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

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 79 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 79

   Supporting the goals and ideals of International Water Safety Day.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 25, 2013

    Mr. Fattah (for himself and Mr. Coble) submitted the following 
 resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Supporting the goals and ideals of International Water Safety Day.

Whereas International Water Safety Day is celebrated to bring awareness to the 
        ongoing drowning epidemic and educate people in becoming safer in and 
        around the water;
Whereas fatal unintentional drowning is the second leading cause of death for 
        children 1 to 14 years of age;
Whereas fatal unintentional drowning is the sixth leading cause of death for 
        people of all ages;
Whereas an estimated 388,000 people died from drowning, making drowning a major 
        public health problem worldwide and accounting for nearly 10 percent of 
        total global mortality;
Whereas drowning deaths are an epidemic;
Whereas drowning is the third leading cause of unintentional injury death, 
        accounting for 7 percent of all injury-related deaths;
Whereas water safety education and water safety awareness can help curve the 
        number of drowning fatalities;
Whereas research shows that formal swimming lessons can reduce the risk of 
        drowning by 88 percent among children aged 1 to 4 years old;
Whereas courses such as CPR have shown to improve outcomes for drowning victims 
        since interventions occur more quickly;
Whereas water safety is a life skill that can be taught; and
Whereas water safety education should be included in primary and secondary 
        school education: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) supports the goals and ideals of International Water 
        Safety Day;
            (2) acknowledges that water safety education should be 
        included in primary and secondary school education;
            (3) acknowledges the importance of water safety and that 
        every person should engage in water safety education; and
            (4) acknowledges that every person should learn to swim.
                                 <all>
```
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 May 6, 2016

Order 

Clerk

May 6, 2016

152035(76)

CITY OF HUNTINGTON WOODS and CITY

OF PLEASANT RIDGE,

Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants -Appellants,

SC: 152035

v COA: 321414

Oakland CC: 2013-135842-CZ

CITY OF OAK PARK,

Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff -Appellee, 

and

45TH DISTRICT COURT,

Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion to strike plaintiffs-appellants’ 

supplemental brief or, alternatively, to strike all rebuttal/reply arguments is DENIED.
#### Beverly C. ZINK, Petitioner, v. CHICAGO INSURANCE COMPANY et al., Respondents.

No. 43138.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Jan. 23, 1973.

Cause dismissed.

CARLTON, C. J, and ROBERTS, ERVIN, and McCAIN, JJ, concur.

DEKLE, J, dissents.
Exhibit
4.1c


 


DESCRIPTION
OF CAPITAL STOCK


 


We
were incorporated under the laws of the State of California on September 10, 2009. We were initially authorized to issue 50,000,000
shares of common stock, no par value per share. We were also authorized to issue 10,000,000 shares of preferred stock, no par
value, in series as fixed by our sole director. On July 14, 2017, we amended our Articles of Incorporation and increased our common
shares to 300,000,000, par value $0.0001 per share and changed our preferred shares to $0.0001 par value. On July 21, 2017, we
filed a Certificate of Determination to authorize 50,000 Series A preferred shares. As of the date of this Offering Circular,
there are 50,000 Series A preferred shares outstanding.


 


Common
Stock


 


Our
articles of incorporation authorize the issuance of 300,000,000 shares of common stock with $0.0001 par value per share.


 


Each
share of common stock entitles the holder to one vote, either in person or by proxy, at meetings of shareholders. The holders
of our common stock:


 


	 	●	have
    equal ratable rights to dividends from funds legally available if and when declared by our Board of Directors;
	 	 	 
	 	●	are
                                                                              entitled to share ratably in all our assets available for distribution to holders of common stock upon liquidation,
                                                                              dissolution or winding up of our affairs;

	 	 	 
	 	●	do
                                                                              not have preemptive, subscription or conversion rights and there are no redemption or sinking fund provisions or rights;
                                                                              and

	 	 	 
	 	●	are
                                                                              entitled to one non-cumulative vote per share on all matters on which stockholders may vote except for voting for the
                                                                              election of directors.
**EXHIBIT 32**

 

**Officer Certification under 18 USC1350**

 

 

We, the undersigned Chief Executive Officerand Chief Financial Officer of AXS-One Inc. (the “issuer”), do hereby certifythat this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that theinformation contained in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents, inall material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theissuer.

 

 

 
|                       | AXS-ONE INC. |
|----------------------------|--------------|
| **Date:**November 14, 2003 | By:          | /s/ John A. Rade |
|                       |         | John A. Rade  Chief Executive Officer, President and Director |
|                       | By:          | /s/ William G. Levering  III |
|                       |         | William G. Levering III  Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, and Treasurer |

 

----
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

SARAH BLYTH and JOSEPH GUARACINO
, Appellant s ,

v.

OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 20

- 537

[ August 18, 2021 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Dennis D. Bailey , Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE 14

- 6149(11)

.

F. Scott Fistel of the Fistel Law Group, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellants.

Adam G. Schwartz of Fox McCluskey Bush Robison PLLC, Stuart, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Appellants challenge the trial cou r t’s order denying their entitlement to
attorney ’ s fees after they prevailed in appellee’s foreclosure action against them on the grounds that appellee did not have s tanding to foreclose under the mortgage and note. We reverse on the authority of Page v. Deutsche

Bank Trust Co. Americas , 308 So. 3d 953 (Fla. 2020).

In Page , the court construed s ection 57.105(7) , Florida Statutes (2019)

, which allows for a reciprocal award of prevailing party attorney ’ s fees. The

stat ut e requires in the first clause “the existence of ‘a contract [that] contains a provision allowing attorney’s fees to a party when he or she is required to take any action to enforce the contract.’” Id. at 959 (citing § 57.105(7), Fla. Stat.). And “the statutory language [of section 57.105(7)] also requires that the plaintiff and defendant not be strangers to the

contract.” Id. The statute requires in the second clause t hat the party must prevail. Id.2 Here, the mortgage and note upon which appellee filed suit to foreclose contained an attorney ’ s fees provision. A ppellants prevailed in the action

when appellee , who obtained its position by assignment, failed to prove standing.

Moreover, the parties in this case are not strangers to the contract.

While appellee claims that it was not a party to the note, because it was never assigned t he note , it sued on both the note and mortgage and represented in its complain t that it was entitled to enforce the note and held the note. It also sought to establish a lost note, stating that it had acquired the note. Both the note and mortgage contained an attorney ’ s fee provision. Even if appellee had not been assigned the no te, appellants

would still be entitled to fees under s ection 57.105(7)

, because of the fee provision in the mortgage. See Madl v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. , 244 So. 3d 1134 (Fla. 5th DCA 201 7 )

, and Harris v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 311 So. 3d 66 (Fla. 2d DCA 20 18), approved in Page , 308 So. 2d at 961. Pursuant to Page

, appellants are entitled to their prevailing party attorney ’ s fees.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

C ONNER , C.J., W ARNER and G ROSS , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### WIGGS & MAALE, INC. and Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland, Appellants, v. NAPLES HORIZON HOUSE, INC., a Florida corporation, et al., Appellees.

No. 73-1015.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 26, 1974.

Appeal dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF SUMMIT MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC. DATED 
MARCH 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                       6,959,785
<SECURITIES>                                17,940,336
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,106,280
<ALLOWANCES>                                    87,878
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            26,123,285
<PP&E>                                       1,292,819
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              27,601,901
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,489,847
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        96,174
<OTHER-SE>                                  23,015,880
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                27,601,901
<SALES>                                      1,302,625
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,302,625
<CGS>                                          725,914
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  778,425
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                156,757
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            156,757
<DISCONTINUED>                             (2,175,118)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,018,361)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.21)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.21)
        

</TABLE>
#### JAHNCKE SERVICE, INC. v. Arthur VIRGADAMO.

No. 5579.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

June 5, 1973.

*220E. Howard McCaleb, III, New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellee.

August J. LaNasa, New Orleans, for defendant-appellant.

Before SAMUEL, BAILES and FLEMING, JJ.

BAILES, Judge.

This is a suit on an open account to recover judgment in the amount of $511.75 for ready mixed concrete delivered to a job site on the order of defendant.

The defendant resists the plaintiff’s action on the ground that in ordering the concrete he was acting as agent for a construction company by the name of Dulo Construction Company.

The trial court rendered judgment in favor of plaintiff as prayed for, and the defendant has appealed. We find the judgment is correct.

The facts show that the defendant, Mr. Virgadamo, with whom the plaintiff had done business on previous occasions, ordered a quantity of ready mixed concrete delivered to a certain job site. Mr. Vir-gadamo was charged and billed for the concrete.

There is not one scintilla of evidence before us which shows that the defendant, at the time of the purchase, advised the Jahncke Service, Inc., sales representative that he was acting as an agent for anyone. He made no complaint to plaintiff when the material was charged to him, nor did he complain to plaintiff when the statements of the account were mailed to him.

It was not until a dispute arose between Jahncke Service, Inc. and defendant over an alleged improper pouring of the concrete that defendant and his then disclosed apparent principal refused to pay the account. Two previous invoices had been paid without protest.

At the time the defendant entered into the purchase contract he did not disclose to the plaintiff that he was acting as agent, nor did he disclose the name of his principal, therefore he is personally responsible for the payment of the debt incurred. See: LSA-C.C. Article 3013; Tri-State Oil Tool Company of Southern Louisiana v. Pioneer Oil & Gas Co., Inc., 135 So.2d 297 (La.App., 4th Cir., 1961) ; McKay v. Vesley, 163 So.2d 121 (La.App., 3d Cir, 1964).

For the reasons assigned, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed at appellant’s costs.

Affirmed.
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 Quarterly Report of Royce Biomedical, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,  Donald Gee, President and Chief Executive 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 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.





Date: May 13, 2005                            /s/ Donald Gee



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



Donald Gee, President



and Chief Executive Officer









[A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Royce Biomedical, Inc. and will be retained by Royce Biomedical, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.]
<PAGE>



                                                                     EXHIBIT 8.1




                    SUBSIDIARIES OF W.P. STEWART & CO., LTD.


SUBSIDIARY                                         JURISDICTION OF INCORPORATION
-------------------------------------------------  -----------------------------
W.P. Stewart & Co. (Europe), Ltd. ...............             England
NS Money Management Ltd. ........................             Bermuda
Cribewell Investments ...........................             Curacao
TPRS Services N.V. ..............................             Curacao
W.P. Stewart & Co., Inc. ........................            Delaware
W.P. Stewart Securities Limited .................             Bermuda
W.P. Stewart Asset Management Ltd. ..............             Bermuda
W.P. Stewart Fund Management Limited.............             Ireland
W.P. Stewart Asset Management (NA), Inc. ........            New York
W.P. Stewart Asset Management, Inc. .............            Delaware
W.P. Stewart Asset Management (Europe), Ltd. ....             Bermuda
W.P. Stewart Asset Management (Curacao), N.V. ...      Netherlands Antilles
W.P. Stewart Asset Management (Europe), N.V. ....         The Netherlands
TPR Curacao N.V. ................................      Netherlands Antilles
WPSH Management N.V. ............................      Netherlands Antilles
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6816

RONALD MCCLARY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus BONNIE BOYETTE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., District Judge. (CA-04-422-1-FWB) Submitted: September 28, 2005 Decided: October 19, 2005 Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronald McClary, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Ronald McClary seeks to appeal the district court’s order and judgment adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a subst antial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that McClary has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          10,479
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   35,416
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     14,947
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                73,594
<PP&E>                                         451,790
<DEPRECIATION>                                 229,412
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 439,780
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          126,155
<BONDS>                                        477,240
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             5
<OTHER-SE>                                   (163,792)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   439,780
<SALES>                                         43,085
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               232,476
<CGS>                                           55,571
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  104,152
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                65,550
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              48,968
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (78,487)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (78,487)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  2,322
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (76,165)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (1.69)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.69)




</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This Schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
financial statements contained in the body of the accompanying Form 10-Q and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           3,648
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   90,560
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,466
<INVENTORY>                                     67,603
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               185,155
<PP&E>                                         310,645
<DEPRECIATION>                                 129,940
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 628,657
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          102,259
<BONDS>                                        508,252
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                    (24,542)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   628,657
<SALES>                                        329,235
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               329,235
<CGS>                                          232,768
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  232,768
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                20,696
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              26,939
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 16,027
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,732
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              9,295
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                        2,319
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,976
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>