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

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6594 

To require that the headquarters for any entity of the Federal Government 

located in the National Capital region shall remain in the National 

Capital region unless relocation legislation is enacted, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 3, 2022 

Ms. NORTON (for herself, Mr. TRONE, Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin, Mr. RASKIN, 

and Mr. BROWN of Maryland) introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on Oversight and Reform 

A BILL 

To require that the headquarters for any entity of the Federal Government located in the National Capital region 

shall remain in the National Capital region unless relocation legislation is enacted, 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 ‘‘Protecting Federal 

5 Agencies and Employees from Political Interference Act 

6 of 2022’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6594 IH

1 SEC. 2. AGENCY AND DEPARTMENT HEADQUARTERS LO2 CATED IN THE NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION. 

3 (a) HEADQUARTERS.—The headquarters for any en4 tity of the Federal Government located in the National 

5 Capital region on the date of introduction in the House 

6 of Representatives of this Act shall remain in the National 

7 Capital region unless legislation is enacted into law ap8 proving or otherwise providing for relocation. 

9 (b) EMPLOYEE STATIONS.—Any employee position 

10 with a duty station in the National Capital region on the 

11 date of introduction in the House of Representatives of 

12 this Act shall remain stationed in the National Capital re13 gion unless legislation is enacted into law approving or 

14 otherwise providing for relocation. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
**Exhibit 10.2**

 

**Land Lease Agreement**

 [Unofficial Translation]

 

This Land Lease Agreement (the “Agreement”) was executed on January 2, 2002, in Wuji Village, Xushui County, by and between Xushui County Dayin Township Wuji Village Committee and Party Branch (“Party A”) and Hebei Baoding Orient Paper Milling Co., Ltd (“Party B”). Party A agree to lease its 200mu unutilized land to Party B, and both parties further agree on the following terms: 

 

| 1. | Time Limit for Lease. The time limit for lease is total thirty years, from January 1, 2002 to December 31, 2031. If Party B still want to lease this land when the lease expires, both parties agree to sign another extention agreement for whatever time limit but according to related land lease rules. |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2. | Land Use Right. The land use right belongs to Party B within the time limit pursusant to land transfer process. |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 3. | Rent and its Calculation Method. Annual rent equal to the amount of RMB120,000 yuan, payable on an annually basis by Party B. Total rent equal to the amount of RMB3,600,000 yuan. |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 4. | Rent Payable Terms. The annual rent should be fully paid by Party B in one time before the month of July. |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 5. | Liabilities. |
|----|--------------|

a.   During the performance of this Agreement, if Party A violates it and brings economic losses to Party B, Party A should double compensate to Party B for its losses. Also, Party B’s breach of agreement should bear the corresponding economic liabilities. Except for the national policy changes, Party B has no right to terminate the agreement within the time limit.

b.     If Party B suffer a bankruptcy due to the national policy changes, then this agreement can be terminated by Party B. But Party B must basically restore the landform and return to Party A for continue use.

c.     Party B shall pay the rent fully and timely according to this agreement, if not,

 

----
#### Danae Art International Inc. et al., Appellants, v Sylvester Stallone et al., Respondents.

Order of the Su*82preme Court, New York County (Carol Huff, J.), entered on or about January 23, 1990, which, *inter alia,*denied plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction prohibiting defendants from removing a painting from the State or disposing of it in any way, unanimously reversed, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, and the motion for a preliminary injunction granted, with costs.

This is an action to recover a painting by Francis Bacon entitled "Oedipus Rex and the Sphinx, after Ingres”. Plaintiffs assert that they purchased the painting, owned by defendant Stallone, through his agents, defendants Barbara Guggenheim and Barbara Guggenheim Associates, Inc., paying some $2,070,000 by check which Stallone cashed.

Defendant Stallone asserts that while he originally gave authority to defendant Guggenheim to sell the painting, he revoked that authority. He further alleges that he cashed the check for $2,070,000 only when Guggenheim misrepresented to him that the painting had been transferred to plaintiffs and was no longer in the warehouse of defendant Cirker’s Hayes Storage Warehouse, Inc.

CPLR 7109 authorizes a court to grant a preliminary injunction where the chattel is unique. Plaintiffs still must meet the requirements for a preliminary injunction which are a clear right to relief, a balancing of equities in their favor and irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted. *(Grant Co. v Srogi,*52 NY2d 496, 517 [1981].) Here plaintiffs have made a strong case on the first two requirements. Plaintiffs appear to have relied on the authority or apparent authority of the Guggenheim defendants to sell the painting. While the existence of the third requirement, of irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted, is arguable, particularly in view of the fact that plaintiffs are art dealers in the business of selling art, we deem it appropriate to maintain the status quo pending a resolution of the issues presented. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Carro, Asch, Ellerin and Smith, JJ.
117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6868 

AN ACT 

To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to provide 

for financial assistance to fund certain cybersecurity and 

infrastructure security education and training programs 

and initiatives, 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, 
2 

•HR 6868 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Cybersecurity Grants 

3 for Schools Act of 2022’’. 

4 SEC. 2. STRENGTHENING CYBERSECURITY EDUCATION 

5 SUPPORT. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 2220 of the Homeland 

7 Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 665f) is amended by add8 ing at the end the following new subsection: 

9 ‘‘(e) GRANTS AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS.— 

10 The Director may award financial assistance in the form 

11 of grants or cooperative agreements to States, local gov12 ernments, institutions of higher education (as such term 

13 is defined in section 101 of the Higher Education Act of 

14 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001)), nonprofit organizations, and 

15 other non-Federal entities as determined appropriate by 

16 the Director for the purpose of funding cybersecurity and 

17 infrastructure security education and training programs 

18 and initiatives to— 

19 ‘‘(1) carry out the purposes of CETAP; and 

20 ‘‘(2) enhance CETAP to address the national 

21 shortfall of cybersecurity professionals.’’. 

22 (b) BRIEFINGS.—Paragraph (2) of subsection (c) of 

23 section 2220 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 

24 U.S.C. 665f) is amended— 

25 (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (C) and 

26 (D) as subparagraphs (D) and (E) respectively; and 
3 

•HR 6868 EH

1 (2) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the fol2 lowing new subparagraph: 

3 ‘‘(C) information on any grants or coopera4 tive agreements made pursuant to subsection 

5 (e), including how any such grants or coopera6 tive agreements are being used to enhance cy7 bersecurity education for underserved popu8 lations or communities;’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives May 17, 2022. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6868 

AN ACT 

To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to 

for other purposes. cation and training programs and initiatives, and cybersecurity and infrastructure security eduprovide for financial assistance to fund certain
#### McCullouch et al. v. Moore.

Supreme Court of Florida, Division B.

July 23, 1936.

Hampton, Bull & Crom, of Tampa, for appellants.

Herbert S. Phillips, of Tampa, for appel-lee.

PER CURIAM.

The appeal here is from final decree of foreclosure.

The contentions are that complainant was not entitled to decree for the amount allowed for attorney’s fees because the suit was prematurely instituted, and that the complainant should not recover because an extension of maturity of a part of the loan involved was accomplished by a transaction tainted with usury.

As to the first proposition there is ample evidence to support the decree, and as to the second proposition there is no evidence establishing the elements of usury in any of the transactions involved; so the decree should be affirmed. It is so ordered.

Affirmed.

ELLIS, P. J., and TERRELL and BUFORD, JJ., concur.

WHITFIELD, C. J., and BROWN and DAVIS, JJ., concur in the opinion and judgment.
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular

cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes

needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal

profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-30435 

(Summary Calendar)

__________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ALFRED HENRY, JR.,

 Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

(USDC No. 93-CR-20001)

- - - - - - - - - -

December 7, 1995

Before WIENER, PARKER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Appellant appeals his conviction and sentence for possession

of a machinegun in relation to a drug trafficking crime. He argues

that he was entitled to downward departures for providing

substantial assistance to the Government and for reduced mental

capacity and that the Government breached the plea agreement. We

have reviewed the record and the reasoning of the district court

and find no reversible error. Thus, essentially for the reasons
2

stated orally by the district court at the hearing held on April

27, 1995, and in the written ruling issued the same day, the

conviction and sentence are

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                           1,258
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   49,493
<ALLOWANCES>                                       790
<INVENTORY>                                     32,048
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               109,053
<PP&E>                                          66,685
<DEPRECIATION>                                  33,874
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 270,106
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           51,370
<BONDS>                                         25,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        33,549
<OTHER-SE>                                     151,192
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   270,106
<SALES>                                        245,776
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               245,776
<CGS>                                          198,796
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  198,796
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,524
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 23,724
<INCOME-TAX>                                     9,371
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             14,353
<DISCONTINUED>                                      24
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    14,377
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.97
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.89


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6740 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6740

 To require the Department of Housing and Urban Development to inspect 
   certain low-income housing developments to ensure compliance with 
     housing quality and safety standards, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 15, 2022

 Ms. Malliotakis introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                  the Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To require the Department of Housing and Urban Development to inspect 
   certain low-income housing developments to ensure compliance with 
     housing quality and safety standards, 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 ``Respectable Housing Act of 2022''.

SEC. 2. INSPECTIONS.

    (a) Housing Quality Requirements.--The Secretary of Housing and 
Urban Development shall require each owner of a housing project that 
contains 100 dwelling units or more for which project-based rental 
assistance is provided under section 8 of the United States Housing Act 
of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f) to maintain the project, and assisted 
dwelling units in the project, in a condition that complies with 
standards which meet or exceed the housing quality standards 
established under section 6(f) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1437d(f)) with 
respect to public housing.
    (b) Biennial Inspections.--The Secretary of Housing and Urban 
Development shall make inspections of each housing project described in 
subsection (a) not less frequently than biennially to determine whether 
the project is, and such dwelling units in the project are, maintained 
in accordance with the housing quality requirements applicable under 
subsection (a).
    (c) Inspectors.--Inspections of a public housing project required 
under this paragraph shall be conducted by employees of the Department 
of Housing and Urban Development or such other inspectors as may be 
obtained by the Secretary.
    (d) Public Availability.--The Secretary shall make the results of 
inspections pursuant to this section publicly available online.
                                 <all>
```
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice 6340]

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,                         *et seq.*; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note,                         *et seq.*), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236 of October 19, 1999, as amended, and Delegation of Authority No. 257 of April 15, 2003 [68 FR 19875], I hereby determine that the objects to be included in the exhibition “Garden & Cosmos: The Royal Paintings of Jodhpur,” imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the Arthur M. Sackler Gallery, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC, from on or about October 11, 2008, until on or about January 4, 2009; at the Seattle Art Museum, Seattle, WA, from on or about January 29, 2009, to on or about April 26, 2009, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. Public Notice of these Determinations is ordered to be published in the                         **Federal Register**                        .                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For further information, including a list of the exhibit objects, contact Carol B. Epstein, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202/453-8048). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001.

Dated: August 22, 2008.

C. Miller Crouch,

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs,Department of State. 

[FR Doc. E8-20630 Filed 9-4-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
**Exhibit
      32.2**





**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 Annual Report of SRKP 10, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
      10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Anthony C.
      Pintsopoulos, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant
      to
      ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my 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.





/s/
                Anthony C. PintsopoulosAnthony
                C. Pintsopoulos
              Principal
                Financial Officer
              March
                7, 2008
#### Jesse LAWSON, Appellant, v. Johnnie O. DOBBS, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Florida. Special Division B.

June 1, 1954.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

CERTIFICATION

 

 

| I, JEFFREY D. SERKES, certify that: |
|-------------------------------------|

 

| 1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of THE POTOMAC EDISON COMPANY. |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

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)) for the registrant and have:

 

a)   Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, 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 report is being prepared;

 

b)   Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

c)   Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

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):

 

a)   All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

b)   Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

|               | /s/ Jeffrey D. Serkes                          |
|--------------------|------------------------------------------------|
| Date:  May 8, 2006 | Jeffrey D. Serkes

Principal Financial Officer |