alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
H. Res. 78

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

January 24, 2007.

Resolved,

SECTION 1. VOTING BY DELEGATES AND RESIDENT COMMISSIONER IN COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE. 

(a) PERMITTING VOTES TO BE CAST.—Clause 3(a) of 

rule III of the Rules of the House of Representatives is 

amended to read as follows: 

‘‘3. (a) In a Committee of the Whole House on the state 

of the Union, each Delegate and the Resident Commissioner 

shall possess the same powers and privileges as Members of 

the House. Each Delegate and the Resident Commissioner 

shall be elected to serve on standing committees in the same 

manner as Members of the House and shall possess in such 

committees the same powers and privileges as the other members of the committee.’’. 

(b) APPOINTMENT OF CHAIR.—The first sentence of 

clause 1 of rule XVIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives is amended by striking ‘‘a Chairman’’ and insert-
2

•HRES 78 EH 

ing ‘‘a Member, Delegate, or the Resident Commissioner as 

Chairman’’. 

(c) REPEATING OF CERTAIN VOTES.—Clause 6 of rule 

XVIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives is 

amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph: 

‘‘(h) Whenever a recorded vote on any question has been 

decided by a margin within which the votes cast by the Delegates and the Resident Commissioner have been decisive, the 

Committee of the Whole shall rise and the Speaker shall put 

such question de novo without intervening motion. Upon the 

announcement of the vote on that question, the Committee of 

the Whole shall resume its sitting without intervening motion.’’. 

Attest:

Clerk.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 4, 2015

No. 04-14-00875-CV

IN THE MATTER OF S.O.W.

From the 386th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 1994-JUV-2115

Honorable Paul Andrew Mireles, Judge Presiding

ORDER

In accordance with the court’s opinion issued this date, the appeal is DISMISSED FOR 

WANT OF JURISDICTION.

It is so ORDERED on November 4, 2015.

_____________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 4th day of November, 2015.

_____________________________

Keith E. Hottle, Clerk
Before the First Division,

March 19, 1962

No. 66571.

#### Ross Products, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 60/18924 and 60/18926 (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, O.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of glass ornamental novelties similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 62984, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
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

 MINUTE ORDER RE:

PROPOSED PROTECTIVE ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

PERFORMANCE, INC.,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

BRUCE BLUME, et al.,

Defendant(s).

NO. C06-102P 

MINUTE ORDER RE: 

 PROPOSED PROTECTIVE ORDER

The following minute order is made by the direction of the court, the Honorable Marsha J.

Pechman:

The Court declines to approve the proposed protective order (Dkt. No. 20). The Court will

not automatically approve stipulated protective orders to authorize documents marked “confidential”

and produced during discovery pursuant to protective orders to be filed under seal without further

order of the Court. “There is a strong presumption of public access to the court’s files and records

which may be overcome only on a compelling showing that the public’s right of access is outweighed

by the interests of the public and the parties in protecting files, records, or documents from public

review.” Local Rule CR 5(g)(1) (emphasis added). 

Paragraphs 2- 11 of the parties’ proposed Stipulated Protective Order outlines a procedure

which essentially allows them to unilaterally seal any document which they deem “confidential.” 

Parties seeking an order to seal any documents must provide a specific description of particular

Case 2:06-cv-00102-MJP Document 21 Filed 11/30/06 Page 1 of 2
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

 MINUTE ORDER RE:

PROPOSED PROTECTIVE ORDER

documents or categories of documents they seek to protest and a “clear statement of the facts

justifying a seal and overcoming the strong presumption in favor of public access.” Local Rule CR

5(g)(2) (emphasis added). The facts supporting any motion to seal must be provided by declaration or

affidavit.

The Court’s denial is without prejudice to submit a conforming proposed protective order.

Filed this 30th day of November, 2006.

BRUCE RIFKIN, Clerk

By /s Mary Duett

Deputy Clerk

Case 2:06-cv-00102-MJP Document 21 Filed 11/30/06 Page 2 of 2
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Eric Tyson, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 1]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Rothwax, J.), rendered October 21, 1992, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and also convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to consecutive terms of 5 to 15 years on the weapon possession conviction and 81/3 to 25 years on the third degree possession of a controlled substance conviction after trial, which sentences are to run concurrently to a term of 5 to 15 years upon the third degree possession of a controlled substance conviction by plea, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly declined to give a missing witness charge with respect to a livery cab driver as he was unavailable at the time of trial and the People demonstrated reasonable efforts to locate the witness *(People v Gonzalez,*68 NY2d 424, 428).

The court was empowered to impose consecutive sentences as the acts underlying the two relevant convictions were separate and discrete *(see, People v Brathwaite,*63 NY2d 839, 843). We perceive no abuse of discretion in sentencing. Concur— Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Ross and Tom, JJ.
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

59–011 2015

114th Congress, 1st Session – – – – – – – – – – – – – House Document 114–60 

TERMINATION OF SEYCHELLES AS BENEFICIARY 

UNDER THE AFRICAN GROWTH AND OPPORTUNITY 

ACT 

MESSAGE 

FROM

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 

TRANSMITTING

NOTIFICATION OF THE INTENT TO TERMINATE THE DESIGNATION 

OF SEYCHELLES AS A BENEFICIARY SUB-SAHARAN AFRICAN 

COUNTRY UNDER THE AFRICAN GROWTH AND OPPORTUNITY 

ACT PROGRAM, PURSUANT TO SEC. 506A(a)(1) OF THE TRADE 

ACT OF 1974, AS AMENDED [19 U.S.C. 2466(a)(1)] 

OCTOBER 1, 2015.—Message and accompanying papers referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means and ordered to be printed 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSE:\Seals\Congress.#13

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(1) 

To the Congress of the United States: 

I am providing notification of my intent to terminate the designation of Seychelles as a beneficiary sub-Saharan African country 

under the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) program. 

Section 506A(a)(1) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (the 

‘‘1974 Act’’) (19 U.S.C. 2466a(a)(1)) authorizes the President to designate a country listed in section 107 of the AGOA (19 U.S.C. 3706) 

as a beneficiary sub-Saharan African country eligible for the benefits described in section 506A(b) of the 1974 Act (19 U.S.C. 

2466a(b)), if the President determines that the country meets the 

eligibility requirements in section 104 of the AGOA (19 U.S.C. 

3703), subject to the authority granted to the President under subsections (a), (d), and (e) of section 502 of the 1974 Act. 

Pursuant to section 502(e) of the 1974 Act, I have determined 

that Seychelles has become a ‘‘high income’’ country and its designation as a beneficiary sub-Saharan country is no longer within 

the authority granted to the President under section 502 of the 

1974 Act. Accordingly, pursuant to section 506A(a)(1) of the 1974 

Act (19 U.S.C. 2466a(a)(1)), I have determined that Seychelles is no 

longer eligible for benefits as a beneficiary sub-Saharan African 

country for the purpose of section 506A of the 1974 Act, effective 

January 1, 2017. 

BARACK OBAMA. 

THE WHITE HOUSE, September 30, 2015. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kyle Correll, Appellant.

[632 NYS2d 977]

—Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate a decision and order of this Court dated August 8, 1994 *(People v Correll,*207 AD2d 410), (1) affirming a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Eng, J.), rendered November 20, 1990, and a judgment of the same court (Berkowitz, J.), rendered December 6, 1990, and (2) modifying an amended judgment of the same court (Berkowitz, J.), also rendered December 6, 1990, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.

Ordered that the application is denied.

The defendant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel *(see, Jones v Barnes,*463 US 745). Sullivan, J. P., Pizzuto, Joy and Friedmann, JJ., concur.
Case 2:05-cv-02129-RSM Document 192-7 Filed 02/01/10 Page 1 of 20
Case 2:05-cv-02129-RSM Document 192-7 Filed 02/01/10 Page 2 of 20
Case 2:05-cv-02129-RSM Document 192-7 Filed 02/01/10 Page 3 of 20
Case 2:05-cv-02129-RSM Document 192-7 Filed 02/01/10 Page 4 of 20
Case 2:05-cv-02129-RSM Document 192-7 Filed 02/01/10 Page 5 of 20
Case 2:05-cv-02129-RSM Document 192-7 Filed 02/01/10 Page 6 of 20
Case 2:05-cv-02129-RSM Document 192-7 Filed 02/01/10 Page 7 of 20
Case 2:05-cv-02129-RSM Document 192-7 Filed 02/01/10 Page 8 of 20
Case 2:05-cv-02129-RSM Document 192-7 Filed 02/01/10 Page 9 of 20
Case 2:05-cv-02129-RSM Document 192-7 Filed 02/01/10 Page 10 of 20
Case 2:05-cv-02129-RSM Document 192-7 Filed 02/01/10 Page 11 of 20
Case 2:05-cv-02129-RSM Document 192-7 Filed 02/01/10 Page 12 of 20
Case 2:05-cv-02129-RSM Document 192-7 Filed 02/01/10 Page 13 of 20
Case 2:05-cv-02129-RSM Document 192-7 Filed 02/01/10 Page 14 of 20
Case 2:05-cv-02129-RSM Document 192-7 Filed 02/01/10 Page 15 of 20
Case 2:05-cv-02129-RSM Document 192-7 Filed 02/01/10 Page 16 of 20
Case 2:05-cv-02129-RSM Document 192-7 Filed 02/01/10 Page 17 of 20
Case 2:05-cv-02129-RSM Document 192-7 Filed 02/01/10 Page 18 of 20
Case 2:05-cv-02129-RSM Document 192-7 Filed 02/01/10 Page 19 of 20
Case 2:05-cv-02129-RSM Document 192-7 Filed 02/01/10 Page 20 of 20
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000875194
<NAME>                        Catherines Stores Corporation
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                                           <C>                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    3-MOS                     9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-29-2000               JAN-29-2000
<PERIOD-START>                              AUG-1-1999               JAN-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-30-1999               OCT-30-1999
<CASH>                                           9,936                    9,936
<SECURITIES>                                         0                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,454                    4,454
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                        0
<INVENTORY>                                     60,326                   60,326
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                82,886                   82,886
<PP&E>                                          81,310                   81,310
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (45,214)                 (45,214)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 142,028                  142,028
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           48,942                   48,942
<BONDS>                                              0                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                        0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                        0
<COMMON>                                        41,419                   41,419
<OTHER-SE>                                           0                        0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   142,028                  142,028
<SALES>                                         75,572                  234,206
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                75,572                  234,206
<CGS>                                           50,979                  153,815
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   50,979                  153,815
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                20,330                   62,020
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  64                      259
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,199                   18,112
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,588                    7,153
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,611                   10,959
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                        0
<CHANGES>                                            0                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,611                   10,959
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.38                     1.58
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.37                     1.54


</TABLE>
No. 66092.

#### Associated Metals & Minerals Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 228298-K, etc. (New York).

*318Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of connecting rod parts for compressor machines, which are not internal-combustion engines, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
lazuriton_ex105.htm

 

  EXHIBIT 10.5

 

COMMITMENT TO PROVIDE FUNDS FOR OPERATIONS FOR LAZURITON 

NANO BIOTECHNOLOGY (U.S.A.), INC., A NEVADA CORPORATION

 

FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, the receipt and sufficiency of which are acknowledged, the undersigned, Chih-Yuan Hsiao, as the President and a member of the board of directors of Lazuriton Nano Biotechnology (U.S.A.) Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”), hereby undertakes for a period of one year from the date specified below to provide and advance to the Company the principal amount of Four Hundred Thousand United States Dollars (400,000.00), in such amounts and on such dates as the undersigned, as that President, Treasurer and director, shall determine to be in the best interest of the Company.

 

Any amounts so provided and advanced by the undersigned shall not accrue interest and shall be payable on demand; provided, however, such demand will not be made prior to the expiration of that one year period after the date specified below.

 

 


	
Dated: February 9, 2017 
	
 
	
/s/ Chih-Yuan Hsiao

	
 
	
 
	
Chih-Yuan Hsiao, 

	
 
	
 
	
President and Chairman
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the Balance
Sheet and the Statements of Revenue and Expenses and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such Report on Form 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000875272
<NAME> DATRONIC EQUIPMENT INCOME FUND XX, L.P.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                       4,032,356
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,164,906
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,145,302
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,164,906
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                89,244
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,505
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             (251,045)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    84,784
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Title V Permit Websites

Nick Parsons to: Cortney_Higgins 09/26/2012 04:11 PM

Cc: Paul Versace, Penny Lassiter, JohnB Chamberlin

Hi Cortney,

Attached is a spreadsheet that contains information on all of the title V permits that are available online .

Nick

Title V Permit Websites.xlsx
1845-0052 – Affected Public – For-Profit Institutions 11/26/2014

This request is for approval of an extension of OMB information collection number 1845-0052 the 

reporting requirements currently in the Student Assistance General Provisions, 34 CFR 668, Subpart I. 

This subpart governs the Immigration-Status Confirmation, as authorized by section 484(g) of the Higher 

Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA) (20 U.S.C. 1091). The regulations can be reviewed at 34 CFR 

668, Subpart I.

There is an increase in burden hours due to an increase in the number of respondents who need to present 

documentation to the school to be included with the G-845 form to complete the confirmation of 

eligibility to receive Title IV assistance. There has not been any change to the regulatory language 

requiring this activity.

# of Respondents # of Responses X Hours/ = Burden

Response Hours

For-profit institution:

2,151 30,701 .17 hours = 5,219

(10 min.)
No. 66523.

#### Norman G. Jensen, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 59/4249, etc. (Pembina).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of nickel-bearing materials similar in all material respects to those, the subject of *F. W. Myers & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(46 Cust. Ct. 90, C.D. 2239), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Exhibit 32.1

                            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 Quarter Report of Startech Environmental Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended April 30, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Joseph F. Longo, Chairman,
Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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 as amended; and

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




By:    /s/ Joseph F. Longo
       -------------------
       Joseph F. Longo
       Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President
       June 19, 2007




The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure
document.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, 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.
From: grichter@htc.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:41:05 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Grant Richter

Columbia, IL 62236
Exhibit
32.1




Certification of Principal
Executive Officer


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
SK Shasta Acquisition Corp. 2 (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year
ended April 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kurt Pichler, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.
1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to
my knowledge:





(1) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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





/s/
      Kurt PichlerKurt
      PichlerPrincipal
      Executive OfficerAugust
      12, 2010