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

House Calendar No. 24 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 154 

[Report No. 115–54] 

Of inquiry requesting the President of the United States and directing the 

Secretary of Health and Human Services to transmit certain information 

to the House of Representatives relating to plans to repeal or replace 

the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the health-related 

measures of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 27, 2017 

Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Ms. MATSUI, Mr. ENGEL, Mr. SCHRADER, Mr. 

SARBANES, Ms. CASTOR of Florida, and Mr. CA ́RDENAS) submitted the 

following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and 

Commerce 

MARCH 21, 2017 

Additional sponsors: Ms. ESHOO, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. TONKO, Mr. WELCH, 

Mr. KEATING, Mr. COHEN, Mr. POCAN, Mr. CAPUANO, Mr. LOEBSACK, 

Mr. RUSH, Mr. MOULTON, Mr. YARMUTH, Mr. BUTTERFIELD, and Ms. 

TSONGAS

MARCH 21, 2017 

Reported adversely, referred to the House Calendar, and ordered to be printed 

RESOLUTION 

Of inquiry requesting the President of the United States 

and directing the Secretary of Health and Human Services to transmit certain information to the House of 

Representatives relating to plans to repeal or replace 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 154 RH 

the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the 

health-related measures of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010. 

1 Resolved, That the President of the United States is 

2 requested and the Secretary of the Department of Health 

3 and Human Services is directed to transmit to the House 

4 of Representatives, not later than 14 days after the date 

5 of the adoption of this resolution, all documents, memo6 randa, and advisory legal opinions, including notes from 

7 meetings, memos, and telephone and electronic mail 

8 records, relating to plans to repeal or replace the Patient 

9 Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111– 

10 148) and the health-related measures of the Health Care 

11 and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Public Law 

12 111–152). 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
House Calendar No. 24 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 154 

[Report No. 115–54] 

RESOLUTION 

Of inquiry requesting the President of the United 

ation Act of 2010. ures of the Health Care and Education ReconciliAffordable Care Act and the health-related measto repeal or replace the Patient Protection and to the House of Representatives relating to plans Human Services to transmit certain information States and directing the Secretary of Health and 

MARCH 21, 2017 

Reported adversely, referred to the House Calendar, and 

ordered to be printed 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
**Exhibit 32****SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION**Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350,chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of Spatializer AudioLaboratories, Inc. (the “Company”) hereby certifies with respect to the Quarterly Report on Form10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission (the “10-Q Report”) that to his knowledge:1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities andExchange Act of 1934; and2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.Date: May 13, 2006/s/ Henry R. Mandell Henry R. MandellChairman of the Board(performing the functions of principal executive officer and principal financial officer)
Exhibit 99.1



RF MONOLITHICS, INC.



CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF SARBANESOXLEY ACT OF 2002



The
undersigned, David M. Kirk, Chief Executive Officer and President of RF Monolithics, Inc. (the Company), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that:



| | 1. |  | The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended May 31, 2003 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | -- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. |  | Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this instrument to be executed this 14th day of July 2003.



/s/    DAVID M. KIRKName:

David M. KirkTitle:

Chief Executive Officer and President




*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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AT SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 (UNAUDITED) AND THE STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE
QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 (UNAUDITED) AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED AS PART OF ITS
QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD SEPTEMBER 30, 1998.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                       1,712,372
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,010,405
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,722,777
<PP&E>                                      52,922,940
<DEPRECIATION>                              15,872,003
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              39,773,714
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  39,773,714
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                39,773,714
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,742,036
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,401,972
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,433,096
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### VITO LEMONGELLI, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT, v. THE CARLSON COMPANY, RESPONDENT-PROSECUTOR.

Argued May 3, 1944

Decided August 15, 1944.

Before Justices Parker, Heher anti Colie.

For the respondent, *Cohen & Klein (Laurence N. Rosenbaum,*of counsel).

For the prosecutor, *Kalisch & Kalisch (Isidor Kalisch,*of counsel).

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Colie, J.

In 1934 the respondent was awarded in the Workmen’s Compensation Bureau 45% of total permanent disability. On appeal to the Common Pleas the disability was increased to 70% of total. In 1940 a petition was filed seeking an additional award on the basis of increased disability. After hearing, the Bureau dismissed the petition holding that there was no increase over the 70% previously awarded. From the dismissal the injured workman appealed to the Common Pleas, which tribunal entered a final judgment awarding 100% total permanent disability. The present writ of *certiorari*was allowed to review the latter judgment.

*72The question is purely one of fact and our examination of the evidence adduced at the hearings on the original petition and on the subsequent hearings satisfies us that there was no adequate factual support to the conclusion of the doctors called on behalf of the workman, that there was an increase in disability at the time of the later hearings over and.above that previously awarded, but that, on the contrary, any change had been for the better.

The judgment of the Essex Pleas is therefore set aside, with costs.

Mr. Justice Heher dissents from the judgment of reversal.
# Sitemap

## June 11, 2011

- Home
- Sitemap
- 2011
- 06
- June 11, 2011

            - Sunrise
CERTIFICATIONS



I, Atul Sabharwal, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Snipp Interactive 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 Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4.

The Companys other certifying officer 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 Company 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 Company, 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)

Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principals;



c)

Evaluated the effectiveness of the Company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



d)

Disclosed in this report any change in the Companys internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Companys internal control over financial reporting; and



5.

The Companys other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Companys auditors and the audit committee of the Company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 Company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 Companys internal control over financial reporting.





Date:   April 30, 2015





/s/  Atul Sabharwal

Atul Sabharwal,

Chief Executive Officer
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. PABLO LEON.

January 20, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. THOMAS MEROLA.

February 2, 1987.

Petition for certification denied. (See 214 *N.J.Super.*108)
IB 

Union Calendar No. 197 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 965 

[Report No. 115–277] 

To redesignate the Saint-Gaudens National Historic Site as the ‘‘SaintGaudens National Historical Park’’, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 7, 2017 

Ms. KUSTER of New Hampshire (for herself and Ms. SHEA-PORTER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural 

Resources 

AUGUST 25, 2017 

Reported with an amendment, committed to the Committee of the Whole 

House on the State of the Union, and ordered to be printed 

[Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed in italic] 

[For text of introduced bill, see copy of bill as introduced on February 7, 2017] 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 965 RH

A BILL 

To redesignate the Saint-Gaudens National Historic Site as 

the ‘‘Saint-Gaudens National Historical Park’’, and for 

other purposes. 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 965 RH

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 ‘‘Saint-Gaudens National 

5 Historical Park Redesignation Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DESIGNATION OF SAINT-GAUDENS NATIONAL HIS7 TORICAL PARK. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Saint-Gaudens National His9 toric Site shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Saint10 Gaudens National Historical Park’’. 

11 (b) AMENDMENTS TO PUBLIC LAW 88–543.—Public 

12 Law 88–543 (78 Stat.749) is amended— 

13 (1) by striking ‘‘National Historic Site’’ each 

14 place it appears and inserting ‘‘National Historical 

15 Park’’; 

16 (2) in section 2(a), by striking ‘‘historic site’’ 

17 and inserting ‘‘Saint-Gaudens National Historical 

18 Park’’; 

19 (3) in section 3, by— 

20 (A) striking ‘‘national historical site’’ and 

21 inserting ‘‘Saint-Gaudens National Historical 

22 Park’’; and 

23 (B) striking ‘‘part of the site’’ and inserting 

24 ‘‘part of the park’’; and 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with BILLS
4 

•HR 965 RH

1 (4) in section 4(b), by striking ‘‘traditional to 

2 the site’’ and inserting ‘‘traditional to the park’’. 

3 (c) REFERENCES.—Any reference in any law, regula4 tion, document, record, map, or other paper of the United 

5 States to the Saint-Gaudens National Historic Site shall 

6 be considered to be a reference to the ‘‘Saint-Gaudens Na7 tional Historical Park’’. 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with BILLS

asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with BILLS
Union Calendar No. 197 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 965 

[Report No. 115–277] 

A BILL 

To redesignate the Saint-Gaudens National Historical Park’’, and for other purposes. toric Site as the ‘‘Saint-Gaudens National HisAUGUST 25, 2017 

Reported with an amendment, committed to the Comand ordered to be printed mittee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with BILLS
2 min read

# ISO 9001:2015 Certified

### Heather F. Riley

Mar 01, 2018

Article

            -   
            -   
            -   
            -   

White Sands Test Facility was the first NASA site to receive ISO 9001 certification and is currently certified to the latest version of ISO 9001:2015.The ISO 9001:2015 standard is a member of the ISO 9000 – Quality Management family which addresses various aspects of quality management. The ISO 9001:2015 is a best practice management framework that follows internationally recognized quality management principles and provides guidance for a quality management system and is the only standard in the family that can be certified.

**Key Benefits**Some of the key benefits of applying the ISO 9001:2015 management principles are:
            - Commitment to meeting the highest standards of quality and customer satisfaction,
            - Confidence in the consistency, effectiveness and efficiency of our services,
            - Flexibility and speed in meeting customer needs and expectations,
            - Motivated and innovative work force, and
            - Compliance with proven international business practices and appropriate standards.

### Vice Presidential Hammer Award

For our efforts in receiving ISO 9001 certification, our site was recognized by former Vice President Al Gore with the National Partnership for Reinventing Government Hammer Award. The Hammer Award was presented to teams of federal employees who made significant contributions in support of reinventing government principles and was the former Vice President’s answer to yesterday’s government and its $400 hammer.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JAMES R. SNYDER.

November 17, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Commercial Mortgage Servicing**D1050-084, 8th Floor  401 South Tryon St.  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334 |
|--------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

**ANNUAL STATEMENT OFCOMPLIANCE**

 

Reference is hereby made tothat certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of September 1, 2014, byand among WELLS FARGO COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES, INC., as Depositor, WELLSFARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as General Master Servicer, CWCAPITAL ASSETMANAGEMENT LLC, as General Special Servicer, NCB, FSB, as NCB Master Servicer,NCB, FSB, as NCB Special Servicer, PENTALPHA SURVEILLANCE LLC, as TrustAdvisor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Certificate Administrator,as Tax Administrator and as Custodian, and WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONALASSOCIATION, as Trustee, with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through CertificatesSeries 2014-C22 (the "Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein nototherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 11.12 ofthis Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of CommercialMortgage Services do hereby certify that:

 

1. A review of the activitiesof the General Master Servicer during the period from January 1, 2016 throughDecember 31, 2016, (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performanceper the Agreement during such period has been made under my supervision, and

 

2. To the best of myknowledge, based on such review, the General Master Servicer has fulfilled allof its obligations under this Agreement in all material respects throughout theReporting Period.

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, theundersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 28th day of February 2017.

 

 

/s/ Daniel Bober

Daniel Bober

Executive Vice President

Wells Fargo Bank

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together we’ll  go far |
|------------------------|-------------------------------------|
#### Vernon DONALDSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D10-0716.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 20, 2010.

Vernon Donaldson, pro se, Appellant.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, and Ian M. Cotner, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant has filed a rule 3.800(a) motion asserting that his habitual violent felony offender sentence is illegal because his prior offense of aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer is not an enumerated felony under section 775.084(l)(b), Florida Statutes (2000). To support his allegations, the appellant indicates that the records demonstrate an entitlement to relief and he has attached a copy of the state’s notice of intent to classify him as a habitual violent felony offender which establishes he was previously convicted of aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer. We reverse the denial of the appellant’s facially sufficient motion and remand.

Pursuant to section 775.084(l)(b), Florida Statutes, prior to imposing a habitual violent felony offender sentence the sentencing court must find that the defendant has been previously convicted of an enumerated felony. Prior versions of the statute permitted a habitual violent felony offender sentence for aggravated assault; however, the version applicable to the appellant’s case requires aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. § 775.084(l)(b)(l)(g), Fla. Stat. (2000). At sentencing, in order to support a habitual felony violent offender sentence, the state must show that the aggravated assault was committed with a deadly weapon. *See McCoy v. State,*942 So.2d 919 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). The postconviction court has failed to attach any records refuting the appellant’s claim that his prior offense of aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer does not qualify for a habitualized sentence.

Accordingly, we reverse the summary denial of the appellant’s motion and remand for record attachments which conclusively refute the appellant’s claim or if appropriate, to resentence the appellant without the habitual felony offender designation.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

DAVIS, PADOVANO, and LEWIS, JJ„ concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7571

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

DARRON OWENS, a/k/a Dee,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Cameron McGowan Currie, District 

Judge. (5:01-cr-00084-CMC-3)

Submitted: December 13, 2012 Decided: December 19, 2012

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Darron Owens, Appellant Pro Se. Stacey Denise Haynes, Mark C. 

Moore, Assistant United States Attorneys, Columbia, South 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Darron Owens appeals the district court’s order

denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for a sentence 

reduction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the 

district court. United States v. Owens, No. 5:01-cr-00084-CMC-3 

(D.S.C. July 31, 2012). We dispense with oral argument because 

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED