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

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 3559

To amend the Dayton Aviation Heritage Preservation Act of 1992, and

for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NOVEMBER 19, 1993

Mr. HALL of Ohio introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Natural Resources

A BILL

To amend the Dayton Aviation Heritage Preservation Act

of 1992, 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 That section 201(b) of the Dayton Aviation Heritage

4 Preservation Act of 1992 (Public Law 102–419, approved

5 October 16, 1992), is amended as follows:

6 (1) In paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘from rec7 ommendations’’ and inserting ‘‘after consideration of

8 recommendations’’.
2

HR 3559 IH

1 (2) In paragraph (4), by striking ‘‘from rec2 ommendations’’ and inserting ‘‘after consideration of

3 recommendations’’.

4 (3) In paragraph (5), by striking ‘‘from rec5 ommendations’’ and inserting ‘‘after consideration of

6 recommendations’’.

7 (4) In paragraph (6), by striking ‘‘from rec8 ommendations’’ and inserting ‘‘after consideration of

9 recommendations’’.

10 (5) In paragraph (7), by striking ‘‘from rec11 ommendations’’ and inserting ‘‘after consideration of

12 recommendations’’.

Æ
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BRUCE ARMSTRONG,

Petitioner

- Appellant,

v.

DEBBIE ASUNCION, Warden,

Respondent

- Appellee. No. 20

- 17192

D.C. No.

1:15

- cv

- 01109

- DAD

- JDP

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted November 16, 2021 San Francisco, California

Before: PAEZ, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

Bruce Armstrong appeals from the district court’s order denying his petition

for a writ of habeas corpus , in which he challenges the state court ’ s failure to hold

an evidentiary hearing to explore potential juror b ias arising from the Facebook

“friendship” between one of Armstrong’s jurors and a retired deputy district

attorney . We affirm.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3. 

# FILED

NOV 26 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALSPage 2 of 3

1

. The state court’s decision was neither contrary to, nor involved an

unreasonable application of, clearly established fede ral law as determined by the

Supreme Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). N one of the Supreme Court cases on

which Armstrong relies entitled him to an evidentiary hearing

. In Smith v. Phillips

,

455 U.S. 209 (1982), the Court held that a n evidentiary hearing “is sufficient” to

satisfy due process concerns in some circumstances, id. at 21 8

, but it did not define

the circumstances in which an evidentiary hearing is required , much less hold that

an evidentiary hearing is required “every time a claim of juror bias is raised.”

Tracey v. Palmateer , 341 F.3d 1037, 1045 (9th Cir. 2003). As we explained in

Tracey

, the holding in Remmer v. United States , 347 U.S. 227 (1954), is limited to

the jury

- tampering context, “where the potential effect on the jury is severe.”

Tracey , 341 F.3d at 1044. And McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood

,

464 U.S. 548 (1984), has no bearing on this case because the juror in question did

not answer any voir dire question s falsely. The state court did not unreasonably

apply Smith

, Remmer , or McDonough in concluding that an evidentiary hearing

was not required in the circumstances presented here

.

2. The state court ’s decision was not based on an unreasonable

determination of the facts

. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2). On this front, Armstrong

does not challenge the soundness of any of the state court’s factual findings. He

a rgues only that the state court’s fact

- finding process was unreasonable becausePage 3 of 3

the court failed to grant him an evidentiary hearing. That argument merely

r ehashes his legal contention that the Constitution required the state court to afford

him an evidentiary hearing , and i t fails for the reasons discussed above

.

AFFIRMED.
251 La. 673

#### Webster SOUTHALL, Individually and as Natural Tutor and Administrator of his Minor Children, Melinda Gail Southall and Cynthia Ann Southall v. The EMPLOYERS LIABILITY ASSURANCE CORPORATION.

No. 48994.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 15, 1968.

In re: Webster Southall, etc. applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of St. Landry. 203 So.2d 718.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, we -find no error of law in the judgment complained of.
# C_2015249EN.01000402.xml

| 30.7.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 249/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.7.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 249/4

---

Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries

(2015/C 249/06)

In accordance with Article 35(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), a decision has been taken to close the fishery as set down in the following table:

1

| Date and time of closure | 25.6.2015 |
| --- | --- |
| Duration | 25.6 – 31.12.2015 |
| Member State | Spain |
| Stock or Group of stocks | RED/N1G14P and RED/*5-14P |
| Species | Redfish (Sebastes spp.) |
| Zone | Greenland waters of NAFO 1F and Greenland waters of V and XIV and special condition: international waters of the Redfish Conservation Area |
| Type(s) of fishing vessels | — |
| Reference number | 17/TQ104 |

Date and time of closure

25.6.2015

Duration

25.6 – 31.12.2015

Member State

Spain

Stock or Group of stocks

RED/N1G14P and RED/*5-14P

Species

Redfish (Sebastes spp.)

Sebastes

Zone

Greenland waters of NAFO 1F and Greenland waters of V and XIV and special condition: international waters of the Redfish Conservation Area

Type(s) of fishing vessels

—

Reference number

17/TQ104

---

(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.

1

---
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER





PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)





In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2016 (the “Report”) of New Mountain Finance Corporation (the “Registrant”), as filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Robert A. Hamwee, the Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, 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, 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 Registrant.




/s/ ROBERT A. HAMWEEName:Robert A. HamweeDate:August 3, 2016
Exhibit 12.1

CERTIFICATION
-------------

I, Tor Olav Troim, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of CalPetro Tankers
     (Bahamas II) Limited;

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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.   The registrant's other certifying officer 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 registrant and have:

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

     b)   evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
          and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
          effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
          of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

     c)   disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
          control over financial reporting that occurred during the period
          covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is
          reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal
          control over financial reporting; and

5.   The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
     our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
     the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board
     of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

     a)   all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
          operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
          reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to
          record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

     b)   any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
          employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
          control over financial reporting.

Date: June 30, 2005

/s/ Tor Olav Troim
----------------------------
Tor Olav Troim
President
#### In re the GUARDIANSHIP OF Henry H. HARDESTY, Incompetent.

No. 44784.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 26, 1974.

Cause dismissed.

ADKINS, C. J., and BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-20-00338-CV

Smart Automotive Services Inc.

v.

Allan Muir

On Appeal from the

55th District Court of Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2020-33735

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the judgment of the trial court should be reversed and the cause 

remanded to the trial court. The Court orders the judgment of the trial court REVERSED 

and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. Costs of the appeal 

are adjudged against appellee.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

April 22, 2021
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           6,613
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   98,565
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,751
<INVENTORY>                                      5,214
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               137,914
<PP&E>                                         269,148
<DEPRECIATION>                                  52,221
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 426,539
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           39,608
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           160
<OTHER-SE>                                     153,507
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   426,539
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               581,401
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  537,985
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    64
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   925
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,908
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 34,497
<INCOME-TAX>                                    13,780
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    20,717
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.38
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.37
        

</TABLE>
|   | (1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) 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. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                             | Summit Hotel Properties, Inc.                                                                      |
|----------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                             |                                                                                               |
| Date:  August 15, 2011 | By:      /s/  Stuart J. Becker                             |
|                             | Stuart J. BeckerExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer) |
EXHIBIT 11



                    THE DELTONA CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

                COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME (LOSS) PER COMMON SHARE



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                              Years Ended
                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      December 31,  December 31,  December 31,  December 31,  December 31,
                                         2001          2000          1999          1998          1997
                                      ------------  ------------  ------------  -----------   ------------
<S>                                   <C>           <C>           <C>           <C>           <C>
Computation of primary income
 (loss) per common share(a):

Net income (loss) before
  extraordinary item ...............  $      174    $   (1,042)   $     (367)   $   (2,591)   $(1,326)
                                      ==========    ==========    ==========    ==========    =======

Net income (loss) ..................  $      352    $   (1,042)   $     (367)   $   (2,591)   $(1,326)
                                      ==========    ==========    ==========    ==========    =======

Net income (loss) applicable
  to common stock ..................  $      352    $   (1,042)   $     (367)   $   (2,591)   $(1,326)
                                      ==========    ==========    ==========    ==========    =======

Total weighted average common shares
  outstanding ......................      13,544        13,544        13,544        13,544      6,754
                                      ==========    ==========    ==========    ==========    =======


Per Common Share Data:
  Net income (loss) before
  extraordinary items ..............  $      .01    $     (.08)   $     (.03)   $     (.19)   $  (.20)
                                      ==========    ==========    ==========    ==========    =======


  Net income (loss) ................  $      .03    $     (.08)   $     (.03)   $     (.19)   $  (.20)
                                      ==========    ==========    ==========    ==========    =======



<FN>

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

   (a)     Earnings per common share assuming full dilution
           was approximately the same for all periods.
</FN>
</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32

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 China Golden Star Holdings Limited (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jeremy Mork, Chief Executive and Financial  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, that, to the best of my knowledge:

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

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



|Dated:  April 25, 2011
By  /s/ Jeremy Mork
-----------------------------
    Jeremy Mork
    Chief Executive and  Financial Officer
   (Principal Executive and Financial Officer)
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
# C_2015174EN.01000901.xml

| 28.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 174/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 174/9

---

Notice from the Government of the Hellenic Republic concerning Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons

(2015/C 174/05)

SUPPLEMENTARY NOTICE CONCERNING THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF AN INTERNATIONAL CALL FOR TENDERS FOR THE GRANTING AND USE OF AUTHORISATIONS FOR THE EXPLORATION AND EXPLOITATION OF HYDROCARBONS IN CERTAIN OFFSHORE AREAS IN WESTERN GREECE AND SOUTH OF CRETE

The time-limit for the submission of tenders laid down in Decision Δ1/Α/12892/31.7.2014 on an International Call for Tenders for the granting of a right to explore for and exploit hydrocarbons in twenty (20) maritime areas in Western Greece (Ionian) and south of Crete (Government Gazette, Series II, No 2186/08-08-2014) is extended by two months.

More specifically, tenders must be submitted no later than on the first working day after eight (8) months from the date of publication of the Invitation to Tender in the Official Journal of the European Union (2014/C 400/03), i.e. by Tuesday 14 July 2015.

Official Journal of the European Union

Detailed information and all documents relating to the announcement are posted on the following web page of the Ministry of Reconstruction of Production, Environment and Energy: http://www.ypeka.gr/Default.aspx?tabid=875

---
#### Randy SOLOMON, a minor, by and through her father and next friend, Irwin Solomon, and Irwin Solomon, individually, Appellants, v. The CITY OF NORTH MIAMI BEACH, a Municipal corporation, Appellee.

No. 71-551.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 11, 1972.

*400Simons & Schlesinger and Henry L. Kaye, Hollywood, for appellants.

Wicker, Smith, Pyszka, Blomqvist & Da-vant, Miami, for appellee.

Before SWANN, C. J., HENDRY, J., and LILES, WOODIE A., Associate Judge.

HENDRY, Judge.

This is an appeal by plaintiff from a final judgment entered pursuant to a directed verdict for defendant at the close of plaintiff’s case.

Plaintiff’s complaint alleged negligence and breach of contract. His action was brought against the defendant city for injuries sustained by his seven year old daughter while she was riding on a seesaw at the city’s day camp for girls where plaintiff’s daughter was enrolled as a paying guest.

On June 30, 1969, plaintiff, then aged seven, was enrolled in a camping program operated by the City of North Miami Beach. She asked the counselor, a city employee to play with her on a seesaw. The minor plaintiff was seated at one end, with another heavier child sitting behind her; both children were facing the counselor, who was on the other end of the seesaw. According to the plaintiff’s testimony, the girl behind the minor plaintiff was jumping up and down, wiggling her hands and not holding on to the seesaw. After about two minutes of this activity, the other child fell down and the end of the seesaw flew up, causing the minor plaintiff to strike her chin on the bar or handle of the seesaw. She sustained permanent injuries. The incident occurred on premises owned by the city, and operated by the city as a day camp. The girl who sat behind the minor plaintiff was not enrolled in the city's day camp program. Only two witnesses testified: the minor plaintiff and her cousin who testified that plaintiff and another girl were on one end of the seesaw and the counselor was on the other. The case was tried as a negligence action.

We affirm the decision of the trial court below upon the following authorities: Hillman v. Greater Miami Hebrew Academy, Fla.1954, 72 So.2d 668; Elmore v. Sones, Fla.App.1962, 140 So.2d 59; see also: Warner v. Florida Jai Alai, Inc., Fla.App.1969, 221 So.2d 777.

Affirmed.