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

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1640 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1640

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To prohibit the Secretary of Energy from finalizing, implementing, or 
   enforcing the proposed rule titled ``Energy Conservation Program: 
    Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer Conventional Cooking 
                  Products'', and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Save Our Gas Stoves Act''.

SEC. 2. STANDARDS FOR KITCHEN RANGES AND OVENS.

    Section 325(h) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 
6295(h)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(3) The Secretary may not determine that imposition of an energy 
conservation standard under this section for kitchen ranges or ovens is 
economically justified for purposes of subsection (o) unless--
            ``(A) the Secretary determines that imposition of such 
        energy conservation standard is not likely to result in the 
        unavailability in the United States of a type (or class) of 
        product based on what type of fuel the product consumes; and
            ``(B) the Secretary discloses all stakeholder meetings with 
        entities that--
                    ``(i) have ties to the People's Republic of China 
                or the Chinese Communist Party;
                    ``(ii) have produced studies regarding, or 
                advocated for, regulations or policy to limit, 
                restrict, or ban the use of any type of energy; and
                    ``(iii) have applied for or received Federal 
                funds.''.

SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON RULEMAKING.

    The Secretary of Energy may not finalize, implement, or enforce the 
proposed rule titled ``Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation 
Standards for Consumer Conventional Cooking Products'' (88 Fed. Reg. 
6818 (February 1, 2023)) or any substantially similar rule.

            Passed the House of Representatives June 14, 2023.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
118th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 1640

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To prohibit the Secretary of Energy from finalizing, implementing, or 
   enforcing the proposed rule titled ``Energy Conservation Program: 
    Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer Conventional Cooking 
                  Products'', and for other purposes.
```
#### City of Paducah *v.*Nathan Kahn.

Taxes, Lien of — Pleading.

The levy by city tax collector creates a lien on all the property levied upon for the whole amount of taxes due from the delinquent.

Levy.

While purchasers of real estate from persons owing taxes pursuant to the charter, § 12, art. 5, are liable only for the taxes upon the property purchased, those who purchase after levy made are liable for all the taxes due from the delinquent owner at the time of levy.

Pleading.

It is not necessary to plead an amendment to the charter, for the court is bound to take notice of it without any pleading.

APPEAL PROM McCRACKEN CIRCUIT COURT.

September 8, 1874.

Opinion by

Judge Cofer :

The levy made by the city tax collector on the lots, created a lien for the whole amount of taxes due from Mrs. Brown. The first proviso in sec. 12, art. 5, of the charter, that purchasers of property from persons owing taxes shall be liable only for the. taxes upon the property purchased, does not apply to this case, but only to the lien which existed by reason of the assessment of the taxes. If no levy had been made, the appellee would not have been liable for more than the taxes upon the lots; but under the levy a lien existed for the whole amount due from the then owner. The sale, though void, did not discharge the levy.

We perceive no error in refusing to allow appellant to file an amended petition setting up the amendment to the charter. The court was bound to take notice of it,, if applicable to the case, and there was no necessity for pleading it. The presumption is that Mrs. Brown had no personal property in the city, or it would have been levied on as it was the duty of the collector to do; and this presumption is strengthened by the failure to prove the fact upon an issue directly and distinctly made on that point. But the court erred in *36refusing to render. judgment against the property for the whole amount of taxes due; and for that error alone the judgment is *reversed,*and the cause remanded for judgment as herein indicated.

*Yeiser, for appellant.*

*Marshall & Bloomfield, for appellee.*
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           (5,639,213)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (62,744)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (5,701,957)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (5,701,957)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (5,701,957)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### S. E. Hardwick *v.*Daniel Crow, et al.

Married Women — Contracts.

The assignment of notes made hy a married woman cannot convey title to the notes.

Contracts.

When the disabilities of a married woman are removed, she cannot he compelled to execute a contract entered into during the existence of her coverture.

*395APPEAL PROM POWELL CIRCUIT COURT

March 23, 1875.

*Turner & Holt, for appellant.*

*J. B. Huston, for .appellees. .*

Opinion by

Judge Peters :

At the time the two notes *on*Crow were assigned by appellant to appellee, Clark,” she was laboring under the disability of coverture, as she was when the house and lot were sold by Clark to her, and when she contracted to sell her laud to Crow; and for the same reason that the contract for the sale of her land to Crow was set aside, the assignment made by her of the notes she held on Crow to Clark should have been set aside. When her disabilities were removed, she could not be compelled to execute a contract entered into during the existence of her coverture. The court, therefore, erred in rendering judgment against her for the amount of the two notes on Crow assigned by her to Clark.

As to so much of the judgment as allowed Crow credit for the $100 paid by him to Clark on his account for rents, it is approved. The evidence conduces to show that she put Crow! in possession of the land, and the payment to Clark was by her direction; and it should be regarded as a payment to her. While a court of equity will relieve her of her contract with Crow because of her coverture, the court will not aid her to impose a wrong on him. He seems to have acted in good faith, and should be credited with the money paid for her benefit.

The judgment in favor of Clark for the amount of the two notes assigned to him on Crow, and the costs of the suits therein named against appellant, is reversed, and the cause is remanded with directions to dismiss Clark’s petition against appellant.
##### 



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 Bay View Capital Corporation
(the Company) on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 (the
Report), I, Charles G. Cooper, President and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of
my knowledge:  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company for the periods presented therein. Date: May 10, 2005 /s/ Charles G. CooperCharles G. Cooper
President and Chief
Executive Officer A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Bay View Capital Corporation and will be retained by Bay View
Capital Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request. 36
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1728 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1728

         To establish the Agent Orange Veterans Service Medal.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 22, 2023

 Mr. Van Drew (for himself and Mr. Courtney) introduced the following 
      bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
         To establish the Agent Orange Veterans Service Medal.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Agent Orange Service Medal Act''.

SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE AGENT ORANGE VETERANS SERVICE MEDAL.

    (a) Service Medal Required.--The Secretary of Defense shall design 
and produce a commemorative military service medal, to be known as the 
``Agent Orange Veterans Service Medal'', to honor veterans who receive 
compensation under section 1116 or 1116A of title 38, United States 
Code.
    (b) Distribution of Medal.--
            (1) Issuance to certain veterans.--At the request of a 
        veteran described in subsection (a), the Secretary of Defense 
        shall issue the Agent Orange Veterans Service Medal to the 
        veteran.
            (2) Issuance to next-of-kin.--In the case of a veteran 
        described in subsection (a) who is deceased, the Secretary may 
        provide for issuance of the Agent Orange Veterans Service Medal 
        to the next-of-kin of the veteran.
            (3) Application.--The Secretary shall prepare and 
        disseminate as appropriate an application by which veterans 
        described in subsection (a) and their next-of-kin may apply to 
        receive the Agent Orange Veterans Service Medal.
                                 <all>
```
#### T. D. Cosby, et al., *v.*Luther T. Fenlock, et al.

Infants — Sale of Real Estate — Descent.

The interests of infants in real estate cannot be sold except by following the steps pointed out in the statute.

Descents.

Where land is derived by descent from the mother, the real estate of an infant, by the law of descent, passes to the next of kin on the mother’s side.

APPEAL FROM HART CIRCUIT COURT.

October 9, 1874.

Opinion by

Judge Pryor:

The interest of the infants in the land could not be sold except in the manner pointed out by the statute. A bond should have been executed, commissioners appointed, and report made as prescribed by the statute, under a petition filed by the statutory guardian.

Unless it is- alleged and proven that the interest of each party in the land does not exceed in value $100, this formula is dispensed with and the land may be sold on the petition of any party interested, by making all others parties to the proceeding.

The grandfather of the deceased infant was also entitled to his share in the land. The land was derived by descent from the mother, and in such cases by the law of descent the real estate of the infant passes to the next of kin on the mother’s side.

*136
      *H. C. Martin, for appellants.*

*George Danan, for appellees.*

The husband and father of the infant was, however, entitled to curtesy. The unity of possession existed as between all the children of Cosby, and the possession in fact by one, or a tenant under him, was the possession of all.

No title to the interest of the infant defendant passed by the sale under the judgment. The judgment is *reversed*and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7554

JAMIE PAUL DESPER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

SUPERINTENDENT JACK LEE; MAJOR LORI NICHOLSON; LT. FRED 

BYRD; MR. JOHN LILLY; MAJOR LARRY DULL,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Chief 

District Judge. (7:10-cv-00473-GEC-RSB)

Submitted: February 16, 2012 Decided: February 23, 2012

Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jamie Paul Desper, Appellant Pro Se. Rosalie Fessier, 

TIMBERLAKE, SMITH, THOMAS & MOSES, PC, Staunton, Virginia, for 

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Jamie Paul Desper appeals the district court’s order 

entering summary judgment on several of the claims raised in his

42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint and dismissing the remainder 

of them under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2006). We have reviewed the 

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for 

the reasons stated by the district court. Desper v. Lee, No. 

7:10-cv-00473-GEC-RSB (W.D. Va. Oct. 20, 2011). 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.

AFFIRMED
1 

Slap Fingerprint Segmentation 

Proprietary Fingerprint Template 

Craig Watson 

IBPC 2010 
Slap Fingerprint Segmentation 

fingerprint.nist.gov/slapsegII 

SlapSeg04 

Ability to segment 

“matchable” fingerprints 

SlapSegII 

Ability to segment 

fingerprints based on 

hand-marked 

segmentation boxes 
Segmentation and Matching 

fingerprint.nist.gov/slapsegII 

• Are best segmentation algorithms in SlapsegII

close to hand marked ground truth?

• Can a good matcher compensate for bad

segmentation?

• Can multiple fingers can compensate for bad

segmentation?

?
Proprietary Fingerprint Templates 

fingerprint.nist.gov/PFT 

• PFT – 1-to-1 matching technology evaluation 

• slap-slap 

• 60K mates 

• PFTII 

• 120K mates, 

• slap-slap, slap-roll, roll-roll 

• Template sizes 

• Template extraction times 

• Matching times 

?

?
5 

Slap Fingerprint Segmentation 

Proprietary Fingerprint Template 

craig.watson@nist.gov

http://biometrics.nist.gov/evaluations
#### L. D. Thompson, et al., *v.*H. L. W. Bratton, et al.

Married Women — Disability.

The disabilities placed upon married women are for their protection and they cannot be divested of their title to real estate unless the requirements of the statutes authorizing them to alienate their lands are substantially complied with.

APPEAL FROM GRAVES CIRCUIT COURT.

February 18, 1876.

*L. Anderson, for appellants. R. K. Williams, for appellees.*

Opinion by

Judge Peters :

The disabilities placed upon married women by the law are mainly for their protection and well being, and they cannot be divested of their title to real estate unless the requirements of the statutes whereby they are authorized to alienate their lands are at least substantially complied with.

The deed under which appellants claim1 the land was acknowledged by Mrs. Jones, who was at the time a married woman, before W. W. Carr, who certifies the acknowledgment under his hand as acting and sole presiding judge of the county court of Macon county aforesaid, the 8th day of July, A. D. 1857. He fails to certify it under his hand and seal of office as required by Sec. 22, Subsec. 2, Chap. 24, 1 Rev. Stat. 282-3.

This section just named provides that a deed of a married woman, to be effectual, shall be acknowledged before some of the officers named in the preceding section and recorded in the proper office; and subsection 2 thereof gives the form of the certificate of acknowledgement, and requires the seal of office to be affixed to it, which we have already seen was omitted from the deed under which appellants claim. As appellants claiming under Bratton failed to show title in themselves, the judgment is *affirmed.*
##### 



EXHIBIT 21
  Subsidiaries
  Name

State or Country of
    OrganizationMylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.

West VirginiaMylan Technologies Inc.

West VirginiaMylan Bertek Pharmaceuticals Inc.

TexasUDL Laboratories, Inc.

IllinoisMylan Inc.

DelawareMylan Caribe, Inc.

VermontMylan International Holdings, Inc.

VermontMLRE LLC
    MP Air Inc.

Pennsylvania
    West VirginiaBertek International, Inc.

VermontAmerican Triumvirate Insurance
    Company

VermontBertek Pharmaceuticals
    International Limited

United KingdomEuro Mylan B.V.

NetherlandsMP Laboratories (Mauritius) Ltd

MauritiusMylan Singapore Pte. Ltd

SingaporeMylan India Private Limited

IndiaMylan Europe BVBA

BelgiumMatrix Laboratories Limited

IndiaMatrix Laboratories BV

NetherlandsMatrix Laboratories N.V.

BelgiumMatrix Laboratories (Singapore)
    Pte Limited

SingaporeMatrix Laboratories Inc.

DelawareDocpharma N.V.

BelgiumConcord Biotech Limited

IndiaXiamen Mchem Pharma Group Limited

Peoples Republic of ChinaShanghai Fine Source Co. Ltd.

Peoples Republic of ChinaMchem Research &
    Development Co., Ltd.

Peoples Republic of ChinaDafeng Mchem Pharmaceutical
    Chemical Co. Ltd.

Peoples Republic of ChinaXiamen Mchem Laboratories Limited

Peoples Republic of ChinaFuzhou Airuike (R&D Co.)

Peoples Republic of ChinaAB Medical PRS B.V.
    Aktuapharma N.V.

Netherlands 
    BelgiumApothecon B.V.

NetherlandsAprime N.V.

BelgiumDAA Pharma N.V.

SwitzerlandDCI Pharma S.A. 
    Docpharma Luxembourg Saarl

France
    LuxembourgFarma 1 S.r.l

ItalyHospithera N.V.

BelgiumNutripharm S.A.

BelgiumServipharma S.A.

LuxembourgVascucare N.V.

BelgiumVascumed N.V.

BelgiumValue Pharma International

Belgium
Exhibit 10.27





SEERGATE, LTD


BALANCE SHEET SCHEDULE IN ISRAELI
SHEKELS AND US DOLLARS


AS OF MARCH 31, 2015


 


	 	 	Sum
    (ILS)	 	 	Sum
    (USD)	 
	 	 	Unaudited	 	 	Unaudited	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Current Assets	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Cash	 	$	417,275	 	 	$	100,755	 
	Prepaid accounts payable	 	 	36,896	 	 	 	9,837	 
	Prepaid expense	 	 	2,450	 	 	 	654	 
	Total Current Assets	 	 	456,621	 	 	 	111,246	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Fixed Assets - Net	 	 	92,320	 	 	 	25,218	 
	Total Fixed Assets - Net	 	 	92,320	 	 	 	25,218	 
	Total Assets	 	$	548,941	 	 	$	136,464	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Current Liabilities	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	VAT - Net (Debit and Credit)	 	$	(1,008	)	 	$	(685	)
	Accounts payable and accrued expenses	 	 	19,842	 	 	 	5,731	 
	Credit and debit funds	 	 	19,447	 	 	 	5,097	 
	Credit cards	 	 	11,674	 	 	 	600	 
	Employees	 	 	29,827	 	 	 	7,540	 
	Institutions	 	 	107,169	 	 	 	27,627	 
	Total Current Liabilities	 	 	186,951	 	 	 	45,910	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Long-Term Liabilities	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Shareholders	 	 	250,005	 	 	 	68,375	 
	Shareholders and Investors	 	 	16,326,916	 	 	 	4,292,436	 
	Long-term loans	 	 	2,243,613	 	 	 	619,029	 
	Total Long-Term Liabilities	 	 	18,820,534	 	 	 	4,979,840	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Equity Capital	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Capital stock	 	 	3,340,414	 	 	 	858,630	 
	Prior retained earnings	 	 	(21,193,164	)	 	 	(5,595,185	)
	Retained earnings	 	 	(605,794	)	 	 	(152,731	)
	Total Equity Capital	 	 	(18,458,544	)	 	 	(4,889,286	)
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Total Liabilities & Shareholders' Equity	 	$	548,941	 	 	$	136,464
Order filed, June 5, 2018

.

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

____________ NO. 01

- 18

- 00408

- CV

METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY OF HARRIS COUNTY , Appellant

V.

ADAN GARZA , App ellee

On Appeal from the 80th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case 2017

- 23090



### ORDER The reporter’s record in this case was due 05/31/2018

. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.1. The court has not received a request to extend time for filing th e record. The record has not been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record has not been filed timely, we issue the following order.

We order, the official (or substitute) court reporter, to file the record in this appeal
, if any, within 10 da ys of the date of this order

.

PER CURIAM
Exhibit 10.1

 

SELECT INCOME REIT

 

Summary of Trustee Compensation

 

The following is a summary of the currently effective compensation of the Trustees of Select Income REIT, or the Company, for services as Trustees, which is subject to modification at any time by the Board of Trustees.

 

·                  Each Independent Trustee receives an annual fee of $40,000, plus a fee of $1,000 for each meeting attended. Up to two $1,000 fees are payable if more than one board and board committee meetings are held on the same date.

 

·                  The chairpersons of the audit committee, the compensation committee and the nominating and governance committee, each of whom is an Independent Trustee, receive an additional annual fee of $12,500, $7,500 and $7,500, respectively.

 

·                  Each Trustee receives a grant of 2,500 of the Company’s common shares of beneficial interest on the date of the first board meeting following each annual meeting of shareholders (or, for Trustees who are first elected or appointed at other times, on the day of the first board meeting attended).

 

·                  The Company generally reimburses all Trustees for travel expenses incurred in connection with their duties as Trustees and for out of pocket costs incurred from their attending certain continuing education programs.