physical

desecration of the flag of the United States.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein),

4 SECTION 1. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

5 The following article is proposed as an amendment

6 to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be

7 valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitu8 tion when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of

9 the several States within seven years after the date of its

10 submission for ratification:

11 ‘‘ARTICLE—

12 ‘‘The Congress shall have power to prohibit the phys13 ical desecration of the flag of the United States.’’.

Æ
Base Salaries Payable to Executive Officers during 2005



 EXHIBIT 10.1 
  
 2005 Base Salaries 
 For Executive Officers of 
 Ceradyne, Inc. 
  

						
	 Name

	 	 Title

	  	2005 Base
Salary*


	 Joel P. Moskowitz
	 	Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President	  	$	425,000
	 David P. Reed
	 	Vice President, and President of North American Operations	  	$	235,000
	 Jerrold J. Pellizzon
	 	Chief Financial Officer, Chief Administrative Officer and Corporate Secretary	  	$	213,000
	 Bruce Lockhart
	 	Vice President, and President of Thermo Materials Division	  	$	115,000
	 Earl E. Conabee
	 	Vice President, and Director of Marketing at Thermo Materials	  	$	130,000
	 Jeff Waldal
	 	Vice President, and President of Semicon Associates Division	  	$	115,000



	*	Ceradyne is an “at will” employer. The expression of base salaries in annual amounts does not imply that there is an agreement to employ any executive officer for any
specific period of time.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 699 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 699

 To amend the Investment Company Act of 1940 to provide complaint and 
    burden of proof requirements for certain actions for breach of 
                            fiduciary duty.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 2, 2021

  Mr. Emmer introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
 Committee on Financial Services, and in addition to the Committee on 
   the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 
  Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall 
           within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Investment Company Act of 1940 to provide complaint and 
    burden of proof requirements for certain actions for breach of 
                            fiduciary duty.

    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 ``Mutual Fund Litigation Reform Act''.

SEC. 2. COMPLAINT AND BURDEN OF PROOF REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTAIN ACTIONS 
              FOR BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY.

    Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-
35(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
            ``(7) In any such action brought by a security holder of a 
        registered investment company on behalf of such company--
                    ``(A) the complaint shall state with particularity 
                all facts establishing a breach of fiduciary duty, and, 
                if an allegation of any such facts is based on 
                information and belief, the complaint shall state with 
                particularity all facts on which that belief is formed; 
                and
                    ``(B) such security holder shall have the burden of 
                proving a breach of fiduciary duty by clear and 
                convincing evidence.''.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6973 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6973

   To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to clarify the 
 conditions under which the Secretary of Health and Human Services can 
 approve generic drug applications with labeling temporarily different 
           than the brand name drug, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 8, 2022

Mr. Carter of Georgia introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to clarify the 
 conditions under which the Secretary of Health and Human Services can 
 approve generic drug applications with labeling temporarily different 
           than the brand name drug, 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 ``Enhanced Access to Affordable 
Medicines Act of 2022''.

SEC. 2. CLARIFYING THE CONDITIONS OF GENERIC DRUG APPLICATION APPROVAL 
              FOR LAST-MINUTE BRAND NAME DRUG LABELING CHANGES.

    Section 505(j)(10)(A) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 
(21 U.S.C. 355(j)(10)(A)) is amended by striking clauses (i) through 
(iv) and inserting the following:
            ``(i) the application is otherwise eligible for approval 
        under this subsection except that--
                    ``(I)(aa) the listed drug has an active patent, the 
                listed drug has an active exclusivity period, or there 
                is a delay in approval as described in paragraph 
                (5)(B)(iii); and
                    ``(bb) a revision to the labeling of the listed 
                drug has been approved by the Secretary within 90 days 
                of expiration of a patent, exclusivity period, or delay 
                in approval referenced in item (aa); or
                    ``(II) a revision to the labeling of the listed 
                drug has been approved by the Secretary, within 90 days 
                of when the application is otherwise eligible for 
                approval under this subsection;
            ``(ii) the sponsor of the application agrees to submit 
        revised labeling for the drug that is the subject of the 
        application not later than 60 days after approval under this 
        subsection of the application; and
            ``(iii) the labeling revision described under clause (i) 
        does not include a change to the `Warnings' section of the 
        labeling.''.
                                 <all>
```
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                          Washington, D.C. 20549


                             FORM    10-Q/A


              QUARTERLY REPORT UNDER SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF
                  THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934



     For Quarter Ended   February 28, 1997  Commission File Number 1-5197


                           Plymouth Rubber Company, Inc.
                 (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)


                   Massachusetts                         04-1733970
        (State or other jurisdiction of               (I.R.S. Employer
         incorporation or organization)              Identification No.)


           104 Revere Street, Canton, Massachusetts                02021
           (Address of principal executive offices)            (Zip Code)


                                (617) 828-0220
              Registrant's telephone number, including area code


                             Not Applicable
     (Former name, former address, and former fiscal year, if changed
     since last report).


     Indicate by checkmark whether the registrant (1) has filed all
     reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the
     Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or
     for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file
     such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements
     for the past 90 days.

                 Yes    X      No


     Indicate the number of shares outstanding of each of the issuer's
     classes of common stock, as of the close of the period covered by
     this report.


                 Class A common stock, par value $1 -   810,586
                 Class B common stock, par value $1 - 1,090,197


     This amendment No. 2 on Form 10-Q/A to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
     for the quarter ended February 28, 1997 (as amended) is being filed to
     revise Exhibit (10)(vi) Sales contract entered into between the Company
     and Kleinewefers Kunststoffanlangen GmbH.


<PAGE>



                         SIGNATURES






     Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
     registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
     undersigned thereto duly authorized.













                                        Plymouth Rubber Company, Inc.
                                                  (Registrant)




                                                /S/ Joseph J. Berns
                                                 Joseph J. Berns
                                            Vice President - Finance






     Date        May 21, 1999

<PAGE>

                          PLYMOUTH RUBBER COMPANY, INC.

                                  INDEX TO EXHIBITS



      (a)  Exhibits:

           Exhibit No.                   Description




           (10)(vi)      Sales contract entered into between the Company and
                         Kleinewefers Kunststoffanlangen GmbH.



     The Company has requested confidential treatment for Exhibit (10)(vi).
     Confidential portions have been filed separately with the Commission.
#### Marion Wallace, Individually and as Executrix of Roger Wallace, Deceased, Appellant, v Booth Memorial Hospital, Defendant and William E. Morse, Respondent.

Judgment unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Although counsel improperly appealed to the jury’s sympathy in his comments on summation that an unfavorable verdict would brand defendant as a killer and destroy his life, these isolated remarks did not deprive plaintiff of a fair trial *(see, Moore v Town of Huntington,*39 AD2d 764; *Weinstein v Prostkoff,*13 AD2d 539). We reject plaintiff’s argument that defense counsel’s direct examination of expert witness Dr. Joseph Buda was leading or suggestive. Plaintiff’s remaining contentions, that defense counsel made prejudicial comments regarding decedent’s alcoholism during summation and that the trial court erred in permitting Dr. Buda to provide cumulative evidence, have not been preserved for our review. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Queens County, Durante, J.—wrongful death.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Boomer, Pine and Lawton, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM NATIONAL
PRESTO INDUSTRIES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-04-1999
<CASH>                                          76,590
<SECURITIES>                                   149,161
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,337
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     20,941
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               256,204
<PP&E>                                          23,071
<DEPRECIATION>                                  12,335
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 277,837
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           32,275
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         7,441
<OTHER-SE>                                     238,121
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   277,837
<SALES>                                         40,372
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                40,372
<CGS>                                           28,279
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   28,279
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,923
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,510
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,413
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,413
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.87
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.87



</TABLE>
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6690 

To prohibit the Secretary of Transportation from issuing any rule, regulation, 

or guidance that promotes the use of speed safety cameras, and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 9, 2022 

Mr. PERRY (for himself and Mr. WEBER of Texas) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To prohibit the Secretary of Transportation from issuing 

any rule, regulation, or guidance that promotes the use 

of speed safety cameras, 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. PROHIBITION ON RULE PROMOTING USE OF 

4 SPEED SAFETY CAMERAS. 

5 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Sec6 retary of Transportation may not propose, issue, or imple7 ment any rule, regulation, or guidance that promotes the 

8 use of speed safety cameras. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

KEITH ARNOUL and ELIZABETH ARNOUL

, Appellant s ,

v.

ALFRED PERLSTEIN, HARVEY S. DUBOV, P.A., REALTY PROFESSIONALS OF BOCA RATON, LLC d/b/a KELLER WILLIAMS REALTY BOCA RATON, KATHRYN L. PASCALE, INC., and ALBERT

JOHN MAFFIA
, Appellee s

.

No. 4D 20

- 67

[ February 3, 2021 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Cymonie S. Rowe , Judge; L.T. Case No.

502017CA002831

.

Jonathan Mann and Robin Bresky o f Law Offices of Robin Bresky, Boca Raton, for appellants.

Kimberly Kanoff Berman and Jonathan E. Kanov of Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, Fort Lauderdale, for appellees Harvey Dubov, P.A. and Realty Professionals of Boca Raton, LLC.

Robert Sq uire, Brian L. Harvell, and Ali Iftikhar of Resnick & Louis, P.C., Miami, for appellee Kathryn L. Pascale, Inc.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

L EVINE , C.J., G ROSS and C ONNER , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### STRICKLAND v. WALKER-JOHNSON LUMBER CO.

No. 5894.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

Feb. 6, 1939.

Rehearing Denied March 31, 1939.

Joel L. Fletcher, of Colfax, for appellant.

Harry Fuller, of Winnfield, for appellee.

DREW, Judge.

This is a suit 'Under the- Compensation Act (No. 20 of 1914), wherein plaintiff is claiming 400 weeks’ compensation for a hernia he sustained while employed by the defendant, and when he was acting within the course and scope of his employment.

There is no denial that plaintiff has a hernia now. We suppose the defense is that it was a congenital one, or that he had the hernia before he started to work for defendant. We say *suppose*for the reason that counsel for defendant has not filed a brief in this, court and, of course, did not argue the case. We gather this from the answer.

The testimony is conclusive that plaintiff was a well man prior to the date of the alleged injury. It is also conclusive that the hernia he now has was not congenital. There is ample proof that while plaintiff was carrying a load of slabs from the mill, he sustained the injury complained of and is totally disabled.

We are at a loss to understand upon what theory the lower court rejected plaintiff’s demands. The testimony, to our minds, discloses an almost perfect case for the award of compensation.

Plaintiff was working for the defendant for .17% per hour. A full day was ten hours, which would be $1.75 per day. He is entitled to 65% of his weekly wages, based upon the wage of $1.75 per day, for a six-day week, Rylander v. T. Smith & Son, 177 La. 716, 149 So. 434; or $6.85 per week for a period of not more than 400 weeks, beginning June 18, 1937, with legal interest on each payment from the date same was due; and for all costs; and it is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed.
Filed pursuant to
                                                                  Rule 424(b)(2)
                                                      Registration No. 33-59791


                                    CITICORP
                               U.S. $7,000,000,000
                    Global Medium-Term Senior Notes, Series C
                               U.S. $1,000,000,000
                   Global Medium-Term Subordinated Notes, Series C
                  Due From 9 Months to 60 Years From Date of Issue

Pricing Supplement,  dated  January 30, 1996
     To Prospectus Supplement, dated August 7, 1995;
     to Prospectus, dated August 7, 1995)

                              DESCRIPTION OF NOTES

      The terms of the Subordinated  Notes set forth in this Pricing  Supplement
supplement  and modify,  to the extent  applicable,  the  description of general
terms and provisions of Citicorp's Global Medium-Term Subordinated Notes, Series
C,  set  forth  in  the  accompanying   Prospectus  and  Prospectus  Supplement.
Capitalized  terms not defined  herein shall have the meanings  assigned to such
terms in the accompanying Prospectus and Prospectus Supplement.

      Interest  rates  offered by Citicorp  with respect to the Notes may differ
depending  upon,  among other things,  the aggregate  principal  amount of Notes
purchased in any single transaction.

SUMMARY OF TERMS:

Title of Notes:               6.625% Subordinated Fixed-Rate Notes Due
                              February 15, 2011 (the "Notes").
Aggregate
Principal Amount:             $15,000,000.00.

Price to Public:              Offered at varying prices related to prevailing
                              market prices.

Issue Date:                   February 7, 1996.

Stated Maturity:              February 15, 2011.

Interest Rate:                6.625% per annum.

Interest Payment Dates:       Monthly on the 15th day of each month, commencing
                              March 15, 1996, and at Stated Maturity.

Regular Record Dates:         The first day of the month in which each Interest
                              Payment Date occurs.

Sinking Fund:                 None.

Redemption:                   The Notes are subject to redemption,  in whole but
                              not in part,  at the  option of  Citicorp,  on not
                              more than 60 or less than 30 days' notice,  on any
                              Interest  Payment  Date  occurring  in February or
                              August  on  or  after  February  15,  2000,  at  a
                              redemption price of 100% of their principal amount
                              plus accrued and unpaid interest to the redemption
                              date.

Selling Agent:                Merrill Lynch & Co., as Principal.

Agent's Discount
 or Commission:               2.100%.

Minimum Denomination:         $1,000.

CUSIP Number:                 17303 MEQ 8.