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

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

I, Chen (Jason) Wu, President and Chief Executive Officer
  of Javakingcoffee, 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-QSB of the Company,
        for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2004, 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/ Chen (Jason) Wu                  
| | ------ | -------------------------------------
| |        |                                      
| | Name:  | Chen (Jason) Wu                      
| |        |                                      
| | Title: | President and Chief Executive Officer
| |        |                                      
| | Date:  | October 21, 2004                     

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

This certification accompanies the Form 10-QSB 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 Registrant
  under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether
  made before or after the date of the Form 10-QSB), irrespective of any general
  incorporation language contained in such filing.

---
### §3032j. Repealed. Pub. L. 114–144, §5(d), Apr. 19, 2016, 130 Stat. 342

Section, Pub. L. 89–73, title IV, §421, as added Pub. L. 106–501, title IV, §401, Nov. 13, 2000, 114 Stat. 2265, related to grants for ombudsman and advocacy demonstration projects.

A prior section 421 of Pub. L. 89–73 was classified to section 3035 of this title, prior to the general amendment of this subchapter by Pub. L. 106–501.

Another prior section 421 of Pub. L. 89–73 was classified to section 3035b of this title, prior to the general amendment of this subchapter by Pub. L. 97–115.
#### Davidson *v.*Bartow Investment Company.

September 24, 1912.

Petition for specific performance. Before Judge Charlton. Chatham superior court. August 11, 1911.

(?. *EL. Richter,*for plaintiff in error. *E. 8. Elliott,*contra.

Atkinson, J.

1. In an action brought for the specific performance of an executory contract for the sale of land, it is essential that the contract be set forth in the petition', either in terms or in substance.

2. Accordingly, where in such an action the petition alleged that the plaintiff was the owner and in possession of certain described city lots, and “That petitioner has sold said lots to [E., one of the defendants] . . on condition that title thereto was perfect, but he, while ready to take said property if title is good, says that title is doubtful in this,” and there is nothing else in the petition indicating what was the contract, the court erred in overruling a demurrer to the petition interposed by D„ setting up that no cause of action was alleged against him. *Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
AFS

- 13

- 3 6 7

- E June 14, 2013

Exemption No. 1079 7

Regulatory Docket No. FAA

- 20 1 3

- 0 4 15

Ms

. Rhonda VanOster

Parent of Hayley VanOster

21093 Russell Lane

Rayville, MO 64084

Dear Ms. VanOster :

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our

decision, explains its basis, and lists the conditions and limitations of the exemption,

including the date it ends.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter received May 7 , 2013 , you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administrat ion (FAA) on

behalf of Hayley VanOster for an exemption from § 121.311(b)(2)(iii)(B) of Title 14, Code of

Federal Regulations (14 CFR)

. That exemp tion , if granted, would allow Hayley to exceed the

specified weight limit for an FAA

- approved child restraint system (CAReS, manufactured by

AmSafe Corporation ) during use of that child restraint system (CRS) aboard a United States

(U.S.) aircraft.

The FAA has determined that good cau se exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register because the requested exem ption would not set a precedent and any

delay in acting on this petition would be det rimental to Hayley

.

The FAA has issued grants of exemption in cir cumstances similar in all material respects to

those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9834 (copy enclosed), the FAA

found that numerous p eople with physical challenges had previously completed flights using

restraint systems that addre ssed unique physical needs regarding safety, support, and security

in the same manner of operations as described in this petition. The FAA further found that the2

petition , if granted, would not set any new precedents regarding the use of restraint systems by

persons with disabilities.

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that

—

• they do not differ materially from those presented by the petitioner in the enclosed grant.

• the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed exempt ion also apply to the

situation you present ; and

• a grant of exemption is in the public interest.

Our Decision

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator

has delegated to me, I hereby grant Hayley VanOster an e xemption from § 121.311(b). In

addition, any air carrier or commercial operator operating under part 121 while Hayley is

aboard its aircraft is granted an exemption from 14 CFR § 121.311(b) to the extent necessary

to allow h er to use an FAA

- approved CRS a board a U.S. aircraft

.

All operations under this exemption must be conducted w ith at least one of Hayley ’s parents

or a caregiver accompanying her

. Hayley VanOster may only occupy a passenger seat with no

passenger se ated behind her

. In addition, Hayley ’s parent or caregiver must carry a copy of

this exemption and advise the air carrier about the contents of the exemption at least 48 hours

before the date of each flight.

This exemption terminates on June 30 , 201 8 , unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/

Michael J. Zenkovish

Acting Deputy Director, Flight Standards

Service

Enclosure
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

The second claim was dismissed previously because it is not cognizable. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LUIS MELENDEZ,

Petitioner, 

 v.

BEN CURRY, Warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 08-4670 WHA (PR) 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

PROCEED WITH EXHAUSTED

CLAIM; DISMISSING

UNEXHAUSTED CLAIM; TO SHOW

CAUSE

(Docket No. 13)

This is a habeas case filed pro se by a state prisoner. Respondent’s motion to dismiss

the petition as mixed was granted, and petitioner was directed to elect whether to chose from

among three possible courses of action. He has filed a motion to elect to dismiss the

unexhausted claim, and proceed solely on the basis of the only exhausted claim in the petition,

claim number one. Accordingly, petitioner’s motion (docket number 13) is GRANTED, and the

unexhausted claim in the petition (claim number three) is DISMISSED.

1

Respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner, within ninety days of the

date this order is filed, an answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules Governing

Section 2254 Cases, showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be granted based on

the first claim in the petition. Respondent shall file with the answer and serve on petitioner a

copy of all portions of the state trial record that have been transcribed previously and that are

relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the petition. 

Case 3:08-cv-04670-WHA Document 14 Filed 04/15/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

If petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he shall do so by filing a traverse with the

court and serving it on respondent within thirty days of the date the answer is filed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 12 , 2010. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

G:\PRO-SE\WHA\HC.08\MELENDEZ4670.OSC2.wpd 

Case 3:08-cv-04670-WHA Document 14 Filed 04/15/10 Page 2 of 2
### §3796jj–2. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 3796jj–2 was editorially reclassified as section 10493 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2533 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2533

To amend section 254 of the Communications Act of 1934 to provide that 
  funds received as universal service contributions and the universal 
 service support programs established pursuant to that section are not 
subject to certain provisions of title 31, United States Code, commonly 
                    known as the Antideficiency Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 23, 2005

     Mrs. Cubin (for herself, Mr. Gonzalez, Mr. King of Iowa, Mr. 
 Radanovich, Mr. Wynn, and Mr. Brown of Ohio) introduced the following 
    bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend section 254 of the Communications Act of 1934 to provide that 
  funds received as universal service contributions and the universal 
 service support programs established pursuant to that section are not 
subject to certain provisions of title 31, United States Code, commonly 
                    known as the Antideficiency Act.

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

SECTION 1. AMENDMENT OF COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934.

    Section 254 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 254) is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(m) Application of Antideficiency Act.--Section 1341 and 
subchapter II of chapter 15 of title 31, United States Code, do not 
apply--
            ``(1) to any amount collected or received as Federal 
        universal service contributions required by this section, 
        including any interest earned on such contributions; nor
            ``(2) to the expenditure or obligation of amounts 
        attributable to such contributions for universal service 
        support programs established pursuant to this section.''.
                                 <all>
```
###### Editorial Note on Part 42

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 42 appear at 71 FR 34522, June 15, 2006.

#### § 42.41 Effect of approved petition.

Consular officers are authorized to grant to an alien the immediate relative or preference status accorded in a petition approved in the alien's behalf upon receipt of the approved petition or official notification of its approval. The status shall be granted for the period authorized by law or regulation. The approval of a petition does not relieve the alien of the burden of establishing to the satisfaction of the consular officer that the alien is eligible in all respects to receive a visa.

[56 FR 49682, Oct. 1, 1991]
### §2000g–1. Functions of Service

It shall be the function of the Service to provide assistance to communities and persons therein in resolving disputes, disagreements, or difficulties relating to discriminatory practices based on race, color, or national origin which impair the rights of persons in such communities under the Constitution or laws of the United States or which affect or may affect interstate commerce. The Service may offer its services in cases of such disputes, disagreements, or difficulties whenever, in its judgment, peaceful relations among the citizens of the community involved are threatened thereby, and it may offer its services either upon its own motion or upon the request of an appropriate State or local official or other interested person.

(Pub. L. 88–352, title X, §1002, July 2, 1964, 78 Stat. 267.)
#### Monique D. REDD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Commonwealth of VIRGINIA, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 06-8070.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 26, 2007.

Decided: May 2, 2007.

Monique D. Redd, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Mozley Harris, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Monique D. Redd seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order dismissing as untimely her 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition.*28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). *111A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Redd has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*

*

 This case was decided by the magistrate judge upon consent of the parties under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000).
#### In the Matter of the Application of Haecker Sterling Company, Inc., Appellant, v. City of Buffalo and Others, Respondents.

Appeal dismissed without costs upon stipulation filed.
#### § 303.6 Index of records.

The Peace Corps will maintain a current index identifying any matter within the scope of § 303.4 or § 303.5(b)(1) through (5). The index will be maintained and made available for public inspection and copying at the Peace Corps' headquarters in Washington, DC. The cost of a copy of the index will not exceed the standard charge for duplication set out in § 303.13(e). The Peace Corps will also make the index available on its public Web site.

[68 FR 66008, Nov. 25, 2003. Redesignated at 89 FR 25523, Apr. 11, 2024 ]
§ 19.8 Obligations of members. Participants and former participants are obligated by the Act and these regulations to provide the following benefits to others and must accept the necessary reductions in their own retirement benefits to meet these obligations: ( a ) A pension to a former spouse pursuant to § 19.9;
( b ) A court ordered apportionment of annuity to a previous spouse or child under § 19.6-1 (a)(6) (the benefit to a child referred to here is paid during the annuitant's lifetime as distinguished from the automatic survivorship annuity to a child described in § 19.11-7);
( c ) A regular survivor annuity to a former spouse who has not remarried prior to age 60, and to a spouse to whom married when annuity commences, pursuant to §§ 19.11-2 and 19.11-3;
( d ) An additional survivor annuity for a spouse or former spouse under § 19.10-5 when elected by the participant or ordered by a court;
( e ) Lump-sum payments to a former spouse pursuant to § 19.13;
( f ) Benefits ordered by a court under § 19.6 or specified in a spousal agreement under § 19.7.
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROSE R. BARTONICO,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SEARS HOME IMPROVEMENT PRODUCTS,

INC.,

Defendant. /

No. C 08-04667 SI

ORDER DIRECTING PARTIES TO

APPEAR FOR MARCH 16, 2010

SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

The parties are hereby ordered to appear for a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge

Zimmerman on March 16, 2010 at 9:00 am.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 10, 2010 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-04667-SI Document 48 Filed 03/10/10 Page 1 of 1
FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T SEPTEMBER 1, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 9- 14 38 8 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 9- 80 03 6- CR-DM M UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us JOHN GERARD KRANTZ, a.k .a. Hard Thi ck an dJ ui cy , a.k .a. Jo hn Sm it h, a.k .a. oo hl ajgk @yaho o.c om , Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Sep te m be r 1, 2 01 0) Befo re BLACK, PRYOR an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t J ud ge s.PER CURI AM:

J. Ra fael Ro dr ig ue z, ap po in te d c ou ns el forJo hn Kran tz , has fil eda m ot io n to wit hd raw fro m

furth er re pr es en ta ti on on ap pe al , supp orte d b y a br ie f pr ep ared pu rs ua ntto Ander

s v. C al if orni a , 38 6 U.S. 7 38 , 87 S.Ct . 13 96 , 18 L.Ed.2d49 3 (1 96 7) . Our i nd ep en de ntrev ie w of t he en ti re re co rdrev eal s t ha t co un se l’s
as se ss m en t o f th e rel at iv e m eri t o f th e ap pe al is co rrec t. Bec au se in de pe nd en t ex am in at io n o f th e en ti re re co rdrev eal s n o arg uabl y m eri to rio us is su es , cou ns el ’s
m ot io n t o wi th dr aw is GRANTED , andKran tz ’s con vi ct io n a ndsen te nc e are AFFIRMED
.

2
**HOME | 	  ABOUT US | 	  CONTACT | 	  REGIONAL MANAGERS**Nautical Charts & Pubs****Surveys & Wrecks****GIS & Other Products****Research & Development****Customer Service****Business Opportunities****Education****Chart: 14961          Edition: 12          Edition Date: November 2003          Clear Dates: NM - 9/17/2011     LNM - 9/13/2011**Download RNCNotice ListingFind A Chart Site-  **Click the +/- buttons and drag the slider tool (solid triangle) 				to zoom in and out.** 
-  **Click the arrow buttons to pan left/right and up/down.** 
-  **Drag 				the navigation box in the upper left hand corner to move around 				the chart image.								This chart display or derived product can be used as a planning or analysis tool and may not be used as a navigational aid. 								NOTE: Use the official, full scale NOAA nautical chart for real navigation whenever possible.  These are available from authorized 				NOAA nautical chart sales agents.  Screen captures of the on-line viewable charts available here do NOT fulfill chart carriage 				requirements for regulated commercial vessels under Titles 33 and 46 of the Code of Federal Regulations.								Adobe Flash Player		  		is required to view the chart image.				Powered by Zoomify.** 
Privacy  |  Disclaimer  |  NOAA's National Ocean Service  |  NOAA  |  U.S. Department of Commerce **
&norable Ronald D. Stephens Opinion No. C- 2% August 14, 1964

County Attorney Young County Courthouse Graham,,

Texas Dear Mri Stephens: Re: Authority of the county to furnish specialmedical attent1on.W the treatment of indigent county residents. You have requested an opinion from this office upon the following questzons:

"1.' Is the county under a dutp &d authorized.

to'employ specialists,such as a neuro-surgeon,In the treatment of indl?ent

. 9.‘. ~. -_-, realdents, In the c~ounty? -.A. "2. Is Che,countyauthorized to secure the ,ser?vlces

of a neeo-surgeon who practices medicine outside the county and have the neuro- .: surgeonperforn.services$n a public hospital within the.Oounty'where the lndigent~

resident resides?" Article 2351,~

Vernon's Civil Statutes,reads in.part as follows:

"Each commissionerscourt shall:

”

. . . 6. Provide for.the support of paupers and such idiots and lunatlcs~ascannot be admitted lnto~the lunatic asylum, residents of their county, who are unable to support themselves. By the term resident 8,s used herein, is meant a person who has been a bona fide inhabitantof the county not less than six months and of the State not less than one year."

-1403-I

..

‘.., :

ii

-

.

. ..~ ‘~.
,.-. _

-- . Hon. Ronald D. Stephens,page 2 (C-293)

By the term "support"Is meant more than supplying food, clothing and living quarters; it means all that is necessary to bodily health and comfort Includingproper care and treatment during sickness. Monghon v; Van Zandt County; 3 Willson Civ.Cas.AIjp., sec. 198 (lo%); 44 Tex.Jur.2d, Paupers, Section 3, p. 628.

Thus, a county, acting through Its commissioners court, is under an affirmativeduty to properly care for Its indigent citizens. Further, the case of Galveston County v. Ducle, 91 Tex. 665, 45 S.W. 798 (1898), holds that.a commissioners court may contract with a physicianto'performmedical~ serviceson paupers resldlng in'the~county. We falls to see any distinction between.employlng a physicianand employinga neuro-surgeon 88 long as the services of the doctor employed are necessary to maintain the bodily health of Indigentresidents of the county. Therefore,we answer.yourfirst question in the affirmativei

._ & order to furnishproper treatment for certain Indigents, it may'becomenecessaryfor a county to employ specialists,such as a neuro-surgeon. We feel that the glace of residence of the,physlclan Is irrelevantaslong as his ser- ~vicesare necessary to preservebodily health of the Indigent : citizens. Therefore;your second question Is also answered In the affirmative. 3, :. -. .-. SUMMARY, :., The duty of a county to'furnlshmedical care~for Its indigentresidents Includes the duty to employ medical specialists when necessary; such specialists need not be residents of the county. Very-trulyyours, WAGGGRERCARR Attorney General

E. Lawrence~Merriman Assistant ELM:lllkh

- 1404-Hon. Ronald D. Stephens,page 3 (C-293)

APPROVED: 0PIN10N COMMITrEE
w. 0, Shultz, Chairman Malcolm Quick Bob Flowers Bob Smith Ed Balding APPROVEDFORTHEATTOFUEY (ENERAL BY: Stanton Stone