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

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3048 

To improve air safety by authorizing the limited use by air carriers of 

information collected through cockpit voice recorders and flight data 

recorders, to prohibit tampering with such devices, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 26, 2010 

Mr. DEMINT introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To improve air safety by authorizing the limited use by 

air carriers of information collected through cockpit voice 

recorders and flight data recorders, to prohibit tampering 

with such devices, 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 ‘‘Pilot Professionalism 

5 Assurance Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. USE OF FLIGHT INFORMATION. 

7 (a) AUTHORIZATION.—Notwithstanding any other 

8 provision of law, or any provision in a private contract, 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3048 IS

1 air carriers may use information obtained from a cockpit 

2 voice recorder or a flight data recorder— 

3 (1) to discipline or discharge a pilot or flight 

4 engineer for actions that endanger the safety or well 

5 being of passengers; 

6 (2) to defend itself in any discipline or dis7 charge grievance proceeding; 

8 (3) to evaluate or monitor the judgment or per9 formance of an individual pilot or crew member; 

10 (4) to justify or require a pilot’s submission to 

11 a proficiency check or line check; or 

12 (5) for any other purpose relating to improving 

13 the safety or well being of passengers. 

14 (b) CONFIDENTIALITY.—Each air carrier that has 

15 obtained information pursuant to subsection (a) shall keep 

16 such information confidential and may only disclose such 

17 information to the extent required in an administrative or 

18 judicial proceeding. 

19 SEC. 3. TAMPERING WITH COCKPIT VOICE RECORDER OR 

20 FLIGHT DATA RECORDER PROHIBITED. 

21 (a) IN GENERAL.—No person may tamper with, dis22 able, or destroy any cockpit voice recorder or flight data 

23 recorder installed on a commercial aircraft. 

24 (b) PENALTIES.— 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 3048 IS

1 (1) IN GENERAL.—Any person who violates the 

2 prohibition described in subsection (a) may be fined 

3 up to $2,000 and imprisoned for not more than 5 

4 years. 

5 (2) COMMERCIAL PILOT.—If a commercial pilot 

6 violates the prohibition described in subsection (a)— 

7 (A) the air carrier employing such pilot 

8 shall immediately terminate such employment; 

9 and 

10 (B) the Administrator of the Federal Avia11 tion Administration shall immediately revoke 

12 the airman certificate issued to the pilot under 

13 section 44703 of title 49, United States Code. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**




**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**




In
      connection with the Report of eTotalSource, Inc. (the “ Company ”)
      on
      Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the United States
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “ Report ”),
      the
      undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby
      certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
      906
      of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:




1.  The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) 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 results of operation of the Company.


Date
                August 30, 2006
            By:
            */s/
              Terry L. Eilers*Name:Terry
                L. EilersTitle:President,
                Chief Executive Officer and Interim Chief Financial
                Officer




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
      authentications, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
      in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
      by Section 906, has been provided by eTotalSource, Inc. will be retained by
      eTotalSource, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
      or
      its staff upon request.
<DOCUMENT
                                                                  EXHIBIT 11


                                    ANDREA ELECTRONICS CORPORATION


                   Computation of Fully Diluted Earnings Per Common Share


                                                     For the Years Ended
                                                         December 31,
                                                       1996           1995
                                                       ----           ----

EARNINGS
       Pro forma income (loss) applicable to
       common stock*                                 $(322,217)    $(137,427)
                                                     =========     =========

SHARES
       Weighted average number of common shares
          outstanding                                 3,564,767    3,078,738
       Assuming conversion of options and warrants      550,507      788,057
                                                      ---------    ---------
       Pro forma shares                               4,115,274    3,866,795


       Fully diluted income (loss) per common share   $   (.08)    $   (.16)
                                                      =========    =========

*   Entire proceeds of assumed conversion of options were used to purchase
    treasury shares; therefore, no adjustments are necessary in computing pro
    forma loss applicable to common stock.

    This calculation is submitted in accordance with Regulation S-B,
    Item 601(b)(11) although it is contrary to paragraph 40 of ABP Opinion
    No. 15 because it produces anti-dilutive results.
Document

FIRST AMENDMENT
To the
STERICYCLE, INC. ANNUAL INCENTIVE PLAN
(As in Effect on January 1, 2021)


    This First Amendment to the Stericycle, Inc. Annual Incentive Plan, as in effect on January 1, 2021 (the “Plan”) is hereby made effective January 1, 2022 for the purpose of revising the post-death payment rules under the Plan.


    NOW THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended by Stericycle, Inc. as Plan sponsor acting within its powers under Section 8.11 of the Plan, in the following respects:
    
1.    Section 6.7 of the Plan is hereby amended to read as follows:


6.7    Deceased Employees 
In the event of a Participant’s death on or after the last day of a Plan Year, but prior to the payment date referenced in Section 7.1 below, the Participant’s estate shall receive all or a portion of the Participant’s Bonus Payout for such Plan Year, payable at the same time as active Participants are paid. If the Participant dies before the end of the Plan Year, the Participant’s estate shall be eligible to receive a prorated Bonus Payout based on the period of time in which he or she was an active Participant for such Plan Year, and calculated based on target, rather than actual performance. The payment of any Bonus Payout under this Section 6.7 will generally be made as soon as practicable following the Participant’s death, but no later than the payment date referenced in Section 7.1 below.


2.    Subsection 8.7(a) of the Plan is hereby amended to replace the reference to “beneficiary” with “the estate” each time it appears in this subsection.
US.350023423.02
                        Page 1
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3030 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3030

   To amend the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 to 
    eliminate cost-sharing requirements in connection with economic 
    adjustment grants made to assist communities that have suffered 
economic injury as a result of military base closures and realignments, 
   defense contractor reductions in force, and Department of Energy 
                  defense-related funding reductions.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 24, 2010

Mrs. Gillibrand introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 to 
    eliminate cost-sharing requirements in connection with economic 
    adjustment grants made to assist communities that have suffered 
economic injury as a result of military base closures and realignments, 
   defense contractor reductions in force, and Department of Energy 
                  defense-related funding reductions.

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

SECTION 1. ELIMINATION OF COST-SHARING REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTAIN 
              ECONOMIC ADJUSTMENT GRANTS.

    Section 204(c) of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 
1965 (42 U.S.C. 3144(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
            ``(4) Certain economic adjustment grants.--In the case of a 
        grant made under section 209 to a community that has suffered 
        economic injury as a result of a military base closure or 
        realignment, defense contractor reduction in force, or 
        Department of Energy defense-related funding reduction, the 
        Federal share of the cost of the project assisted by the grant 
        shall be 100 percent instead of the percentage specified in 
        subsection (a).''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In connection with the Quarterly Report of International Packaging and Logistics Group, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10Q for the period ending March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Steve Westlund, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of the undersigned’s knowledge and belief:





(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/  Steve Westlund


Steve Westlund


Chief Executive Officer, President


and Director





June 2, 2010
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3013 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3013

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 216 Westwood Avenue in Westwood, New Jersey, as the ``Sergeant 
              Christopher R. Hrbek Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 22, 2010

Mr. Reid (for Mr. Lautenberg (for himself and Mr. Menendez)) introduced 
the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee 
             on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 216 Westwood Avenue in Westwood, New Jersey, as the ``Sergeant 
              Christopher R. Hrbek Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. SERGEANT CHRISTOPHER R. HRBEK POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 216 Westwood Avenue in Westwood, New Jersey, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Sergeant Christopher R. Hrbek Post Office 
Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Sergeant 
Christopher R. Hrbek Post Office Building''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Shirley R. CAMP, Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Appellee.

No. 05-1490.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: June 23, 2006.

Filed: June 29, 2006.

David P. Rawls, The Brad Hendricks Law Firm, Little Rock, AR, for Appellant.

Stacey E. McCord, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Little Rock, AR, Tina M. Waddell, Michelle M. Montemayor, Michael McGaughran, Social Security Administration, Dallas, TX, for Appellee.

Before ARNOLD, BYE, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Shirley R. Camp appeals the district court’s1 order affirming the denial of disability insurance benefits. Camp alleged disability since January 2002 from multiple impairments, including arthritis, nerves, diabetes, seizures, and muscle spasms. After an April 2003 hearing, an administrative law judge (ALJ) determined that (1) certain of Camp’s alleged impairments were not severe, although some were medically determinable; (2) her diabetes and cervical degenerative disc disease with chronic pain were severe impairments alone or combined, but not of listing-level severity; (3) her allegations of limitations were not entirely credible; (4) her residual functional capacity for less than a full range of light work precluded her past relevant work; but (5) she could perform other jobs a vocational expert (VE) had identified in response to a hypothetical.

Camp argues that the ALJ erred in determining that she did not suffer from severe depression and anxiety. We disagree, because, among other reasons, there was nothing in the record indicating Camp was referred to or sought care from a mental health professional, *see Shannon v. Chafer,*54 F.3d 484, 486 (8th Cir.1995) (failure to seek treatment may be inconsistent with disability); as of Camp’s alleged onset date, there were no noted reports of anxiety or depressive symptoms, other than sleeping problems; and she herself told specialists she had a history of only mild anxiety and depression. *See Nguyen v. Chafer,*75 F.3d 429, 430-31 (8th Cir. 1996) (claimant bears burden of establishing severe impairment that significantly *697limits her physical or mental ability to do basic work activities).

We also reject Camp’s challenges to the ALJ’s credibility findings and to the hypothetical. Contrary to Camp’s assertions, the ALJ gave multiple valid reasons — in addition to the lack of objective medical evidence — for finding her not entirely credible, *see Guilliams v. Barnhart,*393 F.3d 798, 801 (8th Cir.2005) (this court does not re-weigh evidence and defers to ALJ’s credibility determination so long as it is supported by good reasons and substantial evidence); and in the hypothetical the ALJ, as required, set forth impairments that he accepted as true and that were supported by substantial evidence, *see Stormo v. Barnhart,*377 F.3d 801, 808-09 (8th Cir.2004).

Camp’s remaining arguments provide no basis for reversal. Accordingly, we affirm.

1

. The Honorable Jerry W. Cavaneau, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
**Exhibit 21.1**

 

**Subsidiaries of COMFORCE Corporation**

 

The following is a list of the material subsidiaries of COMFORCE Corporation with jurisdiction of incorporation indicated thereby.

 

COMFORCE Operating, Inc. (Delaware) 

COMFORCE Technical Services, Inc. (Delaware) 

COMFORCE Technical Services ofWashington, Inc. (New York) 

COMFORCE Technical, LLC (New York) 

CTS of Washington, LLC (New York) 

COMFORCE Telecom, Inc. (Delaware) 

SUMTEC Corporation (Delaware) 

Uniforce Services, Inc. (New York) 

PrO Unlimited, Inc. (New York) 

PrO Unlimited MPS, Inc. (New York)

Uniforce Staffing Services, Inc. (New York) 

COMFORCEInformation Technologies, Inc. (New York) 

Gerri G. Inc. (New York) 

Clinical Labforce of America, Inc. (New York) 

Labforce Services of America, Inc. (New York) 

CIT Southeast, Inc. (New York) 

Temporary Help Industry Servicing Company,Inc. (New York) 

Thisco of Canada, Inc. (New York) 

BrentwoodService Group, Inc. (New York) 

Brentwood of Canada, Inc. (New York)
EXHIBIT 21.1

SIGNIFICANT SUBSIDIARIES OF ANACOMP, INC.

|Name               |  | State or Country
of Incorporation |  | Percentage of
Voting Securities
Owned *
|------------------ |  | --------------------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------
|Anacomp, GmbH      |  | Germany                           |  | 100%                                   
|Anacomp Limited    |  | United Kingdom                    |  | 100%                                   
|Anacomp, S.A.      |  | France                            |  | 100%                                   
|Cominformatic A.G. |  | Switzerland                       |  | 100%                                   

---

---

QuickLinks
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                            6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                  DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                       JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                                   4,240
<SECURITIES>                                                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                                              634
<ALLOWANCES>                                               457
<INVENTORY>                                                  0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                             0
<PP&E>                                                   7,171
<DEPRECIATION>                                           4,201
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                           8,776
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                        0
<BONDS>                                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                        0
<PREFERRED>                                                  0
<COMMON>                                                     0
<OTHER-SE>                                               8,122
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                             8,776
<SALES>                                                      0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                         1,099
<CGS>                                                        0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            1,038
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                             0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                           0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                             61
<INCOME-TAX>                                                 0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                         61
<DISCONTINUED>                                               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                              0
<CHANGES>                                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                                                61
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                              .12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                0
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1

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


     In  connection  with the  quarterly  report of Synergx  Systems  Inc.  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Daniel
S. Tamkin,  Chief  Executive  Officer of the Company,  and I, John A.  Poserina,
Chief Financial Officer 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,  to my
knowledge, 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.


                                          /s/ Daniel S. Tamkin
                                         ----------------------
                                         Daniel S. Tamkin
                                         Chief Executive Officer
                                         Synergx Systems Inc.
                                         August 4, 2004



                                         /s/ John A. Poserina
                                         -----------------------
                                         John A, Poserina
                                         Chief Financial  Officer
                                         Synergx Systems Inc.
                                         August 4, 2004
#### James Elliott McNEIL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Richard E. BAZZLE, Warden of Perry Correctional Institution; J. Bratka, Officer at Perry Correctional Institution, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 06-6221.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 22, 2006.

Decided: June 29, 2006.

James Elliott McNeil, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Michael Pruitt, McDonald, Patrick, Tinsley, Baggett & Poston, Greenwood, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

James Elliott McNeil appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *McNeil v. Bazzle,*No. 2:05-cv-00240-HMH, 2006 WL 89227 (D.S.C. Jan. 17, 2006). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*