alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Heather Deiss","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/heather-s-deissnasa-gov\/","title":"Johnson Space Center Image Gallery","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"5mz77uMVxi\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/gallery\/johnson-space-center\/\">Johnson Space Center Image Gallery<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/gallery\/johnson-space-center\/embed\/#?secret=5mz77uMVxi\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Johnson Space Center Image Gallery” — NASA\" data-secret=\"5mz77uMVxi\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/nhq202406050019.jpg?w=400","thumbnail_width":400,"thumbnail_height":640}
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Angela Alexander,

Plaintiff,

v.

Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. and C. R. 

Bard, Inc., et al.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

MDL Case No. 2:15-md-02641-DGC

Civil Action No. CV-18-00322-PHX-DGC

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL

To: The clerk of court and all parties of record

I am admitted or otherwise authorized to practice in this court, and I appear in this case as counsel for:

Defendants C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc.

Date: February 1, 2018 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr.

Attorney's signature

Richard B. North, Jr. (Ga. Bar No. 545599)

Printed name and bar number

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP

201 17th St., NW, Suite 1700, Atlantic Station, Atlanta, GA 30363

Address

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com

E-mail Address

(404) 322-6000

Telephone number

(404 322-6050

FAX number

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9970 Filed 02/06/18 Page 1 of 1
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-16-0000824 02-OCT-2019 07:58 AM
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JOSEPH LEWIS TAYLOR.

July 11, 1989.

Petition for certification denied.
Exhibit 32.1

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 Quarterly Report of Remy International, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John H.
Weber, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial position and results of operations of the Company.
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ John H. Weber                    
|John H. Weber                        
|President and Chief Executive Officer

November 13, 2006

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



EXHIBIT 31.2
CERTIFICATION OF DISCLOSURE I, Denis J. Salamone, certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Hudson City Bancorp,
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 annual 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 and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-l5(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.
    
    (paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and 34-47986);c.
    
    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; andd.
    
    Disclosed in this annual 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 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 registrants
ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; andb)
    
    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. Date: March 10, 2004
    
    By:
    
    /s/ Denis J. SalamoneDenis J. SalamoneSenior Executive Vice Presidentand Chief Operating Officer
#### Joseph R. Beckett, appellant, v. Ferdinand Andorfer et al., respondents.

[ Submitted July 7th, 1913.

Decided October 16th, 1913.]

On appeal from a decree of tbe court of chancery advised by Vice-Chancellor Learning, whose opinion is reported *ante p. 125.*

*Mr. Austm II.*Swachhamer, for the appellant.

*Messrs. French & 'Richards,*for the respondents.

Per Curiam.

The decree appealed from will be affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion filed in the court below by Vice-Chancellor Learning.

*For*affirmance—The'Chief-Justice, Garrison, Swayze, Trenci-iard, Parker, Bergen, Voorj-iees, Kalisch, VredenBURGH, CONGDON, TeBHUNE, HEPPENI-IEIMER—12.

*For*reversal—None.
#### Charles Lee SMOOT, Petitioner—Appellant, v. S.K. YOUNG, Warden of Wallen Ridge, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 04-7636.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 10, 2005.

Decided: March 14, 2005.

Charles Lee Smoot, Appellant pro se.

Donald Eldridge Jeffrey, III, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Charles Lee Smoot seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying as untimely his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appeal-ability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Smoot has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
Exhibit 32
                    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                         18 U.S.C. 1350,
                     AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
          SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report of AEI Net Lease Income &
Growth Fund XX Limited Partnership (the "Partnership") on Form 10-
QSB  for  the  period ended March 31, 2007,  as  filed  with  the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission on  the  date  hereof  (the
"Report"), the undersigned, Robert P. Johnson, President  of  AEI
Fund  Management XX, Inc., the Managing General  Partner  of  the
Partnership, and Patrick W. Keene, Chief Financial Officer of AEI
Fund  Management XX, Inc., each certify, pursuant  to  18  U.S.C.
1350,  as  adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

     1.   The  Report  fully  complies with the  requirements  of
          Section  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange  Act
          of 1934; and

     2.   The   information  contained  in  the   Report   fairly
          presents,  in  all  material  respects,  the  financial
          condition and results of operations of the Partnership.


                          /s/ Robert P Johnson
                              Robert P. Johnson, President
                              AEI Fund Management XX, Inc.
                              Managing General Partner
                              January 7, 2008



                          /s/ Patrick W Keene
                              Patrick W. Keene, Chief Financial Officer
                              AEI Fund Management XX, Inc.
                              Managing General Partner
                              January 7, 2008
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Janette Matthews, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc., 

Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

MDL Case No. 2:15-md-02641-DGC 

Civil Action No. CV-17-03437-PHX-DGC 

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS 

To: Freese & Goss PLLC - Birmingham, AL 

(Name of plaintiff’s attorney or unrepresented plaintiff) 

I have received your request to waive service of a summons in this action along with a copy of the complaint, two 

copies of this waiver form, and a prepaid means of returning one signed copy of the form to you. 

I, or the entity I represent, agree to save the expense of serving a summons and complaint in this case. 

I understand that I, or the entity I represent, will keep all defenses or objections to the lawsuit, the court’s 

jurisdiction, and the venue of the action, but that I waive any objections to the absence of a summons or of service. 

I also understand that I, or the entity I represent, must file and serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 within 

60 days from 10/26/2017, the date when this request was sent (or 90 days if it was sent outside the United States). If I fail 

to do so, a default judgment will be entered against me or the entity I represent. 

Date: November 6, 2017 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr. 

Signature of the attorney or unrepresented party 

C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.

Printed name of parties waiving service of 

summons 

Richard B. North, Jr. (Ga. Bar No. 545599) 

Printed Name 

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP 

201 17th St., NW, Suite 1700, Atlantic Station, Atlanta, GA 30363 

Address 

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com 

E-mail Address 

(404) 322-6155 

Telephone number 

Duty to Avoid Unnecessary Expenses of Serving a Summons

Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires certain defendants to cooperate in saving unnecessary expenses of serving a 

summons and complaint. A defendant who is located in the United States and who fails to return a signed waiver of service requested by a plaintiff 

located in the United States will be required to pay the expenses of service, unless the defendant shows good cause for the failure. 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8704 Filed 11/08/17 Page 1 of 2
2

“Good cause” does not include a belief that the lawsuit is groundless, or that it has been brought in an improper venue, or that the court has 

no jurisdiction over this matter or over the defendant or the defendant’s property. 

If the waiver is signed and returned, you can still make these and all other defenses and objections, but you cannot object to the absence of 

a summons or of service. 

If you waive service, then you must, within the time specified on the waiver form, serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 on the 

plaintiff and file a copy with the court. By signing and returning the waiver form, you are allowed more time to respond than if a summons had been 

served.

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8704 Filed 11/08/17 Page 2 of 2
NO. 07-03-0153-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL D

OCTOBER 6, 2003

______________________________

CAROL CHAVARRIA, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, DEFENDANT CREDITOR AND PAUL DRAGER,

CONSTABLE, PRECINCT 1, HALE COUNTY, TEXAS DEFENDANT, APPELLEES

_________________________________

FROM THE 64TH DISTRICT COURT OF HALE COUNTY;

NO. A29526-9712; HONORABLE JACK R. MILLER, JUDGE

_______________________________

Before QUINN and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pending before this Court is Carol Chavarria’s motion for voluntary dismissal by

which she represents the parties have reached an agreement to settle and compromise

their differences. Without passing on the merits of the case, the motion is granted and the
2

appeal is hereby dismissed. Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1). Having dismissed the appeal at

Chavarria’s request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained and our mandate will issue

forthwith.

Don H. Reavis

 Justice
#### Anita G. ANDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. YOUNG MEN’S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF SOUTH HAMPTON ROADS, INCORPORATED, Defendant—Appellee.

No. 04-1864.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 9, 2005.

Decided: March 15, 2005.

*126Thomas F. Hennessy, III, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellant.

Timothy M. Richardson, Huff, Poole & Mahoney, P.C., Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILKINS, Chief Judge, and WILLIAMS and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Anita G. Anderson appeals the grant of summary judgment in favor of the Young Men’s Christian Association of South Hampton Roads (YMCA) on her claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-5 (West 2003). Anderson alleges that the YMCA discriminated against her on account of her gender and in retaliation against her for engaging in activity protected by federal employment discrimination laws when it failed to rehire her in 2002. Having reviewed the joint appendix and the parties’ briefs, we are persuaded that the district court reached the correct result. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. *Anderson v. Young Men’s Christian Ass’n of South Hampton Roads, Inc.,*No. 2:03-cv-442 (E.D. Va. June 10, 2004).

*AFFIRMED*
Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW   Document 1-1   Filed 09/02/15   Page 1 of 1
Case 2:15-mj-01628-JFM Document 3 Filed 08/26/15 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01628-JFM Document 3 Filed 08/26/15 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01628-JFM Document 3 Filed 08/26/15 Page 3 of 3
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Lillian Gipson","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/lillian-gipson-1nasa-gov\/","title":"NASA Concludes Significant Technical Challenge: In-Time Terminal Area Risk Management","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"DtNWZG7tMl\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/directorates\/armd\/aosp\/sws\/nasa-concludes-significant-technical-challenge-in-time-terminal-area-risk-management\/\">NASA Concludes Significant Technical Challenge: In-Time Terminal Area Risk Management<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/directorates\/armd\/aosp\/sws\/nasa-concludes-significant-technical-challenge-in-time-terminal-area-risk-management\/embed\/#?secret=DtNWZG7tMl\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA Concludes Significant Technical Challenge: In-Time Terminal Area Risk Management” — NASA\" data-secret=\"DtNWZG7tMl\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/sws-tech-image.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":310}
Exhibit 32.2



RF MONOLITHICS, INC.



CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF SARBANES  OXLEY ACT OF 2002



The undersigned, Harley E Barnes III, Chief Financial Officer of RF Monolithics, Inc. (the Company), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that:



| | 1. | The Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended August 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 operation 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 20th day of November, 2003.



|       | 
|------ | 
|       | 
|       | 
|Name:  | 
|Title: | 



*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.
IB 

Union Calendar No. 172

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 254

[Report No. 108–296] 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 5, 2003

Referred to the Committee on Resources 

OCTOBER 2, 2003

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 

and ordered to be printed 

AN ACT

To revise the boundary of the Kaloko-Honoko ̄hau National 

Historical Park in the State of Hawaii, 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 ‘‘Kaloko-Honoko ̄hau 

5 National Historical Park Addition Act of 2003’’. 
2

•S 254 RH 

1 SEC. 2. ADDITIONS TO KALOKO–HONOKO ̄ HAU NATIONAL 

2 HISTORICAL PARK. 

3 Section 505(a) of Public Law 95–625 (16 U.S.C. 

4 396d(a)) is amended—

5 (1) by striking ‘‘(a) In order’’ and inserting 

6 ‘‘(a)(1) In order’’; 

7 (2) by striking ‘‘1978,’’ and all that follows and 

8 inserting ‘‘1978.’’; and 

9 (3) by adding at the end the following new 

10 paragraphs: 

11 ‘‘(2) The boundaries of the park are modified 

12 to include lands and interests therein comprised of 

13 Parcels 1 and 2 totaling 2.14 acres, identified as 

14 ‘Tract A’ on the map entitled ‘Kaloko-Honoko ̄hau 

15 National Historical Park Proposed Boundary Ad16 justment’, numbered PWR (PISO) 466/82,043 and 

17 dated April 2002. 

18 ‘‘(3) The maps referred to in this subsection 

19 shall be on file and available for public inspection in 

20 the appropriate offices of the National Park Serv21 ice.’’. 

22 SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATIONS OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

23 There are authorized to be appropriated such sums 

24 as may be necessary to carry out this Act. 

Union Calendar No. 172

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 254

[Report No. 108–296] 

AN ACT

To revise the boundary of the Kaloko-Honoko ̄hau 

National Historical Park in the State of Hawaii, and for other purposes. 

OCTOBER 2, 2003

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 

State of the Union and ordered to be printed
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JOSE ANGEL PEREZ.

September 19, 1989.

Petition for certification denied.