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

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2472 

To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to take actions necessary to 

ensure that certain individuals may update the burn pit registry with 

a registered individual’s cause of death, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 3, 2023 

Mr. RUIZ introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to take actions 

necessary to ensure that certain individuals may update 

the burn pit registry with a registered individual’s cause 

of death, 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 ‘‘Burn Pit Registry En5 hancement Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. BURN PIT REGISTRY UPDATES. 

7 (a) INDIVIDUALS ELIGIBLE TO UPDATE.— 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 2472 IH

1 (1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days 

2 after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Sec3 retary of Veterans Affairs shall take actions nec4 essary to ensure that the burn pit registry may be 

5 updated with the cause of death of a deceased reg6 istered individual by— 

7 (A) an individual designated by such de8 ceased registered individual; or 

9 (B) if no such individual is designated, an 

10 immediate family member of such deceased reg11 istered individual. 

12 (2) DESIGNATION.—The Secretary shall pro13 vide, with respect to the burn pit registry, a process 

14 by which a registered individual may make a des15 ignation for purposes of paragraph (1)(A). 

16 (b) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

17 (1) The term ‘‘burn pit registry’’ means the 

18 registry established under section 201 of the Dig19 nified Burial and Other Veterans’ Benefits Improve20 ment Act of 2012 (Public Law 112–260; 38 U.S.C. 

21 527 note). 

22 (2) The term ‘‘immediate family member’’, with 

23 respect to a deceased individual, means— 

24 (A) the spouse, parent, brother, sister, or 

25 adult child of the individual; 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 2472 IH

1 (B) an adult person to whom the indi2 vidual stands in loco parentis; or 

3 (C) any other adult person— 

4 (i) living in the household of the indi5 vidual at the time of the death of the indi6 vidual; and 

7 (ii) related to the individual by blood 

8 or marriage. 

9 (3) The term ‘‘registered individual’’ means an 

10 individual registered with the burn pit registry. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

MIDDLE DISTRICT 

BETTY BIBBUS, 

 Petitioner 

 v. 

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEAL 

BOARD (WOOD COMPANY), 

 Respondent 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 514 MAL 2015 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Commonwealth Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 7th day of October, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
<PAGE>
                                    FORM 6-K
                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             Washington, D.C. 20549


                        Report of Foreign Private Issuer


                        PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-16 OR 15d-16
                     OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

                                November 26, 2004

                         Commission File Number: 0-22346

                                 HOLLINGER INC.
                 (Translation of registrant's name into English)

                                10 TORONTO STREET
                            TORONTO, ONTARIO M5C 2B7
                                     CANADA
                    (Address of principal executive offices)

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant files or will file annual reports
                      under cover Form 20-F or Form 40-F.

                      Form 20-F [X]         Form 40-F [ ]

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in paper as
                permitted by Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(1): ____

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in paper as
                permitted by Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(7): ____

 Indicate by check mark whether by furnishing the information contained in this
     Form, the registrant is also thereby furnishing the information to the
Commission pursuant to Rule 12g3-2(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

                            Yes [ ]         No [X]

If "Yes" is marked, indicate below the file number assigned to the registrant in
                  connection with Rule 12g3-2(b): 82- ________

<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT LIST

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Exhibit       Description
-------       -----------
<S>           <C>
99.1          Press Release, dated November 24, 2004, regarding Hollinger Inc.
              Changes to Management.
</TABLE>


<PAGE>

SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

Date: November 26, 2004

                                            HOLLINGER INC.

                                            By /s/ Peter G. White
                                               ---------------------------------
                                               Name:  Peter G. White
                                               Title: Co-Chief Operating Officer
                                                      and Secretary
# Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas

November 14, 2022

No. 04

- 22

- 00194

- CV

Jerry A. GUZZETTA

, Appellant

v.

BRIMHALL LQ, LLC d/b/a La Quinta Hotel,

Appellee

From the 285th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012

- CI

- 14775 Honorable John D. Gabriel Jr. , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellant has requested eight additional days to file his opening brief

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 38.6( d ).
Appellant’s motion is granted . The brief is due on November 18 , 202 2

. See id

.

_________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 14th day of November, 2022

.

___________________________________ M ichael A. C ruz , Clerk of Court
CERTIFICATE 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 Yearly  Report of AVVAA  World  Health  Care  Products,
Inc.(the "Company") on Amendment No. 2 to Form 10-KSB for the year ended May 31,
2005 as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Jack Farley, 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   respect,   the  financial   condition  and  result  of
               operations of the Company.


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.

/s/ Jack Farley
------------------------------
Name: Jack Farley
Title: Chief Executive Officer
Date: December 9, 2005
Exhibit 23.2

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

The Board of Directors and Stockholders

Axesstel, Inc.

The audits referred to in our report dated March 29, 2011 relating to the consolidated financial statements of Axesstel, Inc. and subsidiary (the
Company), which is contained in Item 8 of this Form 10-K, included the audit of the amounts in the financial statement schedules included in Item 15(a)(2) of this Form 10-K. These financial statement schedules are the
responsibility of the Companys management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statement schedule based upon our audits.

In our opinion, such financial statement schedules present fairly, in all material respects, the information set forth therein.



|                           
|---------------------------
|/s/    Gumbiner Savett Inc.
|GUMBINER SAVETT INC.       

Santa Monica, California

March 29, 2011
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                           5
<LEGEND>

This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from CONSOLIDATED
CAPITAL  PROPERTIES  III 2000  Third  Quarter  10-QSB  and is  qualified  in its
entirety by reference to such 10-QSB filing.

</LEGEND>

<CIK>                               0000317331
<NAME>                              CONSOLIDATED CAPITAL PROPERTIES III
<MULTIPLIER>                                           1,000


<S>                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                      JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                        SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                                   312
<SECURITIES>                                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            370
<ALLOWANCES>                                               0
<INVENTORY>                                                0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                           0 <F1>
<PP&E>                                                11,404
<DEPRECIATION>                                         7,815
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                         4,598
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                      0 <F1>
<BONDS>                                                5,332
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                      0
<PREFERRED>                                                0
<COMMON>                                                   0
<OTHER-SE>                                            (1,252)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                           4,598
<SALES>                                                    0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       2,383
<CGS>                                                      0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                              0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       2,259
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       330
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                            0
<INCOME-TAX>                                               0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                        0
<DISCONTINUED>                                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                            0
<CHANGES>                                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                                             124
<EPS-BASIC>                                             0.75 <F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                              0
<FN>

<F1> Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet. <F2> Multiplier is 1.

</FN>


</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Marco Antonio FUENTE-AGUILERA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-41542.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Oct. 25, 2006.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Laura Fletcher Leavitt, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

*672Jose Marco Antonio Fuente-Aguilera appeals his guilty-plea conviction of, and sentence for, violating 8 U.S.C. § 1326 by being found in the United States without permission after deportation. He argues, in light of *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), that the 40-month term of imprisonment imposed in his case exceeds the statutory maximum sentence allowed for the offense charged in his indictment. He challenges the constitutionality of § 1326(b)’s treatment of prior felony and aggravated felony convictions as sentencing factors rather than elements of the offense that must be found by a jury.

Fuente-Aguilera’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). Although Fuente-Aguilera contends that *Almendarez-Torres*was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule *Almendarez-Torres*in light of *Apprendi,*we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that *Almendarez-Torres*remains binding. *See United States v. Garza-Lopez,*410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 298, 163 L.Ed.2d 260 (2005). Fuente-Aguilera properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of *Almendarez-Torres*and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further review.

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2234 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2234

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for US Department 
 of Agriculture, Executive Operations, Office of Hearings and Appeals 
                         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 Agriculture

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for US Department 
 of Agriculture, Executive Operations, Office of Hearings and Appeals 
                         for fiscal year 2024.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR US DEPARTMENT OF 
              AGRICULTURE, EXECUTIVE OPERATIONS, OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND 
              APPEALS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for US Department of 
Agriculture, Executive Operations, Office of Hearings and Appeals for 
fiscal year 2024 may not exceed $15,222,000.
                                 <all>
```
#### Shahbuddin Noor ALI, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-60389

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 20, 2006.

Sarfraz Aftab Sharif, Sharif *&*Associates, Houston, TX, for Petitioner.

Alberto R. Gonzales, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, pro se.

Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, John Clifford Cunningham, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Immigration Litigation, Karen Y. Phillips-Savoy, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Caryl G. Thompson, U.S. Immigration *&*Naturalization Service, District Directors Office, New Orleans, LA, Sharon A. Hudson, U.S. Citizenship *&*Immigration Services, Houston, TX, for Respondent.

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Shahbuddin Noor AJi, a native and citizen of Pakistan, petitions this court for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision affirming the Immi*580gration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his applications for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Ali contends that the BIA erred in affirming the IJ’s denial of withholding of removal and relief under the CAT because he established that he suffered past persecution and torture and it was more likely than not that he would be persecuted and tortured if he returned to Pakistan.

After careful review of the record and the briefs, this court concludes that the BIA’s determination that Ali is not eligible for withholding of removal or relief under the CAT is supported by substantial evidence, and the record does not compel a contrary conclusion. *See Efe v. Ashcroft,*293 F.3d 899, 903, 906-07 (5th Cir.2002). Therefore, Ali’s petition for review is DENIED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be *580published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
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 annual report of VLOV, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A
for the year ending December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Bennet P. Tchaikovsky, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely
for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code,
that to the best of my knowledge:





(1) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13 (a) or 15 (d), as
applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





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




/s/ Bennet P. TchaikovskyBennet
      P. Tchaikovsky
                Chief
      Financial Officer
                October
      27, 2010




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.
#### CARTER-HUBBARD PUBLISHING COMPANY, INC. v. WRMC HOSPITAL OPERATING CORPORATION

No. 411A06

(Filed 9 March 2007)

Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 175 N.C. App. 680, 633 S.E.2d 682 (2006), affirming an order entered on 24 January 2005 by Judge James M. Webb in Superior Court, Wilkes County. Heard in the Supreme Court 14 February 2007.

*Willardson, Lipscomb & Miller, LLP, by John S. Willardson, for plaintiff-appellee.*

*McElwee Firm, PLLC, by John M. Logsdon, for defendant-appellant.*

*Robinson, Bradshaw & Hinson, P.A., by Mark W. Merritt and Blake W. Thomas, for The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority, amicus curiae.*

*The Bussian Law Firm, PLLC, by John A. Bussian, for the North Carolina Press Association, amicus curiae.*

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

Chief Justice PARKER and Justice HUDSON did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
Exhibit 10.84


 





AMENDMENT NO. 1 


TO TWINLAB CONSOLIDATED HOLDINGS INC.
WARRANT NO. 2015-25


 


This Amendment No. 1 (the “Amendment”)
to Twinlab Consolidated Holdings, Inc. Warrant No. 2015-25 (the “Warrant”) is made and entered as of this 14th day
of August, 2015 (the “Effective Date”) by and among TWINLAB CONSOLIDATED HOLDINGS, INC., a Nevada corporation
(the “Company”) and JL-MEZZ UTAH, LLC (formerly known as JL-BBNC MEZZ UTAH, LLC), an Alaska limited liability
company (the “Holder”).


 


WHEREAS, the Company issued the Warrant
to the Holder on June 30, 2015; and


 


WHEREAS, Company and Holder wish
to amend the terms of the Warrant as set forth herein.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable
consideration the sufficiency of which are hereby expressly acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:


 


1.       Section 3.3.3 of the Warrant is hereby deleted in its entirety.


 


2.       Section 5.3 of the Warrant is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:


 


“Amendments and Waivers. Any provision
of this Warrant may be amended or waived, but only pursuant to a written agreement signed by the Company and the Holder.”


 


3.       Schedule 3.3.3 of the Warrant is hereby deleted in its entirety.


 


4.       Except as expressly modified by this Amendment, all terms and conditions of the Warrant shall remain in full force and effect.


 


5.       This Amendment may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall be deemed
to be one and the same instrument. A signed, including electronically signed, copy of this Amendment delivered by facsimile, email
(for example in a .pdf, .tif or .jpeg format), or other means or electronic transmission shall be deemed to be legally binding
upon the party so delivering such signature and of the same legal force and effect as delivery of an original signature upon this
Amendment.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the
undersigned has executed this Amendment as of the Effective Date written
above.


 


 





	JL-MEZZ UTAH, LLC (f/k/a



	TWINLAB CONSOLIDATED
	JL-BBNC MEZZ UTAH, LLC)	HOLDINGS, INC.
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	/s/ Jonathan
    B. Rubini	 	/s/ Thomas
    Tolworthy	 
	By: 	Jonathan B. Rubini	 	By:	Thomas Tolworthy	 
	Title:	Managing Member	 	Title:	CEO
#### Richard Lella, Appellant, v Lincoln General Insurance Co. et al., Respondents.

[972 NYS2d 715]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Spinner, J.), dated October 18, 2012, which granted the defendants’ 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 reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

The defendants met their prima facie burden of showing that *854the 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 defendants submitted competent medical evidence establishing, prima facie, that the alleged injuries to the cervical and lumbar regions of the plaintiff’s spine were not caused by the subject accident *(see Jilani v Palmer,*83 AD3d 786, 787 [2011]) and, in any event, did not constitute serious injuries under either the permanent consequential limitation of use or significant limitation of use categories of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) *(see Staff v Yshua,*59 AD3d 614 [2009]).

In opposition, however, the plaintiff raised triable issues of fact as to whether he sustained serious injuries to the cervical and lumbar regions of his spine that were caused by the subject accident *(see Perl v Meher,*18 NY3d 208, 215-218 [2011]). Thus, the Supreme Court should have denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Angiolillo, J.P., Hall, Roman and Cohen, JJ., concur.