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

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2593 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2593

To amend title 31, United States Code, to terminate the Presidential $1 
                 Coin Program, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 19, 2011

 Ms. Speier (for herself and Mr. Polis) introduced the following bill; 
       which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 31, United States Code, to terminate the Presidential $1 
                 Coin Program, 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. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Wasteful Presidential Coin Act of 
2011''.

SEC. 2. TERMINATION OF THE PRESIDENTIAL $1 COIN PROGRAM.

    (a) In General.--Section 5112 of title 31, United States Code, is 
amended by striking subsection (n).
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
take effect at the end of the 30-day period beginning on the date of 
the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 3. RESTRICTION ON OVERPRODUCTION OF $1 COINS.

    Section 5112 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by adding 
at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(w) Restriction on Overproduction of $1 Coins.--Notwithstanding 
any other provision of this section, no $1 coin may be minted or issued 
under this section during any period in which the number of $1 coins 
issued, but not in circulation, is more than 10 percent of the number 
of $1 coins in circulation.''.
                                 <all>
```
## U NITED 

## S TATES 

## A IR 

## F ORCE 

## C OURT OF 

## C RIMINAL 

## A PPEALS

________________________ No. ACM S32703

________________________ UNITED STATES Appellee

v. Jovan

- Tyree S. LILLY Airman Basic (E

- 1 ), U.S. Air Force, Appellant

________________________ Appeal from the United States Air Force Trial Judiciary

Decided 13 April 2022

________________________ Military Judge: Charles E. Wiedie, Jr

. S entence: Sentence adjudged on 10 March 2021 by SpCM convened at Aviano A ir Base, Italy . Sentence entered by military judge on 27 May 2021 : Bad

- cond uct discharge and confinement for 10 months

. For Appellant: Lieutenant Colonel Todd J. Fanniff, USAF; Major Spencer R. Nelson , USAF

. For Appellee : Lieut enant Colonel Matthew J. Neil, USAF ; Mary Ellen Payne, Esquire

. Before KEY , ANNEXST AD , and MEGINLEY , Appellate Military Judges.

________________________This is an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as precedent under AFCCA Rule of Practice and Procedure 30.4.

________________________ PER CURIAM: The findings and sentence as entered are correct in law and fact, and no error materially prejudicial to Appellant’s substantial rights occurred. Articles 59(a) and 66(d) , Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C . §§ 859(a), 866( d ) ,United States v. Lilly , No. ACM S32703

2 Manual for Courts

- Martial, United States (2019 ed.). Accordingly, the findings and sentence are AFFIRMED

.

FOR THE COURT

CAROL K. JOYCE Clerk of the Court
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 Charles & Colvard, Ltd. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Neil Boss, Controller of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                             
|-----------------------------
|/s/ Neil Boss                
|Neil Boss                    
|Controller                   
|(Principal Financial Officer)
|November 12, 2008
Exhibit 10.21
 AVANIR PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
 [2005] [2003] Equity Incentive Plan
Restricted Stock Unit Grant Agreement
       Award of Restricted Stock Units
 Vesting
 Effect of Termination
 Distribution Exhibit A




---



##### 



Dividends
 Tax Withholding Obligations
 Restriction on Transferability
 Rights as Stockholder
 Administration
 Effect on Other Employee Benefit Plans
 2




---



##### 



Effect on Service
 Amendment
 Notices
 Severability
 Construction
 3




---



##### 



Miscellaneous
       AWARDEE
    
    AVANIR PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.By:Signature
    
    
    
    Name:Title:Print Name
 4




---



##### 



Award No.Award Date:No. Shares:
 DIRECTOR AND OFFICER
 RSU DEFERRAL ELECTION
 [2003]
[2005]
 1.
    
    Election: The undersigned hereby elects to receive the distribution (in Company
Shares) of Avanir common stock underlying vested Restricted Stock Units as follows (please
select one of the three distribution choices below):
 o
    
    In one lump sum upon a separation from service (as defined in the final
regulation promulgated under Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as
amended (the Regulation))(such event being, a Separation from Service); oro
    
    In one lump sum on ____________ ; oro
    
In _________ equal annual installments, starting on ___________.  2.
    
    Change of Election: I hereby acknowledge that I may not change the date of the
distribution as elected above unless I do so at least twelve months prior to the date the
first distribution is due under the election above and at least twelve months prior to the
date my new election is scheduled to take effect. I also acknowledge that if I change my
distribution date elected above, the first date I may receive any distribution with respect
to Shares covered by this election is not earlier than five years after the date payment
would otherwise have been made pursuant to the election above. Such change must be timely
filed in writing with the Companys stock option administrator. The Company shall have sole
discretion to revise the terms of this election or any change, or the procedures with
respect to making this election or any change, to the extent the Company deems it helpful
or appropriate to comply with applicable law.
 Awardee Signature
    
    DatePrint Name
 5
**Exhibit 12(a)**
**302 CERTIFICATION**
I, Andrew Cosslett, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of InterContinental Hotels Group PLC; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present inall material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, theperiods presented in this report; 4. The company’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the company and have:
 (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to bedesigned under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the company,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this reportis being prepared;  (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the company’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented inthis report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this report based onsuch evaluation; and  (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the company’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the periodcovered by the annual report that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the company’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and
5. The company’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the company’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the company’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):
 (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the company’sability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the company’sinternal control over financial reporting.        Date: March 31, 2006 By:  /s/ Andrew Cosslett    Name:  Andrew Cosslett    Title:  Director and Chief Executive Officer
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 30, 2018

a1022 

# Order

Clerk October 30, 2018

156589 & (24)

MARSEILLES DEMOND WOODLEY,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v SC: 156589

COA: 338608

IONIA CORRECTIONAL FACILITY

WARDEN,

Defendant

- Appellee.

_____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 18, 2017

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, becaus e we are not

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion to

file an original action is DENIED.
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,

J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk October 24, 2011

p1017 

# Order

October 24, 2011

143126

ROBERT SCOTT, Plaintiff-Appellee,

and SC: 143126 COA: 296077 Wayne CC: 09-002233-CK NATALIE SCOTT, Plaintiff,

v

SHERI ZIMMERMAN, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 14, 2011 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
##### 



Exhibit 10.65
 SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED
 AGREEMENT OF LIMITED PARTNERSHIP OF
 TCTM, L.P.
      ARTICLE I
DEFINITIONS




---



##### 



et seq
            ARTICLE II
ORGANIZATIONAL MATTERS
 Continuation
 -2-




---



##### 



Name
 Registered Office; Principal Office
 Term
 Certificate of Limited Partnership
 ARTICLE III
PURPOSE
 Purpose and Business
 -3-




---



##### 



Powers
 ARTICLE IV
CAPITAL CONTRIBUTIONS
 Prior Contributions
 Additional Contributions
 Return of Contributions; Other Provisions Relating to Contributions.
 Loans.
 ARTICLE V
CAPITAL ACCOUNTS; ALLOCATIONS; DISTRIBUTIONS
 Capital Accounts
 Allocations for Tax and Capital Account Purposes
 Distributions
 -4-




---



##### 



ARTICLE VI
MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS OF BUSINESS
  ARTICLE VII
RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF LIMITED PARTNER
  ARTICLE VIII
DISSOLUTION AND LIQUIDATION
 provided, however
 -5-




---



##### 



ARTICLE IX
AMENDMENT OF PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT
  ARTICLE X
INDEMNIFICATION
 Indemnification
 provided
   -6-




---



##### 



Liability of Indemnitees
   -7-




---



##### 



ARTICLE XI
BOOKS AND RECORDS
  ARTICLE XII
GENERAL PROVISIONS
 Addresses and Notices
 Titles and Captions
 Pronouns and Plurals
 Binding Effect.
 Integration
 Creditors.
 -8-




---



##### 



Waiver.
 Applicable Law
 Invalidity of Provisions
 Counterparts
 * * * Remainder of this page intentionally left blank * * *
 -9-




---



##### 



GENERAL PARTNER:TEPPCO GP, INC.By:
    
    /s/ WILLIAM G. MANIASName: William G. ManiasTitle: Vice President and Chief Financial
OfficerLIMITED PARTNER:TEPPCO PARTNERS, L.P.By: Texas Eastern Products Pipeline Company, LLC,its general partnerBy:
    
    /s/ JERRY E. THOMPSONName: Jerry E. ThompsonTitle: President and Chief Executive Officer
 -10-
**Exhibit
      32**








**CERTIFICATION**




By
      signing below, each of the undersigned officers hereby certifies pursuant to
      18
      U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
      2002, that, to his or her knowledge, (i) this report fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
      and (ii) the information contained in this report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of River
      Valley Bancorp.




Signed
      this 14th day of November 2005.







/s/
                Matthew P. Forrester
            
            /s/
                Larry C. FouseMatthew
                P. Forrester
            
            Larry
                C. FousePresident
                and Chief Executive Officer
            
            Vice
                President of Finance
Exhibit 31.2

ICONIX BRAND GROUP, INC.

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14 OR 15D-14 OF

THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, David Blumberg, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Annual
Report on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2014 of Iconix Brand Group, Inc.; and

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain
any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.



|                                                                           
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: April 30, 2015                                                       
|                                                                           
|/s/ David Blumberg                                                         
|David Blumberg
Executive Vice President and Interim Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0001017358
<NAME>                        Sprint Spectrum Finance Corporation
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   Mar-31-1999
<CASH>                                         0
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,497
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     (1,497)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   0
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                0
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        



</TABLE>
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND

#### United Virginia Bank v. Commonwealth of Virginia

November 25, 1985

Case No. LJ 1384-3

By JUDGE ROBERT W. DULING

This matter is before the Court upon the defendant’s Demurrer, Motion to Dismiss, or in the alternative for Summary Judgment.

The Court heard arguments on November 19, 1985, and the Court has reviewed the exhibits filed, and the memoranda submitted.

The Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff knew, or should have known, of the error, at least by April, 1984. The Court is further of the opinion that the applicable Tort Claims Act under Section 8.01-195.1, *et*seq., granted the plaintiff six months to file a written notice of claim.

Accordingly, the Court is in agreement with the defendant’s position that the motion is barred by sovereign immunity due to the plaintiff’s failure to comply with the jurisdictional requirements of the Virginia Tort Claims Act, Section 8.01-195.1, *et seq.,*of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended.

Accordingly, the Motion for Judgment will be dismissed with prejudice.
Exhibit 32.1


                           CERTIFICATIONS 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 Annual Report of Protein Polymer Technologies, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
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 result of operations of the Company.


/S/ J. THOMAS PARMETER
----------------------
J. Thomas Parmeter
Chief Executive Officer
March 31, 2005




In connection with the Annual Report of Protein Polymer Technologies, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
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 result of operations of the Company.


/S/ JANIS Y. NEVES
------------------
Janis Y. Neves
Director of Finance
March 31, 2005
#### MORRISON et al. v. UNITED STATES. WOLFF et al. v. SAME.

(Circuit Court, S. D. New York.

December 9, 1896.)

1. Customs Duties — Classification—Giass Beads.

Glass beads, strung, and glass ornaments, similar to beads, but without holes for stringing, are dutiable as manufactures of glass, under paragraph 108 oí the tariff act of 1890, and not under paragraph 445, as glass beads, loose, unthreaded or unstrung.

2. Same — Imitations oe Pearls.

Imitations of pearls, consisting of hollow glass beads with wax inserted, giving an appearance like pearls, strung, and not capable of being set, are dutiable as manufactures of glass, under paragraph 108 of the tariff act of 1890, and not under paragraph 454, as “imitations of precious stones, composed of paste or glass, not set.”

Those were appeals by Morrison & Bon and Wolff & Go. from a decision of the board of general appraisers, sustaining the classification, by the collector of the port of New York, of certain glass ornaments imported by the appellants.

Comstock & Brown, for plaintiffs.

James T. Van Rensselaer, Asst. TJ. S. Atty.

WHEELER, District Judge.

The tariff act of 1890, by paragraph 108, provides for a duty of (50 per cent, on “thin blown glass * and all other manufactures of glass, or of which glass shall be the component material of chief value, not specially provided for”; by paragraph 445 for a duty of 10 per cent, on “glass beads, loose, unthreaded or unstrung”; and by paragraph 454 for a duty of 10 percent. on “imitations of precious stones composed of paste or glass, not exceeding one inch in dimensions, not set.” There is no mention of beads strung. These importations are of variegated glass beads, strung; similar glass ornaments without holes for stringing; black glass beads, sometimes called “nail heads,” unstrung; and hollow glass beads, with wax inserted, giving an appearance like pearl, strung. They have all been classified as manufactures of glass, under paragraph 108, against protests referring to paragraphs 445 and 454. The classification of the black glass beads unstrung is, upon (lie evidence, conceded to be erroneous. Beads unstrung are impliedly beads capable of being strung; and the ornaments without holes for stringing are not such. The variegated beads strung are manufactures of glass, and, as they were not specially provided for, *606were properly classified. The wax beads, although they may be imitations of pearls, as precious stones, are not composed of glass or paste, but glass and wax, and the wax is what, if anything, constitutes the imitation. And imitations of precious stones, unset, are impliedly imitations capable of being set, which these beads are not. Decision of general appraisers reversed as to black glass beads, and affirmed as to the residue.