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

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1140 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1140

 To amend the Public Health Service Act with respect to the treatment 
   under section 351(k)(7) of such Act (relating to exclusivity for 
  reference products) of certain products deemed to have a biological 
    product license pursuant to section 7002 of the Biologics Price 
                Competition and Innovation Act of 2009.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 11, 2019

Ms. Smith (for herself and Mr. Cassidy) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, 
                     Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Public Health Service Act with respect to the treatment 
   under section 351(k)(7) of such Act (relating to exclusivity for 
  reference products) of certain products deemed to have a biological 
    product license pursuant to section 7002 of the Biologics Price 
                Competition and Innovation Act of 2009.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Protecting Access to Biosimilars Act 
of 2019''.

SEC. 2. TREATMENT OF BIOLOGICAL PRODUCTS DEEMED LICENSED.

    Section 351(k)(7) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 
262(k)(7)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
                    ``(D) Deemed licenses.--
                            ``(i) No additional exclusivity through 
                        deeming.--An approved application that is 
                        deemed to be a license for a biological product 
                        under this section pursuant to section 
                        7002(e)(4) of the Biologics Price Competition 
                        and Innovation Act of 2009 shall not be treated 
                        as having been first licensed under subsection 
                        (a) for purposes of subparagraphs (A) and (B).
                            ``(ii) Limitation on exclusivity applies to 
                        any reference product.--Subparagraph (C) shall 
                        apply to any reference product, without regard 
                        to whether--
                                    ``(I) such product was first 
                                licensed under subsection (a); or
                                    ``(II) the approved application for 
                                such product was deemed to be a license 
                                for a biological product as described 
                                in clause (i).''.
                                 <all>
```
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 DoMar Exotic Furnishings, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended November 30, 2007 as filed with
the 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; 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: January 9, 2008


/s/ Scott Sieck
----------------------------------------
Scott Sieck, Principal Financial Officer
907 A.2d 1004

#### IN THE MATTER OF RUSSELL T. KIVLER, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW (ATTORNEY NO. 001351973).

October 13, 2006.

CORRECTED ORDER

This matter having been presented to the Court on the motion of the Office of Attorney Ethics to compel RUSSELL T. KIVLER of TRENTON, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1973, to comply with the Court’s Order of May 3,2005;

And RUSSELL T. KIVLER having been ordered to show cause why he should not be temporarily suspended from practice or why the Court should not take such other action as it deems appropriate to compel compliance with the Court’s Order of May 8, 2005;

And good cause appearing;

*343It is ORDERED that RUSSELL T. KIVLER is temporarily suspended from the practice of law until he complies with the Court’s Order of May 3, 2005, by providing the Office of Attorney Ethics with the report of a mental health professional attesting to respondent’s fitness to practice law, the suspension to be effective immediately and to continue until the further Order of the Court; and it is further

ORDERED that RUSSELL T. KIVLER be restrained and enjoined from practicing law during the period of suspension; and it is further

ORDERED that RUSSELL T. KIVLER comply with *Rule*1:20-20 dealing with suspended attorneys; and it is further

ORDERED that the entire record of this matter be made a permanent part of respondent’s file as an attorney at law of this State.
Exhibit
32




Chief
Executive and Financial Officer Certification (Section 906)




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18U.S.C.,SECTION
1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002







Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 (as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), I, the undersigned Chief Executive and Financial
Officer of Global Immune Technologies, Inc., (the “Company”), herby certify
that, to the best of my knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company
for the period ended March  31, 2008 (the “Report”) fully complies
with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the
Company.  A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 has been provided to the registrant and will be retained by it and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.








Dated:
June 30, 2008


/s/ Donald
      PerksCEO
      and CFO
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       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 accompanying Annual Report of Wellman, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Keith R. Phillips, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

(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.

                             By /s/Keith R. Phillips
                             --------------------------
                             Chief Financial Officer and
                             Vice President
PD-0726-15

IN THE

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

RECEIVED IN

DF CRIMINAL AF

JUL 23 2015 y

MARK ANTHONY ESTRADA, '' , petitioner AbetAcosta,Clerk

vs

THE STATE OF TEXAS

_ _ ._ FILED IN

MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE PETITION FOR DISCRETlSHffi^llS^WL APPEALS

UNTIL AFTER INSTITUTIONAL LOCKDOWN ENDS „ „ „ .„,„ JUL 24 20 id

TO THE JUDGES OF THE HONORABLE COURT:

COMES NOW MARK ANTHONY ESTRADA, Petitioner in theAbsabAeostkyCft^k

and cause and files this motion to extend time to file Petitioner's

Petition for Discretionary Review until-after the Institutional

Prison Lockdown ends and in support states the following:

I.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted Petitioner's first

motion for extention of time to file the Petition for Discretionary

Review, having been recieved in the prison mailroom on June 22,2015.

This Court extended the the time to file the Petition and issued a due

date of August 25,2015, stating that no further extensions will be

entertained. On Moday July 20, 2015 the Petitioner's Prison Unit went

on a Institutional Lockdown, which should last about (30) days,

estimated. Thus, this lock down should end on or around August 20, 2015,

leaving the Petitioner only (5)days left to prepare and file his

Petition.

II.

During the Institutional Lockdown the Petitioner is prevented

from going to the Prison Law Library wherein he can obtain essential

and necessary legal information from law books and reference material

all which are necessary to prepare a well documented Petition for

Discretionary Review. Through no fault of his own, the Petitoner is

confined to his cell 24/7 and is denied the use of law books within

the prison law library and thus impeded from due dilligence efforts

tp prepare his Petition for Discretionary Review which constitutes

as good cause fori granting this Motion.

Petitioner asks this Court to extend the time of (30) days after

the initial due date of August 25, 2015, to file his Petition.

1.
PRAYER

Petitioner requests that this court grant this Motion for

extention of time to file the Petition for Discretionary Review

until after the Prison Institional Lockdown ends. Petitioner then

Prays that*this Court issue a new due date of September 18,2015 for

which the Petition for Discretionary Review is due.

Respectfully submitted,

MARK ANTHONY ESTRADA

TDCJ#1568684

3001 SOUTH EMILY DRIVE

McCONNELL UNIT

BEEVILLE, TX. 78102

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Mark A. Estrada, do certify that a true copy of the above

and forgoing Motion for Extention of Time to File a Petition For

Discretionary Review was on this 21st day of July 2015 was mailed

with first class postage pre-paid to : Clerk of the Texas Court of

Criminal Appeals, P.O.BOX 12308, Capital Station , Austin, TX.78711.

2.

MARK ANTHONY ESTRADA

TDCJ#1568684

£{ &oty-
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 130 (Thursday, July 9, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 32910]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-16168]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. ER99-2311-010; ER97-2846-013]


Carolina Power & Light Company; Florida Power Corporation; Notice 
of Filing

June 30, 2009.
    Take notice that on January 13, 2009, Progress Energy Inc., on 
behalf of Carolina Power & Light Company and Florida Power Corporation 
(the Applicants), filed a response to the Commission's December 23, 
2008, data request regarding the Applicants September 2, 2008 filing.
    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. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. 
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of 
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    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#98deddcadbd7f6f4f1f6fdcbede8e8f7eaecd8fefdeafbb6fff7ee"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a0e6e5f2e3efceccc9cec5f3d5d0d0cfd2d4e0c6c5d2c38ec7cfd6">[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 July 8, 2009.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-16168 Filed 7-8-09; 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>
AMENDMENT





This Amendment, dated as of ___________, 2011 (this “Amendment”), by and between Zevotek, Inc. (the “Company”) and ______________, (the “Noteholder”), has been executed for the purpose of amending that certain Convertible Promissory Note, with an original issue date of __________, 2009, issued by the Company to certain holders in the aggregate amount of $________, of which $_______ in principal amount was assigned to ____________ (such assigned portion, the “Note”).





In consideration of the premises, the mutual agreements contained herein and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which hereby are acknowledged, the undersigned agree as follows:





1.           The definition of the “Maturity Date” in the forepart of the Note is hereby amended to read as follows:





“_____________, 2012”.





2.           Except as modified and amended herein, all of the terms and conditions of the


Note shall remain in full force and effect.





3.           This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall, for all purposes, be deemed an original and all of such counterparts, taken together, shall constitute one and the same Amendment.





4.           This Amendment and the rights of the parties hereto shall be interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of New York, without giving effect to principles of conflict of laws.





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have duly executed this Amendment as of the day and year first above written.





NOTEHOLDER

ZEVOTEK, INC.By:


By:Name:

Name:  Robert BabkieTitle:

Title:    Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.1




CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


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 accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2010 and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Joseph A. Mills, Chief Executive Officer of Eagle Rock Energy G&P, LLC, the general partner of Eagle Rock Energy GP, L.P., the general partner of Eagle Rock Energy Partners, L.P. (the “Partnership”), hereby certify, 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 results of operations of the Partnership.





Date:  May 7, 2010
/s/ Joseph A. MillsJoseph A. MillsChairman and Chief Executive Officer of Eagle RockEnergy G&P, LLC, General Partner of Eagle RockEnergy GP, L.P., General Partner of Eagle RockEnergy Partners, L.P.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Danny Hearns, Appellant.

[821 NYS2d 907]

Appeal 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.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, he was not entitled to any relief based on the failure of the People to turn over alleged *Brady*material *(see Brady v Maryland,*373 US 83 [1963]). To be deemed *Brady*material, the material must be exculpatory and within the possession, custody, or control of the prosecution *(see People v Carnett,*19 AD3d 703 [2005]; *People v Johnson,*195 AD2d 481 [1993]). In the instant case, there was no *Brady*violation because the People never possessed the material in question *(see People v Carnett,*19 AD3d 703 [2005]; *People v O’Brien,*270 AD2d 433 [2000]; *People v McCargo,*251 AD2d 600 [1998]).

The defendant’s contention that he was deprived of a fair trial because of prosecutorial misconduct during summation is unpreserved for appellate review *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]) and, in any event, does not require reversal *(see People v Davis,*28 AD3d 787 [2006]; *People v Ayala,*4 AD3d 480 [2004]). Further, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s request for an adjournment to review certain materials *(see People v Spears,*64 NY2d 698 [1984]; *People v Rodriguez,*299 AD2d 564 [2002]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Schmidt, J.E, Santucci, Fisher and Covello, JJ., concur.
---




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 Defentect Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March
31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”),
the undersigned certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of the
undersigned’s 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.





Dated:
       May 19, 2010
              By:
              /s/ James C. AckerlyJames
      C. Ackerly, Chief Executive Officerand
      President (Principal Executive
Officer)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999             DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           45230                   28367
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  2041416                 1623738
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                     271884                  149901
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               2805080                 2117241
<PP&E>                                         2575100                 2446878
<DEPRECIATION>                                (557219)                (514771)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 6525171                 5264237
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        (2538523)               (2026323)
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                    (75418)                 (75418)
<COMMON>                                        (1575)                  (1533)
<OTHER-SE>                                   (1232489)               (1126530)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 (6525171)               (5264237)
<SALES>                                     (15429976)              (14257997)
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            (15429976)              (14257997)
<CGS>                                         14886101                13829310
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 14886101                13829310
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 45519                    7677
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               78164                   74992
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (226526)                (158691)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     74677                   50338
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (151849)                (108353)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (151844)                (108353)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.98                    0.71
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.91                    0.66


</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Alonza Snider, Also Known as Alonzo Snider, Appellant.

[855 NYS2d 57]

At issue on appeal is whether the court’s response to several jury notes violated the principles of *People v O'Rama*(78 NY2d 270, 277-278 [1991]). We conclude that defendant failed to make a record that is sufficient to permit appellate review of this issue *(see People v Kinchen,*60 NY2d 772, 773-774 [1983]), or to overcome the presumption of regularity that attaches to judicial proceedings *(see People v Velasquez,*1 NY3d 44, 48 [2003]). The record does not establish that the court failed to fulfill its “core responsibility” under *People v Kisoon*(8 NY3d 129, 135 [2007]). There is no evidence that the court prevented counsel from knowing the specific contents of the notes, or from suggesting different responses than those the court provided *(compare*
      *460
      *People v Starling,*85 NY2d 509, 516 [1995], *with People v Cook,*85 NY2d 928 [1995]). Accordingly, we reject defendant’s claim that there was a mode of proceedings error exempt from preservation requirements, and we decline to review this unpreserved claim in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find no basis for reversal. The notes simply called for readbacks of portions of the court’s charge, which the court provided, and any input by counsel would have been minimal. However, as the Court of Appeals stated in *Kisoon,*“we underscore the desirability of adherence to the procedures outlined in O’Rama” (8 NY3d at 135).

Defendant’s claim that his counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the court’s procedure in responding to the notes is unreviewable on direct appeal. The record does not establish that counsel did not have notice of the jury notes and an opportunity to be heard *(see People v Love,*57 NY2d 998 [1982]).

We decline to invoke our interest of justice jurisdiction to dismiss the noninclusory concurrent count of fifth-degree possession *(see e.g. People v Brown,*298 AD2d 158 [2002], *lv denied*99 NY2d 556 [2002]). Concur—Friedman, J.P., Gonzalez, McGuire and Moskowitz, JJ.