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

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 976 Considered and Passed Senate (CPS)]

  1st Session
                                 S. 976

  Striking the Specific Privatization Criteria in ORBIT for Intelsat 
    Separated Entities (New Skies) and Inmarsat and Other Technical 
                              Corrections.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

               April 29 (legislative day, April 28), 2005

    Mr. Burns introduced the following bill; which was read twice, 
              considered, read the third time, and passed

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  Striking the Specific Privatization Criteria in ORBIT for Intelsat 
    Separated Entities (New Skies) and Inmarsat and Other Technical 
                              Corrections.

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

SECTION 1. SPECIFIC CRITERIA FOR INTELSAT SEPARATED ENTITIES AND 
              INMARSAT MODIFIED.

    (a) Amendment.--The Communications Satellite Act of 1962 (47 U.S.C. 
701 et seq.) is amended--
            (1) by striking section 623 (47 U.S.C. 763b), and
            (2) in section 624 (47 U.S.C. 763c), by striking ``In 
        securing the privatizations'' and all that follows, and 
        inserting ``In securing the privatization of Inmarsat required 
        by section 621, and thereafter, the United States shall 
        preserve space segment capacity of the GMDSS.''
            (3) in section 621 (5)(D)(ii) (47 U.S.C. 763), by striking 
        ``(I)'' and by striking ``, or (II) have any direct financial 
        interest'' and all that follows through the end of the 
        subparagraph, and inserting ``;''.
            (4) in section 621 (5)(D)(iv) (47 U.S.C. 763), by striking 
        ``(I)'' and by striking ``, or (II) have any direct financial 
        interest'' and all that follows through the end of the 
        subparagraph, and inserting ``.''.
    (b) Satellite Service Report.--The Commission shall review 
competitive market conditions with respect to domestic and 
international satellite communications services and shall include in an 
annual report an analysis of those conditions. Such analysis shall 
include an identification of the number and market share of competitors 
in domestic and international satellite markets, including an analysis 
of whether there is effective competition in the market for domestic 
and international satellite services, and shall include a list of any 
foreign nations in which legal or regulatory practices restrict access 
to the market for satellite services in such nation in a manner that 
undermines competition or favors a particular competitor or set of 
competitors.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall be 
effective as of the date of enactment of this section.
                                 <all>
```
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"National Intelligence University","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.ni-u.edu","author_name":"ray.x.villarreal@odni.gov","author_url":"https:\/\/www.ni-u.edu\/author\/ray-x-villarrealodni-gov\/","title":"NIU Library","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"HWlJShWo18\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.ni-u.edu\/library\/\">NIU Library<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.ni-u.edu\/library\/embed\/#?secret=HWlJShWo18\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NIU Library” — National Intelligence University\" data-secret=\"HWlJShWo18\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
exhibit10-9.htm


    EXHIBIT 10.9

    
 

    AMENDMENT
      NO. 2 TO

    FIRST
      FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION OF HAZLETON

    DEFERRED
      INCOME AGREEMENT

    


    THIS
      AMENDMENT NO. 2 (this “Amendment”)
      to the First Federal Savings and Loan Association of Hazleton Deferred Income
      Agreement (the “Agreement”) is made and entered into effective as of November
      15, 2007 by and among Keystone Nazareth Bank & Trust Company (the “Bank”)
      and Thomas L. Kennedy (the “Executive”).

    


    RECITALS:

    


    WHEREAS,
      Keystone Nazareth Bank &
Trust Company, as successor to First Federal Savings and Loan Association of
      Hazleton, desires to amend the Agreement to ensure that the Agreement complies
      with Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”);
      and

    


    WHEREAS,
      pursuant to Section 12 of the
      Agreement, the parties may amend the Agreement from time to time;

    


    NOW,
      THEREFORE, in consideration of the
      premises, the mutual agreements herein set forth and such other consideration
      the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties  hereby
      amend the Agreement as follows:

    


    Section
      1.  Deletion of
      Section 17 of the Agreement.  Section 17 of the Agreement is
      hereby deleted in its entirety.

    


    Section
      2.  No Further
      Modification.  Except as expressly amended hereby, the Agreement
      remains unmodified and in full force and effect.

    


    Section
      3. Governing
      Law.  This Amendment shall be governed by and construed in
      accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania without regard
      to
      its conflicts of laws principles.

    


    Section
      4.  Counterparts.  This Amendment may be executed in
      one or more counterparts, each of which shall for all purposes be deemed an
      original, and all of which together shall constitute but one and the same
      instrument.


    
      
         

      

      
        1

        
          

        

      

      
         

      

    


    IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have
      caused this Amendment to be executed effective as of the date and year first
      written above.

    


    
      	 	 	 	
              KEYSTONE
                NAZARETH BANK

            
	 	 	 	
              &
                TRUST COMPANY

            
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	
              BY:

            	 
	 	 	 	
              Name:

            	
              Jeffrey
                P. Feather

            
	 	 	 	
              Title:

            	
              Chairman
                of the Board

            
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	
              EXECUTIVE

            
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	
              Thomas
                L. Kennedy

            


    

    



    
      
         

      

      
        2
United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED

May 21, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

_________________

No. 03-60951 (Summary Calendar)

_________________

BOBBY STEVENS; ET AL

Plaint iffs

BOBBY STEVENS; JOSEPHINE STEVENS

Plaintiffs - Appellants

versus

FORD MOTOR COMPANY; ET AL

Defendants

FORD MOTOR CO; JOHN DOES, whose names are unknown to plaint iffs

at this time, but will be substituted by amendment when ascertained; BILL

ETHRIDGE LINCOLN-MERCURY INC

Defendant - Appellees

GWENDOLYN HILL

Plaintiff - Appellant

versus

FORD MOTOR COMPANY; ET AL

Defendants

FORD MOTOR COMPANY; BILL ETHRIDGE LINCOLN-MERCURY INC; JOHN DOES

Defendant - Appellees* Pursuant to 5 T H C IR

. R

. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limit ed circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. Appeal from the United States District Court For the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 4:03-CV-164-BN

Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Plaint iffs Bobby and Josephine Stevens and Gwendolyn Hill bring this appeal from the district

court’s denial of their Moti on to Remand to state court their personal injury and property damage suit

against defendants Ford Motor Company, Bill Ethridge Lincoln-Mercury and unknown John Does.

“An order denying remand of a case removed to federal court is not a final order within the

meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and, standing by itself cannot be appealed unless certified by the district

court according to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).” P oirrier v. Nicklos Drilling Co.

, 648 F2d

1063, 1064-65 (5th Cir. 1981); Aaron v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

,

876 F.2d 1157, 1160 (5th Cir. 1989); see Wright, Miller & Cooper, Federal Practice & Procedure

2d § 3914.11. When the refusal to remand is coupled with a final judgment, the appellate court has

jurisdiction to review the denial of the motion to remand. Aaron , 846 F.2d at 1160.

The district court did not issue a final judgment in this case, no r did it certify its ruling for

interlocutory appeal. This appeal is thus DISMISSED.
The District Court of the 4th Judicial District. County of Missoula.

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. JOHN ZERBST, Defendant.

CAUSE NO. DC-07-059 DECISION

On February 9, 2010, the defendant was sentenced for violations of the conditions of a deferred sentence to ten (10) years in the Montana State Prison, with eight (8) years suspended, for the offense of Criminal Mischief, a felony. This sentence shall run concurrently with the sentence imposed in Cause No. DC-06-458. The Court recommends that the Defendant be screened for the pre-release program as soon as possible and that the Sentence Review Board review the report submitted by Dr. Shea attached to the Pre-Sentence Investigation Report.

On August 5,2010, the defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The defendant was not present. However, his case manager, Aaron Hedges, appeared via teleconference and spoke on behalf of the defendant. The defendant was represented by Eric Olson. The state was not represented.

Rule 17 of the Rules of the Sentence Review Division of the Supreme Court of Montana provides that “the sentence imposed by the District Court is presumed correct, and the sentence will not be reduced or increased unless it is deemed clearly inadequate or excessive.” (§46-18-904(3), MCA).

The Division finds that the reasons advanced for modification are insufficient to hold that the sentence imposed by the District Court is inadequate or excessive.

Therefore, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division *74that the sentence shall be affirmed.

Done in open Court this 5th day of August, 2010.

DATED this 13th day of August, 2010.

Chairperson, Hon. Blair Jones, Member, Hon. Richard Simonton and Member, Hon. Ray Dayton.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         1,757,217
<SECURITIES>                                   3,521,904
<RECEIVABLES>                                  1,280,595
<ALLOWANCES>                                   195,000
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         2,533,433
<DEPRECIATION>                                 1,457,309
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 17,703,618
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0
<BONDS>                                        1,861,795
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    19,400
<COMMON>                                       454,209
<OTHER-SE>                                     13,128,688
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   17,703,618
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               3,199,353
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  3,417,746
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             31,884
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (250,277)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (100,353)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (149,924)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (149,924)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.089)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        


</TABLE>
#### State v. Black

Case below: 182 N.C. App. 347

No. 316P07

1. Def’s NOA Based Upon a Constitutional Question (COA06-620)

2. AG’s Motion to Dismiss Appeal

3. Def’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. 7A-31

1. _

2. Allowed 11/08/07

3. Denied 11/08/07
jQuery(document).ready((function(a){a(".ml-slider").each((function(){var i=this.id.split("-")[2],e=a(this).attr("aria-label"),n='<li id="wp-admin-bar-all-slideshows-list" class="ms_admin_menu_item"><a class="ab-item" href="'+window.location.origin+"/wp-admin/admin.php?page=metaslider&id="+i+'" target="_blank" tabindex="-1">Edit '+e+"</a></li>";a("#wp-admin-bar-ms-main-menu-default").append(n)}))}));
#### Flournoy & Epping *v.*Stevens.

This being the grant of a first new trial, though the grant was made on terms with which the prevailing party refused to comply, the case is left to abide the general rule, without either approving or disapproving the terms prescribed by the trial judge.

August 14, 1894.

Complaint on account. Before Judge Bartlett. Terrell superior court. May term, 1893.

Peabody, Brannon, Hatcher & Martin, J. W. Walters and Hoyl & Parks, for plaintiffs.

Wooten & Wooten, for defendant.

*Judgment affirmed.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1998
<CASH>                                       2,443,257
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,681,205
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     29,608
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,154,070
<PP&E>                                       5,212,841
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,612,056
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,643,089
<BONDS>                                      1,087,144
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,607
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,800,911
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,612,056
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            11,234,435
<CGS>                                          408,074
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,421,585
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             2,389,956
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             132,562
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,882,258
<INCOME-TAX>                                   716,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,166,258
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   945,843
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.27
        

</TABLE>
================================================================================

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

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

In  connection  with  the  Quarterly  Report  of BSD  Medical  Corporation  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q for the  quarterly  period ended  February 29, 2008, as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"),  I, Dennis P. Gauger,  Chief Financial Officer  (Principal  Financial
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:

         (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/ Dennis P. Gauger
                                                  --------------------------
                                                  Dennis P. Gauger
                                                  Chief Financial Officer
                                                  (Principal Accounting Officer)
                                                  April 9, 2008







--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
## Contact Information

Bethesda MD20892

hongjun.wang@nih.gov

## Summary

Hong Jun Wang received her Ph.D. from McGill University, Canada, where she studied the function and regulation of a new histone deacetylase 4 (HDAC4). Dr. Wang started her postdoctoral training with Dr. Rik Derynck at UCSF, studying histone modification in TGF-beta/SMAD3 repressed muscle differentiation. She also studied the regulation of TGF-beta and BMP signaling pathways by protein arginine methylation of SMAD6. Dr. Wang continued her postdoctoral research with Dr. Vittorio Sartorelli at the NIAMS, focusing on transcriptional regulation of skeletal muscle differentiation and embryonic stem cell pluripotency and self-renewal. In 2016, she moved to the NIDCD as a contractor working on restoring genetic hearing loss by AAV-delivered CRISPR/Cas9 system. Dr. Wang returned to the NIAMS in 2020, and currently works with Dr. Sartorelli as a biologist in the Laboratory of Muscle Stem Cells and Gene Regulation.

## Research Statement

Dr. Wang’s research focuses on the role of histone methyltransferase Ezh1 in skeletal muscle differentiation, regeneration of adult skeletal muscle, and metabolic regulation of epigenetics.

## Scientific Publications

###             The Elongation Factor Spt6 Maintains ESC Pluripotency by Controlling Super-Enhancers and Counteracting Polycomb Proteins.        

68(2).

###             The Histone Variant MacroH2A1.2 Is Necessary for the Activation of Muscle Enhancers and Recruitment of the Transcription Factor Pbx1.        

14(5).

###             Arginine Methylation Initiates BMP-Induced Smad Signaling.        

51(1).

###             The histone chaperone Spt6 coordinates histone H3K27 demethylation and myogenesis.        

32(8).

###             Polycomb protein Ezh1 promotes RNA polymerase II elongation.        

45(2).

## Education

**McGill University**Ph.D., Experimental Medicine (2003)

**Hunan Medical University**M.D. (1990)

## Experience

**Scientist** (contractor)NIDCD (2016-2020)

**Research Fellow**NIAMS (2013-2016)

**Postdoctoral Fellowship**NIAMS (2008-2013)

January 2022

Back to Top
II 

Calendar No. 146 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 892 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

321 Montgomery Road in Altamonte Springs, Florida, as the ‘‘Arthur 

Stacey Mastrapa Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 22, 2005 

Mr. NELSON of Florida introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

JUNE 29, 2005 

Committee discharged and ordered to be placed on the calendar 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 321 Montgomery Road in Altamonte Springs, 

Florida, as the ‘‘Arthur Stacey Mastrapa Post Office 

Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

S 892 PCS 

1 SECTION 1. ARTHUR STACEY MASTRAPA POST OFFICE 

2 BUILDING. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

4 Postal Service located at 321 Montgomery Road in 

5 Altamonte Springs, Florida, shall be known and des6 ignated as the ‘‘Arthur Stacey Mastrapa Post Office 

7 Building’’. 

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

10 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

11 be deemed to be a reference to the Arthur Stacey 

12 Mastrapa Post Office Building. 

Calendar No. 146 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 892 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States PostStacey Mastrapa Post Office Building’’. Altamonte Springs, Florida, as the ‘‘Arthur al Service located at 321 Montgomery Road in 

JUNE 29, 2005 

Committee discharged and ordered to be placed on the 

calendar