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

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1033 

Expressing support for the designation of February 28, 2024, as Community 

Arts Education Day. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 28, 2024 

Ms. VELA ́ZQUEZ (for herself, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. CLEAVER, Ms. NORTON, and 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY) submitted the following resolution; which was referred 

to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing support for the designation of February 28, 

2024, as Community Arts Education Day. 

Whereas community arts education is a dynamic and inclusive approach to learning and engagement in the arts, 

fostering creativity, cultural expression, and social transformation within communities; 

Whereas community arts education encompasses a broad 

range of artistic disciplines and practices that empower 

individuals to develop their artistic skills, deepen their 

cultural understanding, and cultivate a sense of belonging 

and agency within themselves and their communities; 

Whereas community arts education is a participatory and 

transformative practice that engages individuals in the 

creation, exploration, and critical dialogue of the arts 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 1033 IH 

within a community context, and community arts education goes beyond individual skill-building or personal 

expression and it connects through a larger social context; 

Whereas community arts education leaders, which can include 

culture bearers, teaching artists, and administrators, play 

a vital role in providing essential arts instruction and 

learning to diverse communities, both within and outside 

of formal educational settings; 

Whereas community arts education is liberatory by uplifting 

our communities’ culture, heritage, and history in many 

forms such as dance, music, theatre, literary arts and 

other modes of self-expression; 

Whereas community arts education can build people’s imaginations, build critical learning and life skills, promote 

better health, and generate a sense of shared culture and 

community belonging; 

Whereas research has shown that community arts education 

positively impacts individuals of all ages and develops social emotional competencies like confidence in self-expression and ideas, social awareness, and self-regulating emotions; and 

Whereas students who actively participate in the arts tend to 

enroll in competitive colleges, as well as four-year colleges 

in general, at higher rates compared to students with 

lower engagement in the arts: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives supports 

2 Community Arts Education Day and recognizes Commu3 nity Arts Education Day is more crucial than ever as a 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•HRES 1033 IH 

1 vehicle for activism, individual and collective self-expres2 sion, and healing. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
§ 847.2 General provisions. ( a ) Whenever a court of competent jurisdiction enters a judgment against or convicts a person under these provisions, we must update AVS to reflect the judgment or conviction.
( b ) The existence of a performance bond or bond forfeiture cannot be used as the sole basis for determining that an alternative enforcement action is unwarranted.
( c ) Each State regulatory program must include provisions for civil actions and criminal penalties that are no less stringent than those in this part and include the same or similar procedural requirements.
( d ) Nothing in this part eliminates or limits any additional enforcement rights or procedures available under Federal or State law.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 20, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-50433

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

SAUL PEREZ-DE HOYOS,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:03-CR-744-ALL

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

Before SMITH, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Saul Perez-De

Hoyos raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres

v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that a

prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The

Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the

judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
#### SHULENBURG, Appellant, v. CLEMONS, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

March 29, 1905.)

Action by Henry Shulenburg against Fred Clernons¡ as administrator, etc.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

PARKER, P. J., not voting.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11-8

                  DTE ENERGY COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES
                  PRIMARY AND FULLY DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE
                                OF COMMON STOCK




<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                 Three Months              Six Months
                                                    Ended                     Ended
                                                June 30, 1997             June 30, 1997
                                                -------------             -------------
                                                 (Thousands, except per share amounts)
PRIMARY:
<S>                                             <C>                        <C>
  Net Income ...............................      $ 84,890                   $  155,890
  Weighted average number of common
   shares outstanding (a) ..................       145,100                      145,104
  Earnings per share of Common Stock
   based on weighted average number
   of shares outstanding ...................      $   0.59                   $     1.07
FULLY DILUTED:
  Net Income ...............................      $ 84,890                   $  155,890
  Weighted average number of common
   shares outstanding (a) ..................       145,100                      145,104
  Shares issuable from assumed exercise of
   options reduced by the number which could
   have been purchased with the proceeds
   from exercise of such options (a)(b) ....            (8)                          (5)
                                                  --------                   ----------
                                                   145,092                      145,099
                                                  ========                   ==========
  Earnings per share of Common Stock
   based on weighted average number
   of shared outstanding ...................      $   0.59                   $     1.07
</TABLE>

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

(a)  Based on a daily average.
(b)  This calculation is submitted in accordance with Regulation S-K, item
     601(b)(11) although not required by footnote 2 to paragraph 14 of APB
     Opinion No. 15 because it results in dilution of less than 3%, and is
     contrary to paragraph 40 of APB Opinion No. 15 because it produces an
     anti-dilutive result.
EXHIBIT
4.5





											
	[Logo]SHUFFLE
MASTERTM

INCORPORATED		 		1106 Palms
Airport Dr.
Las Vegas, NV
9119
	






702.897.7150    
Fax:
702.260.1159

January  24,  2006

Mr.  John  Bush,  President and CEO
Sona
Mobile Holdings Corp.
825 Third Avenue, 32nd Floor
New
York, New York 10022

Dear John,

Reference is
hereby made to the letter, dated December  29,  2005 (the
‘‘Option Letter’’), pursuant to which Sona
Mobile Holdings Corp. (‘‘Sona’’) granted
Shuffle Master, Inc. (‘‘Shuffle’’) an option to
purchase not less than 1,846,154 but not more than 2,307,693 shares of
Sona’s common stock, par value $.01 per share (the
‘‘Common Stock’’) at an exercise price of $1.30
per share at any time up until January  28,  2006.

You
are hereby notified that Shuffle hereby elects to exercise options to
purchase 2,307,693 shares of Common Stock (the ‘‘Purchased
Shares’’) pursuant to the Option Letter. Simultaneously
with the delivery of this letter, we are wiring to your account at
PerfectData the sum of $3,000,000.90 reflecting the aggregate purchase
price for the Purchased Shares.

Please have your Transfer Agent
issue a certificate evidencing the Purchase Shares to Shuffle Master,
Inc. We hereby confirm the acknowledgments set forth in paragraph 15 of
the Option Letter and acknowledge that the certificate evidencing the
Purchased Shares will bear the legend set forth in paragraph 16(b) of
the Option Letters.





							
	 		Very truly yours,
	 		/s/ Mark L.
Yoseloff
	 		Mark L. Yoseloff
Chief Executive
Officer
#### In the Matter of Anchor Equipment Co., Inc., et al., Respondents, v State of New York, Office of General Services, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously reversed, without costs, and petition dismissed. Memorandum: Respondent appeals from a judgment of Special Term in this CPLR article 78 proceeding which annulled its contract to purchase tableware for the coming year from Plastics Manufacturing Co., Inc., the second low bidder, and ordered it to award the contract to petitioner, the low bidder. The record includes several letters between the parties, investigative reports and laboratory test results of the competing products. These documents establish that petitioners’ tableware had been previously supplied to the State under the existing contract and that petitioners’ performance had been the subject of numerous complaints from several different State institutions using the products. Petitioners admitted that many of the complaints were justified and they made extensive efforts not entirely successful, to correct them. The State delayed in awarding the contract to try and resolve this problem and its decision to deny the contract to petitioners was not arbitrary but a reasonable one made upon sufficient evidence after a full and detailed investigation of the products. That being so, Special Term improperly substituted its judgment of the relative merits of the products by vacating the contract and ordering respondent to award it to petitioners (see State Finance Law, § 174; *Matter of Futía Co. v Office of Gen. Servs. of State of N. Y.,*39 AD2d 136; *Matter of Kayñeld Constr. Corp. v Morris,*15 AD2d 373, 378-379). (Appeal from judgment of Erie Supreme Court—art 78.) Present— Marsh, P. J., Moule, Simons, Schnepp and Witmer, JJ.
Exhibit 31.1 

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, Peter R. Kann, certify that: 

 

1. I havereviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2004 of Dow Jones & Company, Inc.; 

 

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, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

 

a) Designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report, based on such evaluation; and 

 

c)Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth quarter in the case of an annual report) thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: November 3, 2004
# C_2009141EN.01003701.xml

| 20.6.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 141/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 141/37

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 April 2009 — Itochu v Commission

(Case T-12/03) (1)

1

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for video games consoles and games cartridges compatible with Nintendo games consoles - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Limitation of parallel exports - Attributability of the infringement - Fines - Differential treatment - Deterrent effect - Duration of the infringement - Attenuating circumstances - Cooperation during the administrative procedure)

2009/C 141/74

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Itochu Corp. (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: Y. Shibasaki G. van Gerven, T. Franchoo, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented initially by P. Hellström and O. Beynet, and subsequently by F. Castillo de la Torre and O. Beynet, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for the annulment of Articles 1, 3 and 5 of Commission Decision 2003/675/EC of 30 October 2002 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (COMP/35.587 PO Video Games, COMP/35.706 PO Nintendo Distribution and COMP/36.321 Omega — Nintendo) (OJ 2003 L 255, p. 33), in so far as they relate to the applicant, or, in the alternative, reduction of the amount of the fine imposed on it.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Itochu Corp. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Itochu Corp. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 55, 8.3.2003.

1

---
EXHIBIT
      32.2*


Section
      1350 Certification




I,
      Steven
      G. Larson, the chief financial officer of LaserCard Corporation, a Delaware
      corporation (the “Company”), certify pursuant to section 1350 of chapter 63
      of title 18 of the United States Code that, to my knowledge:





(i)  the
      Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ending December
      31, 2006 (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
      or 15(d), whichever is applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
      and





(ii)  the
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date:  February
      5, 2007




/s/ Steven
              G. LarsonSteven
                G. Larson







* The
        material
        contained in this Exhibit 32.1 is not deemed “filed” with the SEC 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 hereof and irrespective of any general incorporation language contained
        in such filing.
#### Nicholas Pacinello, Respondent, v Scott R. Cohen, Appellant.

[834 NYS2d 307]—

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for legal malpractice, the defendant appeals (1) from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Burke, J.), dated August 11, 2004, which, upon the denial of that branch of his motion which was to dismiss the first cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and (7), and upon the denial of his motion pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (1) to vacate his defaults in failing to appear for trial on the first cause of action and in failing to appear at the subsequent inquest on damages, is in favor of the plaintiff and against him in the principal sum of $12,769.10, and (2), as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the same court entered July 14, 2005, as denied those branches of his motion which were to vacate the judgment for failure to comply with 22 NYCRR 202.48 or, in the alternative, for failure to comply with CPLR 3215 (g).

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiff.

The defendant did not offer a reasonable excuse for his failure to appear at trial on November 18, 2003 and his subsequent failure to appear at the inquest on damages on November 25, 2003. Thus, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying his motion pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (1) to vacate his defaults *(see Donaghy v Donaghy,*294 AD2d 329 [2002]; *see also Rajn Corp. v L&S Constr. Co., Inc.,*19 AD3d 158 [2005]; *Time Warner City Cable v Tri State Auto,*5 AD3d 153 [2004]; *Liselli v Stonig,*300 AD2d 549 [2002]).

Moreover, the court properly denied that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to dismiss the first cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and (7) *(see Leon v Martinez,*84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]; *Corrado v Rubine,*25 AD3d 748 [2006]).

After the defendant failed to appear on the scheduled trial date, he was notified that the case would be placed on the calendar one week later for an inquest on damages. Moreover, after the defendant’s efforts to vacate his defaults proved unsuccessful, he was given notice, on or about April 13, 2004, that judgment would be entered against him on or after May 1, 2004. *728Under these circumstances, the defendant has no grounds to complain of lack of notice pursuant to CPLR 3215 (g) (1).

Finally, the court properly determined that the judgment was not entered in violation of 22 NYCRR 202.48 (a) *(see Funk v Barry,*89 NY2d 364 [1996]). Schmidt, J.P., Spolzino, Krausman and Fisher, JJ., concur.
#### § 937.702 Exemption for coal extraction incidental to the extraction of other minerals.

Part 702 of this chapter, *Exemption for Coal Extraction Incidental to the Extraction of Other Minerals,* shall apply to any person who conducts coal extraction incidental to the extraction of other minerals for purposes of commercial use or sale.

[54 FR 52123, Dec. 20, 1989]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FORM
10-K FOR THE PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-1-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           2,425
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   20,040
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,130
<INVENTORY>                                      2,772
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                41,149
<PP&E>                                          13,282
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,727
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 151,693
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           22,703
<BONDS>                                         44,025
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         27
<COMMON>                                           120
<OTHER-SE>                                      66,201
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   151,693
<SALES>                                        101,920
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               101,920
<CGS>                                           49,132
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   89,897
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,529
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,125
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,778
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,576
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,202
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,199
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     $.36
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     $.36
        

</TABLE>
#### § 150.3 Scope of review.

In cases referred to it for review pursuant to Article 66, the Court may act only with respect to the findings and sentence as approved by the convening authority. In reviewing a case or action under Article 69(d) or in determining an appeal under Article 62, the Court may act only with respect to matters of law. The Court may, in addition, review such other matters and take such other action as it determines to be proper under substantive law.e
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 21
 
                     SATELLITE TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT, INC.
                                  SUBSIDIARIES
 
  The subsidiaries of the Company are:
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                           Percentage Ownership
                                                           --------------------
   <S>                                                     <C>
   STM do Brasil..........................................        100.0%
    Avenida das Americas, 3333
    Sala 801
    22631-003 Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

   STM de Mexico, S. A de C.V. ...........................        100.0%
    Monte Pelvoux No. 130-3ER. Piso
    Lomas de Chapultpepec
    11000 Mexico, D.F.

   STM Wireless Systems, Ltd..............................        100.0%
    50/9 Viphavadee-Rangsit 38
    Viphavadee-Rangsit Road
    Ladyao Chatuchak
    Bangkok, 10900 Thailand

   STM Sales Corp. .......................................        100.0%
    134 West Soledad Avenue
    Suite 401
    Agana, Guam 96910

   Direc-to-Phone International, Inc. ....................         75.0%
    One Mauchly
    Irvine, CA 92618

   Telecom Multimedia Systems, Inc. ......................        100.0%
    One Mauchly
    Irvine, California 92618
</TABLE>
No. 8162.

#### Rector, Trustee, *v.*The City Deposit Bank Co.

(Decided November 24, 1903.)

Error to Circuit Court of Franklin county.

*Messrs Pugh & Pugh; Mr. Thomas. E. Steele*andi *Mr. Fred C. Rector,*for plaintiff in error.

*554*Messrs. Outhwaite, Linn & Thurman,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Burket, C. J., Spear, Davis, Shauck and Crew, •JJ., concur.