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

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4906

To clarify the rights of Indians and Indian tribes on Indian lands under 

the National Labor Relations Act. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 22, 2004

Mr. HAYWORTH (for himself, Mr. BOEHNER, and Mr. ISSA) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and the 

Workforce 

A BILL

To clarify the rights of Indians and Indian tribes on Indian 

lands under the National Labor Relations Act.

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 ‘‘Tribal Labor Relations 

5 Restoration Act of 2004’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF EMPLOYER. 

7 Section 2 of the National Labor Relations Act (29 

8 U.S.C. 152) is amended—

9 (1) in paragraph (2), by inserting ‘‘or any busi10 ness owned and operated by an Indian tribe and lo-
2

•HR 4906 IH 

1 cated on Indian lands,’’ after ‘‘subdivision thereof’’; 

2 and 

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

4 ‘‘(15) The term ‘Indian tribe’ means any Indian 

5 tribe, band, nation, pueblo, or other organized group 

6 or community which is recognized as eligible for the 

7 special programs and services provided by the 

8 United States to Indians because of their status as 

9 Indians. 

10 ‘‘(16) The term ‘Indian’ means any individual 

11 who is a member of an Indian tribe. 

12 ‘‘(17) The term ‘Indian lands’ means—

13 ‘‘(A) all lands within the limits of any In14 dian reservation; 

15 ‘‘(B) any lands title to which is either held 

16 in trust by the United States for the benefit of 

17 any Indian tribe or individual or held by any 

18 Indian tribe or individual subject to restriction 

19 by the United States against alienation; and 

20 ‘‘(C) any lands in the State of Oklahoma 

21 that are within the boundaries of a former res22 ervation (as defined by the Secretary of the In23 terior) of a federally recognized Indian tribe.’’.

Æ
EXHIBIT 10.7
 Molex Incorporated  Summary of Non-Employee Director Compensation Arrangements
 Cash Compensation:Annual Retainer
    
    $
    60,000Board Meeting Attendance Fee
    
    $
    3,000Committee Meeting Attendance Fee
    
    $
    2,000Audit
Committee Chairperson Meeting Attendance Fee
    
    $
    4,000Other Committee Chairperson Meeting Attendance Fee
    
    $
    3,000Equity Compensation:Stock Options granted on the date of the
Annual Stockholders Meeting

    500 shares multiplied by the number of
 years of service or fraction thereof
 o
    
    All retainer and meeting fees are payable quarterly in arrears on the last Thursday of
January, April, July and October.o
    
    All or a portion of the annual retainer and meeting fees can be deferred under the
Directors Deferred Compensation Plan. Deferrals can be invested in an interest-bearing
account payable in cash, or in a stock unit account payable in shares of Molex Common
Stock. A deferral election form must be submitted within 30 days of election to the Board.
Consent of Independent Auditors

The Board of Trustees
MGI Properties:


We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos.
33-21584, 2-97270, 33-65844, 33-53433 and 33-63901) on Form S-8 of MGI
Properties and subsidiaries of our report dated February 16, 2000, relating to
the consolidated balance sheets of MGI Properties and subsidiaries as of
November 30, 1999 and 1998, and the related consolidated statements of earnings,
changes in shareholders' equity and cash flows for each of the years in the
three-year period ended November 30, 1999, and related schedule, which report
appears in the November 30, 1999 annual report on Form 10-K of MGI Properties
and subsidiaries.

                                                                        KPMG LLP

Boston, Massachusetts
February 16, 2000
Kelly J. Moe has petitioned the Court to waive the three-year test requirernent for

the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination (MPRE) for purposes of Moe's

application for admission upon UBE score transfer to the State Bar of Montana. By rule,

applicants for admission by score transfer must provide evidence of the requisite score on

an MPRE taken "within three years preceding the date of the application for admission."

Rule IV.A.3, Rules of Admission.

Moe passed the MPRE in 2018 when seeking admission to the practice of law in

North Dakota, where Moe was adrnitted. The petition states Moe has practiced law as a

family law attorney "without any ethical or disciplinary action." Good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition of Kelly J. Moe to waive the three-year

test requirement for the MPRE for purposes of Moe's current application for admission by

UBE score transfer to the State Bar of Montana is GRANTED.

The Clerk shall mail a copy of this order to Petitioner and to the Administrator of

the Board of Bar Examiners at the State Bar of Montana.

DATED this- 1-- day of July, 2021.

Chief Justice
41-i in .44,

Justices

2
M CORP

                               EXHIBIT #22

                              SUBSIDIARIES


                                                                   Percentage
                                                                     Voting
                                                                   Securities
                                       State of                     Owned By
Name Of Company                      Organization                  Registrant

Century Title Insurance Company
  (Inactive)                           Montana                          100

Diversified Realty, Inc.               Montana                           94

TSI, Inc.                              Montana                           92

UAC, Inc.                              Delaware                          (1)

TSI Business Systems, Inc.             Montana                           (2)

TSI Leasing, Inc.                      Montana                           (2)

First Mortgage Investors, Inc.
  (Inactive)                           North Dakota                      (3)

First Montana Title Company of
  Great Falls                          Montana                           (4)

First Montana Title Insurance
  Company                              Montana                           (2)

First Montana Title Company of
  Billings                             Montana                           (5)

First Montana Title Company of
  Forsyth                              Montana                           (5)

Merritt Properties, Inc.               Montana                           (5)

Miramar, Inc.                          Montana                           (2)

Consulting Associates, Inc.            Montana                           (4)


     (1) Owned 87.2% by TSI, Inc.
     (2) Owned  100% by TSI, Inc.
     (3) Owned   70% by UAC, Inc.
     (4) Owned  100% by UAC, Inc.
     (5) Owned  100% by First Montana Title Insurance Company



TSI, Inc. and Diversified Realty, Inc., are each registered under the
Exchange Act and each files its own Form 10-KSB pursuant to that act.


<PAGE>
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4536 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4536

   To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Pigment Yellow 175.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 9, 2004

 Mr. Langevin introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Pigment Yellow 175.

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

SECTION 1. PIGMENT YELLOW 175.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.32.19 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States is amended by striking ``12/31/2002'' and 
inserting ``12/31/2006''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after January 1, 2003.
                                 <all>
```
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 quarterly report of Radient Pharmaceuticals Corporation (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), I, Akio Ariura, Principal Financial Officer and Secretary of the
Company, certify, pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) and Section 1350 of
Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, 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 Company.





Date:
      November 22, 2010
              /s/ Akio AriuraAkio
      AriuraChief
      Financial Officer and Secretary
                (Principal
      Financial Officer)
                Radient
      Pharmaceuticals Corporation





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.





This
certification accompanies this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the
extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
“Exchange Act”). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by
reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the
Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it
by reference.
Exhibit 13.1

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), each of the undersigned officers of Mitsui & Co., Ltd. (the Company), hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that the
Companys annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended March 31, 2006 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: September 27, 2006



By

/s/    SHOEI
UTSUDAName: Title:

Shoei Utsuda President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)By

/s/    KAZUYA
IMAIName: Title:

Kazuya Imai Senior Executive Managing Officer and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

GREGORY L. DANIELS, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : Civil Action 08-0399-CG-B

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, :

Defendant. :

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of all portions of this file deemed relevant to Gregory

L. Daniels’ motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis, the Report and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3) is ADOPTED as the opinion of this court. It

is CERTIFIED that this appeal is not taken in good faith in that the petitioner has failed to show

that he has a non-frivolous issue to be presented to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

Therefore, petitioner’s motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis (Doc. 24) is DENIED.

DONE and ORDERED this the 16th day of March, 2010.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-00399-CG-B Document 27 Filed 03/16/10 Page 1 of 1
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.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

          - [Release No. 34-73710; File No. SR-OCC-2014-805]

                    On September 17, 2014, The Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 806(e)(1) of the Payment, Clearing, and Settlement Supervision Act of 2010 (“Clearing Supervision Act”) [1]                                          and Rule 19b-4(n)(1)(i),[2]                                          an advance notice concerning enhancements to the risk management framework applied to the clearance of confirmed trades executed in extended and overnight trading sessions. Notice of the advance notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on October 20, 2014.[3]                                          The Commission did not receive any comments in response to the advance notice.                

On October 28, 2014, OCC filed a withdrawal of its advance notice (SR-OCC-2014-805) from consideration by the Commission. The Commission is hereby publishing notice of the withdrawal.

By the Commission.

Kevin M. O'Neill,

Deputy Secretary.

# Footnotes

1.                             12 U.S.C. 5465(e)(1).                    
        Back to Citation      

2.                             17 CFR 240.19b-4(n)(1)(i).                    
        Back to Citation      

3.                                                     *See*                         Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73343 (October 14, 2014), 79 FR 62684 (October 20, 2014) (SR-OCC-2014-805).                    
        Back to Citation      

[FR Doc. 2014-28544 Filed 12-4-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
##### 



Exhibit 99.2

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 AMDL, Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Arthur S. Rosten,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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 Company.

| |  |     |  |                                     
| |  | --- |  | ------------------------------------
| |  | /s/ |  | Arthur S. Rosten                    
| |  |     |  |                                     
| |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer
May 13, 2003
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HAROLD B. SHAMBURGER,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

R. KIRKLAND; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 09-15854

D.C. No. 3:07-CV-04597-JSW

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Jeffrey S. White, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 16, 2010** 

Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Harold B. Shamburger appeals pro se from the

district court’s judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging claims for

retaliation and various constitutional violations stemming from his placement and

continuing confinement in administrative segregation because of his validation as a

FILED

NOV 23 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-15854

prison gang member. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de

novo, Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 815-16 (9th Cir. 1994) (per curiam), and we

affirm. 

The district court properly dismissed Shamburger’s retaliation claim and his

Eighth Amendment claim challenging the conditions of his confinement because

he did not exhaust his administrative remedies with regard to these claims. See

Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (2006) (Prison Litigation Reform Act requires

prisoners to exhaust administrative remedies prior to bringing suit). 

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Shamburger’s due

process claim challenging his initial placement in administrative segregation as

time-barred. See Maldonado v. Harris, 370 F.3d 945, 954 (9th Cir. 2004)

(California personal injury statute of limitations applies to section 1983 actions);

Elliott v. City of Union City, 25 F.3d 800, 802 (9th Cir. 1994) (under California

law, statute of limitations tolled for two years for prisoners). 

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Shamburger’s

claim that his revalidation as an active member of the Black Guerrilla Family

prison gang in 2006 violated his due process rights, because the revalidation was

based on “some evidence.” See Bruce v. Ylst, 351 F.3d 1283, 1287-88 (9th Cir.

2003) (prison gang validation proceeding subject to “some evidence” standard).
3 09-15854

Shamburger’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive. 

We construe Shamburger’s motion for judicial notice as citations to

supplemental authorities. See Fed. R. App. P. 28(j). 

AFFIRMED.
#### Thos. Bradley *v.*F. Mount Mullins, Sr.

Principa! and Surety — Diligence of Creditor.

Section 12, 2 R. ©. 400, was enacted for the protection of sureties, and requires such diligence on the part of the creditor in the collection of his debt as could enable a surety to avail himself of every indemnity or security that might he ascertained by diligence on the part of the creditor in the prosecution of his claim.

APPEAL, PROM PAYETTE CIRCUIT COURT.

February 17, 1874.

OpinioN by

Judge Pryor:

There is no doubt but what the appellee is released from all liability on the judgment, by reason of the failure on the part of the appellant to have his execution issued thereon and prosecuted in good faith. When seven years have elapsed without the issuing of an execution, the surety in the judgment is discharged; and this must be the result, although an execution, as in this case, may have once issued on the judgment. There is no substantial difference in the act of 1838 and that regulating the rights of the parties to this *515proceeding, except that the section of the Revised Statutes applicable to that case requires not only that the execution must be issued within the seven years, to hold the surety liable, but it must be prosecuted in good faith for the collection of the money.. Sec. 12, 2 Rev. Stat. 400. This statute was enacted for the protection of sureties, and to require such diligence on the part of the creditor in the collection of his debt as could enable the surety to avail himself of every indemnity or security that might be ascertained by the diligence of the creditor in the prosecution of his claim. As said by this court in the case of *Daviess v. Womack, Bryan, et al.,*8 B. Mon. 383, the enactment is to guard the surety from injury frequently resulting to him from the delay of the creditor in the collection of his debt.

*Johnson & Brown, for appellant.*

*Carr, Kmkead & Darnell, for appellee.*

The evidence, it is true, shows the insolvency of the obligors until about the period of the issual of the last execution; still the statute makes no exception, in any of its provisions, by which the creditor is relieved from the effect of his laches. The limitation is seven years, but the insolvency of the debtors will not prevent the running of the statute, unless such a saving is to be found in the enactment itself. .This statute is one of repose for the relief of the surety, and in its construction the object should be to arrive at the legislative intent. This is made manifest by the express language of the act, and its construction (if there is even reason for doubt) we regard as settled by the former adjudications of this court. Appel-lee was surety only, and his rights are not to be determined, as is maintained by the appellant, upon the principle “that he who accepts indemnity can not plead indemnity,” as there is nothing in the record that will admit of its application.

*Bray v. Howard et al., 7*B. Mon. 467; *Kellar v. Sinton’s Ex’r,*14 B. Mon. 248; *Millikin v. Dunning,*6 Bush 646. The judgment of the court below is affirmed.