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

[113th Congress Public Law 15]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

[[Page 127 STAT. 476]]

Public Law 113-15
113th Congress

                                 An Act

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to include vaccines against 
          seasonal influenza within the definition of taxable 
            vaccines. <<NOTE: June 25, 2013 -  [H.R. 475]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. ADDITION OF VACCINES AGAINST SEASONAL INFLUENZA TO LIST 
                              OF TAXABLE VACCINES.

    (a) In General.--Subparagraph (N) of section 4132(a)(1) of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 <<NOTE: 26 USC 4132.>>  is amended by 
inserting ``or any other vaccine against seasonal influenza'' before the 
period.

    (b) <<NOTE: Applicability. 26 USC 4132 note.>>  Effective Date.--
            (1) Sales, etc.--The amendment made by this section shall 
        apply to sales and uses on or after the later of--
                    (A) the first day of the first month which begins 
                more than 4 weeks after the date of the enactment of 
                this Act, or
                    (B) the date on which the Secretary of Health and 
                Human Services lists any vaccine against seasonal 
                influenza (other than any vaccine against seasonal 
                influenza listed by the Secretary prior to the date of 
                the enactment of this Act) for purposes of compensation 
                for any vaccine-related injury or death through the 
                Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund.
            (2) Deliveries.--For purposes of paragraph (1) and section 
        4131 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, in the case of sales 
        on or before the effective date described in such paragraph for 
        which delivery is made after such date, the delivery date shall 
        be considered the sale date.

    Approved June 25, 2013.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 475:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 159 (2013):
            June 18, considered and passed House.
            June 19, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
#### Pochrov Ministries, Inc., Appellant, v Long Island Lighting Company, Respondent.

[633 NYS2d 843]

—In a negli*611gence action to recover damages for injury to property, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Henry, J.), entered March 24, 1993, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff’s notice of appeal from the order dated March 3, 1993, is deemed a premature notice of appeal from the judgment *(see,*CPLR 5520 [c]).

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

On the night of February 14, 1987, there was an explosion at 225 Broadway, Huntington Station, New York, where the appellant stored religious artifacts. The artifacts were destroyed as a result of the explosion, which the plaintiff contends was a gas explosion caused exclusively by the defendant’s negligence. The evidence adduced at trial shows that there was no gas odor in or around the premises prior to the explosion and that the defendant’s investigation after the explosion did not reveal the presence of natural gas. Although the plaintiff proffered evidence suggesting that the gas piping in the building was defective, this evidence was contradicted by the defendant’s expert, a metallurgical engineer.

We reject the plaintiff’s contentions that the jury’s verdict is not supported by legally sufficient evidence *(see, Cohen v Hallmark Cards,*45 NY2d 493) and that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence *(see, Nicastro v Park,*113 AD2d 129).

The plaintiff has failed to preserve for appellate review its claim of error with respect to the trial court’s response to an inquiry that was made by the jury during its deliberations *(see, Brodeur v Cooper,*182 AD2d 666). In any event, the court’s response was proper. Balletta, J. P., Ritter, Copertino and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 1.1

Certification pursuant to Sarbanes-Oxley Section 302

I, Blair Merriam, certify that:

1. 	I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of  Platina Energy
	Group Inc.;

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

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

4. 	I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
	procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) for the
	registrant and have:

	(a) 	Designed such disclosure controls and procedures or caused such
		disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision,
		to ensure that material information relating to the registrant is made
		known to myself by others, 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 my conclusions about the
		effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of
		the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

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

5. 	I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the registrant'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 adversely affect 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.

	/s/  Blair Merriam
	Blair Merriam
	Chief Executive Officer and Treasurer

	June 29, 2005
446 A.2d 684

#### Commonwealth v. Zazo, Appellant.

Petition for Allowance of Appeal Denied Sept. 17, 1982.

Submitted November 4, 1981.

Douglas M. Johnson, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant; Ronald T. Williamson, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Before SPAETH, BECK and LIPEZ, JJ.

The judgment of sentence is affirmed.
AMENDMENT
TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT





THIS
AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”) is made effective as of
January 25, 2010 (the “Effective Date”) by and between Robert Aldrich (“Aldrich”
or the “Executive”) and American Defense Systems, Inc. (“ADSI” or the
“Company”).





WHEREAS,
ADSI and Aldrich have previously entered into an employment agreement dated
August 1, 2008 (the “Employment Agreement”); and





WHEREAS,
ADSI and Aldrich desire to amend the Employment Agreement between the
parties.





NOW
THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and for other good and valuable
consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which is hereby acknowledged, ADSI
and Aldrich hereby agree as follows:





1.           Section
3.4 of the Employment Agreement (Stock), is hereby amended and restated as
follows:





Stock
Options .  Subject to
approval by the Company’s Board of Directors (the “Board”) and its Compensation
Committee (“Committee”), as further compensation for Executive’s services
hereunder, the Company shall grant to Executive, effective as of the date of the
Amendment, a nonqualified option to purchase 100,000 shares of the Company’s
common stock, the terms of which shall be set forth in a stock option agreement
issued pursuant to, and subject to, the terms of the Company’s 2007 Incentive
Compensation Plan (as amended from time to time, the “Plan”).  The
option will become exercisable according to a vesting schedule pursuant to which
forty percent (40%) of the option shall be immediately vested as of the option
grant date and twenty percent (20%) of the option shall vest annually commencing
on the first one-year anniversary of the option grant date.  The
initial per share exercise price of the option shall equal the fair market value
of a share of the Company’s common stock on the date of the grant, as determined
by the Committee in accordance with terms of the Plan.




2.           Confirmation
of the Employment Agreement.  Except as amended hereby, all of the
terms of the Employment Agreement shall remain and continue in full force and
effect and are hereby confirmed in all respects, and all references to the
Employment Agreement and the Amendment To Employment Agreement shall be deemed
to refer to the Employment Agreement as amended hereby.




[THE
REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY]









IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment effective as of the
date set forth above.




American
      Defense Systems, Inc.By:
              /s/ Anthony
      PiscitelliName:  Anthony
      PiscitelliTitle:   
      CEO
 By:
                /s/ Robert
      AldrichRobert
      Aldrich
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-6325

ALEXANDER CAMERON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

JOHN F. WALRATH, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:20-cv-00051-TSE-JFA)

Submitted: July 23, 2020 Decided: July 28, 2020

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alexander Cameron, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Alexander Cameron seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 

U.S.C. § 2254 (2018) petition as an unauthorized, successive § 2254 petition. The order is 

not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2018). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2018). 

When, as here, the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must 

demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the petition 

states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 

134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Cameron has not 

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Cameron’s 

motions to identify the blood type of the victim and to appoint counsel. We dispense with 

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
No. 58617.

protest 233546-K (New York).

#### American Thermo-Ware Company *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise and the issues are the same in all material respects as those the subject of *John P. Herber & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(30 Cust. Ct. 193, C. D. 1519). In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the cited case, the protest was dismissed, and the matter was remanded to a single judge sitting in reappraisement for determination of the value of the merchandise in the manner provided by law (28 U. S. C. § 2636 (d)).
## MA**TERIA LS NOT INCLUDED IN** 

**AI RWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE (A**  **D) DOCKET**
**FAA -**  **2015 -**  **3659** Docket Number
**2014 -**  **SW -**  **050 -** **AD** Directorate Identifier Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in DMS Docket and Maintained in the Supplemental AD Docket Aerometals Service Bulletin Aero - SB - 1103, dated July 2, 2014. Aerometals Aero - ICA - 101 Supplemental Instructions for Continued Airworthiness, Revision NC, dated May 22, 2014 .


### MA **Y BE VIEWED AT:** Federal Aviation Administration

Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region Rules Docket 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Room 6N - 321 Fort W orth, Texas 761 7 7 **DURING THE HOURS OF:** 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH L. DEXTER, an

individual, et al., 

Plaintiffs, No. CIV S-04-2643 MCE JFM

vs.

FORWARD AIR, INC., et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On October 25, 2005, defendant Forward Air re-noticed its September 26, 2005

motion for order for physical examinations for hearing on November 17, 2005. On October 17,

2005, plaintiffs filed a statement of non-opposition to the motion. Pursuant to Local Rule 78-

230(h), the court has determined that the matter will be submitted on the papers without oral

argument. Upon review of the motion and the documents in support and opposition, and good

cause appearing therefor, THE COURT MAKES THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS:

The physical condition of the plaintiff is in controversy in this action. Thus,

plaintiff will be directed to submit to examinations by an orthopaedic surgeon and neurologist. 

Defendant Forward Air, Inc. shall bear the cost of such examinations.

/////

Case 2:04-cv-02643-MCE -JFM Document 41 Filed 11/16/05 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

2

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The hearing date of November 17, 2005 on defendants’ motion for physical

examinations is vacated.

2. Defendants’ motion for physical examinations is granted.

3. Plaintiff shall submit to the following examinations:

December 7, 2005 at 10:00 a.m.

Dr. Michael Klein, Board Certified Orthopaedic Surgeon

Offices of MRK Medical Consultants

6555 Coyle Avenue, Suite #235

Carmichael, California 95608

December 14, 2005 at 10:00 a.m.

Dr. Stephen Forner, Board Certified Neurologist

Offices of MRK Medical Consultants

6555 Coyle Avenue, Suite #235

Carmichael, California 95608

4. Defendant Forward Air, Inc. shall bear the cost of such examination.

DATED: November 16, 2005.

001; dexter.uop

Case 2:04-cv-02643-MCE -JFM Document 41 Filed 11/16/05 Page 2 of 2
MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-11-00087-CR

IN RE Carlton STROUD

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Steven C. Hilbig, Justice

Delivered and Filed: February 16, 2011

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DISMISSED

On February 1, 2011, relator Carlton Stroud filed a petition for writ of mandamus, 

complaining about his underlying felony conviction. In 1999, relator was convicted of 

possession of one to four grams of cocaine and was sentenced to thirty five years’ confinement. 

On August 8, 2001, this court dismissed the appeal in Cause No. 04-99-00712-CR after relator 

withdrew his notice of appeal. Therefore, relator’s felony conviction became final.

Only the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has jurisdiction over matters related to postconviction relief from an otherwise final felony conviction. See Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 

802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. 1991); see also TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07 (West Supp. 

2008); Board of Pardons & Paroles ex rel. Keene v. Court of Appeals for Eighth Dist., 910 

 1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 1997-CR-3770, styled State of Texas v. Carlton Stroud, in the 290th 

Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Melissa Skinner presiding. 
04-11-00087-CR

- 2 -

S.W.2d 481, 483 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (holding that “Article 11.07 provides the exclusive 

means to challenge a final felony conviction.”). Because the relief sought in relator’s petition 

relates to post-conviction relief from an otherwise final felony conviction, we are without 

jurisdiction to consider his petition for writ of mandamus. 

Accordingly, relator’s petition is DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION. 

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 49 (Wednesday, March 14, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11878-11879]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-4666]


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

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION


Ocean Transportation Intermediary License Applicants

    Notice is hereby given that the following applicants have filed 
with the Federal Maritime Commission an application for license as a 
Non-Vessel--Operating Common Carrier and Ocean Freight Forwarder--Ocean 
Transportation Intermediary pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act 
of 1984 as amended (46 U.S.C. Chapter 409 and 46 CFR 515).
    Persons knowing of any reason why the following applicants should 
not receive a license are requested to contact the Office of 
Transportation Intermediaries, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, 
DC 20573.

Non-Vessel--Operating Common Carrier Ocean Transportation Intermediary 
Applicants

Marco Polo Logistics (LAX) Inc., 2411 Santa Fe Avenue, Suite B, Redondo 
Beach, CA 90278. Officers: Wei Sheung Ling, Secretary, (Qualifying 
Individual), James Ya-Hsiung Wu, President.
Royaline Shipping Line, 646 Fairview Avenue, Suite 20, Arcadia, CA 
91007. Officer: Wei Wei Xu, President, (Qualifying Individual).
Likwidd International Inc., 9690 Telstar Avenue, Suite 226, El Monte, 
CA 91731. Officers: Xiao Fang Liu, President, (Qualifying Individual), 
Xiu Juan Lai, Secretary.
Easy On Logistics, Inc., 240 South Garfield Avenue, Suite 302, 
Alhambra, CA 91801. Officers: Victoria Florio, Secretary, (Qualifying 
Individual), Paul N. Florio, President.
Cajero, LLC dba Waes Cargo International, 2810 Morris Avenue, Suite 
205, Union, NJ 07083. Officers: Joseph F. Kamara, Sen. Export 
Coordinator, Idrissa Diallo, Sen. Export Coordinator, Robert E. 
Smallwood, Manager, (Qualifying Individuals).
Marco Polo Logistics (SFO) Inc., 152 S. Spruce Avenue, S. San 
Francisco, CA 94080. Officers: Mike Ko-Jen Hsueh,

[[Page 11879]]

President, (Qualifying Individual), Shirley Yuan Li Ho, CFO.
Ocean Pacific Brokerage & Air Cargo Corp., dba Air Pacific Cargo, 16 
Corning Avenue, Suite 154, Milpitas, CA 95035. Officers: Blas De Leon 
Caliva, CFO, (Qualifying Individual), Jessie Gonzaga, CEO.

Non-Vessel-Operating Common Carrier and Ocean Freight Forwarder 
Transportation Intermediary Applicants

Amad Logistics, LLC, 1402 NW. 82nd Avenue, Doral, FL 33126. Officer: 
Agustin G. Mendoza, Managing Member, (Qualifying Individual).
Prime Logistics International, Inc., 3225 SW. 124 CT, Miami, FL 33175. 
Officer: Jose Chao, President, (Qualifying Individual).

Ocean Freight Forwarder--Ocean Transportation Intermediary Applicants

R & J Global, 371 Winona Lakes, East Stroudsburg, PA 18302, Rachelle P. 
Gonzalo, Sole Proprietor.
AAA Cuban Transportation Cargo & Logistics, Inc., 6025 W. 12th Avenue, 
Hialeah, FL 33012. Officer: Eduardo Mena, President, (Qualifying 
Individual).

    Dated: March 9, 2007.
Bryant L. VanBrakle,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-4666 Filed 3-13-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-P
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Raul Cruz, Appellant.

[635 NYS2d 506]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Quinones, J.), rendered July 16, 1993, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree, grand larceny in the fourth degree, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We find unpersuasive the defendant’s contention that the showup identification procedure conducted in this case was improper inasmuch as the showup occurred in close temporal and spatial proximity to the crime and was not impermissibly suggestive *(see, People v Hicks,*68 NY2d 234; *People v Sturgis,*199 AD2d 549; *People v Grassia,*195 AD2d 607; *People v Morales,*168 AD2d 85). Moreover, the defendant has failed to preserve for appellate review his claim that the showup was unnecessary because probable cause for his arrest existed without the identification *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Love,*57 NY2d 1023). In any event, the contention is without merit under the circumstances of this case *(see, People v Duuvon,*77 NY2d 541; *People v Torres,*169 AD2d 584).

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, Miller and Florio, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32








CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SS. 1350 ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In connection with the Report of UpSnap, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended April 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Peter van Hierden, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Richard von Gnechten, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:








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





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








/s/ Peter van Hierden
Peter van Hierden
Chief Executive Officer

Dated: November 20, 2009/s/ Richard A. von Gnechten
Richard A. von Gnechten
Chief Financial Officer

Dated: November 20, 2009
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 accompanying Yearly Report of IceWEB, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the Year ending September 30, 2004, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Quarterly
Report"), I, John R. Signorello, Principal Executive Officer and the Principal
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the
best of my knowledge, that:

         (1) The Yearly 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 Yearly Report fully presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

                                        By: /s/ John R. Signorello
                                            ----------------------
                                            John R. Signorello
                                            Principal Executive Officer and
                                            Principal Financial Officer
                                            January 18, 2005