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

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 1447 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 8, 2014 

Referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

AN ACT 

To make technical corrections to the Navajo water rights 

settlement in the State of New Mexico, 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, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

S 1447 RFH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘New Mexico Navajo 

3 Water Settlement Technical Corrections Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. NAVAJO WATER SETTLEMENT. 

5 (a) DEFINITIONS.—Section 10302 of the Omnibus 

6 Public Land Management Act of 2009 (43 U.S.C. 407 

7 note; Public Law 111–11) is amended— 

8 (1) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘Arrellano’’ 

9 and inserting ‘‘Arellano’’; and 

10 (2) in paragraph (27), by striking ‘‘75–185’’ 

11 and inserting ‘‘75–184’’. 

12 (b) DELIVERY AND USE OF NAVAJO-GALLUP WATER

13 SUPPLY PROJECT WATER.—Section 10603(c)(2)(A) of 

14 the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (Pub15 lic Law 111–11; 123 Stat. 1385) is amended— 

16 (1) in clause (i), by striking ‘‘Article III(c)’’ 

17 and inserting ‘‘Articles III(c)’’; and 

18 (2) in clause (ii)(II), by striking ‘‘Article III(c)’’ 

19 and inserting ‘‘Articles III(c)’’. 

20 (c) PROJECT CONTRACTS.—Section 10604(f)(1) of 

21 the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (Pub22 lic Law 111–11; 123 Stat. 1391) is amended by inserting 

23 ‘‘Project’’ before ‘‘water’’. 

24 (d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Section 

25 10609 of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 

26 2009 (Public Law 111–11; 123 Stat. 1395) is amended— 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

S 1447 RFH

1 (1) in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (b), 

2 by striking ‘‘construction or rehabilitation’’ each 

3 place it appears and inserting ‘‘planning, design, 

4 construction, rehabilitation,’’; 

5 (2) in subsection (e)(1), by striking ‘‘2 percent’’ 

6 and inserting ‘‘4 percent’’; and 

7 (3) in subsection (f)(1), by striking ‘‘4 percent’’ 

8 and inserting ‘‘2 percent’’. 

9 (e) AGREEMENT.—Section 10701(e) of the Omnibus 

10 Public Land Management Act of 2009 (Public Law 111– 

11 11; 123 Stat. 1400) is amended in paragraphs (2)(A), 

12 (2)(B), and (3)(A) by striking ‘‘and Contract’’ each place 

13 it appears. 

Passed the Senate December 4, 2014. 

Attest: NANCY ERICKSON, 

Secretary. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>




                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.2


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


<Table>
<Caption>

                                                                 THREE MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 2001
                                                       -------------------------------------------------
                                                        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                             2,508,997                  100.00%      2,508,997
   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
   1999 Treasury Stock Transaction                        (6,588)                 100.00%         (6,588)
   March 2000 Debt Swap                                3,789,715                  100.00%      3,789,715
   Canadian Transaction                                  714,286                  100.00%        714,286
   Employee Stock Purchase Plan Shares Issued            190,651                  100.00%        190,651
   Warrants Exercised                                    134,737                  100.00%        134,737
                                                      ----------                            ------------
                                                      46,509,472                              46,509,472

WEIGHTED AVERAGE SHARES OUTSTANDING                                                           46,509,472

NET LOSS                                                                                    $(33,575,000)

NET LOSS PER SHARE                                                                          $      (0.72)
                                                                                            ============
</Table>
**EXHIBIT 31.1(B)****Certifications required by Rule 13a-14(a) and 15d-14(a)**     I, Neal B. Soderquist, Chief Financial Officer, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Professional Veterinary Products, Ltd.;2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this quarterly report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterlyreport;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) forthe registration, and we have:     (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;     (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this quarterly report based onsuch evaluation; and     (c) disclosed in this quarterly report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s first fiscal quarter that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonable likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):     (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and     (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: June 14, 2006.   /s/ Neal B. Soderquist Neal B. Soderquist, Chief Financial Officer       and Vice President
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection withthe Quarterly Report of Cutter & Buck Inc. (“the Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the second quarter of fiscal year 2006, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on December 9, 2005 (“the Report”), I, John T. Wyatt,Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:

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

(2)   The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.
|        |   | /s/ JOHN T.  WYATT                                                                |
|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   | John T. Wyatt  Chief Executive Officer and President(Principal Executive Officer) |

 

----
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

 FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

BILLY RAY HARRIS, JR.,

Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D17-3419

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee. 

________________________________/

Opinion filed July 20, 2018

Appeal from the Circuit Court 

for Volusia County,

Matthew M. Foxman, Judge.

James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and 

Kathryn Rollison Radtke, Assistant 

Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for 

Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Pamela J. Koller, 

Assistant Attorney General, Daytona 

Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm, without further discussion, the judgments and sentences imposed by 

the trial court following Appellant’s open plea in two cases below. However, because 

there is a scrivener’s error in the order revoking probation entered in Case No. 2015-
2

303740-CFDB, we remand for the trial court to enter an amended order to accurately 

reflect the conditions of probation that Appellant admitted to violating in that case.

AFFIRMED; REMANDED to correct scrivener’s error.

COHEN, C.J., EVANDER and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.
#### Marlowe, Appellant, *v.*Hoosier Casualty Company.

Argued April 17, 1934.

Before Tbexleb, P. J., Kellee, Stadteeld, Pabkeb and James, JJ.

*182
      *A. R. Cingolani,*and with him *W. H. Martin,*for appellant.

*J. Campbell Brandon,*for appellee.

October 3, 1934:

Per Curiam,

The issues involved in the present appeal are in substance identical to those in the case of Marlowe v. Travelers Insurance Company recently decided by our Supreme Court, 313 Pa. 430, 169 A. 100, and practically the same testimony was produced. The trial judge in both cases read to the jury, with his affirmance, the following point:

> “If from all the evidence the jury believes the plaintiff killed her husband then she cannot profit by her own wrong and is by such wrongful act barred from recovery in this case.”

In the present case an exception was taken to the affirmance of the point but in that before the Supreme Court none was noted. Nevertheless the Supreme Court held that as there was no evidence in the case warranting the submission of the question to the jury of whether Mrs. Marlowe had killed her husband the action of the court in this respect constituted fundamental error, citing various eases. There was no more warrant to sustain the point in the present case than in that. We are, therefore, required to follow the decision of the higher court and reverse the judgment.

The judgment of the court below in favor of the defendant is reversed and a new trial awarded.
EXHIBIT 32.1



906 CERTIFICATION



The undersigned certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(1)
        The accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended May 31, 2007, 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 accompanying Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.






Date:  July 13, 2007
        /s/ David H. RochePresident andChief Executive Officer/s/ Steven M. CaspersExecutive Vice President andChief Financial Officer




---
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-60257

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MALLOU HOLIFIELD, III,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 1:17-CR-31-1

Before DENNIS, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Mallou Holifield, III, has moved for 

leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). 

Holifield has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the 

relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s 

assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 22, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-60257 Document: 00514847707 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/22/2019
No. 18-60257

2

Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is 

excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 

See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 18-60257 Document: 00514847707 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/22/2019
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the Annual Report of Novell, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company), on Form 10-K for the period ended October 31, 2009, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), Ronald W. Hovsepian, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, does hereby certify, pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to
his knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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/ Ronald W. Hovsepian              
|Ronald W. Hovsepian                  
|President and Chief Executive Officer

Date: December 22, 2009
#### Gordon GOFF and Claire Goff, Appellants, v. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF the CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, Appellee.

No. 70-1210.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 8, 1971.

Steven Rappaport, Miami, for appellants.

Morris J. Friedman and Judith A. Brech-ner, Miami Beach, for appellee.

Before CHARLES CARROLL, HEN-DRY and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Appellants were tenants in a residence building owned and operated by the appel-lee Housing Authority of the City of Miami Beach. The latter gave appellants notice of termination of tenancy. Under applicable regulations, the Public Housing Authority informed the tenants of the grounds and reasons for termination, and granted them opportunity to explain or be heard thereon. That procedure was followed by the Housing Authority’s action for possession, filed against said tenants in the civil court of record. Judgment ousting the defendants from possession resulted. On this appeal therefrom the defendants contend there was a want of due process of law in that they did not have a fair and unbiased hearing before the Housing Authority. The record fails to sustain the contention. The judgment is affirmed.
**Exhibit
      32.1**





CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


OF
      BNL
      FINANCIAL CORPORATION


PURSUANT
      TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350





In
      connection with the accompanying report on Form 10K for the period ending
      December 31, 2005 and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
      the
      date hereof (the "Report"), I, Wayne E. Ahart, Chief Executive Officer of BNL
      Financial Corporation, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





/s/
      Wayne
      E. Ahart


_______________________





Wayne
      E.
      Ahart


Chief
      Executive Officer


March
      31,
      2006





**Exhibit
      32.2**





CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


OF
      BNL
      FINANCIAL CORPORATION


PURSUANT
      TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350





In
      connection with the accompanying report on Form 10K for the period ending
      December 31, 2005 and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
      the
      date hereof (the "Report"), I, Barry N. Shamas, Chief Financial Officer of
      BNL
      Financial Corporation, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





/s/
      Barry
      N. Shamas


_______________________





Barry
      N.
      Shamas


Chief
      Financial Officer


March
      31,
      2006





E-3
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-60486

Summary Calendar

JERRE BREWER, Administrator of the Estate of Kyle W. Brewer, Deceased,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY; U.S. XPRESS, 

INCORPORATED,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi, Hattiesburg

USDC No. 2:14-CV-95

Before WIENER, HIGGINSON, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Plaintiff-Appellant Jerre Brewer (“Appellant”), Administrator of the 

Estate of his deceased father, Kyle Brewer (“Decedent”), appeals the summary 

judgment of the district court dismissing all claims against DefendantsAppellees, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (“LM”) and U.S. Xpress, 

Incorporated (“USX”). That court reasoned that the General Release and 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 5, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-60486 Document: 00513330128 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/05/2016
No. 15-60486

2

Settlement of All Claims (the “Release”) executed by the parties in reference to 

all “past and present, or future medical expenses or workers’ compensation 

benefits, or any other damages arising out of or in any way connected with any 

personal injuries” sustained by Decedent while employed by USX “or 

subsequent thereto, or while seeking benefits under the Mississippi Workers’ 

Compensation Act for that injury ... or otherwise” was both unambiguous and 

sufficiently broad to cover the claims of Decedent, as now prosecuted by 

Appellant, for bad faith denial of workers’ compensation benefits by USX and 

LM.

Our review of the record on appeal satisfies us that the conclusion 

reached by the district court is correct and free of error, to wit: “Because the 

language of the Release clearly and unambiguously discharges and releases 

Defendants from any and all claims relating to or arising out of the work 

accident, the bad faith and emotional distress claims brought by Plaintiff in 

this case are barred.” Therefore, the District Court’s Final Judgment of June 

9, 2015, is

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-60486 Document: 00513330128 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/05/2016
#### Leonard A. GREENBERG, Appellant, v. Gay A. GREENBERG, Appellee.

No. 73-782.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 12, 1974.

Levine, Helman & Reckson, Miami, for appellant.

Sibley, Giblin, Levenson & Ward, Miami Beach, for appellee.

Before CARROLL, HENDRY and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

On this appeal, the husband challenges a $5,000.00 sum awarded to the wife’s attorneys as a reasonable attorneys’ fee in a suit for dissolution of marriage and other relief.

The trial court heard testimony from two expert witnesses offered by both parties. The wife’s experts testified that a fee in the range of $7,500.00 to $10,000.00 would be reasonable. The husband’s expert witnesses felt that $2,500.00 was a reasonable fee.

In our view, the appellant has failed to demonstrate a clear abuse of discretion by the trial judge in this case. See Bosem v. Bosem, Fla.1973, 279 So.2d 863; French v. French, Fla.App.1962, 146 So.2d 584; Lauderdale v. Lauderdale, Fla.App.1957, 96 So.2d 663; Provus v. Provus, Fla.1950, 44 So.2d 656. Therefore, the judgment appealed is affirmed.

Affirmed.
This opinion is subject to administrative correction before final disposition.

Before 

KING, MCCONNELL, and GERRITY, 

Appellate Military Judges

_________________________

UNITED STATES

Appellee

v.

Martin R. VILLARREAL

Lance Corporal (E-3), 

U.S. Marine Corps

Appellant

No. 201900025

Decided: 11 December 2019.

Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary.

Military Judge: Major Keaton H. Harrell, U.S. Marine Corps. Sentence adjudged 15 November 2018 by a special court-martial convened 

at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, consisting of a 

military judge sitting alone. Sentence approved by convening authority: reduction to E-1, confinement for ten months, and a bad-conduct

discharge.

For Appellant: Lieutenant Commander W. Scott Stoebner, JAGC, 

USN.

For Appellee: Brian K. Keller, Esq.

_________________________

This opinion does not serve as binding precedent under 

NMCCA Rule of Appellate Procedure 30.2(a).

_________________________
United States v. Villarreal, NMCCA No. 201900025

2

PER CURIAM:

After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of 

error, we have determined that the findings and sentence are correct in law 

and fact and that no error materially prejudicial to Appellant’s substantial 

rights occurred. Articles 59 and 66, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859, 866. 

The findings and sentence are AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT:

RODGER A. DREW, JR.

Clerk of Court
#### Walter S. ZOOLOSKI, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-902.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 8, 1974.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 8, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.