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

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1640 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 15, 2023 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources 

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. 

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


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

HR 1640 RFS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Save Our Gas Stoves 

3 Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. STANDARDS FOR KITCHEN RANGES AND OVENS. 

5 Section 325(h) of the Energy Policy and Conserva6 tion Act (42 U.S.C. 6295(h)) is amended by adding at 

7 the end the following: 

8 ‘‘(3) The Secretary may not determine that imposi9 tion of an energy conservation standard under this section 

10 for kitchen ranges or ovens is economically justified for 

11 purposes of subsection (o) unless— 

12 ‘‘(A) the Secretary determines that imposition 

13 of such energy conservation standard is not likely to 

14 result in the unavailability in the United States of 

15 a type (or class) of product based on what type of 

16 fuel the product consumes; and 

17 ‘‘(B) the Secretary discloses all stakeholder 

18 meetings with entities that— 

19 ‘‘(i) have ties to the People’s Republic of 

20 China or the Chinese Communist Party; 

21 ‘‘(ii) have produced studies regarding, or 

22 advocated for, regulations or policy to limit, re23 strict, or ban the use of any type of energy; and 

24 ‘‘(iii) have applied for or received Federal 

25 funds.’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
3 

HR 1640 RFS

1 SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON RULEMAKING. 

2 The Secretary of Energy may not finalize, implement, 

3 or enforce the proposed rule titled ‘‘Energy Conservation 

4 Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer 

5 Conventional Cooking Products’’ (88 Fed. Reg. 6818 

6 (February 1, 2023)) or any substantially similar rule. 

Passed the House of Representatives June 14, 2023. 

Attest: CHERYL L. JOHNSON, 

Clerk. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
(September 12, 2013)

#### In the Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a. Committee on Professional Standards, Petitioner; Matthew M. McDowell, Respondent.

[971 NYS2d 219]—

Per Curiam.

Respondent, who was admitted to practice by this Court in 1999, was suspended by this Court’s order dated *1021September 24, 2009 for failure to comply with the attorney registration requirements of Judiciary Law § 468-a (65 AD3d 1447 [2009]).

Respondent now requests reinstatement on the ground that he has complied with the attorney registration requirements of Judiciary Law § 468-a and the Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Courts *(see*22 NYCRR part 118). Petitioner does not object to respondent’s application.

Respondent’s application is granted and he is ordered reinstated, effective immediately.

Peters, EJ., Rose, Lahtinen and Stein, JJ., concur. Ordered that respondent’s application is granted; and it is further ordered that respondent is reinstated as an attorney and counselor-at-law in the State of New York, effective immediately.
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TOTITLE 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 Enzo Biochem, Inc., and
Subsidiaries (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended April 30, 2011
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Barry Weiner, Chief Financial 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 condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: June 9, 2011

| |     |                                                                              
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | By: | /s/ Barry Weiner                                                             
| |     |                                                                              
| |     | Barry Weiner                                                                 
| |     | Chief Financial
Officer, Principal Accounting Officer, Treasurer and Director

---
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1898 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Joint Items, Joint 

Committee on Taxation for fiscal year 2024. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 29, 2023 

Mr. BIGGS (for himself, Mr. ROSENDALE, Mr. GAETZ, Mr. GOOD of Virginia, 

Mr. ROY, and Mr. CRANE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Joint 

Items, Joint Committee on Taxation for fiscal year 2024. 

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

3 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR 

4 JOINT ITEMS, JOINT COMMITTEE ON TAX5 ATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024. 

6 Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, 

7 amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise avail8 able for Joint Items, Joint Committee on Taxation for fis9 cal year 2024 may not exceed $11,169,000. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
Exhibit 23 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM The Board of DirectorsSouthern First Bancshares, Inc. and Subsidiary We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
                     Statement of Greenville First Bancshares, Inc. on Form S-8 relating
                     to the Greenville First Bancshares, Inc. 2000 Stock Incentive Plan
                     and 2006 Greenville First Bancshares, Inc. Restricted Stock Plan
                     (File no. 333-133379), of our report dated February 27, 2009, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Southern First
                     Bancshares, Inc. (formerly known as Greenville First Bancshares,
                     Inc.) and Subsidiary as of December 31, 2008, and the related consolidated statements of income, shareholders'
                     equity and comprehensive income, and cash flows for the year then
                     ended, which appears in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Southern
                     First Bancshares, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2008. /s/ Elliott Davis, LLC Greenville, South Carolina March 9, 2009
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D17-0826

_____________________________

JUSTIN TODD ALEXANDER 

EDRINGTON,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Marianne L. Aho, Judge.

May 30, 2018

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WOLF, BILBREY, and KELSEY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Megan Long, Assistant 

Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Steven E. Woods, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
**Exhibit 23**

Consent ofIndependent Registered Public Accounting Firm 

----

 

**Exhibit 23**

 

**CONSENT OFINDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

 

TheBoard of Directors

GreenvilleFirst Bancshares, Inc. and Subsidiary

 

Weconsent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement of GreenvilleFirst Bancshares, Inc. on Form S-8 relating to the Greenville First Bancshares,Inc. 2000 Stock Incentive Plan and 2006 Greenville First Bancshares, Inc.Restricted Stock Plan (File no. 333-133379), of our report dated March 13,2007, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Greenville FirstBancshares, Inc. and Subsidiary as of December 31, 2006, and the relatedconsolidated statements of income, shareholders' equity and comprehensiveincome, and cash flows for the year then ended, which appears in the AnnualReport on Form 10-K of Greenville First Bancshares, Inc. for the year endedDecember 31, 2006.

 

 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        /s/ Elliott Davis, LLC           

Greenville, South Carolina

March 21, 2007
#### Mercedes Roman-Cabrera, Respondent, v THJ Transportation Corp. et al., Appellants.

[967 NYS2d 94]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (F. Rivera, J.), dated July 20, 2012, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants failed to meet their prima facie burden of showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident *(see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys.,*98 NY2d 345 [2002]; *Gaddy v Eyler,*79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]). The papers submitted by the defendants failed to adequately address the plaintiffs claim, set forth in the bill of particulars, that the plaintiff sustained a medically determined injury or impairment of a nonpermanent nature which prevented her from performing substantially all of the material acts which constituted her usual and customary daily activities for not less than 90 days during the 180 days immediately following the subject accident *(see Cruz v Advanced Concrete Leasing Corp.,*101 AD3d 666, 667 [2012]; *Marquez v Brower,*99 AD3d 869 [2012]).

Since the defendants did not sustain their prima facie burden, it is unnecessary to determine whether the papers submitted by the plaintiff in opposition were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact *(see generally Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr.,*64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Rivera, J.P., Dickerson, Leventhal and Lott, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
            SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, as
President and Chief Executive Officer of BTU International, Inc. (the
"Company"), does hereby certify that to his knowledge:

      1)    the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
            ended April 4, 2004 (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 for the periods covered by the Report.

                                /s/ Mark R. Rosenzweig
                                ----------------------
                                Mark R. Rosenzweig
                                President and Chief Executive Officer

Dated: May 19, 2004
#### THE STATE ex rel. BRUCE v. HAWES et al., Appellants.

In Banc,

November 3, 1903.

Turnkey: teem: removal. The police act for St. Louis vested the board of police commissioners with the power to fix the terms of the officers of police, including the turnkey, and if the board has not done so, the officers hold for an indefinite term, and are liable to be removed at any time, without notice, charges or hearing.

*395Appeal from St. Louis Oity Circuit *Court.*— Hon. *8. P. Spencer,*Judge.

Eeyersed.

*C.*T-F. *Bates*and *Wm. F. Woerner*for appellants.

*A. A. Paxson*for respondent.

GANTT, J.

Mandamus for $645.66 2-3, salary as turnkey from October 17, 1895, to August 13, 1896. Judgment for relator, and defendants appealed.

Eelator was appointed probationary patrolman on October 20, 1885, promoted to regular patrolman April 13,1886, reduced to the rank of turnkey. August 1,1893, and dropped from the rolls on October 17, 1895; was reappointed turnkey August 12, 1896, was promoted to position of probationary patrolman on July 1, 1898, was promoted to the rank of regular patrolman on August 31, 1899, and is still serving as such.

Eelator’s theory is that when he was reduced from the rank of regular patrolman to the rank of turnkey on August 1, 1893, he was thereby entitled to a term of four years beginning on said August 1, 1893, and that he could only be removed for cause, upon charges and hearing.

As pointed out in State ex rel. Rife v. Hawes, reported at page 360 of this volume, in respect to the claim of Marcus Blair, the police act vested the board with the power to fix the term of the officers of police, including turnkey, and the board has never done so, and the result is that the officers hold for an indefinite term and are liable to be removed by the board at any time, without notice, charges or hearing.

The relator, therefore, has no claim, and the judgment of the circuit court is erroneous, and it is reversed and the writ quashed.

All concur.
#### Francis Kupperman, Respondent, *v.*Osher Zirinsky, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

January 8, 1925.

Judgments — Municipal Court of City of New York — court without power to alter judgment from one in favor of defendant to judgment for plaintiff.

The Municipal Court of the City of New York has power to vacate a judgment and grant a new trial, but it is unauthorized to alter a judgment from one in favor of the defendant to a judgment for the plaintiff.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the City of New York, Borough of Manhattan, Seventh District, in favor of plaintiff.

*Zvirin & Zvirin [Nathan Zvirin*of counsel], for the appellant.

*Frederick & Jerome Weiss [Frederick Weiss*of counsel], for the respondent.

Per Curiam:

From the notice of appeal it would appear that this is an appeal from a judgment, but in fact it is from an order entered on the seventeenth day of June amending a former judgment for the defendant so as to make it one for plaintiff. This order was the result of a motion made by order to show cause *“*why the judgment should not be vacated and set aside as against the law and a hew trial ordered.”

While the court had power to vacate the judgment and grant a new trial, to change the judgment from one in favor of the defend*367ant to a judgment for plaintiff was unauthorized. *(Miller, Inc.,*v. *Leahy Building Co.,*95 Misc. 616.)

Order modified by striking therefrom “ judgment therefore amended to read judgment for plaintiff for rent $220 counterclaim dismissed as premature and without prejudice,” and substituting therefor “ judgment vacated and a new trial ordered,” and order as so modified affirmed, without costs of appeal to either party.

All concur; present, Guy, O’Malley and Levy, JJ.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1790 

To direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services to evaluate the 

extent to which the substitution of interchangeable biological products 

is impacted by differences between the system for determining a biological 

product to be interchangeable and the system for assigning therapeutic 

equivalence ratings to drugs, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 24, 2023 

Mrs. MILLER-MEEKS (for herself, Ms. BARRAGA ́N, Mr. MURPHY, and Ms. 

KUSTER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services to 

evaluate the extent to which the substitution of interchangeable biological products is impacted by differences 

between the system for determining a biological product 

to be interchangeable and the system for assigning therapeutic equivalence ratings to drugs, 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, 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1790 IH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Biologics Competition 

3 Act of 2023’’. 

4 SEC. 2. STUDY ON THE SUBSTITUTION OF INTERCHANGE5 ABLE BIOLOGICAL PRODUCTS. 

6 Not later than 12 months after the date of enactment 

7 of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human Services 

8 shall— 

9 (1) complete a study to evaluate the extent to 

10 which the substitution of interchangeable biological 

11 products licensed under section 351 of the Public 

12 Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262) may be im13 pacted by differences between the system for deter14 mining a biological product to be interchangeable 

15 under section 351(k)(4) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 

16 262(k)(4)) and the system for assigning therapeutic 

17 equivalence ratings to drugs approved under section 

18 505 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 

19 (21 U.S.C. 355); 

20 (2) submit a report to the Congress on the re21 sults of the study under paragraph (1); and 

22 (3) update the list published under section 

23 351(k)(9)(A) of the Public Health Service Act (42 

24 U.S.C. 262(k)(9)(A)) (commonly referred to as the 

25 ‘‘Purple Book’’) to implement such changes as the 

26 Secretary deems necessary to harmonize the apVerDate Sep 11 2014 05:36 Apr 07, 2023 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H1790.IH H1790

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1790 IH

1 proach for communicating the substitutability of 

2 interchangeable biological products with the ap3 proach for communicating therapeutic equivalence 

4 ratings assigned to drugs, with the goals of— 

5 (A) minimizing any impediments to the 

6 substitution of interchangeable biological prod7 ucts; and 

8 (B) maintaining the distinct pathways by 

9 which biological products are licensed under 

10 section 351 of the Public Health Service Act 

11 (42 U.S.C. 262) and drugs are approved under 

12 section 505 of the Federal Food, Drug, and 

13 Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355). 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 10.8



 Exhibit 10.8 

Summary Translation of 

Loan Agreement for Working Capital 

Lender: Industrial Bank Co., Ltd Taian Branch 
 Borrower:
Shandong Taiying Technology Co., Ltd 
  

	1.	Purpose of loan agreement. 

 The purpose of the loan agreement is to allow the Borrower
to finance its working capital needs (including equipment purchases). 
  

	2.	Amount of loan. 

 RMB 10,000,000 

 

	3.	Loan term. 

 The loan term is twelve months, from July 17, 2014 to July 16,
2015. 
  

	4.	Interest rate and method of payment. 

 Interest shall be paid monthly. The interest rate
is adjustable during the term, and the annual borrowing interest rate is approximately 135% of the prevailing PRC prime rate. 
  

	5.	Repayment Date. 

 The Borrower shall repay all loan proceeds in a lump sum on the
maturity date. 
  

	6.	Prepayment. 

 The Borrower must obtain the Lender’s written consent if it desires to
prepay the loan in advance of its maturity date. There is no prepayment penalty if the Lender accepts the Borrower’s prepayment request. 
  

	6.	Guarantee. 

 The loan is guaranteed by Gary Wang and Taishan Venture Investment Co., Ltd.









	7.	Liability of breach of contract. 

 If there is a breach of the terms of the agreement,
the Lender has the right, among other actions, to: 1) accelerate the loan (including all fees, costs and interest); 2) unilaterally terminate the agreement; and 3) deduct from the Borrower’s bank accounts opened at the Lender without judicial
process, to pay principal, interest and other expenses due pursuant to the agreement. 
  

	8.	Loan recall and cross default. 

 The Lender has the right to recall the loan and
implement cross default provisions if the Borrower: 
  

	 	•	 	provides false documents or fails to disclose material facts; and 

  

	 	•	 	alters the purpose of the loan without Lender consent 

  

	9.	Non-material terms. 

 The loan agreement contains terms concerning the following
non-material matters, which have been omitted from this summary: 
  

	 	•	 	Precondition for withdrawal; 

  

	 	•	 	Account supervision and payment of loan; 

  

	 	•	 	Repayment of capital and interest; 

  

	 	•	 	Notice provisions; 

  

	 	•	 	Law application and jurisdiction; 

  

	 	•	 	Notarization; 

  

	 	•	 	Obligations and promises; and 

  

	 	•	 	Obligation to reveal major transactions. 


  
 2