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

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2498 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2498

  To amend title 36, United States Code, to encourage the nationwide 
        observance of two minutes of silence each Veterans Day.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 12, 2011

 Mr. Frank of Massachusetts (for himself, Mr. Guinta, Ms. Tsongas, Mr. 
Grimm, Mr. Markey, Mr. Reyes, Ms. Richardson, Mr. Grijalva, Ms. Clarke 
of New York, Mr. Capuano, and Mr. Lynch) introduced the following bill; 
        which was referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 36, United States Code, to encourage the nationwide 
        observance of two minutes of silence each Veterans Day.

    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 ``Veterans Day Moment of Silence 
Act''.

SEC. 2. OBSERVANCE OF VETERANS DAY.

    (a) Two Minutes of Silence.--Chapter 1 of title 36, United States 
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:
``Sec. 145. Veterans Day
    ``The President shall issue each year a proclamation calling on the 
people of the United States to observe two minutes of silence on 
Veterans Day, beginning at 2:11 p.m. eastern time, in honor of the 
service and sacrifice of veterans throughout the history of the 
Nation.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter 1 of 
title 36, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
following new item:

``145. Veterans Day.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Elizabeth Ann WATERS, Petitioner, v. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, Respondent.

No. 2008-3036.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Jan. 3, 2008.

Elizabeth Ann Waters, pro se.

ORDER

Petitioner having filed the required Statement Concerning Discrimination, and having filed the required brief, it is

ORDERED that the order of dismissal and the mandate be, and the same hereby are, VACATED and RECALLED, and the petition for review is REINSTATED.

The respondent should compute the due date for filing its brief from the date of filing of this order.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
               THIS  FINANCIAL   DATA  SCHEDULE   CONTAINS   SUMMARY   FINANCIAL
               INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM MEDSCAPE'S  QUARTERLY  REPORT ON FORM
               10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
               IT'S ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                     DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                        JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                 60,878,195
<SECURITIES>                                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                           4,587,629
<ALLOWANCES>                                    0
<INVENTORY>                                     0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                       77,721,858
<PP&E>                                  6,268,366
<DEPRECIATION>                           (732,417)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         99,621,223
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                  11,076,211
<BONDS>                                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           0
<PREFERRED>                                     0
<COMMON>                                  448,435
<OTHER-SE>                             88,096,577
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           99,621,223
<SALES>                                         0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        2,208,590
<CGS>                                           0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                       10,771,815
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        190,760
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        (8,372,465)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                    (8,372,465)
<DISCONTINUED>                                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 0
<CHANGES>                                       0
<NET-INCOME>                           (8,372,465)
<EPS-BASIC>                                 (0.43)
<EPS-DILUTED>                               (0.43)



</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Dominick Giaquinto, Appellant, v Commissioner of New York State Department of Health, Respondent, et al., Respondent.

Submitted March 17, 2008;

decided March 20, 2008

Motion by Empire Justice Center for leave to appear amicus curiae on the appeal herein granted only to the extent that the proposed brief is accepted as filed. Three copies of the brief must be served and an original and 24 copies filed within seven days.
Exhibit
      32.1








CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


18
      U.S.C.
§ 1350


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Point.360 ( the “Company”) on Form 10-Q
      for the period ended September 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Haig S. Bagerdjian, Chief Executive
      Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
      pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to 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 results of operations of the
                Company.














/s/
      Haig S.
      Bagerdjian


Haig
      S.
      Bagerdjian


Chief
      Executive Officer


November
      14, 2006
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 180 (Tuesday, September 19, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 43775]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-19856]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health; Notice 
of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Center for Complementary and 
Integrative Health Special Emphasis Panel; Mechanistic Studies to 
Optimize Mind and Body Interventions in NCCIH High Priority Research 
Topics (R33/R61).
    Date: November 9, 2017.
    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Two Democracy Plaza, 6707 
Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Yisong Wang, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, 
Office of Scientific Review, NCCIH/NIH, Division of Extramural 
Activities, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Suite 401, Bethesda, MD 20817, 
301-480-9483, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4e37273d21202960392f20290e20272660292138"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="057c6c766a6b622b72646b62456b6c6d2b626a73">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.213, 
Research and Training in Complementary and Integrative Health, 
National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: September 13, 2017.
Michelle Trout,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2017-19856 Filed 9-18-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Wooster *v.*Clark and others.

*(Circuit Court, S. D. New York.*

August 29, 1881.)

1. Testimony — Rule 69.

Equity rule 69 is imperative that no testimony taken, after time shall he allowed to he read at the hearing.

On Motion tp Strike out Testimony.

Blatchford, C. J.

The motion to strike out the testimony taken on the part of the defendants must be granted. Rule 69 is imperative, that no testimony taken after time shall be allowed to be read at the hearing. The plaintiff duly objected on the record to the taking of what was taken, on the ground that it was taken after time, and such objection has never been waived. Moreover, the defendants, after that, specially moved for time to take proofs, and the motion was denied.

The proof of the sale of a binder is sufficient. It is plain that it infringes claims 2, 4, and 5. The granting of the reissue to the plaintiff is sufficient proof of his title to sue.

There must be a decree for the plaintiff.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

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


This certification is intended to accompany U.S. Plastic Lumber Corp.'s (the
"Company") Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2003
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
and is given solely for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of 18 U.S.C.
ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
To the best of my knowledge, I, Mark S. Alsentzer, hereby certify in my capacity
as the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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 result of
                  operations of the Company.


                                                     /s/ MARK S. ALSENTZER
                                                     -------------------------
                                                     MARK S. ALSENTZER
                                                     Chief Executive Officer


Date: November 14, 2003


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the
United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a
separate disclosure document.
f1012ga2ex10i_europa6.htm


Exhibit 10.1


 


Description of Verbal Management Consulting Agreement Between Europa Acquisition VI, Inc. and Peter Reichard.


 


 


On July 30, 2010, Mr. Reichard, the President and sole director of the Company, verbally agreed to provide funding to cover the costs of investigating and analyzing business combinations for the next 12 months and beyond, until the Company is engaged in business activities that provide cash flow sufficient to cover the costs of investigating and analyzing business combinations. We currently have no written contractual agreements in place with Mr. Reichard to provide such funding. During the next 12 months, Mr. Reichard has agreed to cover costs including, but not limited to, the filing of Exchange Act reports, and consummating an acquisition. At this time we do not have the funds to pay for these filings and do not have any written agreement to raise funds to cover these expenses. However, we believe we will be able to meet these costs with funds provided by Mr. Reichard. At such time that the Company has the ability to cover the costs of investigating and analyzing business combinations with cash flow from operations, Mr. Reichard will no longer be obligated to cover such costs.  The Company not currently undertaking any steps to repay Mr. Reichard, but the understanding is that he will be repaid when the Company is sold.
Extension Agreement for Related Party Debenture issued to Richard Giles



 Exhibit 10.4 
 AMPIO PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. 
 EXTENTION AGREEMENT FOR NOTES PAYABLE

 TOTAL PRINCIPAL AMOUNT: $100,000 
 Effective Date: January 31, 2011 
 Greenwood Village, CO 80111 

On August 10, 2010, the undersigned Ampio Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Maker”), issued one promissory note (the
“Note”) in the amount of $100,000.00, and promised to pay to the order of Richard B. Giles, and his successors or assigns (collectively, the “Holder”), the aggregate sum of $100,000.00 due under the Note, together with interest
at the rate of 8.0% (eight percent) per annum until the Note is paid in full. The Note was originally due on January 31, 2011. 
 In
consideration of this extension agreement, the payment of $100, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged and accepted by the Holder and the Maker, the Maker and the Holder hereby agree
to extend the due date of the Notes to the earlier of (i) closing of a public or private equity financing (the “Offering”) in an amount exceeding $5 million, or (ii) April 30, 2011. All of the other terms of the original
Notes remain unchanged. 
 Maker may prepay the Notes in part, or in full, prior to the due date of the Notes. Payments of principal and
interest shall be made at the place that Holder from time to time shall direct in writing. 
 In witness whereof, the parties hereto have
executed this Extension Agreement for Notes Payable, to be effective the date specified above. 
 Maker: 

Ampio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 
  

			
	By:	 	 /s/ Donald B. Wingerter

		 	Donald B. Wingerter, Chief Executive Officer

 Holder:

 Richard B. Giles 
  

			
	By:	 	 /s/ Richard B. Giles

		 	Richard B. Giles
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2338 Engrossed in House (EH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 2338

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
    at 600 Florida Avenue in Cocoa, Florida, as the ``Harry T. and 
                     Harriette Moore Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. HARRY T. AND HARRIETTE MOORE POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 600 Florida Avenue in Cocoa, Florida, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Harry T. and Harriette Moore Post Office''.
    (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 ``Harry T. 
and Harriette Moore Post Office''.

            Passed the House of Representatives November 28, 2012.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
112th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 2338

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
    at 600 Florida Avenue in Cocoa, Florida, as the ``Harry T. and 
                     Harriette Moore Post Office''.
```
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________

No. 02

- 22

- 00034

- CV

___________________________

On Appeal from County Court at Law

Cooke County, Texas

Trial Court No. CV1901774

Before Bassel, Womack, and Wallach, JJ.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion



### K IMBERLY 

### B ULLS



### , Appellant

V



### .

W HISPERING 

### H ILLS 

### P ROPERTY 

### O WNER 

### ' S 

### A SSOCIATION 

### , Appellee2 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT

We have considered “Appellant ’ s Unopposed Motion to Dismiss Appeal .” We

grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 4 2.1(a)(1), 43.2(f).

Appellant must pay all costs of this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(d), 43.4.

Per Curiam

Delivered : April 28, 2022
# United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 June 23, 2006 Before Hon. JOHN L. COFFEY, Circuit Judge Hon. DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge Hon. DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge No. 04-1349 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee ,

v. DONALD EDWARDS, Defendant-Appellant

. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois No. 02-40143-001 Joe Billy McDade, Judge

. O R D E R Donald Edwards was sentenced to 248 months’ imprisonment for violations of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), an d § 922(g)(1). He appealed, arguing that the district court plainly erred by sentencing him under the formerly mandatory guideline regime. See United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). We remanded to ask whether the district court judge would have imposed a different sentence had he known that the guidelines were advisory. See United States v. Paladino , 401 F.3d 471, 481 (7th Cir. 2005). He answered that he would. Thus, we VACATE Edwards’ sentence and REMAND for resentencing. UNPUBLISHED ORDER Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
      This schedule contains summary Financial Information extracted
      from January 31, 1998 financial statements and is qualified in
      its entirety by reference to such.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001014491                        
<NAME> General American Royalty, Inc.                       
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     US DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              OCT-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 NOV-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   JAN-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         2,806
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  28,697
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               35,618
<PP&E>                                         569,187
<DEPRECIATION>                                 120,286
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 535,499
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          351,298
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       1,032
<OTHER-SE>                                     0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   535,499
<SALES>                                        41,756
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               41,756
<CGS>                                          4,481
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  4,481
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             10,636
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (59,039)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (59,039)  
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.06) 
        


</TABLE>
#### United States *v.*Murphy.*

*(Circuit Court, S. D. Ohio, W. D.*

October, 1881.)

1. Inmates of Soldiers’ Home’s — Not in Military Service of United States —Indictment for Appropriating Clothing of Inmates — Rev. St. §$ 5438, 5439.

Inmates of the National Military Home at Dayton, Ohio, are not in the military service of the United States, and clothing issued to them is not used in such service. *So held,*on demurrer to an indictment under section 5439, Rev. St., charging the defendant with applying to his own use an overcoat which had been issued to an inmate of such home.

On Demurrer to Indictment.

*Samuel Craighead,*for the demurrer.

*Channiny Richards,*U. S. Dist. Atty., *contra.*

*

Reported by J. C. Harper, Esq., of the Cincinnati bar.

Swing, D. J.

The indictment is drawn under section 5439 of the Revised Statutes. The two counts, differing somewhat in form, charge that the defendant has applied to his own use an overcoat which had been issued to an inmate of the National Military Home at Dayton, to be used by him for the military service of the United States. A demurrer to this indictment raises the question whether clothing so issued to inmates of that institution is within the prohibition of that section. The preceding section (5438) prohibits the purchase of clothing, etc., from any soldier or other person called into or employed in the military service of the United States, such soldier or person not having the lawful right to sell the same. This section (5439) then prohibits any person from knowingly applying to h'is own use any clothing or other property of the United States furnished or to be used for the military service. Under section 5438 the clothing must be purchased from a person “in- the military service;” under section 5439 it must be clothing or other property of the United States “furnished or to be used for the military service.” The indictment, it is true, charges in one count that the overcoat in question was “furnished for the military service,” and in the other that it was “to be used for the military service,” but in each it appears it had been issued to an inmate of the home.

It was claimed in argument on behalf of the government that these military homes are a part of the military establishment, and. clothing issued to the inmates is furnished and used for the military service. It is clear that the inmates of these homes are not in the military *27service. It is not claimed that section 5138 applies to the purchase of clothing from them; nor do I think that the clothing issued *"to*them is used in the military service of the United States.

Congress could probably prohibit the purchase of clothing from these inmates, and punish any one applying it to other purposes than that for which it is issued; hut the law in force does not apply to it, and the demurrer must be sustained.