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

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1823 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

  1st Session
                                S. 1823

 To amend the Act of August 9, 1955, to authorize the Assiniboine and 
Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Reservation to lease tribally-owned land 
   on the Fort Peck Indian Reservation for 1 or more interstate gas 
                               pipelines.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            November 5, 2003

 Mr. Burns (for himself and Mr. Baucus) introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Act of August 9, 1955, to authorize the Assiniboine and 
Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Reservation to lease tribally-owned land 
   on the Fort Peck Indian Reservation for 1 or more interstate gas 
                               pipelines.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. LEASE OF TRIBALLY-OWNED LAND BY ASSINIBOINE AND SIOUX TRIBES 
              OF THE FORT PECK RESERVATION.

    The first section of the Act of August 9, 1955 (25 U.S.C. 415), is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(g) Lease of Tribally-Owned Land by Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes 
of the Fort Peck Reservation.--
            ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding subsection (a) and any 
        regulations under part 162 of title 25, Code of Federal 
        Regulations (or any successor regulation), subject to paragraph 
        (2), the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck 
        Reservation may lease to the Northern Border Pipeline Company 
        tribally-owned land on the Fort Peck Indian Reservation for 1 
        or more interstate gas pipelines.
            ``(2) Conditions.--A lease entered into under paragraph 
        (1)--
                    ``(A) shall commence during fiscal year 2011 for an 
                initial term of 25 years;
                    ``(B) may be renewed for an additional term of 25 
                years; and
                    ``(C) shall specify in the terms of the lease an 
                annual rental rate--
                            ``(i) which rate shall be increased by 3 
                        percent per year on a cumulative basis for each 
                        5-year period; and
                            ``(ii) the adjustment of which in 
                        accordance with clause (i) shall be considered 
                        to satisfy any review requirement under part 
                        162 of title 25, Code of Federal Regulations 
                        (or any successor regulation).''.
                                 <all>
```
National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration

Mary W. Jackson Building NASA Headquarters

Washington, DC 20546-0001

February 6, 2023

Reply to Attn of: General Law Practice Group

TO: Distribution

FROM: Agency Counsel for Ethics

SUBJECT: Determination Regarding Attendance by NASA employees at the Maryland 

Space Business Roundtable (MSBR) Lunch on February 28, 2023

On February 28, 2023, the Maryland Space Business Roundtable (MSBR), a nonprofit 

organization under 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, will host a lunch at the Martin’s 

Crosswinds in Greenbelt, MD, starting at 11:30 a.m. The guest speaker is Michael Morgan,

NOAA.

Approximately 250 people have been invited to attend. Attendees will have a diversity of 

views or interests and will include representatives from the legislative branch, state and local 

government officials, representatives from industry, employees of Federal agencies, 

academia, media and members of the public. The estimated cost of the event, including all 

food and beverages, is $40 per person. MSBR is in control of the organizing, planning and 

invitations for this event. Attendance at this event will allow NASA attendees to exchange 

information regarding various NASA programs. I find that the event meets the requirements 

of a “widely attended gathering” as defined in 5 C.F.R. § 2635.204(g)(2). 

I further determine that there is an Agency interest in having NASA personnel attend the 

event because it will provide an opportunity for the invited persons to exchange ideas and 

views pertaining to NASA’s policies, programs and operations. NASA employees, including 

NASA employees in non-career positions who are required to sign the ethics pledge under 

Executive Order 13989, who do not have a significant role in a matter affecting the interests 

of the sponsor may accept an invitation for free attendance to the event. In those 

circumstances, I find that the Agency’s interest in attendance outweighs any concern that the 

individual may be, or may appear to be, improperly influenced in the performance of their 

duties.

However, NASA employees who have a significant role in any pending matter affecting the 

interests of the MSBR, such as procurement duties, program management, or negotiating or 

administering a Space Act Agreement, should seek a separate determination from their local 

ethics counselor as to whether they may accept the invitation. Attendees are reminded to 

exercise any COVID-19 precautions appropriate to their individual situation.

Adam F. Greenstone
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.                  

###### Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission

# Time and Date:

10:30 a.m. on Tuesday, November 2, 2010.

# Place:

The Commission's National Office at One Lafayette Centre, 1120 20th Street, NW., 9th Floor, Washington, DC 20036-3457.

# Status:

This oral argument will be open to the public.

# Matters To Be Considered:

                        The Commission will be hearing oral argument in the case of                         *Secretary of Labor*                         v.                         *AKM LLC d/b/a Volks Constructors,*                         Docket No. 06-1990.                    

# Contact Person For More Information:

John X. Cerveny, Deputy Executive Secretary, (202) 606-5400.

John X. Cerveny,

Deputy Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2010-27077 Filed 10-21-10; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 7600-01-P
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

The undersigned, Denis Corin, the President, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Executive Officer of GeneMax Corp., and Patrick A. McGowan, the Secretary, Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer, Principal Accounting Officer and a director of GeneMax Corp., each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of GeneMax Corp., for the year ended December 31, 2006, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of GeneMax Corp.

Date:     April 16 2007.



| | /s/ "Denis Corin"_____________________________________Denis CorinPresident, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Executive Officer
Date:  April 16, 2007.                                      
| | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | /s/ "Patrick A. McGowan"_____________________________________Patrick A. McGowanSecretary, Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer, Principal Accounting Officer and a director
Date:  April 16, 2007.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signatures that appear in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to GeneMax Corp. and will be retained by GeneMax Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

__________
No. 14,081.

#### The State, ex rel. Roe, *v.*Weaver et al.

Supreme *Court.*— Demurrer.—Exception.—Practice.—No question is presented to the Supreme Court on a ruling sustaining a demurrer where the exception reserved is to the rendition of the judgment, and not to the ruling on the demurrer.

From the Harrison Circuit Court.

*G. W. Self, N. R. Peckinpaugh*and *C. F. Hays,*for appellant.

*W. N. Tracewell, R. J. Tracewell*and *A. W. Funkhouser,*for appellees.

Olds, J.

This was an action to compel the appellees, who are school trustees of the incorporated town of New Middleton, in Harrison county, Indiana, by mandate, to make provision for the teaching, and to require to be taught, in the common school of said town the following branches of learning, viz.: Algebra, rhetoric, physical geography and civil government.

A complaint was filed by the appellant, and an alternate writ of mandate issued.

Appellees demurred to the alternate writ, which demurrer was sustained, and the appellant failing and refusing to amend, judgment was rendered on demurrer in favor of appellees against the relator, Matthew A. Roe, for costs.

The error assigned and discussed by appellant is the ruling in sustaining the demurrer.

It is contended by counsel for appellees that no question is presented by the record, as no exception was reserved to the ruling on demurrer, and this contention is supported by the record.

The record shows the ruling of the court sustaining the demurrer, and a refusal of the plaintiff to plead further, and that he abided by the ruling, and that the court rendered *513judgment on the demurrer, and that no exception was reserved to the ruling. Then follows a formal judgment in favor of appellees against the relator, Matthew A. Roe, for their costs and charges in this cause laid out and expended, “ to which the plaintiff excepts,” and prays an appeal, etc.

Filed May 3, 1890.

The ruling upon a demurrer is one thing, and the rendering of judgment another. It clearly appears by the record that the exception is to the rendition of the judgment, and there is no exception to the ruling on the demurrer. The exception to the ruling on the demurrer should have been made and entered at the time of the ruling, before the rendition of the judgment, to reserve any question as to the ruling. As the question discussed is not presented we can not consider it. *Niven*v. *Burke,*82 Ind. 455; *Fox*v. *Town of Monticello,*83 Ind. 483; *Burkam*v. *Burk,*96 Ind. 270.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF RIBOZYME PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED
JUNE 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                      59,530,028
<SECURITIES>                                 4,050,476
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,793,681
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            67,854,497
<PP&E>                                      12,575,930
<DEPRECIATION>                               9,257,954
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              84,643,110
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,675,065
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        120
<COMMON>                                       152,851
<OTHER-SE>                                  81,815,070
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                84,643,110
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,750,835
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             8,786,907
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              91,108
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (5,646,791)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (5,646,791)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (5,646,791)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.42)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.42)


</TABLE>
BILL OF SALE

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE  PRESENTS,  that  STERLING  REALTY  TRUST  ("Seller"),  in
consideration of One Hundred Twenty-Five Thousand and /oo Dollars  ($125,000.00)
and other good and valuable consideration,  the receipt and sufficiency of which
is hereby acknowledged,  does hereby grant, convey, assign, transfer and deliver
to Mestek,  Inc., a Pennsylvania  corporation  ("Buyer"),  free and clear of all
liens,  encumbrances,  restrictions  and adverse claims  whatsoever,  all of the
machinery,  equipment, fixtures, jigs, dies, tooling, patterns, tooling fixtures
identified in Schedule 1 attached hereto (the "Machinery & Equipment"), together
with  any  rights  of  Seller  to all  warranties,  if  any,  and to the  extent
assignable, received from the manufacturers and sellers of such items.

Seller does for itself,  and its successors and assigns,  covenant and agree, at
its own expense, to warrant and defend the title to and the sale and transfer of
the Machinery & Equipment unto Buyer,  its  successors and assigns,  against all
claims whatsoever.

Seller shall, at the request of Buyer and without further consideration, execute
and deliver such other  instruments of  conveyance,  assignment and transfer and
take such other  actions  as Buyer may  reasonably  require to more  effectively
convey,  assign,  transfer to and vest in Buyer,  good and marketable  title and
possession in the Machinery & Equipment.

Buyer hereby accepts the Equipment "AS IS" and "WHERE IS" and  understands  that
there are NO WARRANTEES  EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,  INCLUDING ANY IMPLIED  WARRANTY OF
MERCHANTABILITY  OR  FITNESS  FOR A  PARTICULAR  PURPOSE  granted  or given with
respect to the Machinery & Equipment.

By acceptance hereof,  Buyer agrees to utilize,  guard and equip the Machinery &
Equipment  as  required  under  the  applicable  rules  and  regulations  of the
Occupational  Safety and Health  Administration  ("OSHA") and to comply with any
and all applicable  OSHA  standards in its sale,  use,  modification,  repair or
refurbishment of the Equipment with all appropriate disclaimers for and in favor
of the Seller, and to hold Seller harmless for any claims related thereto.

IN  WITNESS  WHEREOF,  Seller  has  executed  this  Bill of Sale this 1st day of
January, 1999.

WITNESS:                                             STERLING REALTY TRUST

                                                      /S/ JOHN E. REED
---------------------------                          ---------------------------
                                                     By:      John E. Reed
                                                     Its:     Trustee
NASA 

National Aeronautics and 

Facts

Space Administration 

Dryden Flight Research Center 

P.O. Box 273

Edwards, California 93523 

Voice 661-276-3449 

FAX 661-276-3566 

pao@dfrc.nasa.gov FS-2003-01-021 DFRC 

F-104 '826' 

Project Background 

F-104, tail number 826, was flown by NASA at the Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, Calif., as an 

aeronautical experiments testbed. 

The aircraft was distinguished by a pylon called a flight test fixture (FTF) mounted on the fuselage centerline 

between the main landing gear. 

Articles to be tested were attached to or installed in the FTF, which was instrumented to record the research 

data aboard the aircraft. The instrumentation package also transmitted the same data in "real time" to engineers 

in Dryden's mission control room as test events took place. 

The FTF was an excellent device on which experiments were placed that required in-flight temperature, pressure and air flow velocity variations. 

NASA 826 has been used in a wide variety of research programs, including testing of the heat-resistant Space 

Shuttle tiles. Affiixed to the FTF, the tiles were flown through rain to study how moisture would affect them. 

The tiles were also flown on the fixture in a position similar to the environment on the orbiter to determine if 

the bonding used to secure the tiles was sufficient. 

NASA 826 was one of 11 F-104 aircraft that were flown by NASA at Dryden between 1956 and 1994. It is on 

static display at Dryden. 

1
II 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1870

To establish an alternative trigger for determining if an extended benefit 

period is in effect for a State for purposes of certain benefits under 

the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 17, 2003

Mr. SMITH (for himself and Mr. WYDEN) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL

To establish an alternative trigger for determining if an 

extended benefit period is in effect for a State for purposes of certain benefits under the Temporary Extended 

Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. ALTERNATIVE TRIGGER. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 203(c)(2) of the Tem5 porary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 

6 2002 (26 U.S.C. 3304 note) is amended—

7 (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘or’’ at 

8 the end; 
2

•S 1870 IS 

1 (2) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period 

2 and inserting ‘‘; or’’; and 

3 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

4 ‘‘(C) such a period would then be in effect 

5 for such State under such Act if—

6 ‘‘(i) the State law of such State pro7 vided for the alternative trigger described 

8 in section 203(f) of such Act, applied in 

9 accordance with clause (ii); and 

10 ‘‘(ii) such section 203(f) were applied 

11 by disregarding clause (ii) of paragraph 

12 (1)(A) thereof and any reference to such 

13 clause.’’. 

14 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—

15 (1) IN GENERAL.—The amendments made by 

16 this section shall apply in determining whether an 

17 extended benefit period is in effect for a State for 

18 purposes of determining eligibility for TEUC Second 

19 Tier benefits based on an exhaustion of TEUC First 

20 Tier benefits occurring on or after the date of enact21 ment of this Act. 

22 (2) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this sub23 section—

24 (A) the term ‘‘TEUC First Tier benefits’’ 

25 means any benefits, other than TEUC Second 
3

•S 1870 IS 

1 Tier benefits, payable to an individual under 

2 the Temporary Extended Unemployment Com3 pensation Act of 2002; and 

4 (B) the term ‘‘TEUC Second Tier bene5 fits’’ means benefits payable to an individual 

6 under the Temporary Extended Unemployment 

7 Compensation Act of 2002 based on a deter8 mination under section 203(c) thereof.

Æ
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________

No. 02-19-00041-CR

___________________________

On Appeal from the 432nd District Court

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 1550999D

Before Sudderth, C.J.; Gabriel and Womack, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Dana Womack

AMANDA JOY WALKER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On August 27, 2018, the State charged appellant Amanda Joy Walker with the 

possession of a controlled substance, methamphetamine, in the amount of four grams 

or more but less than 200 grams. On December 18, 2018, as part of a plea-bargain 

agreement, Walker pleaded guilty to the possession of a controlled substance, 

methamphetamine, in the amount of one gram or more but less than four grams—a 

lesser-included offense of the State’s original charge. The trial court placed Walker on 

deferred adjudication community supervision for three years. The trial court also filed 

a certification that this is a plea-bargain case, that Walker has no right of appeal, and 

that Walker has waived her right to appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d). Walker filed a 

timely pro se notice of appeal from the judgment.

We notified Walker that the trial court had certified that she had no right to 

appeal based on the plea-bargain agreement and that we would dismiss the appeal 

unless we received a response showing grounds to continue it. See Tex. R. App. P. 

25.2(d), 44.3. We have received no response. Additionally, Walker’s court-appointed 

attorney has filed a motion to withdraw as Walker’s counsel.

Rule 25.2 limits the right of appeal in a plea-bargain case to matters that were 

raised by written motion filed and ruled upon before trial or to cases in which the 

appellant obtained the trial court’s permission to appeal. Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2).

Here, the trial court’s certification does not show that the trial court granted Walker 

permission to appeal, and the record includes no indication that Walker intends to 
3

challenge a pretrial ruling on a written motion filed and ruled on before trial.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d), 43.2(f); Chavez v. 

State, 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). We take no action on Walker’s 

counsel’s motion to withdraw. See Rogers v. State, No. 02-18-00077-CR, 2019 WL 

983732, at *2 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Feb. 28, 2019, no pet. h.) (mem. op., not 

designated for publication) (taking no action on counsel’s motion to withdraw after 

determining that trial court had certified that appellant had no right to appeal).

/s/ Dana Womack

Dana Womack

Justice

Do Not Publish

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

Delivered: March 14, 2019
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. HALIL TERNAKU.

May 16, 1978.

Petition for certification denied. (See 156 *N. J. Super.*30)