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

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2165 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for U.S. Department 

of Interior, National Park Service, Operation of the National Park System 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 Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for U.S. 

Department of Interior, National Park Service, Operation of the National Park System 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 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR, NATIONAL 

5 PARK SERVICE, OPERATION OF THE NA6 TIONAL PARK SYSTEM FOR FISCAL YEAR 

7 2024. 

8 Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, 

9 amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise availVerDate Sep 11 2014 01:00 Apr 19, 2023 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H2165.IH H2165

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2165 IH

1 able for U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Serv2 ice, Operation of the National Park System for fiscal year 

3 2024 may not exceed $2,502,711,000. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 99.1

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 Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Bioaccelerate, Inc (FKA,
Westminster Medical Inc). (the "Company") for the year ended May 31, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Basil Parker, President and Director of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of operations of the Company.





                                        /s/ Basil Parker
                                        ------------------------------------
                                        Basil Parker
                                        President and Director
                                        October 14,2003
#### In the Matter of Alyanna C., a Child Alleged to be Sexually Abused and/or Neglected. Administration for Children’s Services, Appellant; Rene B. et al., Respondents.

[973 NYS2d 1081]

Order, Family Court, New York County (Susan K. Knipps, J.), entered on or about January 8, 2013, which, after a fact-finding hearing, dismissed the petition alleging sexual abuse and neglect of the subject child, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner agency failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that respondent stepfather sexually abused the child. The child’s testimony was inconsistent, vague, and lacking in specific details. It therefore did not meet the required threshold of reliability and cannot provide corroboration for her previous out-of-court statements *(see Matter of Jared XX.,*276 AD2d 980, 981-983 [3d Dept 2000]). Family Court’s assessment of witness credibility is entitled to considerable deference, and *459we see no basis for disturbing the court’s rejection of the child’s testimony that her stepfather sexually abused her *(see Matter of Irene O.,*38 NY2d 776 [1975]).

The record also fails to demonstrate that respondents neglected the child *(see e.g. Matter of Linda E.,*143 AD2d 904, 908 [2d Dept 1988]). Although respondents may not have reacted appropriately to every difficulty that arose involving the child, the preponderance of the evidence does not show that they failed to exercise the statutory minimum degree of care *(see*Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [B]; *Nicholson v Scoppetta,*3 NY3d 357, 370 [2004]). Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Mazzarelli, Andrias and DeGrasse, JJ.
#### Jerry LOCKLEAR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James D. ENGLEMAN, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 00-7690.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 10, 2001.

Decided May 23, 2001.

Jerry Locklear, pro se.

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Jerry Locklear, a North Carolina inmate, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A (West Supp.2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. *See Locklear v. Engleman,*No. CA-00-616-BO (E.D.N.C. Oct. 25, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because the *160facts and legal contentions are adequately-presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
lettercarrazana_10-3.htm


   EXHIBIT 10.3


 


 









 


 


June 15, 2015

















Dear Enrique:


 



Acorda has added an additional $35K toward your relocation assistance; this includes extending the lease for the year at the Windsor at The Gramercy (2 Canfield Avenue, White Plains, NY10601), effective September 1, 2015 through August 31, 2016. During this time the Company is responsible for your monthly rent ($2,530.00) including the unit, parking space and full use of the community amenities), as well as your Con Edison and Cable/Internet expenses (not included). You may also use your relocation allowance toward travel or any item that is involved under the relocation benefit. Should you voluntarily terminate your employment with the Company, you agree to reimburse the Company for the above expenses on a pro-rated basis. Please sign and date below in acknowledgement of the extension and terms. Do not hesitate to contact me with any questions.




















Best regards,






















Denise J. Duca


Executive Vice President - Human Resources







Signature    /s/ Enrique Carrazana                                                              Date: 6/29/2015
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                    EXHIBIT 11


                                 CLX ENERGY, INC.
                    Computation of Net Income (Loss) Per Share
                                   (Unaudited)


                                           Six Months           Three Months
                                         Ended March 31         Ended March 31
                                    ----------------------  ---------------------
                                       2004        2003        2004       2003
                                    -----------  ---------  ----------  ---------
<S>                                 <C>          <C>        <C>         <C>

Net income (loss)                   $ ( 21,431)     13,055   ( 24,576)     43,629
                                    ===========  =========  ==========  =========

Weighted average number of common
  shares outstanding                 2,631,936   2,631,936  2,631,936   2,631,936

Common equivalent shares
  representing shares issuable
  upon exercise of outstanding
  Options                                    -           -          -           -
                                    -----------  ---------  ----------  ---------

                                     2,631,936   2,631,936  2,631,936   2,631,936
                                    ===========  =========  ==========  =========

Net income (loss) per share:
    Basic                           $     (.01)        .00     ( 0.01)        .02
                                    ===========  =========  ==========  =========

    Diluted                         $     (.01)        .00     ( 0.01)        .02
                                    ===========  =========  ==========  =========

<FN>
Stock options are not considered in the diluted EPS calculation for those periods
with net losses, as the impact of the potential common shares (250,000 shares at
March 31, 2004) would be to decrease loss per share.
</TABLE>


<PAGE>
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 12
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                               HCC INDUSTRIES INC.
                COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                                 (IN THOUSANDS)

                                                     For the Nine Months Ended
                                                     --------------------------
                                                     December 26,  December 27,
                                                         1998         1997
                                                     ------------  ------------
<S>                                                  <C>           <C>
Earnings:

     Earnings before taxes and extraordinary item      $ 6,540       $ 3,205

     Add:  Fixed Charges*                                8,233         7,751
                                                       -------       -------
                                                       $14,773       $10,956
                                                       -------       -------
                                                       -------       -------
* Fixed Charges:

     Interest expense                                  $ 8,233       $ 7,751
                                                       -------       -------
                                                       $ 8,233       $ 7,751
                                                       -------       -------
                                                       -------       -------
Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges                         1.8           1.4
                                                       -------       -------
                                                       -------       -------
</TABLE>

*The ratios of earnings to fixed charges were computed by dividing earnings 
by fixed charges. For this purpose, "earnings" consist of earnings before 
taxes and extraordinary item plus fixed charges. Fixed Charges consist of 
interest expense and amortization of debt issuance costs.
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

PEGGY MORGAN BENDER, : 

ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE : 

OF DEJURNITTE BENDER, : 

Plaintiff, : 

 : 

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 09-0735-KD-M 

 : 

MAZDA MOTOR CORPORATION, et al., : 

Defendants. : 

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of all pleadings in this file, and a de novo determination

of those portions of the Recommendation to which objection is made, the Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and dated January 26, 2010 is ADOPTED

as the opinion of this Court. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (Doc.

6) be GRANTED and that this action is hereby REMANDED to the Wilcox County Circuit Court

for all further proceedings.

It is further ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to stay or certify for interlocutory appeal

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1292(b) (Doc. 17) is DENIED. A motion to remand that is granted for lack

of subject matter jurisdiction cannot be certified for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. §1447(d).

In re WTC Disaster Site , 414 F.3d 352, 367 (2nd Cir. 2005) (concluding that § 1292(b) appeals are

encompassed by the § 1447(d) prohibition); In re Bear River Drainage District, 267 F.2d 849, 851

(10th Cir. 1959) (footnote omitted) (providing that “[a]n order remanding a case to the state court

from which it was removed is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise. [ ] While the generality of §

1292(b) might seem sufficient to encompass a remand order, it does not expressly either amend or

Case 2:09-cv-00735-KD-M Document 19 Filed 02/19/10 Page 1 of 2
2

repeal § 1447(d)[]”); Ray v. American Nat. Red Cross, 921 F.2d 324, 326 (D.C. Cir. 1990); Feidt

v. Owens Corning Fiberglass Corp., 153 F.3d 124, 126-127 (3rd Cir. 1998) (holding that the Court

of Appeals lacked jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) to hear an § 1292(b) interlocutory appeal

from the order granting the motion to remand); Transit Cas. Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s

of London, 119 F.3d 619, 623 (8th Cir. 1997) (finding an order remanding a case to state court for

lack of subject matter jurisdiction is not reviewable).

DONE and ORDERED this the 18th day of February 2010.

/s/ Kristi K. DuBose 

KRISTI K. DUBOSE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:09-cv-00735-KD-M Document 19 Filed 02/19/10 Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

BARBARA K. CHANEY, *

*

 Plaintiff, * CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-00523-WS-B

 *

vs. *

*

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, *

Commissioner of Social *

Security, *

 *

Defendant. *

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of the issues 

raised, and there having been no objections filed, the 

recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(l)(B) and dated February 1, 2016, is ADOPTED as 

the opinion of this Court.

DONE this 29th day of February, 2016.

 s/WILLIAM H. STEELE

 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00523-WS-B Document 25 Filed 02/29/16 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit
32.2





CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Composite Technology Corporation (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the three months ended June 30, 2010, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Domonic J. Carney, 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, 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; and


(2)
            The information contained in the
      Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
      and result of operations of the
Company.





Date:
August 9, 2010





/s/ Domonic J. CarneyDomonic
      J. CarneyChief
      Financial Officer
                (Principal
      Financial and
Accounting  Officer)
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Larry Mynin, Appellant.

[872 NYS2d 50]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael J. Obús, J), rendered February 20, 2007, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of gang assault in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

The crime of second-degree gang assault (Fenal Law § 120.06) requires, among other things, that a defendant be “aided by *582two or more other persons actually present.” Defendant was jointly tried with three codefendants, each of whom was acquitted of all charges.

The court correctly instructed the jury that in order to convict a defendant of gang assault it was not obligated to convict any other defendants of that crime, and that a person may be “aided by two or more other persons actually present” even if those persons lack the mental culpability to be guilty as accomplices under Penal Law § 20.00 *(see People v Sanchez,*57 AD3d 1 [2008]). The court’s instructions, viewed as a whole, properly distinguished between the concepts of “aiding” and “acting in concert,” and were not confusing.

Defendant did not preserve his contention that the verdict finding him guilty of gang assault while acquitting all the codefendants was repugnant *(see People v Stahl,*53 NY2d 1048, 1050 [1981]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject it on the merits. The issue of repugnancy is evaluated solely by reference to the court’s charge *(see People v Tucker,*55 NY2d 1 [1981]), which clearly permitted the mixed verdict at issue. Furthermore, the fact pattern permitted the jury to conclude that the codefendants, who were “actually present” at the scene, “aided” defendant’s assault of the victim for purposes of satisfying the gang assault statute, even if the codefendants were not themselves guilty of participating in the assault either as principals or as accomplices. Moreover, the jury could have found that there were multiple participants, while also finding, “however illogically,” *(id.*at 8), a lack of proof of the identity of the particular codefendants as being those participants *(see People v Maldonado,*11 AD3d 114, 118 n [2004], *lv denied*3 NY3d 758 [2004]).

Defendant’s complaints as to the prosecutor’s summation are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that the challenged remarks did not deprive defendant of a fair trial *(see People v Overlee,*236 AD2d 133 [1997], *lv denied*91 NY2d 976 [1998]; *People v D'Alessandro,*184 AD2d 114, 118-119 [1992], *lv denied*81 NY2d 884 [1993]).

We have considered and rejected defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims *(see People v Benevento,*91 NY2d 708, 713-714 [1998]; *see also Strickland v Washington,*466 US 668 [1984]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Saxe, J.E, Friedman, Nardelli, Sweeny and DeGrasse, JJ.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Polydex Pharmaceuticals Limited (the “Company”) for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, George G. Usher, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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 result of operations of the Company.

 

 
| By                      | /s/  George G. Usher |   |
|-------------------------|---------------------------|--------|
| George G. Usher,        |
| Chief Executive Officer |
| September 11, 2003      |

 

----
3(a)(2)
ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT
TO THE RESTATED ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
OF
THE MONTANA POWER COMPANY



	Pursuant to the provisions of Section 35-1-230, MCA, the undersigned 
corporation adopts the following Articles of Amendment to its Articles of 
Incorporation.
	FIRST:	The name of the corporation is The Montana Power Company.

	SECOND:	The following amendment to the corporation's Restated 
Articles of Incorporation was adopted by the shareholders of the corporation 
on May 14, 1996, in the manner prescribed by the Montana Business Corporation 
Act.
	Article VI of the Restated Articles of Incorporation of the corporation 
is amended
to read as follows:
No Director of the Corporation shall be personally liable to the 
Corporation or its shareholders for money damages for any actions 
taken or any failure to take any action, as a Director, except 
liability for: (a) the amount of a financial benefit received by a 
Director to which the Director is not entitled; (b) an intentional 
infliction of harm on the corporation or its shareholders; (c) a 
violation of 35-1-713 of the Montana Code Annotated; or, (d) an 
intentional violation of criminal law.  No amendment to or repeal 
of this Article VI shall apply to or have any effect on the 
liability or alleged liability of any Director of the Corporation 
for or with respect to any acts or omissions of such Director 
occurring prior to such amendment or repeal.

	THIRD:	The number of Common shares of the corporation outstanding 
at the record date was 54,632,075 common shares;  and the number of such 
shares entitled to vote on the amendment was 54,632,075.  The number of 
Preferred shares of the corporation outstanding at the record date was 
1,919,589;  and the number of such shares entitled to vote on the amendment 
was 1,919,589.

	FOURTH:	The number of voting shares represented at the meeting were:

	Common	47,509,562		Preferred	1,621,807

	FIFTH:	The vote on the Amendment was as follows:

						      For      		  Against  
	Common and Preferred Total:		43,561,574		4,475,104

	DATED:	June 13, 1996.

					THE MONTANA POWER COMPANY



					/s/Robert P. Gannon
					Vice Chairman of the Board and
					President

(SEAL)

					/s/Pamela K. Merrell
					Assistant Secretary

STATE OF MONTANA		)
				ss.
County of Silver Bow	)

	I, the undersigned Notary Public, do hereby certify that on this 
13th day of June, 1996, personally appeared before me R. P. Gannon, who, 
being by me first duly sworn, declared that he is Vice Chairman of the Board 
and President of THE MONTANA POWER COMPANY, that he signed the foregoing 
document as Vice Chairman of the Board and President of the Corporation, and 
that the statements therein contained are true.

						/s/Lauri A. Yelenich
						Notary Public for the State of Montana
(SEAL)					Residing at Butte, Montana
						My Commission Expires: 9/1/96
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                         413,765
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   68,587
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               493,331
<PP&E>                                       5,762,754
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,039,589
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,216,496
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           80,747
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,135,749
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,216,496
<SALES>                                        827,615
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               835,765
<CGS>                                          560,457
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  560,457
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               133,686
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                141,622
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            141,622
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   141,622
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    23.60
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    23.60
        

</TABLE>