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

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 563 

Recognizing the Office of the Legislative Counsel of the House of 

Representatives on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the Office. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 18, 2019 

Ms. LOFGREN (for herself and Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois) submitted the 

following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on House Administration 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing the Office of the Legislative Counsel of the 

House of Representatives on the occasion of the 100th 

anniversary of the Office. 

Whereas the Office of the Legislative Counsel of the House 

of Representatives was established 100 years ago by section 1303 of the Act of February 24, 1919 (40 Stat. 

1057, 1141; commonly known as the Revenue Act of 

1918); 

Whereas the Office has grown from serving primarily the 

Committee on Ways and Means in 1919 to serving all 

Committees and Members of the House, drafting legislation in all areas of Federal law; 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 563 IH 

Whereas the Office provides the House with high-quality legal 

analysis and drafting services on a nonpartisan, impartial, and confidential basis; 

Whereas the Office is essential to the House in the achievement of a clear, faithful, and coherent expression of legislative policies; and 

Whereas most attorneys in the Office spend a career in service of the House with many staying for decades and providing a valuable source of continuity of institutional 

knowledge: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives ex2 presses sincere gratitude to— 

3 (1) the Office of the Legislative Counsel for 

4 100 years of service; and 

5 (2) the attorneys and staff of the Office for 

6 their faithful and exemplary public service. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
@article{11806,
  author = {Solomon Woods and Timothy Jung and Dale Sears and Jie Yu},
  title = {Emissivity of Silver and Stainless Steel From 80 K to 300 K: Application to ITER Thermal Shields Temperatures},
  year = {2014},
  month = {2014-01-21},
  publisher = {Cryogenics},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=914418},
  language = {en},
}
Exhibit 23.1   Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm   We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Forms S-8 (No. 333-129231) of Blue Ridge Real Estate Company (Blue Ridge) and Big Boulder Corporation (Big Boulder), of our reports, dated January 22, 2007 with respect to the combined financial statements of Blue Ridge and Big Boulder and the related financial statement schedule, which reports appear in the October 31, 2006 annual report on Form 10-K of Blue Ridge and Big Boulder.    /s/ Parente Randolph, LLC  Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania January 22, 2007
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

IN RE: ADOPTION OF Z.T., A MINOR

PETITION OF: M.T., BIOLOGICAL

FATHER

:

:

:

:

:

No. 512 WAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 12th day of December, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of

Appeal; and Mother and adoptive Father's request to remand to trial court for an award

of counsel fees is DENIED.
Exhibit 32.1

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Fearless International, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), I, Jeffrey Binder, President and Chief Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

|Date: | February15,2008
|----- | ---------------
|      |                
|      | By:            
|      | Name:          
|      | Title:
Program 

Letter

United States Railroad 

Retirement Board

Office of Programs

Quality Reporting Service Center

e-mail: qrsc@rrb.gov

 Phone: (312) 751-4992

 Fax: (312) 751-7190

Letter No. 2012-03 Date: January 05, 2012

TO: Certification Registration, Retirement and Unemployment Contact Officials

SUBJECT: Continuation of the Payroll Tax Provisions under The Tax Relief, Unemployment

Insurance Reauthorization and Job Creation Act of 2010

Please distribute this notice to all individuals within your organization who may need the 

information in connection with their work. 

Payroll Tax Cut.-- The payroll tax reduction that had previously been scheduled to expire at the 

end of 2011 has been extended through February 29, 2012 .The Tax Relief Act provides a 

reduction of 2 percentage points in social security payroll taxes paid by employees. Railroad 

retirement benefits are divided into two tiers, with Tier I being equivalent to social security 

benefits.

As a result, the Tier I tax rate on railroad employees will drop from 6.2 percent to 4.2 percent.

Employees will continue to pay a 1.45 percent tax for Medicare hospital insurance, for a total tier 

I payroll tax rate of 5.65 percent. The maximum amount of earnings subject to the new rate of 4.2 

percent remains at $110,100, although there is no maximum on earnings subject to the Medicare 

rate. The employer Tier I tax rate remains 7.65 percent

The Act also provides for the transfer of money from the general fund to the Social Security 

Equivalent Benefit Account, one of the trust funds from which the Railroad Retirement Board 

(RRB) pays benefits, in an amount equal to the revenue lost due to the reduced payroll tax rate.

In addition, the continuation to the Act provides for a 2 percentage point reduction in the Tier 1 

tax rate for any sickness benefits processed for payment through February 29, 2012. The current, 

overall tax rate of 7.65% includes 6.2% for Tier 1 and 1.45% for Medicare. The new, reduced 

rate will be 5.65% which now includes 4.2% for Tier 1 and 1.45% for Medicare, thus increasing 

the net amount of sickness benefit payments, except for claimants injured on duty. This is a 

temporary provision, only applicable to sickness claims processed for payment through February 

29, 2012.

If you have any questions, please contact the Railroad Retirement Board.
@article{1214016,
  author = {Nathan Mahynski and Jacob Monroe and David Sheen and Rick L. Paul and Heather H. Chen-Mayer and Vincent K. Shen},
  title = {Classification and Authentication of Materials using Prompt Gamma Ray Activation Analysis},
  year = {2023},
  number = {332},
  month = {2023-07-12 04:07:00},
  publisher = {Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=936341},
  doi = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s10967-023-09024-x},
  language = {en},
}
#### Isadora Patterson, Respondent, v Arturo Rivera et al., Appellants.

[852 NYS2d 762]

The motion was properly denied on the ground that defendants’ expert did not address the MRI reports showing herniated discs, which in conjunction with other evidence was indicative of serious injury *(see Wadford v Gruz,*35 AD3d 258 [2006]; *Nix v Yang Gao Xiang,*19 AD3d 227 [2005]). Since defendants failed to meet their initial burden on the motion, there is no need to consider plaintiffs opposing papers *(see id.).*Concur— Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Friedman and Nardelli, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 15 (Monday, January 26, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4374-4375]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-1518]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RIN 0648-XL79


Marine Mammals; File No. 87-1591

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

[[Page 4375]]

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice; issuance of permit.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that Daniel P. Costa, Ph.D., Department 
of Biology and Institute of Marine Sciences, University of California, 
Santa Cruz, CA 95064 has been issued an amendment to Permit No. 87-
1851-00.

ADDRESSES: The permit and related documents are available for review 
upon written request or by appointment in the following office(s):
    Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected 
Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 
20910; phone (301)713-2289; fax (301)427-2521; and
    Southwest Region, NMFS, 501 West Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long 
Beach, CA 90802-4213; phone (562)980-4001; fax (562)980-4018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Sloan or Tammy Adams, (301)713-
2289.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On November 18, 2008, notice was published 
in the Federal Register (73 FR 68416) that a request for an amendment 
to scientific research Permit No. 87-1851-00 had been submitted by the 
above-named individual. The requested amendment has been issued under 
the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended 
(16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), and the regulations governing the taking and 
importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216).
    The amended permit (No. 87-1851-01) expands the study area for 
tagging studies and physiological research on Antarctic seals to 
include the Weddell Sea. The permit amendment expires on January 31, 
2012.
    In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), a final determination has been made that the 
activity proposed is categorically excluded from the requirement to 
prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.

    Dated: January 14, 2009.
P. Michael Payne,
Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of 
Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. E9-1518 Filed 1-23-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                          26,072
<SECURITIES>                                 1,042,978
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,147
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,072,197
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,072,197
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           64,075
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,008,122
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,072,197
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             (158,575)
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                (178,215)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (336,790)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (336,790)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (27.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (27.05)
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Demetrio Lifrieri, Appellant, v William A. Lee, Respondent.

Submitted July 2, 2012;

decided September 11, 2012

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution.
##### 



Exhibit 10.21
 Sovereign Bancorp, Inc.
2001 Stock Incentive Plan




---



##### 



Sovereign Bancorp, Inc.
2001 Stock Incentive Plan
  ARTICLE
    
    PAGEARTICLE 1. PURPOSE OF THE PLAN; TYPES OF AWARDS
    
    
    1ARTICLE 2. DEFINITIONS
    
    
    1ARTICLE 3. ADMINISTRATION
    
    
    4ARTICLE 4. COMMON STOCK SUBJECT TO THE PLAN
    
    
    5ARTICLE 5. ELIGIBILITY
    
    
    6ARTICLE 6. STOCK OPTIONS IN GENERAL
    
    
    6ARTICLE 7. TERM, VESTING AND EXERCISE OF OPTIONS
    
    
    8ARTICLE 8. EXERCISE OF OPTIONS FOLLOWING TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT
    
    
    9ARTICLE 9. RESTRICTED STOCK
    
    
    11ARTICLE 10. ADJUSTMENT PROVISIONS
    
    
    12ARTICLE 11. GENERAL PROVISIONS
    
    
    13
 i




---



##### 



Purpose
 Authorized Plan Awards
         1




---



##### 



2




---



##### 



3




---



##### 



The Committee
 Powers of the Committee
  4




---



##### 



Liability
 Establishment and Certification of Performance Goals
 Performance Grants Not Mandatory
  Common Stock Authorized.
   5




---



##### 



Shares Available
  Participation
 Incentive Stock Option Eligibility
  Exercise Price
 Limitation on Incentive Stock Options
 Determination of Fair Market Value
  6




---



##### 



Limitation on Option Awards
 Transferability of Options
   7




---



##### 



Term and Vesting i.e.
 Exercise
    8




---



##### 



Deferred Delivery of Nonqualified Stock Option Shares
  Retirement
   Death or Total and Permanent Disability
 Termination For Cause
  nolo contendere
   9




---



##### 



Special Termination Provisions
       10




---



##### 



Other Termination By the Corporation or Optionee
  In General
 Minimum Vesting Period for Certain Awards
 Limitation on Restricted Stock Awards
 Issuance and Retention of Share Certificates By Corporation
 Stock Powers
 Release of Shares
 Forfeiture of Restricted Stock Awards
 Assignment, Transfer, Etc. of Restricted Stock Rights
 11




---



##### 



Deferred Delivery of Formerly Restricted Stock
  Share Adjustments.
    Corporate Changes
 12




---



##### 



Fractional Shares
 Binding Determination
  Effective Date
 Termination of the Plan
 Limitation on Termination, Amendment or Modification
      No Right to Grant of Award or Continued Employment
 Withholding Taxes
  13




---



##### 



Listing and Registration of Shares
    Disinterested Director
 Gender; Number vice versa
 Applicable Law
 14




---



##### 



Headings
 15
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Dr. Barry W. Karlin, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of CRC Health Corporation (the Company), do 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 my knowledge:



| |  |  | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | - |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | - |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                    
|------------------------------------
|Date: August 16, 2010               
|                                    
|/s/    DR. BARRY W.
KARLIN          
|Dr. Barry W. Karlin                 
|Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
|(Principal Executive Officer)       

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to CRC Health Corporation and will be retained
by CRC Health Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Marvin Crosby, Appellant.

[821 NYS2d 908]

*720Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Mangano, Jr., J.), rendered January 27, 2004, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree, burglary in the first degree (two counts), kidnapping in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch at the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Under the circumstances of this case, the trial court’s instruction on acting in concert was appropriate and the trial court meaningfully responded to a jury note with respect thereto by rereading its original instruction *(see People v Malloy,*55 NY2d 296 [1982], *cert denied*459 US 847 [1982]; *People v Crayton,*278 AD2d 64 [2000]). The trial court’s immediate curative instruction in connection with a witness’ testimony regarding the defendant’s alleged prior drug use effectively minimized any potential prejudice *(see People v Berg,*59 NY2d 294, 299-300 [1983]; *People v Smith,*288 AD2d 244 [2001]).

Additionally, the defendant improperly relies on the victim’s trial testimony to challenge the hearing court’s determination that there was probable cause to arrest the defendant. “Where, as here, the defendant fails to move to reopen a suppression hearing, he or she may not rely upon the trial testimony to challenge the suppression ruling” *(People v Gold,*249 AD2d 414, 415 [1998]; *see People v Gonzalez,*55 NY2d 720 [1981], *cert denied*456 US 1010 [1982]; *People v Brown,*11 AD3d 474 [2004]).

The defendant’s contentions that his sentencing as a persistent felony offender and to consecutive sentences violated his constitutional rights pursuant to *Apprendi v New Jersey*(530 US 466 [2000]) are unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, are without merit *(see People v Rosen,*96 NY2d 329 [2001], *cert denied*534 US 899 [2001]; *People v Portalatin,*18 AD3d 673 [2005]; *People v Cruz,*308 AD2d 458 [2003]).

The defendant’s contentions raised in points two, three, four, and five of his supplemental pro se brief, inter alia, relating to prosecutorial misconduct at the *Rodriguez*hearing *(see People v*
      *721
      *Rodriguez,*79 NY2d 445 [1992]), whether the court should have granted an adjournment, whether the victim’s in-court identification of the defendant should have been suppressed, and ineffective assistance of counsel, are without merit. The defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are unpreserved for appellate review. Schmidt, J.E, Santucci, Fisher and Covello, JJ., concur.
[891 NYS2d 222]

#### Maria Reyes, Plaintiff, v Francisco Reyes, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Bronx County,

June 12, 2009

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*DC 37 Municipal Employees Legal Services Plan,*New York City *{Joan L. Beranbaum*and *Lisa Eulau*of counsel), for plaintiff.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Ira R. Globerman, J.

Plaintiff moves by order to show cause for a default judgment or summary judgment on her action for divorce from the defendant. The divorce claim is made pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 170 (3) alleging that the defendant was confined in prison for more than three or more consecutive years and that the *589requisite period of imprisonment occurred after the marriage was performed. The defendant was duly served with the summons and complaint and with the instant order to show cause, but, although acknowledging such service to the plaintiff, has responded to neither.

The parties were married on June 20, 2000 while the defendant was incarcerated and after he had been sentenced in 1999 to 11 years and three months on a conviction for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine. This action was commenced on November 29, 2007. When the defendant completed his sentence in 2008, he was deported to the Dominican Republic.

This action was ordered placed on the uncontested matrimonial calendar. Thereafter, plaintiffs papers were rejected by a referee on the grounds that the complaint failed to state a cause of action under Domestic Relations Law § 170 (3) because the defendant’s incarceration did not commence after the date of marriage. (Exhibit H at 4.)

After due consideration of the referee’s decision, I respectfully disagree with her conclusion that the complaint fails to state a valid cause of action for divorce. The only reported case considering this issue, *Scheu v Vargas*(4 Misc 3d 375 [Sup Ct, Rensselaer County 2004]), also denied a divorce in circumstances similar to the instant matter. That court held that the defendant therein could not be found to have been “at fault” for a failure of the marriage since the marriage, as in the instant matter, took place after the defendant had been sentenced and while he was incarcerated. Therefore, the court went on, since New York only allows “no fault” divorces following the execution of a separation agreement, the plaintiffs divorce claim founded on defendant’s incarceration had to be denied. I respectfully disagree with that conclusion. Domestic Relations Law § 170 (3) makes no reference to “fault.” Therefore, a plaintiff who fulfills all of the requirements set out in that section is entitled to a judgment of divorce, notwithstanding the fact that the defendant could not be said to have done anything after the marriage that could be construed as “fault.”

Accordingly, the plaintiffs papers having established that the requirements of Domestic Relations Law § 170 (3) are fulfilled, her action may proceed and the defendant’s default taken.