alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Marie Dorothy BOWEN (Neal) v. James R. NEAL.

No. 47135.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

May 7, 1973.

Jesse C. Pennington, West Point, for appellant.

Fox & Sanderson, Houston, for appellee.

SMITH, Justice:

The record in this case reflects a controversy between the parents of two young children as to their custody. The testimony was irreconcilably conflicting. The chancellor, as trier of facts, found that appellant was morally unfit to have custody of the children and had abandoned them and that their best interests would be promoted by the award of custody to their father, the appellee. The decree appealed from was entered accordingly.

The issue was purely one of fact, the evidence seems to have preponderated in favor of the chancellor’s conclusions, and certainly we are unable to say that he was manifestly wrong. The decree appealed from, therefore, must be affirmed.

Affirmed.

RODGERS, P. J., and ROBERTSON, SUGG and WALKER, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

                                  CERTIFICATION
                                       OF
                            PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT
      PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C.
                                  SECTION 1350



I, Arthur G. Ritchie, Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive
Officer of Sand Technology Inc., hereby certify that the Annual Report on Form
20-F for the Fiscal Year ended July 31, 2002 fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and that the information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of Sand Technology Inc.


Date:  January 29, 2003.



                                 /s/  Arthur G. Ritchie
                                      Chairman of the Board,
                                      President and Chief Executive Officer



This certification is made solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
subject to the knowledge standard set forth therein, and not for any other
purpose. It is not being filed as part of the Annual Report or as a separate
disclosure document.

                                      -91-
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 444 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 444

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                          May 26, 1994.
    Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker 
may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule XXIII, declare the House resolved into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 4454) making appropriations for the legislative branch for the fiscal 
year ending September 30, 1995, and for other purposes. The first reading of the 
bill shall be dispensed with. General debate shall be confined to the bill and 
shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. After general debate 
the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule and shall 
be considered as read. Points of order against provisions in the bill for 
failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived. No amendment shall be in 
order except those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying 
this resolution. Each amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the 
report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report 
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
subject to amendment except as specified in the report, and shall not be subject 
to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the 
Whole. All points of order against amendments printed in the report are waived. 
The chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone until a time during 
further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded 
vote on any amendment made in order by this resolution. The chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole may reduce to not less than five minutes the time for 
voting by electronic device on any postponed question that immediately follows 
another vote by electronic device without intervening business, provided that 
the time for voting by electronic device on the first in any series of questions 
shall be not less than fifteen minutes. At the conclusion of consideration of 
the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House 
with such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question shall be 
considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
without intervening motion except one motion to recommit, or to recommit with 
instructions if offered by Representative Young of Florida or a designee.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
Exhibit 23.1

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The
Board of Directors and Shareholders
Poniard Pharmaceuticals, Inc.:

We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 333-134480, 333-123672, 333-115497, 333-113706,
333-111344, 333-45398, and 333-35442) on Form S-3 and in the registration statements (Nos. 333-143965, 333-135861,
333-126209, 333-115729, 333-89476, 333-71368, 333-41764, 333-32583, 333-43860, 333-46317, and
333-87108) on Form S-8 of Poniard Pharmaceuticals, Inc. of our report dated March 16, 2009, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Poniard
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and subsidiary as of December 31, 2008 and 2007, and the related consolidated statements of operations, shareholders' equity and comprehensive loss, and cash flows
for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2008, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, as of December 31, 2008, which
report appears in the December 31, 2008 annual report on Form 10-K of Poniard Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Our report dated March 16, 2009 contains an explanatory
paragraph that states that the Company has suffered recurring losses from operations and negative cash flows. Furthermore, the Company's
long-term debt agreement contains certain covenants that require the Company to maintain a certain level of unrestricted cash and cash equivalents, and contains certain subjective
acceleration clauses related to material adverse changes which raise substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern. Management's plans in regard to these matters are also
described in note 1. The consolidated financial statements do not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of this uncertainty.

/s/
KPMG LLP

Seattle,
Washington
March 16, 2009

---



QuickLinks
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Rayfield BANKS.

No. 52825.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 11, 1973.

*184Maurice J. Wilson, Jr., Baton Rouge, for defendant-appellant.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., LeRoy A. Hartley, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Ossie B. Brown, Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

DIXON, Justice.

Rayfield Banks was charged in a bill of information with the crime of armed robbery. R.S. 14:64. After a trial by jury he was found guilty and sentenced to fifteen years imprisonment.

The defendant appeals his conviction and sentence, relying on one perfected bill of exceptions.

The bill of exceptions is taken to the trial judge’s refusal, at the end of the trial, to specially admonish the jury in a manner requested by defense counsel. The substance of defense counsel’s request was that the jury be instructed to disregard the victim’s in court identification of the defendant. It was alleged by counsel for the defendant that the police had conducted an illegal and suggestive “one man line-up” which irreparably tainted the subsequent “in court” identification by the victim, the State’s only eyewitness to the crime.

The victim of the robbery, Robert Jackson, had identified the defendant from a group of mug shots which were shown to him by the police the day after the crime was committed. Approximately three weeks after the commission of the crime, the police apprehended the defendant and brought him to the police station. Robert Jackson received notification at his employer’s office that he was to appear at the police station for a “line-up identification.”

Mr. Jackson proceeded to the police station and, upon entering the detective’s office, immediately recognized the defendant as the robber. The defendant at this time was sitting in a chair adjacent to a detective’s desk using the telephone. Shortly thereafter, the detectives with whom Mr. Jackson was scheduled to meet entered the room and Jackson, at his own instance, informed them that defendant was the robber. Prior to Mr. Jackson’s identification of the defendant at the station, no one had requested that he make an identification. His identification was spontaneous.

An in court identification which has been tainted by an out of court identification process which is unnecessarily suggestive and unnecessarily' conducive to irreparably mistaken identification must be *185excluded from'evidence.1 However, we do not find that the circumstances surrounding this out of court identification were suggestive or conducive in any manner to mistaken identification.

Accordingly, this bill is without merit.

For the reasons assigned, the conviction and sentence are affirmed.

1

. Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 87 S.Ct. 1967, 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (1967).
#### Norbert L. GERHARDT, Appellant, v. CITY OF SARASOTA, Appellee.

No. 71-742.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 13, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### James Charles PAYNE, etc., et al., Appellants, v. CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE et al., Appellees.

No. 44448.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 19, 1974.

Cause dismissed.
##### 



Exhibit 32.2

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 Quarterly Report of Ambassadors International, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the
undersigned, Timothy Fogarty, Chief Financial Officer of the Company certifies,
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 results of operations of
the Company.

|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Timothy T. Fogarty 
|Timothy T. Fogarty     
|Chief Financial Officer
|August 8, 2003         

21
II

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 114

To authorize reduced postage rates for certain mail matter sent to Members

of Congress.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 21, (legislative day, JANUARY 5), 1993

Mr. INOUYE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Governmental Affairs

A BILL

To authorize reduced postage rates for certain mail matter

sent to Members of Congress.

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

3 That (a) chapter 32 of title 39, United States Code, is

4 amended by adding at the end thereof the following new

5 section:

6 ‘‘§ 3221. Mail matter sent to Members of Congress

7 ‘‘(a) Any person may send any piece of mail matter,

8 not exceeding four ounces in weight, for postage of 1 cent

9 to (1) any Member of the Senate representing the State,

10 and (2) the Member of the House of Representatives rep-
2

S 114 IS

1 resenting the district, in which such person resides, if that

2 person uses a special stamp issued by the Postal Service

3 for any such matter. The Postal Service shall issue special

4 1-cent stamps to be used in sending such matter, and such

5 stamps shall only be sold at post offices.

6 ‘‘(b) For the purposes of this section—

7 ‘‘(1) ‘district’ includes Puerto Rico and the Dis8 trict of Columbia;

9 ‘‘(2) ‘Member of the House of Representatives’

10 includes a Representative, Delegate, and Resident

11 Commissioner; and

12 ‘‘(3) a Member of the House of Representatives

13 elected at large from a State having more than one

14 district shall be considered a Member elected from

15 each district of that State.’’.

16 (b) The analysis of such chapter is amended by add17 ing after the item relating to section 3220 the following

18 new item:

‘‘3221. Mail matter sent to Members of Congress.’’.

19 (c) Section 2401(c) of such title is amended by insert20 ing ‘‘3221,’’ after ‘‘3217,’’.

Æ
-  HHS Family of Agencies      -  HHS Agencies & Offices 
  -  Regional Offices 
  -  Advisory Committees, Task Forces & Initiatives 
  -  Organizational Chart 
-  Leadership 
-  Budget & Performance      -  FY 2025 Budget in Brief 
  -  FY 2025 Annual Performance Plan and Report 
  -  FY 2024 Contingency Staffing Plan 
  -  FY 2024 Budget in Brief 
  -  FY 2024 Annual Performance Plan and Report 
  -  FY 2023 Contingency Staffing Plan 
  -  FY 2023 Budget in Brief 
  -  FY 2023 Annual Performance Plan and Report 
  -  FY 2022 Contingency Staffing Plan 
  -  FY 2022 Budget in Brief 
  -  FY 2022 Annual Performance Plan and Report 
  -  FY 2021 Contingency Staffing Plan 
  -  FY 2021 Budget in Brief 
  -  FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan and Report 
  -  FY 2020 Contingency Staffing Plan 
  -  FY 2020 Budget in Brief 
  -  FY 2020 Annual Performance Report 
  -  FY 2019 Contingency Staffing Plan 
  -  FY 2019 Annual Performance Report 
-  Strategic Plan FY 2022 - 2026      -  Message from the Secretary 
  -  Introduction: About HHS 
  -  Overview: Strategic Plan FY 2022 - 2026 
  -  Strategic Goal 1: Protect and Strengthen Equitable Access to High Quality and Affordable Healthcare 
  -  Strategic Goal 2: Safeguard and Improve National and Global Health Conditions and Outcomes 
  -  Strategic Goal 3: Strengthen Social Well-Being, Equity, and Economic Resilience 
  -  Strategic Goal 4: Restore Trust and Accelerate Advancements in Science and Research for All 
  -  Strategic Goal 5: Advance Strategic Management to Build Trust, Transparency, and Accountability 
  -  Appendix: Plan Updates 
-  News 
-  I Am HHS 
-  Careers 

                      -   
                      -   
                      -   
                      -   
                      -   

#             Sean McCluskie          

Chief of Staff

Sean McCluskie serves as the Chief of Staff at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Prior to this role, he served as the Chief Deputy Attorney General at the California Department of Justice, where he oversaw the daily operations of the department. During his tenure, he oversaw the creation of the Health Care Rights and Access Legal Section, the Disability Rights Bureau, and expansion of the Division of Medicaid Fraud and Human Trafficking Law Enforcement Section. Previously, he served as Chief of Staff and Health Care Counsel for Congressman Xavier Becerra and the House Democratic Caucus. Sean has a Ph.D. from the University of Maryland at College Park and J.D. from The George Washington University.

Content last reviewed March 19, 2024
Document

Exhibit 10.21

AMENDMENT #1 TO LEASE
BY AND BETWEEN|
FOUR 700 LLC (“LANDLORD”) AND 
STATES TITLE HOLDING INC. (“TENANT”)
WHEREAS, Landlord and Tenant entered into that certain Lease (the “Lease”) dated August 16, 2020 for the premises located at 760 NW 107th Ave., Suite 400, Miami, FL 33172 (the “Premises”); and
WHEREAS, the Suite number for the Premises set forth in the Lease was incorrectly stated as “Suite 400” and should have instead be stated as “Suite 401”; and
WHEREAS, the parties to correct the Suite number and otherwise amend the Lease as provided herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of good and valuable consideration the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, it is agreed as follows:
1.Conflict. In the event of a conflict between the provisions of this Amendment and the Lease, this Amendment shall control. Except as specifically modified herein, all terms and conditions of the Lease shall remain in full force and effect.
2.Recitals. The recitals stated above are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference.
3.Definitions. All terms capitalized but not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed thereto in the Lease.
4.Suite Number. The Suite number of the Premises is hereby corrected to “Suite 401”.
5.Tenant Acknowledgment. Tenant acknowledges and agrees that Landlord is in good standing and not in default under the Lease and that no event has occurred that with the giving of notice and/or the passage of time would give rise to an event of default by Landlord.
6.Prevailing Party. In the event of any litigation (including all appeals) arising out of this Amendment or the Lease involving Landlord and Tenant, the prevailing party shall be entitled to receive all costs incurred, including reasonable attorney’s fees.
7.Binding Effect. The presentation of this Amendment to Tenant does not constitute an “offer”. This Amendment shall not be valid or binding against any party unless and until it is executed by all parties.
1






The parties hereto have caused the due execution hereof as of the 21st day of     October    , 2020 (the “Effective Date”).
																											
	Landlord: Four 700 LLC
By: Four 700 Management Inc., its Manager
		Tenant: States Title Holding, Inc.

									
	By:	/s/ Guy Sharon		By:	/s/ Jerry Jenkins
	Print Name:	Guy Sharon		Print Name:	Jerry Jenkins
	Title:	Manager		Title:	Chief People Officer


2
#### Josephine R. POWIS, Appellant, v. George OCKAY and Margaret J. Ockay, his wife, Appellees.

No. 69-176.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 11, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER OF A BATEMENT

Appellate case name: Hung Dasian Truong v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01

- 16

- 00390

- CR

Trial court case number: 1172979

Trial court: 339th District Court of Harris County

In 2009, appellant, Hung Dasian Truong, was found not guilty by reason of insanity of the

second

- degree felony offense of manslaughter, and the trial court committed him to inpatient treatment at Rusk State Hospital. The trial court has renewed the inpatient commitment orders on

a year ly basis. In the above

- captioned case (“the 2016 appeal”), appellant appeals the trial court’s May 3, 2016 recommitment order, arguing that the order was not supported by sufficient evidence.

The order that is the basis of the 2016 appeal expired on May 3, 2017, prior to submission of this appeal. The trial court held a hearing and signed a new recommitment order on May 1, 2017. Appellant appealed that order as well, and that appeal was assigned appellate cause number

01

- 17

- 00343

- CR (“the 2017 appeal”).

This Court abated the 2017 appeal after appellant failed to timely file a brief. On December 12, 2017, we issued an order of continuing abatement, ordering the trial court to hold a hearing to determine whether appellant wishes to pursue the 2017 appeal and to enter findings of fact and

conclusions of law.

The 2016 appeal and the 2017 appeal involve substantially similar issues and challenges to successive recommitment orders. Although the 2016 appeal has already been submitted, these two appeals shoul d be considered together. We therefore withdraw the 2016 appeal from submission and sua sponte abate the 2016 appeal until such time as the trial court has filed the requested findings and conclusions following the ordered abatement hearing for the 2017 a ppeal. The two appeals will then be reinstated at that time.

We further request, at the time the two appeals are reinstated, that the parties provide additional briefing concerning what effect, if any, the May 1, 2017 recommitment order has on the

2016 a ppeal.This appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this Court’s active docket.

It is so ORDERED

.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Evelyn V. Keyes

Acting individually Acting for the Court

Date: January 4, 2018
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                            9
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1,000
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                     6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                              885
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                            9,661
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                      0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                      0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      50,095
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                                0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                  0
<LOANS>                                          67,557
<ALLOWANCE>                                         279
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  132,997
<DEPOSITS>                                       78,767
<SHORT-TERM>                                     39,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                               1,539
<LONG-TERM>                                           0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                             11
<OTHER-SE>                                       13,461
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  132,997
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                   2,666
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                 1,692
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    157
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                  4,515
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                1,962
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                2,967
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                             1,548
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        31
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  131
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                   1,232
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     670
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                          670
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                        430
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       .56
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       .54
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                     7.01
<LOANS-NON>                                         194
<LOANS-PAST>                                          0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                      0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                     389
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                    248
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        31
<RECOVERIES>                                          0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                   279
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                185
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                   0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              94
        


</TABLE>