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

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1174 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1174

                For the relief of Olga D. Zhondetskaya.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                June 29 (legislative day, June 22), 1993

   Mr. Cohen introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
                For the relief of Olga D. Zhondetskaya.

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

SECTION 1. GRANT OF NATURALIZATION TO OLGA D. ZHONDETSKAYA.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, Olga 
D. Zhondetskaya shall be naturalized as a citizen of the United States 
upon the filing of the appropriate application and upon being 
administered the oath of renunciation and allegiance in an appropriate 
ceremony pursuant to section 337 of the Immigration and Nationality 
Act.
    (b) Deadline for Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsection (a) 
shall apply only if the application for naturalization is filed with 
appropriate fees within 1 year after the date of the enactment of this 
Act.

                                 <all>
```
#### David Albert MORRISON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-190.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 24, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 73 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 73

Providing amounts from the contingent fund of the House for expenses of 
  investigations and studies by the Committee on Banking, Finance and 
 Urban Affairs in the first session of the One Hundred Third Congress.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 4, 1993

Mr. Gonzalez submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                 the Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Providing amounts from the contingent fund of the House for expenses of 
  investigations and studies by the Committee on Banking, Finance and 
 Urban Affairs in the first session of the One Hundred Third Congress.

    Resolved, That for expenses of investigations and studies by the 
Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs (hereinafter in this 
resolution referred to as the ``Committee''), there shall be paid out 
of the contingent fund of the House not more than $4,431,461.
    Sec. 2. Payments under this resolution shall be made on vouchers 
authorized by the Committee, signed by the Chairman of the Committee, 
and approved by the Committee on House Administration.
    Sec. 3. Amounts shall be available under this resolution for 
investigations and studies carried out during the period beginning at 
noon on January 3, 1993, and ending immediately before noon on January 
3, 1994.
    Sec. 4. Amounts made available under this resolution shall be 
expended in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Committee on 
House Administration.

                                 <all>
```
##### 



Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATE OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB/A of Orion HealthCorp, Inc. (the small
business issuer);2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this 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 report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented
in this report;4.
    
    The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:
    5.
    
    The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business
issuers auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuers board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):
   th
 /s/ Terrence L. BauerTerrence L. Bauer, Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
#### Richard NICKLES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 77-866.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Dec. 16, 1977.

Jack 0. Johnson, Public Defender, and Victoria J. Powell, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Mary Jo M. Gallay, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed, but this case is remanded for resentencing of appellant. The present sentence does not specifically set forth the period of credit time to be allowed as required by Section 921.161(1), Florida Statutes (1975); *Brooks v. State,*349 So.2d 794 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). The appellant does not have to be present at resentencing.

HOBSON, A. C. J., and RYDER and DANAHY, JJ., concur.
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1303 

To amend certain appropriations Acts to repeal the requirement directing 

the Administrator of General Services to sell Federal property and assets 

that support the operations of the Plum Island Animal Disease Center 

in Plum Island, New York, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 16 (legislative day, JULY 15), 2013 

Mr. BLUMENTHAL (for himself, Mr. SCHUMER, and Mr. MURPHY) introduced 

the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee 

on Environment and Public Works 

A BILL 

To amend certain appropriations Acts to repeal the requirement directing the Administrator of General Services 

to sell Federal property and assets that support the 

operations of the Plum Island Animal Disease Center 

in Plum Island, New York, 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. REPEAL OF REQUIREMENT TO SELL CERTAIN 

4 FEDERAL PROPERTY IN PLUM ISLAND, NEW 

5 YORK. 

6 (a) REPEAL OF REQUIREMENT IN PUBLIC LAW 110– 

7 329.—Section 540 of the Department of Homeland Secumstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•S 1303 IS

1 rity Appropriations Act, 2009 (division D of Public Law 

2 110–329; 122 Stat. 3688) is repealed. 

3 (b) REPEAL OF REQUIREMENT IN PUBLIC LAW 112– 

4 74.—Section 538 of the Department of Homeland Secu5 rity Appropriations Act, 2012 (6 U.S.C. 190 note; division 

6 D of Public Law 112–74) is repealed. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<Page>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 13.2



                                  CERTIFICATION
                                       of
                            Periodic Financial Report
      Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.
                                  Section 1350



I, Gilles Therrien, Vice-President, Finance and Administration, and Chief
Financial Officer of Sand Technology Inc., hereby certify that the Annual Report
on Form 20-F for the Fiscal Year ended July 31, 2004 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 27, 2005.



                                /s/   Gilles Therrien
                                      Vice-President, Finance and Administration
                                      and Chief Financial 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.


                                       97
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 11.2

                             WEBLINK WIRELESS, INC.
                    COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS (LOSS)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                       THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1999
                                                ----------------------------------------------
                                                   NUMBER            PERCENT       EQUIVALENT
                                                  OF SHARES        OUTSTANDING       SHARES
                                                ------------       -----------    ------------
<S>                                             <C>                <C>            <C>
COMMON STOCK
   From Founders' Stock                            2,300,000            100.00%      2,300,000
   Stock Options Exercised                         1,074,725             98.73%      1,061,080
   Preferred Stock Converted to Common Stock      15,310,943            100.00%     15,310,943
   1994 Common Stock Offerings                    11,242,857            100.00%     11,242,857
   1995 Common Stock Offerings                     4,323,874            100.00%      4,323,874
   1996 Common Stock Offering                      6,000,000            100.00%      6,000,000
   Employee Stock Purchase Plan Shares Issued        110,943            100.00%        110,943
   Warrants Exercised                                 49,450            100.00%         49,450
                                                ------------                      ------------
                                                  40,412,792                        40,399,147

WEIGHTED AVERAGE SHARES OUTSTANDING                                                 40,399,147

NET LOSS                                                                          ($25,203,000)


NET LOSS PER SHARE                                                                $      (0.62)
                                                                                  ============
</TABLE>
#### John DUPREE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-1108.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 8, 1971.

*665Phillip A. Hubbart, Public Defender and Lewis S. Kimler, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Arnold Ginsberg, Legal Intern, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and CHARLES CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was tried, non-jury, in the criminal court of record for Dade County on a charge of robbery. He was convicted and sentenced to a term of six months to five years in the state penitentiary, less time served prior to sentencing.

The point for our consideration on appeal is whether the trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion to suppress certain photographs taken of the defendant without benefit of counsel, prior to his being charged with the instant crime, and while he was being held in jail on another charge.

It is appellant’s contention that his rights under the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution were denied him when he was not afforded counsel at the time the photographs were taken of him while he was in jail on another charge.

We have carefully reviewed the record on appeal, considered the briefs and arguments of counsel and have concluded that appellant’s constitutional rights were not violated and no harmful error has been demonstrated. Perkins v. State, Fla.1969, 228 So.2d 382, 389-390; Jenkins v. State, Fla.App. 1969, 228 So.2d 114, 116; Simmons v. United States (1968), 390 U.S. 377,88 S.Ct. 967, 19 L.Ed. 1247.

Affirmed.
#### STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Appellant, v. Robert G. SHIRLEY, d/b/a Bob’s Cleaners, Appellee.

No. S-481.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Sept. 13, 1973.

Roy E. Campbell, of Timmell & Campbell, Fort Walton Beach, for appellant.

G. Robert Barron, of Smith, Tolton, Grimsley & Barron, Fort Walton Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The briefs and the record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and the appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the lower court is affirmed. See Peacock Motor Company of Marianna, Inc. v. Eubanks, 145 So.2d 498 (Fla.App.1962).

• RAWLS, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K., and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.
#### DE GROOT v. UNITED STATES.

No. 7511.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Feb. 23, 1937.

See, also, (C.C.A.) 78 F.(2d) 244.

Harry De Groot, in pro. per.

Before WILBUR and GARRECHT, Circuit Judges, and NETERER, District Judge.

WILBUR, Circuit Judge.

Harry De Groot, having been convicted of murder in the first degree in the District Court of the United States for the District of Alaska, Division 1, asks leave to prosecute his appeal in forma pauperis. He bases his application on the ground that his attorney failed to exercise due diligence in prosecuting settlement of the bill of exceptions to be used on the appeal. It appears from the application that the time for the settlement of the bill of exceptions and the term in which such bill should be settled had expired. The only allegation of the petitioner, who presents his ’ petition in propria personam, is as follows: “That the court exceeded its jurisdiction, the rules of evidence, and was arbitrarily prejudiced, in all these particulars beyond those extremes denounced by the Honorable Judge Den-man, and concurred in unanimously by this Honorable Court, in the opinion reversing the judgment of the original trial.”

The appellant also avers: “That the1 material evidence offered at the second trial did not differ in any major particular from the evidence presented at the first trial and deemed insufficient by this Honorable Court to support the verdict of guilty of.murder in the second degree.”

In order to prosecute an appeal in forma pauperis it is necessary that the petioner state “that he believes that he is entitled to the redress he seeks in such suit or action or writ of error or appeal, and setting forth briefly the nature of his alleged cause of action, or appeal.” 28 U.S. C.A. § 832. The application must show some merit in the proposed appeal. Boggan v. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co. (C.C.A.) 79 F.(2d) 721; Kinney v. Plymouth Rock Squab Co., 236 U.S. 43, 35 S.Ct. 236, 59 L.Ed. 457; see, also, Pothier v. Rodman, U. S. Marshal, 261 U.S. 307, 43 S.Ct. 374, 67 L.Ed. 670; Johnson v. Nickoloff (C.C.A.) 52 F.(2d) 1074; In re Bruning (C.C.A.) 68 F.(2d) 728. This the petitioner fails to do. He states that the evidence is substantially the same on both trials'. The decision in that case was reversed because of an erroneous instruction upon the question of self defense.

 It follows from what we have said that as there is no bill of exceptions and no claim of the insufficiency of the indictment to state an offense and no basis for challenging the jurisdiction of the court or the terms of the sentence and judgment, leav'e to proceed in forma pauperis must be denied and the appeal dismissed as such matters only can be considered on the appeal. U. S. v. Adamowicz (C.C.A.) 82 F.(2d) 288; Bromley v. U. S. (C.C.A.) 77 F.(2d) 353; Weathers v. U. S. (C.C.A.) 296 F. 702; McGrath v. U. S. (C.C.A.) 275 F. 294; Welsh v. U. S. (C.C.A.) 267 F. 819; Cary & Williams v. United States, 86 F.(2d) 461 (C.C.A.9), filed November 16, 1936.

Petition denied and appeal dismissed.
252 La. 169

#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Noel R. HAYES et al. v. LOUISIANA STATE BOARD OF BARBER EXAMINERS.

No. 49254.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 17, 1968.

In re: Noel R. Hayes et al. applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge. 208 So.2d 369.

Writs denied. Mandamus will not lie to enforce a discretionary act.
SERVED MAY 14, 2010 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

DEPI OF MNSPOR 

nOCKEIS 

1 A ^';: l4l 

E^ THE MATTER OF 

JOSMAN BLYTHE 

FAA DOCKET NO. CP10SO0005 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FAANO. FAA-2010-0318 

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING 

This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. 2009SO270263) has been assigned to 

Administrative Law Judge Isaac D. Benkin. All future pleadings and other communications 

regarding this proceeding shall be served on the Judge, the FAA Hearing Docket, and the other 

persons named in the attached Service List. 

Attachment - Service List 

jhnie A. Yoder 

Chief Administrative l^aw Judge 
FAA DOCKET NO. CP10SO0005 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000' 

ONE COPY 

Josman Blythe, Respondent 

629 Starboard Road, N.W. 

Shallotte,NC 28470-1835 

Taneesha D. Marshall, Complainant's Counsel 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

Southern Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

P.O. Box 20636 

Atlanta GA 30320 

TEL: 404-305-5200 

FAX: 404-305-5223 

The Honorable Isaac D. Benkin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor, Room E12-320 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: Attorney-Advisor 202-366-2139 

Legal Assistant 202-366-2132 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

' Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
Exhibit 32

                     GE GLOBAL INSURANCE HOLDING CORPORATION
                          AND CONSOLIDATED SUBSIDIARIES


                            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  GE  Global  Insurance  Holding
Corporation  (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003 as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"),  we, Ronald R. Pressman and Marc A. Meiches,  Chief Executive Officer
and Chief Financial Officer of the Company respectively, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  ss. 1350, as adopted  pursuant to ss. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of
2002, that to our knowledge:

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

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

Date:  August 1, 2003


/s/ Ronald R. Pressman
Ronald R. Pressman
Chief Executive Officer


/s/ Marc A. Meiches
Marc A. Meiches
Chief Financial Officer


A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to GE Global Insurance  Holding  Corporation and will be retained by GE
Global  Insurance  Holding  Corporation  and  furnished  to the  Securities  and
Exchange Commission upon request.
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 03-1706

___________ Andra L. Nicholson, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the District * of Minnesota. Timothy O’Dell, Warden CCA/PCF; * Jon E. Litscher, Wisconsin Secretary * [UNPUBLISHED] DOC; Corrections Corporation of * America, Sued as Correction * Corporation of America, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: August 20, 2003 Filed: August 25, 2003

___________ Before WOLLMAN, FAGG, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________1 The Honorable James M. Rosenbaum, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Franklin L. Noel, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota. -2- PER CURIAM. Wisconsin inmate Andra Nicholson appeals the district court’s 1 dismissal of his civil complaint. Having carefully reviewed the record and the submissions on appeal, we reject Mr. Nicholson’s arguments and conclude that the district court’s judgment should be affirmed. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### Festus MOSES, Appellant, v. SEABOARD COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 71-42.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Jan. 5, 1972.

Jim C. Jones, P.A., Tampa, for appellant.

Ronald D. McCall, of Fowler, White, Gillen, Humkey, Kinney & Boggs, P.A., Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, who was plaintiff in the trial court, appeals a summary final judgment for defendant. Appellant argues that he is entitled to relief under the provisions of Section 11 of the Safety Appliance Act, 45 U.S.C.A.

We have carefully reviewed the file in light of appellant’s argument and we find no facts or reasonable inferences therefrom which would support a finding that the railroad car[s] was on appellee’s line. *223Therefore, appellee is relieved of any possible liability as contended under appellant’s argument on appeal. See Risberg v. Duluth, Missabe & Iron Range Ry. Co., 233 Minn. 396, 47 N.W.2d 113, cert. den. 342 U.S. 832, 72 S.Ct. 40, 96 L.Ed. 630 (1951), reh. den. 342 U.S. 895, 72 S.Ct. 198, 96 L.Ed. 670 (1951); Paul v. Duluth, Missabe & Iron Range Ry. Co., 96 F.Supp. 578 (D.C.Minn.1950).

Affirmed.

LILES, Acting C. J., and HOBSON and McNULTY, JJ., concur.