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

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 667 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 667

  To enhance the readiness, discipline, good order, and morale of the 
Armed Forces by providing by law for the continuation of the policy of 
 the Department of Defense on homosexuals serving in the Armed Forces, 
                    as in effect on January 1, 1993.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 27, 1993

 Mr. Dornan (for himself, Mr. Barton of Texas, Mr. Hunter, and Mr. Sam 
Johnson of Texas) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                    the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To enhance the readiness, discipline, good order, and morale of the 
Armed Forces by providing by law for the continuation of the policy of 
 the Department of Defense on homosexuals serving in the Armed Forces, 
                    as in effect on January 1, 1993.

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

SECTION 1. CONTINUATION OF JANUARY 1, 1993, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
              POLICY CONCERNING SERVICE OF HOMOSEXUALS IN THE ARMED 
              FORCES.

    All executive orders, Department of Defense directives, and 
regulations of the military departments concerning the appointment, 
enlistment, and induction, and the retention, of homosexuals in the 
Armed Forces of the United States, as in effect on January 1, 1993, 
shall remain in effect with respect to the Army, Navy, Air Force, and 
Marine Corps unless changed by law.

                                 <all>
```
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 Annual Report of SCOLR Pharma, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Daniel O. Wilds, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:



(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); 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/    DANIEL O.
WILDS                                                  
|    |  | Daniel O. Wilds President and Chief Executive Officer SCOLR Pharma, Inc.



Date:
March 29, 2005
1

NO. 12-20-00033-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE 

OF ROBERT HUGH MCNAIR, JR.

§

§

§

APPEAL FROM THE

COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2

HENDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

This appeal is being dismissed for failure to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate 

Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c).

A party who is not excused by statute or the appellate rules from paying costs must pay--

at the time an item is presented for filing--whatever fees are required by statute or Texas Supreme 

Court order. TEX. R. APP. P. 5. An appellate court may enforce Rule 5 by any order that is just. 

Id. After giving ten days’ notice, an appellate court may dismiss an appeal because the appellant 

failed to comply with a requirement of the appellate rules, a court order, or a notice from the clerk 

requiring a response or other action within a specified time. TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c).

On February 3, 2020, the Clerk of this Court notified Appellant, Sue Syler McNair, that 

the filing fee in this appeal is due. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5. Appellant was informed that failure to 

remit the filing fee on or before February 13 would result in the Court’s taking appropriate action, 

including dismissal of the case without further notice. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c). The date for 

remitting the filing fee passed, and Appellant has not paid the fee or otherwise shown that she is 

excused from paying the fee.1

Because Appellant failed, after notice, to comply with Rule 5, the appeal is dismissed. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c).

 1 The case information sheet provided by the Henderson County District Clerk’s Office reflects that Appellant 

has not been declared indigent.
2

Opinion delivered February 19, 2020.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.
3

COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

FEBRUARY 19, 2020

NO. 12-20-00033-CV

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF

ROBERT HUGH MCNAIR, JR.

Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2 

of Henderson County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 78-2017CCL2)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record; and the same being 

considered, it is the opinion of this Court that this appeal should be dismissed.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this Court that this 

appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed; and that this decision be certified to the court below 

for observance.

By per curiam opinion. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Thomas Rhuel SPELL.

No. 62897.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Aug. 24, 1978.

In re: State of Louisiana, through the Honorable J. Nathan Stansbury, District Attorney, applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus. Parish of Acadia.

Writ denied. This court will not interfere with proceedings in the trial court dur*1208ing trial unless the ruling below is palpably incorrect.

SUMMERS, J.,

is of the opinion the writ should be granted. The ruling of the trial judge that the witness was not unavailable is erroneous. Invoking the husband-wife privilege had the effect of making the wife unavailable. McCormick, Evidence, § 280, pp. 678-79 (2d ed. 1972).
262 La. 307

#### Robert H. GRESSETT and Rosemary Gressett v. Berneal AARON and Ethel Aaron, d/b/a Driftwood Motel and Lounge.

No. 52601.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 26, 1972.

In re: Berneal Aaron and Ethel Aaron, d/b/a Driftwood Motel and Lounge applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus.

Writ denied. Relator has a remedy by appeal in the event of adverse judgment on the merits.
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TORULE 13a-14(a) UNDER THE EXCHANGE ACT

I,James O. McKenna, Chief Financial Officer of Forward Industries, Inc.(“Forward”) certify that:

1.             I have reviewed this quarterlyreport on Form 10‐Q for the three months ended March 31, 2008, ofForward;

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

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

4.             Forward’s other certifying officerand I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a‐15(e) and 15d‐15(e))for Forward and we have:

a)             designed such disclosure controlsand procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to bedesigned under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating toForward, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared;

b)             Not applicable;

c)             evaluated the effectiveness ofForward’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report ourconclusions 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

d)             disclosed in this report anychange in Forward’s internal control over financial reporting that occurredduring Forward’s most recent fiscal quarter (Forward’s fourth fiscal quarter inthe case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, Forward’s internal control over financialreporting; and

5.             Forward’s other certifying officerand I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to Forward’s auditors and the audit committee ofForward’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a)             all significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect Forward’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b)            any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in Forward’sinternal controls over financial reporting.

Date: May 2, 2008

 

/s/James O. McKennaJames O. McKenna

ChiefFinancial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
#### Louis Allen RICHARDSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-403.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Oct. 6, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8127 

To direct the Federal Trade Commission to submit to Congress a report 

on unfair or deceptive acts or practices targeted at Indian Tribes or 

members of Indian Tribes, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

AUGUST 28, 2020 

Mr. LUJA ́N (for himself and Mr. GIANFORTE) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To direct the Federal Trade Commission to submit to Congress a report on unfair or deceptive acts or practices 

targeted at Indian Tribes or members of Indian Tribes, 

and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Protecting Indian 

5 Tribes from Scams Act’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8127 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROTECTING INDIAN TRIBES FROM UNFAIR OR DE2 CEPTIVE ACTS OR PRACTICES. 

3 (a) FTC REPORT ON UNFAIR OR DECEPTIVE ACTS

4 OR PRACTICES TARGETING INDIAN TRIBES.—Not later 

5 than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, 

6 and after consultation with Indian Tribes, the Commission 

7 shall make publicly available on the website of the Com8 mission and submit to the Committee on Energy and Com9 merce of the House of Representatives and the Committee 

10 on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate 

11 a report on unfair or deceptive acts or practices targeted 

12 at Indian Tribes or members of Indian Tribes, including— 

13 (1) a description of the types of unfair or de14 ceptive acts or practices identified by the Commis15 sion as being targeted at Indian Tribes or members 

16 of Indian Tribes; 

17 (2) a description of the consumer education ac18 tivities of the Commission with respect to such acts 

19 or practices; 

20 (3) a description of the efforts of the Commis21 sion to collaborate with Indian Tribes to prevent 

22 such acts or practices or to pursue persons using 

23 such acts or practices; 

24 (4) a summary of the enforcement actions 

25 taken by the Commission related to such acts or 

26 practices; and 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 8127 IH

1 (5) any recommendations for legislation to pre2 vent such acts or practices. 

3 (b) INCREASING AWARENESS OF UNFAIR OR DECEP4 TIVE ACTS OR PRACTICES TARGETING INDIAN TRIBES.— 

5 Not later than 6 months after the date of the submission 

6 of the report required by subsection (a), the Commission 

7 shall update the website of the Commission to include in8 formation for consumers and businesses on identifying 

9 and avoiding unfair or deceptive acts or practices targeted 

10 at Indian Tribes or members of Indian Tribes. 

11 (c) COMMISSION DEFINED.—In this section, the term 

12 ‘‘Commission’’ means the Federal Trade Commission. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
#### Robert Clay KIME, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-756.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Sept. 21, 1972.

Appeal from Criminal Court of Record, Palm Beach County; Vaughn H. Rudniek, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
<PAGE>



EXHIBIT 24.1

POWER OF ATTORNEY
HERBERT L. LUCAS

         KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned, Herbert L. Lucas
constitutes and appoints David T. Howard or Steven H. Moger his true and lawful
attorney-in-fact and agent, for him and his name, place and stead, in any and
all capacities, to sign the Form 10-KSB of Nutraceutix, Inc., a Delaware
corporation, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2001, and any amendments or
supplements thereto, and to file this Power of Attorney and the Form 10-KSB with
all exhibits thereto, and to the documents in connection therewith, with the
Securities and Exchange Commission and the NASDAQ National Market System,
granting unto said attorney-in-fact and agent full power and authority to do and
perform each requisite and necessary to be done in and about the premises, as
fully to all intents and purposes as he might or could do in person, hereby
ratifying and confirming all that said attorney-in-fact and agent, may do or
cause to be done by virtue hereof.

         Dated this 23rd day of March, 2002.

Signature:



/s/ Herbert L. Lucas
-------------------------
Herbert L. Lucas
#### Rubert Milton VAIL v. Rachael VAIL.

Civ. 1050.

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

July 12, 1978.

*On Remand from Supreme Court*

BRADLEY, Judge.

Upon remand to this court by the Supreme Court of Alabama, 360 So.2d 992, it is considered that this cause should be reversed in accordance with the opinion rendered by the Supreme Court of Alabama on June 9, 1978 in the above cause, and remanded to the Circuit Court of Tuscaloosa County for further proceedings.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

WRIGHT, P. J., and HOLMES, J., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION FROM THE YEAR ENDED AUGUST
31, 1999 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH ANNUAL 10-K FILING DATED AUGUST 31, 1999. EPS AMOUNTS ARE IN ACCORDANCE
WITH SFAS 128.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1999
<CASH>                                       5,438,510
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               15,866,248
<ALLOWANCES>                                 2,980,849
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            22,675,476
<PP&E>                                       7,483,711
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,192,437
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              86,535,745
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       22,094,532
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        72,678
<OTHER-SE>                                  45,733,175
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                86,535,745
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           146,000,349
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              132,772,886
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               588,705
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,430,985
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             11,463,058
<INCOME-TAX>                                 4,562,297
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          6,900,761
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 6,900,761
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.96


</TABLE>
Opinion issued December 1, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-15-00941-CR

———————————

IN RE LEONARD D. FANIEL, Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator, Leonard D. Faniel, filed a petition for writ of mandamus, asking us 

to order the respondent, Chris Daniels, Harris County District Clerk, to forward 

relator’s 11.07 writ.1 TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07 (West 2015). By 

statute, we have no authority to issue a writ of mandamus against a district clerk 

unless required to enforce our jurisdiction. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221 

 

1

The underlying case is State v. Faniel, cause number 1459000, pending in the 

179th District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Kristin M. Guiney

presiding.
2

(West 2004). Because relator does not seek a writ of mandamus to enforce our 

jurisdiction, we dismiss this petition. 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Higley, Huddle, and Lloyd.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
#### Clarence SIMPSON, Jr., Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-1050.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 19, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
262 La. 315

#### Willie Roy COCKERHAM v. CONSOLIDATED UNDERWRITERS and Winnfield Veneer Company.

No. 52575.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 22, 1972.

In re: Willie Roy Cockerham applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Parish of Winn. 262 So.2d 119.

Writ denied. The judgment is correct.
##### 



Exhibit 32.1

Certification of
Chief Executive Officer
of Delhaize America, Inc.

This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 and accompanies the quarterly report on Form 10-Q (the Form 10-Q)
for the quarter ended June 28, 2003 of Delhaize America, Inc. (the Issuer).

I, Pierre-Olivier Beckers, the Chief Executive Officer of the Issuer, certify
that, to the best of my knowledge:

|     |  |                                                                                                                                                              
|---- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(i)  |  | the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) or section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15
U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and
|     |  |                                                                                                                                                              
|(ii) |  | the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Issuer.       

Dated: August 12, 2003

| |                           
| | --------------------------
| | /s/ Pierre-Olivier Beckers
| | Pierre-Olivier Beckers    
| | Chief Executive Officer   

A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 HAS BEEN
PROVIDED TO THE ISSUER AND WILL BE RETAINED BY THE ISSUER AND FURNISHED TO THE

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.
#### James BOONE, Appellant, v. Robert J. SNOW, Administrator of the Estate of Hannah I. Snow, Deceased, and Nationwide Fire Insurance Company, a foreign corporation, Appellees.

No. 70-979.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 12, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### CITY OF NEPTUNE BEACH v. Kenneth E. HARRIS.

No. 37930.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 214 So.2d 25.
Do you want to vote absentee?
Here’s how to get started.

CONTACT YOUR
Le VOTING ASSISTANCE OFFICER
EXHIBIT 99.2
                                CFO CERTIFICATION



                            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 Annual Report of Klever  Marketing,  Inc. on Form 10-KSB
for the period  ending  December  31,  2002,  as filed with the  Securities  and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I 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 and belief:

         (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.

May 20, 2003

/s/ D. Paul Smith
D. Paul Smith, Secretary/Treasurer
Principal Financial Officer
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JA NUARY 11, 2019

NO. 03

- 18

- 00764

- CV

Theresa Johnson, Appellant

v.

Monica Velez, Kylie Riney, Kathryn Miller

, and Patrice Wise, Appellee s

APPEAL FROM THE 169TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES GOODWIN, BA KER, AND TRIANA

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

This is an appeal from the final order signed by the tr i a l court

. Having reviewed the record , it

appears that the C ourt lacks jurisdiction over the appeal. Therefore, the C ourt dismisses the

appeal for want of jurisdiction. The appellant shall pay all cos ts relating to this appeal, both in

this Court and in the court below.