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

Calendar No. 2 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2 

To improve the lives of middle class families and provide them with greater 

opportunity to achieve the American dream. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 6, 2009 

Mr. REID (for himself, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. KERRY, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. BEGICH, 

Mr. DURBIN, Mrs. BOXER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr. BINGAMAN, Mr. CASEY, 

Mr. LAUTENBERG, Ms. STABENOW, Mrs. MCCASKILL, Mr. LIEBERMAN, 

Ms. KLOBUCHAR, Mrs. CLINTON, Mr. SCHUMER, Ms. MIKULSKI, and Mr. 

BROWN) introduced the following bill; which was read the first time 

JANUARY 7, 2009 

Read the second time and placed on the calendar 

A BILL 

To improve the lives of middle class families and provide 

them with greater opportunity to achieve the American 

dream. 

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 ‘‘Middle Class Oppor5 tunity Act of 2009’’. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
2 

•S 2 PCS

1 SEC. 2. SENSE OF CONGRESS. 

2 It is the sense of Congress that Congress should 

3 enact, and the President should sign, legislation to im4 prove the lives of middle class families and provide them 

5 with greater opportunity to achieve the American dream 

6 by— 

7 (1) providing middle class tax relief while mak8 ing the tax laws simpler and more reliable; 

9 (2) promoting investments in the new economy 

10 and enacting policies that create good, well-paying 

11 jobs in the United States; 

12 (3) enhancing the incentives and protections to 

13 help middle class families adequately meet their 

14 needs in retirement; 

15 (4) improving programs to help families acquire 

16 the education and training to be productive partici17 pants in the modern economy; 

18 (5) promoting families by improving the access 

19 and affordability of child and elder care; 

20 (6) restoring fairness, prosperity, and economic 

21 security for working families by ensuring workers 

22 can exercise their rights to freely choose to form a 

23 union without employer interference; and 

24 (7) removing barriers to fair pay for all work25 ers. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
Calendar No. 2 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2 

A BILL 

To improve the lives of middle class families and 

the American dream. provide them with greater opportunity to achieve 

JANUARY 7, 2009 

Read the second time and placed on the calendar 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
Exhibit 32(c)

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

I,
Kenneth W. DeFontes, Jr., President and Chief Executive Officer of Baltimore Gas and Electric Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that to my knowledge:

(i)    The
accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(ii)   The
information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Baltimore Gas and Electric
Company.

|/s/KENNETH W. DEFONTES, JR.                                    |  | 
|-------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|Kenneth W. DeFontes, Jr.
President and Chief Executive Officer |  | 

Date:
March 3, 2006

---



QuickLinks
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3562 

To rename the Homestead National Monument of America near Beatrice, 

Nebraska, as the Homestead National Historical Park. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 30, 2010 

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

and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To rename the Homestead National Monument of America 

near Beatrice, Nebraska, as the Homestead National 

Historical Park. 

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

3 SECTION 1. HOMESTEAD NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—The first section of the Act of 

5 March 19, 1936 (16 U.S.C. 450u) is amended by striking 

6 ‘‘designated’’ and all that follows through the end and in7 serting ‘‘designated the ‘Homestead National Historical 

8 Park’.’’. 

9 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg10 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3562 IS

1 States to the unit of the National Park System known 

2 as ‘‘The Homestead National Monument of America’’ 

3 shall be considered to be a reference to the ‘‘Homestead 

4 National Historical Park’’. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   Year
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               Dec-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                  Jan-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                    Dec-31-1999
<CASH>                          4,151,150
<SECURITIES>                    9,520
<RECEIVABLES>                   8,958,837
<ALLOWANCES>                    0
<INVENTORY>                     10,097,974
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                24,642,595
<PP&E>                          17,783,510
<DEPRECIATION>                  7,309,250
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  38,609,965
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           8,802,499
<BONDS>                         8,363,497
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0
<PREFERRED>                     0
<COMMON>                        57,075
<OTHER-SE>                      14,225,372
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    38,609,965
<SALES>                         54,914,349
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                55,644,418
<CGS>                           47,282,583
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   47,282,583
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                8,328,713
<LOSS-PROVISION>                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              674,500
<INCOME-PRETAX>                (641,378)
<INCOME-TAX>                     57,186
<INCOME-CONTINUING>            (613,057)
<DISCONTINUED>                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0
<CHANGES>                       0
<NET-INCOME>                   (613,057)
<EPS-BASIC>                    (.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                  (.11)

<FN>
<F1>Accounts receivable are net of allowance of $431,000 at December 31, 1999.
<F2>Inventories are net of reserve of $724,000 at December 31, 1999.
</FN>


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2

Certification

Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, the undersigned hereby certifies that:

> 
(1) I have reviewed the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Inland Land Appreciation Fund, L.P.  (the "Report") to which this statement is an Exhibit;

(2) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(3) The information contained in the Report fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Inland Land Appreciation Fund, L.P. 

 

By: Inland Real Estate Investment Corporation       General Partner

/S/ Kelly Tucek____________________________________

Name: Kelly TucekTitle: Assistant Vice President of the General Partner and         principal financial officer of Inland Land Appreciation Fund, L.P.Date: November 12, 2003
#### In the Matter of State of New York, Respondent, v Richard R., Appellant.

Decided June 26, 2012

Appeal dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved.
EXHIBIT 32.1
  ADDITIONAL
    CERTIFICATIONS
  Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
    Section 1350, the undersigned officer of Michael Baker
    Corporation (the Company), hereby certifies that the
    Companys Annual Report on
    Form 10-K
    for the year ended
 December 31, 2010 (the
    Report) fully complies with the requirements of
    Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
 applicable, of the Securities
    Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the
    Report
 fairly presents, in all material
    respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
    the
 Company.
   /s/ Bradley L. Mallory

Date: March 3, 2011Bradley L. Mallory
    President, Chief Executive Officer and Director   Form 10-K
   /s/ Michael J. Zugay

Date: March 3, 2011Michael J. ZugayExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 112 (Friday, June 12, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 28044]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-13790]



[[Page 28044]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL09-57-000]


Astoria Gas Turbine Power LLC, Complainant v. New York 
Independent System Operator, Inc., Respondent; Notice of Complaint

June 5, 2009.
    Take notice that on June 2, 2009, Astoria gas Turbine Power LLC 
(NRG) filed a complaint against the New York Independent System 
Operator, Inc. (NYISO) pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act 
regarding NYISO's failure to place the Astoria Repowering Project into 
the 2009 Class Year Annual Transmission Reliability Assessment, 
necessary to allow the project to interconnect with the NYISO 
transmission system.
    NRG certifies that copies of the complaint were served on the 
NYISO.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's 
answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before 
the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and 
protests must be served on the Complainants.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
    For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7e383b2c3d31101217101b2d0b0e0e110c0a3e181b0c1d50191108"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="51171403121e3f3d383f34022421213e232511373423327f363e27">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on June 22, 2009.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-13790 Filed 6-11-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 10(d)29

AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO REFUNDING AGREEMENT(SERIES 1998)

                    This Amendment No. 1, effective as of October 31, 2007, to the Refunding Agreement ($21,600,000 Pollution Control Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 1998) between Parish of Iberville, State of Louisiana (the "Issuer") and Entergy Gulf States, Inc., a corporation of the State of Texas (the "Company"), dated as of May 1, 1998 (the "Refunding Agreement"), is entered into among the Issuer, the Company and Hancock Bank of Louisiana, as Trustee under the Trust Indenture, dated as of May 1, 1998, between the Issuer and the Trustee (the "Indenture").  All capitalized terms not herein defined shall have the meanings assigned to them in the Indenture.

                    WHEREAS, Section 10.4 of the Refunding Agreement provides that the Refunding Agreement may not be effectively amended, changed, modified, altered or terminated except in accordance with the provisions of the Indenture, and no amendment to the Refunding Agreement shall be binding upon either party to the Refunding Agreement until such amendment is reduced to writing and executed by both parties thereto; 

                    WHEREAS, Section 13.1 of the Indenture provides that the Trustee may from time to time, and at any time, consent to any amendment, change or modification of the Refunding Agreement for the purpose of curing any ambiguity or formal defect or omission or making any other change therein which, in the reasonable judgment of the Trustee, is not to the prejudice of the Trustee or the holders of the Bonds;

                    WHEREAS, Section 13.3 of the Indenture provides that any amendment to the Refunding Agreement shall not become effective unless and until the Trustee shall have received an opinion of Bond Counsel to the effect that such amendment will not adversely affect the exclusion of interest on the Bonds from gross income for purpose of federal income taxation; and

                    WHEREAS, the Issuer, the Company and the Trustee now desire to amend the Refunding Agreement to cure ambiguity or to make a change which, in reliance on the opinion of counsel, is not to the prejudice of the Trustee or the holders of the Bonds.

                    NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the covenants and undertakings herein expressed, the parties hereto agree as follows:
#### George A. Cruci, Respondent, v General Electric Company et al., Appellants. (And a Third-Party Action.)

[824 NYS2d 316]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Horowitz, J.), dated August 10, 2005, which denied their motion to strike the note of issue on the ground that discovery was not complete and to compel the plaintiff to provide authorizations for psychological records.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ motion to strike the note of issue on the ground that discovery was not complete and to compel the plaintiff to produce authorizations for psychological records. Since the plaintiff withdrew his claims for psychological injury, his psychological records were not subject to disclosure *(see Goldberg v Fenig,*300 AD2d 439, 440 [2002]; *Carboni v New York Med. Coll.,*290 AD2d 473, 473-474 [2002]), and relevant discovery was otherwise complete.

In view of the foregoing, it is unnecessary to reach the issue of the defendants’ compliance with the requirement of an affirmation of good faith *(see*22 NYCRR § 202.7 [a]). Miller, j.E, Crane, Santucci and Luciano, JJ., concur.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 18-1925

___________________________

Michelle M. Stringfield

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

v.

Cosentino's Food Stores

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City

____________

Submitted: December 13, 2018

Filed: December 18, 2018

[Unpublished]

____________

Before BENTON, SHEPHERD, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Michelle M. Stringfield appeals the adverse judgment the district court

1

entered, following a bench trial, in her action under the Family and Medical Leave

1The Honorable Beth Phillips, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.
Act(FMLA). Stringfield, a former employee ofCosentino’s Food Stores, alleged that

Cosentino impermissibly interfered with her right to take leave under the FMLA.

Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.

Upon careful review of the district court record and the parties’ arguments on

appeal, this court finds no basis to reverse the district court’s judgment. See Smith

v. AS Am., Inc., 829 F.3d 616, 621-22 (8th Cir. 2016) (following bench trial, legal

conclusions are reviewed de novo, and findings of fact are reviewed for clear error).

There was no error in the district court’s determination that the notice Stringfield

gave Cosentino regarding the need to take FMLA leave was untimely, and she was

thus not entitled to FMLA leave. See Hasenwinkel v. Mosaic, 809 F.3d 427, 432 (8th

Cir. 2015) (to prevail on FMLA entitlement claim, individual must show (1) she was

entitled to FMLA leave; (2) her employer was on notice of her need for FMLA leave;

and (3) the employer denied her FMLA benefits).

The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

-2-
## United States Court of Appeals
**For the Eighth Circuit**

___________________________

No. 22

- 1289

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Jeffrey Colin Purdy

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota

____________

Submitted: Nove m ber 2 , 2022 Filed: November 7, 2022 [Unpublished]

____________

Before ERICKSON

, GRASZ , and STRAS

, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Jeffrey Purdy received a 60

- month prison sentence after he pleaded guilty to cyberstalking. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 2261(b)(5), 2261A(2). He raises a variety of challenges to his conviction and sentence . Some center on whether he was the victim of a conspiracy between investigators and prosecutors to cover up misconduct

.-2- Others focus on whether the district court 1 should have been more receptive to his motions, including one asking to withdraw his guilty plea . In the end, none have
merit.

O f the issues we can consider on appeal , the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Purdy’s numerous motions

. See United States v. Andolini , 705 F.3d 335, 337 (8th Cir. 201 3) (per curiam) ; United States v. Jones , 643 F.3d 275,
277 (8th Cir. 2011)

. Nor are the challenge s to the restitution award or the performance of counsel properly before us

. See Manrique v. United States , 137
S. Ct. 1266, 127 1 (2017) (holding that “[t]he requirement that a defendant file a timely notice of appeal from an amended judgment imposing restitution is at least a mandatory claim

- processing rule”) ; United States v. Ramirez

- Hernandez , 449 F.3d 824, 826

– 27 (8th Cir. 2006) (explaining that this type of claim is “usually best litigated in collateral proceedings”). Having carefully reviewed these arguments and
others , w e accordingly affirm the judgment, dismiss the challenge to the restitution award, and deny the motion to strike the government’s brief.

______________________________

1 The Honorable Susan Richard Nelson, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.
S. 3592 

One Hundred Eleventh Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, 

the fifth day of January, two thousand and ten 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 100 Commerce 

Drive in Tyrone, Georgia, as the ‘‘First Lieutenant Robert Wilson Collins Post 

Office Building’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. FIRST LIEUTENANT ROBERT WILSON COLLINS POST 

OFFICE BUILDING. 

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

Service located at 100 Commerce Drive in Tyrone, Georgia, shall 

be known and designated as the ‘‘First Lieutenant Robert Wilson 

Collins 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 ‘‘First Lieutenant Robert Wilson Collins Post Office Building’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
INTER
PARFUMS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES



Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION



The undersigned hereby certifies, in accordance
with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his capacity as an officer of Inter
Parfums, Inc., that the Quarterly Report of Inter Parfums, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2012, fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of Inter Parfums, Inc.



|Date: August 8, 2012 | By: | /s/ Jean Madar         
|-------------------- | --- | -----------------------
|                     |     | Jean Madar,            
|                     |     | Chief Executive Officer



A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906 has been provided to Inter Parfums, Inc. and will be retained by Inter Parfums, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 23.1
 

                 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
                 ----------------------------------

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (No. 33-14058) our report dated February 6, 1997,
appearing within Exhibit 13.1 which has been incorporated by reference into
various items of Michael Baker Corporation's Annual Report on Form 10-K for
the year ended December 31, 1996.  We also consent to the incorporation by
reference of our report on the Financial Statement Schedule, which appears as
Exhibit 99.2 of this Form 10-K.



/s/ Price Waterhouse LLP
-------------------------
Price Waterhouse LLP
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
March 28, 1997
<PAGE>
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                    AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     The  undersigned  hereby  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the
undersigned's  best knowledge and belief,  the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for
the Geodyne  Energy Income  Limited  Partnership II-D  ("Issuer") for the period
ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission on
the date hereof (the "Report"):

(a)  fully  complies  with the  requirements  of  section  13(a) or 15(d) of the
     Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(b)  the information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in all material
     respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer.

         Dated this 15th day of May, 2003.

                          GEODYNE ENERGY INCOME LIMITED
                          PARTNERSHIP II-D
                          ("Issuer")

                          //s// Dennis R. Neill
                          -----------------------------------
                          Dennis R. Neill
                          President (Chief Executive Officer)

                          //s// Craig D. Loseke
                          -----------------------------------
                          Craig D. Loseke
                          Chief Accounting Officer
                          (Chief Financial Officer)


     A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has
been  furnished to Geodyne  Energy Income  Limited  Partnership II-D and will be
retained by Geodyne Energy Income Limited  Partnership II-D and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.