alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §1428. Surrender of canceled naturalization certificate

Whoever, having in his possession or control a certificate of naturalization or citizenship or a copy thereof which has been canceled as provided by law, fails to surrender the same after at least sixty days' notice by the appropriate court or the Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner of Immigration, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 767; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §330016(1)(K), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Based on subsections (a) par. (31), (b), (d) of section 746 of title 8, U.S.C., 1940 ed., Aliens and Nationality (Oct. 14, 1940, ch. 876, §346(a) par. (31), (b), (d), 54 Stat. 1167).

Subsection (b) of said section 746 of title 8 is the authority for inserting "or a copy thereof" after "citizenship."

Changes were made in phraseology.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1994—Pub. L. 103–322 substituted "fined under this title" for "fined not more than $5,000".

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Abolition of Immigration and Naturalization Service and Transfer of Functions

For abolition of Immigration and Naturalization Service, transfer of functions, and treatment of related references, see note set out under section 1551 of Title 8, Aliens and Nationality.

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Transfer of Functions

Functions of all other officers of Department of Justice and functions of all agencies and employees of such Department, with a few exceptions, transferred to Attorney General, with power vested, in him to authorize their performance or performance of any of his functions by any of such officers, agencies, and employees, by Reorg. Plan No. 2, of 1950, §§1, 2, eff. May 24, 1950, 15 F.R. 3173, 64 Stat. 1261, set out in the Appendix to Title 5, Government Organization and Employees.
**Exhibit 99.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with thequarterly report of The SCO Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q, for thequarter ended April 30, 2003, the undersigned certifies, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that to the best of each of our knowledge:

 

1.                                       Thequarterly report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.                                       Theinformation contained in the quarterly report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| By:    | /s/ Darl McBride                       |   |
|--------|----------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Darl McBride                           |
|   | President and Chief  Executive Officer |
|   |                                   |
|   |                                   |
| Date:  | June 13, 2003                     |

 

1

----
[No. 8417.

Department One.

February 19, 1910.]

#### Henry Rehmke, *Administrator, etc., Appellant,*v. John B. Fogarty *et al., Respondents.*
      *1*

Appeal — Recobd—Affidavits. The dismissal of an action for want of prosecution, heard upon affidavits, cannot be reviewed on appeal where the affidavits are not brought up by a statement of facts.

Dismissal and Nonsuit — Failube to Pbosecute. No abuse of discretion appears in the dismissal of an action for want of prosecution, where more than six years elapsed after the filing of answers before any steps were taken, and plaintiff only then moved for judgment on the pleadings after defendants’ motion to dismiss.

■ Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for Kittitas county, Preble, J., entered April 22, 1909, dismissing an action to foreclose a mortgage for failure to prosecute.

Affirmed.

*L. A. Vincent,*for appellant.

*Henry J. Snively,*for respondents.

Reported in 107 Pac. 184.

Pee Curiam.

Appeal from judgment of dismissal for want of prosecution, and from order denying motion for judgment on pleadings.

The action was commenced in October 8, 1900, to foreclose a mortgage dated October 10, 1894, given to secure the payment of a note dated October 9, 1894, and due one day after date. Defendants appeared, filed answers, and the cause was set for trial. At the trial the court made an order directing the bringing in of a new party, which order was filed September 8, 1902, an amended complaint was filed on the same day, and on September *15*the new parties filed an answer. No steps were taken in the cause until September 22, 1908, when defendant Fogarty moved to dismiss for want of prosecution. April 8, 1909, plaintiff moved for judg*413ment on the pleadings; and on April 22, 1909, the court denied judgment on the pleadings, and dismissed the action for want of prosecution. Affidavits seem to have been presented to the court upon the hearing of the motion to dismiss ; but no statement of facts having been brought up, we are unable to review what was before the court at the hearing, and are confined to the motions and rulings thereon.

From the record before us we cannot say that the court abused its discretion in granting the motion to dismiss for want of prosecution. There seems to have been little, if any, diligence displayed in the commencement of the action and its prosecution thereafter. More than six years elapsed from the filing of answers before any other steps were taken, and then it is defendants who move to dismiss. In *Langford v. Murphey,*30 Wash. 499, 70 Pac. 1112, no move was made in the case for seven years, and in *First Nat. Bank of Fond du Lac v. Hunt,*40 Wash. 190, 82 Pac. 285, nothing was done for three years, and we sustained a dismissal upon the ground here urged. These cases are decisive of the appeal. Having reached this conclusion, we do not review the ruling of the lower court on the motion for judgment.

Judgment affirmed.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 14

- 00740

- CV

Art REYNA

,

Appellant

v.

Irene BALDRIDGE and Kathy Hill,

Appellees

From the 285th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014

- CI

- 03985

Honorable Cathleen M. Stryker, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ANGELINI

, JUSTICE BARNARD , AND JUSTICE ALVAREZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s order is AFFIRMED.

We tax costs of this appeal against Appellant Art Reyna.

SIGNED July 15, 2015.

_____________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
---

|CERTIFICATION OF                                         
|---------------------------------------------------------
|CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND 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, John Boschert, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer of Balsam Ventures, Inc. (the Company), hereby certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

| | (i)  | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company, for the
      fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2009, and to which this certification
      is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the Report) fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
      1934, as amended; and
| | ---- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |      |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
| | (ii) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.                                                                                                                                                            

| | By:    |                            
| | ------ | ---------------------------
| |        | /s/
      John Boschert    
| | Name:  | JOHN BOSCHERT              
| |        |                            
| | Title: | Chief Executive Officer and
| |        | Chief Financial Officer    
| |        |                            
| | Date:  | November 16, 2009          

A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company
and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it
relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is
not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the
Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made
before or after the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general
incorporation language contained in such filing.

---
§ 630.703 Eligibility. ( a ) The State Department of Transportation (DOT) may proceed with a project authorized in accordance with title 23, United States Code: ( 1 ) Without the use of Federal funds; and
( 2 ) In accordance with all procedures and requirements applicable to the project other than those procedures and requirements that limit the State to implementation of a project— ( i ) With the aid of Federal funds previously apportioned or allocated to the State; or
( ii ) With obligation authority previously allocated to the State.
( b ) The FHWA, on the request of a State and execution of a project agreement, may obligate all or a portion of the Federal share of a project authorized to proceed under this section from any category of funds for which the project is eligible.
[73 FR 50196, Aug. 26, 2008]
§ 303.27 Parent. ( a ) *Parent* means— ( 1 ) A biological or adoptive parent of a child;
( 2 ) A foster parent, unless State law, regulations, or contractual obligations with a State or local entity prohibit a foster parent from acting as a parent;
( 3 ) A guardian generally authorized to act as the child's parent, or authorized to make early intervention, educational, health or developmental decisions for the child (but not the State if the child is a ward of the State);
( 4 ) An individual acting in the place of a biological or adoptive parent (including a grandparent, stepparent, or other relative) with whom the child lives, or an individual who is legally responsible for the child's welfare; or
( 5 ) A surrogate parent who has been appointed in accordance with § 303.422 or section 639(a)(5) of the Act.
( b ) ( 1 ) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, the biological or adoptive parent, when attempting to act as the parent under this part and when more than one party is qualified under paragraph (a) of this section to act as a parent, must be presumed to be the parent for purposes of this section unless the biological or adoptive parent does not have legal authority to make educational or early intervention service decisions for the child.
( 2 ) If a judicial decree or order identifies a specific person or persons under paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(4) of this section to act as the “parent” of a child or to make educational or early intervention service decisions on behalf of a child, then the person or persons must be determined to be the “parent” for purposes of part C of the Act, except that if an EIS provider or a public agency provides any services to a child or any family member of that child, that EIS provider or public agency may not act as the parent for that child.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1401(23), 1439(a)(5))
(No. 78-CC-1223

#### George McLellan, Claimant, *v.*State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Order filed August 9, 1978.*

Per Curiam.

Claimant, an inmate of an Illinois penal institution, has brought this action to recover the value of certain items of personal property of which he was allegedly possessed while incarcerated. Claimant contends that his property was lost, misplaced, stolen or destroyed while he was imprisoned, and that the loss of his property was proximately caused by the negligence of employees of the State of Illinois.

*786In *Bargas v. State, 32*Ill.Ct.Cl.__, this Court held that the State of Illinois does not owe a duty to inmates of its penal institutions to safeguard property which inmates keep in their cells. In the companion case of *Doubling v. State, 32 Ill.Ct.Cl.1,*we further held that only where the State takes actual physical possession of the property of an inmate, as during the course of his transfer between penal institutions, does a duty arise to use reasonable care in protecting the inmate’s property.

The complaint in this action does not allege that Claimant’s property was delivered to agents of the State, but rather that the property disappeared or was damaged in Claimant’s cell. Under our reasoning in *Bargas v. State, supra,*and *Doubling v. State, supra,*the complaint herein fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

It is therefore ordered that this cause be, and hereby is, dismissed.
!!"""""#$

	
	


		

%&
'


	

()&
*+,)
-./#!	! 0&1)
23)
4) 0&)1)

,
3)0

*	+ 3
15
 

,3)5
3&
 

,4

*+ /,!30!
1
.6.).)7	

&/!
&)&,


3
,1
!&)4

*
+ &

)0

),)
&//1,
&))&/54

*#+  .!
,,,3 )
,!
,
/
&)&.).)
33
.
,

3
5).3.)31
1
.5
.)&)
.331,


,)&
6.)).)		7
.3)4

*$+ 53
3
5)3.)31
 )),
&/

*8+
)
,.33133)4

*+*+ 
 )
)
,.3313.0.3314)

*+*+  .!
,,,3 )
,!
,
/
&)&.).)


33
.
,.331

5)1
.
,.3314


*+)&
.)
/3.0.331
.3
)!)

*9+)&
5&&
1/1.))
3
1/54



*	+ ()&
*+:,
!1
),);&)&/3
,1)!)/<)8
50

1
)3&/1))
3.)/31)))
.1)&/

*+ !"!#$%$&'()*+,!-!".-"!!,!)!
!/0.1..

2#,

,!-,.01,

	
	

3.,*0,"4!3

2!'%!"


33
,566&''

*7,8&86&9'&''

:;<&3&&'%	
$&'(

:6(;3&&=;		$&$&3

	:<'(&(3&&

Case 19-70280-SCS Doc 14 Filed 04/16/19 Entered 04/16/19 15:31:34 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 2


8.)&.),.)
)
5	
(.

,)
,
)
,3
 



)1&)&.)
%&


8,.)3 )&/	
(.,)
,/
,
)
,)1
3
 


& ,.))
%&
*+5
)/
, 3 .3,.)&1)
%&
*+

))
,3
)

.&6.
/
,/
)
,)1
3
 
!%&
*+
/3/ 


	
(.=
,,3,
/
!5
.&033
1)&/
/
,3
)(
 

,

<).  /.&6.
))
.>.)3

,
31
,
 

,

<)

8
/
,  %&
*+ 
5)0.3  0!%&
*+
!

5
.
&0

.
 !3.)& *53.)
.3.)+?3)03.1. 

,

@$!34
,!!36.!3.1&!,3!


1
),3
,





/81

0
 
,.33
*+
 )

3
	
(.)



)*+3.)3
1)3
.
,1
,

)3


(
)
,33.)31
 )),
0#8
#%
,3.0

.331.
,+/1
,.)/0)&)1).)
&.3/5
+)30

.)3
	

+.3
5 
))&/
.
))3

3)

) /
3)0,3)1)
3
 )5
.3
1

,!.3&)

&/.3
)
?3
0)&/3&
&.3/5

%)


3
.!-

	
(.

	A&
.B5
. )!.		

.,,
!B0
#
$

<,,3<,(7(.



19$!C).)0

D&/A


,
!B8
$	

 !

		E33

!B8




)
%
3

'3.)1.)&/)&
59/

F(A<7(

(1
/B8)
!6.

8)
G8
3!H3

#
I)0)	#

B03!B8
#$9

Apr 15 2019 /s/ Frank J. Santoro

Apr 16 2019

Case 19-70280-SCS Doc 14 Filed 04/16/19 Entered 04/16/19 15:31:34 Desc Main

 Document Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> OPUR1
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Company's financial statements and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000048732
<NAME> RELIANT ENERGY INCORPORATED
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                    9,127,346
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                  5,162,259
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                       6,253,269
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                     5,678,062
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              26,220,936
<COMMON>                                     2,890,229
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                            0
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                          2,406,363
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>               5,296,592
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          705,272
<PREFERRED>                                      9,740
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                         4,948,808
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                    1,085,943
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>               1,793,268
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                4,380,907
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                     12,502
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                 1,229
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>               7,986,675
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>               26,220,936
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                   15,302,810
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                           899,117
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                  14,062,296
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                  14,062,296
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                      1,240,514
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                           1,652,547
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>               2,893,061
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       511,474
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,482,470
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        389
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                1,482,081
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                       426,981
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                      339,958
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                       1,161,665
<EPS-BASIC>                                       5.20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     5.18


</TABLE>
#### § 3.0 Executive Office for Immigration Review.

Regulations of the Executive Office for Immigration Review relating to the adjudication of immigration matters before immigration judges (referred to in some regulations as special inquiry officers) and the Board of Immigration Appeals are located in 8 CFR chapter V, part 1003.

[68 FR 9831, Feb. 28, 2003]
### §1343. Fraud by wire, radio, or television

Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If the violation occurs in relation to, or involving any benefit authorized, transported, transmitted, transferred, disbursed, or paid in connection with, a presidentially declared major disaster or emergency (as those terms are defined in section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122)), or affects a financial institution, such person shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.

(Added July 16, 1952, ch. 879, §18(a), 66 Stat. 722; amended July 11, 1956, ch. 561, 70 Stat. 523; Pub. L. 101–73, title IX, §961(j), Aug. 9, 1989, 103 Stat. 500; Pub. L. 101–647, title XXV, §2504(i), Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 4861; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §330016(1)(H), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147; Pub. L. 107–204, title IX, §903(b), July 30, 2002, 116 Stat. 805; Pub. L. 110–179, §3, Jan. 7, 2008, 121 Stat. 2557.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2008—Pub. L. 110–179 inserted "occurs in relation to, or involving any benefit authorized, transported, transmitted, transferred, disbursed, or paid in connection with, a presidentially declared major disaster or emergency (as those terms are defined in section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122)), or" after "If the violation".

2002—Pub. L. 107–204 substituted "20 years" for "five years".

1994—Pub. L. 103–322 substituted "fined under this title" for "fined not more than $1,000".

1990—Pub. L. 101–647 substituted "30" for "20" before "years".

1989—Pub. L. 101–73 inserted at end "If the violation affects a financial institution, such person shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both."

1956—Act July 11, 1956, substituted "transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce" for "transmitted by means of interstate wire, radio, or television communication".
### [§509. Repealed. Pub. L. 110–403, title II, §201(b)(1), Oct. 13, 2008, 122 Stat. 4260]

Section, Pub. L. 94–553, title I, §101, Oct. 19, 1976, 90 Stat. 2587; Pub. L. 105–80, §12(a)(14), Nov. 13, 1997, 111 Stat. 1535, related to seizure and forfeiture.
#### Mary E. Condran, as Administratrix, etc., Respondent, v. Park & Tilford, Appellant.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Present — Ingraham, P. J., Clarke, Scott, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ.; Ingraham, P. J., dissenting.
Small Public Biotechs and Costs 

of Compliance with SarbanesOxley Section 404(b)

Mike Raab, President and CEO, Ardelyx, Inc.

SEC Small Business Capital Formation Advisory Committee Meeting

August 13, 2019
2

Background on the Biotechnology 

Industry

• Vast majority of biotechs are pre-revenue

• Average biotech development timeline is 10 to 15 years 

before generating product revenue

• Average cost of bringing a product to market is $2.6 

billion
3

Background on the Biotechnology 

Industry (cont)

• Ardelyx, Inc. is a clinical stage, pre-commercial, 

specialized biopharmaceutical company focused on 

developing first-in-class medicines to improve 

treatment choices for people with cardiorenal diseases 

• Ardelyx went public in 2014 as an emerging growth 

company (EGC)
4

Background on Biotech and the 

JOBS Act

*IPOs through August 1, 2019
5

IPO On-Ramp Ending for Growing 

Number of Biotechs

Source: Craig Lewis and Joshua White: Science or Compliance: Will Section 404(b) Compliance Impede Innovation by 

Emerging Growth Companies in the Biotech Industry? (February 2019)
6

Science or Compliance?

• SOX 404(b) compliance costs Biotech EGCs 

an average of over $800,000 per year 

• Biotech investors are focused on the science behind the 

company

• Investors could demand 404(b) compliance but do not

Source: Craig Lewis and Joshua White: Science or Compliance: Will Section 404(b) Compliance Impede Innovation by Emerging 

Growth Companies in the Biotech Industry? (February 2019)
7

SEC’s Proposed Rule

• Expansion of SOX 404(b) relief for companies until they 

exceed $700 million in public float or $100 million in 

revenue is a welcomed step forward to making our 

public capital markets more accessible and attractive to 

small companies

• In the biotech industry, it is common for companies 

with few employees and simple corporate structures to 

have high valuations