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

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 506 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 506

 To amend part B of title XVIII of the Social Security Act to exclude 
 customary prompt pay discounts from manufacturers to wholesalers from 
 the average sales price for drugs and biologicals under Medicare, and 
                          for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 12, 2015

   Mr. Roberts (for himself, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Casey, Mr. Brown, Mr. 
Cassidy, and Mr. Gardner) introduced the following bill; which was read 
             twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend part B of title XVIII of the Social Security Act to exclude 
 customary prompt pay discounts from manufacturers to wholesalers from 
 the average sales price for drugs and biologicals under Medicare, and 
                          for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. EXCLUDING CUSTOMARY PROMPT PAY DISCOUNTS FROM MANUFACTURERS 
              TO WHOLESALERS FROM THE AVERAGE SALES PRICE FOR MEDICARE 
              PAYMENTS FOR DRUGS AND BIOLOGICALS.

    (a) In General.--Section 1847A(c)(3) of the Social Security Act (42 
U.S.C. 1395w-3a(c)(3)) is amended--
            (1) in the first sentence, by inserting ``(other than 
        customary prompt pay discounts extended to wholesalers)'' after 
        ``prompt pay discounts''; and
            (2) in the second sentence, by inserting ``(other than 
        customary prompt pay discounts extended to wholesalers)'' after 
        ``other price concessions''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to the calculation of the average sales price for calendar 
quarters beginning more than 90 days after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                             386
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   37,674
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                38,060
<PP&E>                                       4,939,913
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,828,704
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,149,269
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           15,394
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,149,269
<SALES>                                        151,275
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               153,715
<CGS>                                           56,621
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  105,711
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 48,004
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             48,004
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    48,004
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        


</TABLE>
No. 1247.

#### Baltimore & Ohio Chicago Terminal Railroad Co. *v.*Howard.

June 10, 1946.

*Edward W. Rawlins*for petitioner.

*Joseph D. Ryan*for respondent.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, denied.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0647

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

DERRELL RUSSELL DOWD,

Defendant and Appellant. 

GRANT

Pursuant to authority granted under Mont. R. App. P. 26(1), the 

Appellant is given an extension of time until February 28, 2022, to 

prepare, file, and serve the Appellant’s opening brief. 

Electronically signed by:

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of the Supreme Court

January 27 2022

01/27/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0647
## SATURNA INVESTMENT TRUSTSextant Core Fund

### Supplement dated December 8, 2016 to theSummary Prospectus dated March 29, 2016

**The following paragraph replaces the paragraph under the section titled "Portfolio Manager" on page 4 of the Summary Prospectus:**

**Portfolio Managers**

Mr. Phelps McIlvaine, a vice president of Saturna Capital Corporation, and Mr. Christopher Paul, senior investment analyst, are the portfolio managers jointly and primarily responsible for the day-to-day management of the Sextant Core Fund. Mr. McIlvaine and Mr. Paul have been the portfolio managers since 2016.

 

*Please retain this document for your future reference*
No. 1033.

#### Gillespie *v.*Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

June 10, 1946.
PART II       OTHER INFORMATION


Item 6.    Exhibits and Reports on Form 8-K

(a)   Exhibits-

      Exhibit-27 Financial Data Schedule is filed with this 10-Q/A.


                                                             
                                                             
                                                             
             THE KRYSTAL COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARY              
             ----------------------------------              
                        SIGNATURES                           
                        ----------                           
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act 
of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be 
signed on its behalf by the undersigned thereunto duly 
authorized.                                                
                                                           
                                                           
                                                           
                                                           
                         THE KRYSTAL COMPANY               
                         (Registrant)                      
                                                           
Dated: 11/4/96            Camden B. Scearce                
--------------           ------------------------          
                         Camden B. Scearce                 
                        (Vice President and Chief Financial
                         and Accounting Officer)
#### Michelle Anderson, Appellant, v House of Good Samaritan Hospital, et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

(Appeal No. 1.)

[852 NYS2d 585]

Present-Scudder, P.J., Hurlbutt, Lunn, Green and Pine, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 221 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                           May 8, 2003.
    Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker 
may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 1261) to enhance the workforce investment system of the Nation by 
strengthening one-stop career centers, providing for more effective governance 
arrangements, promoting access to a more comprehensive array of employment, 
training, and related services, establishing a targeted approach to serving 
youth, and improving performance accountability, and for other purposes. The 
first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. General debate shall be 
confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce. After general debate the bill shall be considered 
for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an 
original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce now printed in the bill. The committee amendment in 
the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. No amendment to the 
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those 
printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. 
Each amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be 
offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, 
shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and 
controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, 
and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House 
or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such amendments 
are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the 
Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any 
amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous question shall be 
considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
Exhibit 32.2

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

I, Jeanne Seeley, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Occam Networks, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and result of operations of Occam Networks, Inc.

/s/ JEANNE SEELEY Jeanne Seeley Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)Date:

February 23, 2010


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

The
foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not being filed for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof,
regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.

---



QuickLinks
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3467 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3467

 To amend the Investment Company Act of 1940 to terminate an exemption 
for companies located in Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and any other 
                    possession of the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 29, 2016

Mr. Menendez (for himself and Mr. Hatch) introduced the following bill; 
which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, 
                           and Urban Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Investment Company Act of 1940 to terminate an exemption 
for companies located in Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and any other 
                    possession of the United States.

    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 ``U.S. Territories Investor Protection 
Act of 2016''.

SEC. 2. TERMINATION OF EXEMPTION.

    (a) In General.--Section 6(a) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 
(15 U.S.C. 80a-6(a)) is amended by striking paragraph (1).
    (b) Effective Date and Safe Harbor.--
            (1) Effective date.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), 
        the amendment made by subsection (a) shall take effect on the 
        date of the enactment of this Act.
            (2) Safe harbor.--With respect to a company that is exempt 
        under section 6(a)(1) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 
        U.S.C. 80a-6(a)(1)) on the day before the date of the enactment 
        of this Act, the amendment made by subsection (a) shall take 
        effect on the date that is 3 years after the date of the 
        enactment of this Act.
            (3) Extension of safe harbor.--The Securities and Exchange 
        Commission, by rule and regulation upon its own motion, or by 
        order upon application, may conditionally or unconditionally, 
        under section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 
        U.S.C. 80a-6(c)), further delay the effective date for a 
        company described in paragraph (2) for a maximum of 3 years 
        following the initial 3-year period if, before the end of the 
        initial 3-year period, the Commission determines that such a 
        rule, regulation, motion, or order is necessary or appropriate 
        in the public interest and for the protection of investors.
                                 <all>
```
MANDATE

Court of Appeals 

First District of Texas 

NO. 01-14-00662-CR

JAMES JACKSON, III, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal from the 248th District Court of Harris County. (Tr. Ct. No. 1359104).

TO THE 248TH DISTRICT COURT OF HARRIS COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before this Court, on the 11th day of December 2014, the case upon appeal to revise 

or to reverse your judgment was determined. This Court made its order in these words:

The Court today considered a motion to dismiss the 

appeal filed by the appellant, James Jackson, III. No decision 

has yet been handed down in the case. The Court grants the 

motion. Accordingly the Court dismisses the appeal.

The Court orders that this decision be certified below 

for observance.

Judgment rendered December 11, 2014.

Per curiam opinion delivered by panel consisting of Justices 

Jennings, Higley, and Massengale.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court in 
this behalf and in all things to have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

February 13, 2015 

Date CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE

 CLERK OF THE COURT
| (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 the operation of the Company. |
|-----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                  |   |
|-----------------------|--------|
| Dated: August 9, 2012 |   |
|                  | By:    | /s/ Xiaobin Liu |
|                  |   | Xiaobin Liu |
|                  |   | Chief Executive Officer and President |

| Dated: August 9, 2012 |   |
|-----------------------|--------|
|                  | By:    | /s/ Min Li |
|                  |   | Min Li |
|                  |   | Chief Financial Officer |
|                  |   |   |
**Exhibit 32.2****CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER****Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350****)**     The undersigned executive officer of Anchor BanCorp Wisconsin, Inc. (the “Registrant”)hereby certifies that the Registrant’s Form 10-Q for the three months ended December 31, 2005 fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that theinformation contained therein fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Registrant.       /s/ Michael W. Helser         Michael W. Helser, Treasurer and
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-50005

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

HAROLD ARCHIE LINDSAY, III,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 6:16-CR-143-1

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Harold Archie Lindsay, III, entered a conditional guilty plea to being a 

felon in possession of a firearm. He was sentenced at the bottom of the advisory 

guidelines range to 30 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised 

release. Pursuant to his plea agreement, Lindsay reserved the right to appeal 

the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence. As he did before 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 18, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-50005 Document: 00514311850 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/18/2018
No. 17-50005

2

the district court, Lindsay contends that the search warrant obtained in his 

case was legally insufficient as it was based on a “bare bones” affidavit. 

This court engages in a two-step inquiry when reviewing a district court’s 

denial of a defendant’s motion to suppress when a search warrant is involved. 

United States v. Cherna, 184 F.3d 403, 407 (5th Cir. 1999). First, the court 

determines whether the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule 

announced in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984), applies. Cherna, 184 

F.3d at 407. If so, no further analysis is conducted and the district court’s 

denial of the motion to suppress will be affirmed. Id. If the good faith exception 

does not apply, the court proceeds to the second step, “ensur[ing] that the 

magistrate had a substantial basis for . . . concluding that probable cause 

existed.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Although the affidavit in the instant case could have provided more 

information regarding details of the controlled buy, the affidavit did not 

contain “wholly conclusory statements” that were “so lacking in indicia of 

probable cause as to render official belief in [their] existence entirely 

unreasonable.” United States v. Satterwhite, 980 F.2d 317, 320-21 (5th Cir. 

1992) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Given that affidavits 

must be construed in a commonsense manner, see United States v. Ventresca, 

380 U.S. 102, 108 (1965), with great deference given to a magistrate judge’s 

determination of probable cause, the district court did not err in finding that 

the affidavit in the instant case was not bare bones. See United States v. 

McKnight, 953 F.2d 898, 905 (5th Cir. 1992). As such, it is unnecessary to 

determine if probable cause in fact existed, because the good-faith exception 

applies. See Cherna, 184 F.3d at 407. 

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 17-50005 Document: 00514311850 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/18/2018
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FORM 10QSB FOR
OPHTHALMIC IMAGING SYSTEMS FOR THE PERIOD ENDED FEBRUARY 28, 1998 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1998
<CASH>                                          74,960
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  882,048
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    987,574
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,057,805
<PP&E>                                       1,251,576
<DEPRECIATION>                               (835,371)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,490,483
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,129,328
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    10,492,365
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 (638,845)
<SALES>                                      1,468,157
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,468,157
<CGS>                                        1,026,652
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,026,652
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,607,795
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              19,750
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,186,040)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,186,040)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,186,040)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.30)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0

</TABLE>