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

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 105

Designating April 13, 2000, as a day of remembrance of the victims of

the Katyn Forest massacre.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

APRIL 13, 2000

Mr. ABRAHAM submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was

referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Designating April 13, 2000, as a day of remembrance of

the victims of the Katyn Forest massacre.

Whereas 60 years ago, the Katyn Forest crime was committed, resulting in the death of 21,000 Polish military

officers of all armed services, and justice and administration personnel;

Whereas, on the occasion of 60th anniversary of the Katyn

crime, the Lower Chamber of the Polish Parliament

(Sejm) will pay homage to all those murdered—the ‘‘best

sons of the nation’’, those who had not given in to Soviet

ideology and physical pressure, and remained loyal to the

Republic of Poland and the values they were taught to

uphold;
2

•SCON 105 IS

Whereas Congress joins the Sejm in condemning all forms of

genocide, murder, deportation, and violation of human

rights;

Whereas Congress joins the Sejm in its appreciation to all

scholars, researchers, and writers, especially those under

Soviet domination, who had the courage to tell the truth

about the Katyn crime;

Whereas Congress acknowledges with gratitude the Sejm’s

recognition of the pioneering work of Congress and the

House of Representatives for the establishment in 1951

of a Select Committee to conduct an investigation of the

Katyn crime;

Whereas Congress is pleased to join the Sejm in thanking

those citizens of Russia who, guided by their sense of

honor and dignity, contributed to the disclosure of the

basic Katyn crime and the confirming, related documents; and

Whereas Congress continues to recognize the importance of

remembering the victims of communism as when it

passed H.R. 3000 in 1993 calling for a Victims of Communism Memorial, and commends the work of the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation in working toward this objective: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives

2 concurring), That Congress joins the Polish Sejm in desig3 nating April 13, 2000, as a day of remembrance to the

4 victims of the Katyn Massacre that occurred 60 years ago

5 and urges citizens of the United States to join their Polish
3

•SCON 105 IS

1 counterparts in learning about and understanding what

2 happened in the Katyn Forest.

Æ
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2110 

To reduce temporarily the duty on Fluopyram. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

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

the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To reduce temporarily the duty on Fluopyram. 

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

3 SECTION 1. FLUOPYRAM. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 N-{2-[3-Chloro-5- 

(trifluoromethyl)-2- 

pyridinyl]ethyl}- 

alpha,alpha,alpha-trifluoro-otoluamide (Fluopyram) (CAS 

No. 658066–35–4), whether 

or not mixed with application 

adjuvants (provided for in 

subheading 2933.39.21 or 

3808.92.15) ........................... 2.2% No change No change On or before 

12/31/2011 ’’. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2110 IS

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
#### Shawn Christopher ST. CLAIR, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 87-1250.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 3, 1988.

Michael E. Allen, Public Defender, and P. Douglas Brinkmeyer, Asst. Public Defender, Tallahassee, for appellant.

No appearance for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. *See Adams v. State,*490 So.2d 53 (Fla.1986).

SMITH, C.J., and JOANOS and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 31.2

                       CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION
                         302 OF THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT


I, Robert J. Holtz, CFO, certify that:

1. I have  reviewed  this  annual  report on Form 10-KSB of  Zeros & Ones, Inc.;

2.  Based on my  knowledge,  this  annual  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 annual
report;

3.  Based  on my  knowledge,  the  financial  statements,  and  other  financial
information  included  in this annual  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 annual report;

4.  The  registrant's  other  certifying  officers  and  I are  responsible  for
establishing and maintaining  disclosure  controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

     a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 annual report is being prepared;

     b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's  disclosure controls and
procedures  as of a date  within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual
report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

     c) presented in this annual report our conclusions  about the effectiveness
of the  disclosure  controls and  procedures  based on our  evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation,  to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's   board  of  directors  (or  persons   performing   the  equivalent
functions):

     a) all  significant  deficiencies  in the design or  operation  of internal
controls  which  could  adversely  affect  the  registrant's  ability to record,
process,  summarize  and  report  financial  data  and have  identified  for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and


<PAGE>

     b) any fraud,  whether or not material,  that involves  management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6. The  registrant's  other  certifying  officers  and I have  indicated in this
annual report whether there were significant  changes in internal controls or in
other factors that could  significantly  affect internal controls  subsequent to
the date of our most recent  evaluation,  including any corrective  actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: April 14, 2004



/s/Robert J. Holtz
-----------------------
Robert J. Holtz, CFO
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1017

BRENDA Y. WILLS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WAL-MART STORES, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA02-2225-PJM) Submitted: October 1, 2004 Decided: November 24, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Reuben Collins, LaPlata, Maryland, for Appellant. Christopher R. Dunn, DECARO, DORAN, SICILIANO, GALLAGHER & DEBLASIS, LLP, Lanham, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Brenda Y. Wills appeals from the district court’s order in this action alleging that Wills sustained personal injuries as a result of Wal-Mart’s negligence. We affirm. Subsequent to the filing of the complaint, Wills’ attorney sought, and was granted, permission to withdraw from representation of Wills. A number of continuances were granted by the district judge to allow time for Wills to retain other counsel, but no one was ever hired. The district judge finally advised Wills of the need for the court to move forward on the summary judgment motion that had been filed by Wal-Mart. Wills was specifically warned that a failure to respond would result in summary judgment being entered against her. No response of any kind was ever forthcoming from Wills. The district court then granted Wal-Mart’s motion for summary judgment on September 23, 2003. Later, when counsel had been retained, Wills moved to vacate the grant of summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). This motion was denied by the district court on October 30, 2003. A prose notice of appeal was filed on November 26, 2003, seeking reversal of the October 30, 2003 order. We have reviewed this matter and find the appeal without merit. We accordingly affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in- 3 - the materials before us and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED
#### STATE ex rel. Thomas Lee WARD v. Frank BLACKBURN, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 87-KP-1266.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 12, 1987.

In re Ward, Thomas Lee; applying for writ of habeas corpus and supervisory writ; *58Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “I”, No. 297-030.

Granted. An evidentiary hearing by the trial court is ordered on relator’s post-conviction petition.
**AD Economic Evaluation**

Docket No . FAA - 2008 - 1243 Directorate ID : 2007 - SW - 03 - AD Helicopter Model: Erickson Air - Crane Incorporated Model S - 64F Helicopters Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 7 Helicopters in the US Reg istry . Reason : The actions specified by this AD are intended to detect cracking in the rotary rudder boom or pylon due to fatigue, and to prevent failure from static overload and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter. Costs : Parts per Helicopter $ 50,000 for the repair Labor per Helicopter ( 0.75 x $ 8 5 /work- hour for each pylon exterior inspection ) (0.5 x $85/work- hour for each pylon interior inspection) (0.75 x $85/work - hour for each fluorescent penetrant inspection) (40 x $85/work- hour for the repair) $ 64 per inspection $43 per inspection $64 per inspection $3,400 Other (Explain) We estimate 30 pylon exterior inspections per year , 4 pylon interior inspections per year, and 1 fluorescent penetrant inspection per year per helicopte r. Total Cost per Helicopter $2,146 for the inspections $53,400 for the repair Total US Fleet Cost $15,02 4 for the inspections Executive Order 12866 : Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No (  ) DOT Regulatory

Poli cies and Procedures : Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No (  ) Regulatory

Flexibility

Act : Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Yes ( ) No (  ) Project Engineer : Michael Kohner
III

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 52

Expressing the sense of Congress in opposition to a ‘‘bit tax’’ on Internet

data proposed in the Human Development Report 1999 published by

the United Nations Development Programme.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

AUGUST 5, 1999

Mr. ASHCROFT submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was

referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of Congress in opposition to a ‘‘bit

tax’’ on Internet data proposed in the Human Development Report 1999 published by the United Nations Development Programme.

Whereas the Internet has become a highly valued tool for millions of people in the United States and promises to be

an integral component of international commerce communications;

Whereas the Internet has spurred entirely new industries

dominated by the United States and has become critical

to the continued growth of our economy;

Whereas emerging telecommunications technologies promise

to extend the benefits of the Internet to a growing percentage of the world population;
2

•SCON 52 IS

Whereas the Internet should remain tax-free;

Whereas any global tax collected by the United Nations

would present a threat to the sovereignty of the United

States and would violate the United States Constitution;

Whereas Americans are by far the greatest users of the Internet and would thus be disproportionately affected by any

global Internet tax;

Whereas the most effective and just way to spread technology

and wealth is through the operation of a free market;

Whereas the rapidly increasing sophistication and decreasing

cost of telecommunications and computing products and

services should not be disturbed; and

Whereas the United Nations Development Programme’s

Human Development Report 1999 proposed that a socalled ‘‘bit tax’’ be levied on all data sent through the

Internet: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives

2 concurring), That Congress urges the Administration to

3 protect the sovereignty of the United States by aggres4 sively opposing the global ‘‘bit tax’’ proposed in the

5 Human Development Report 1999 published by the

6 United Nations Development Programme.

Æ
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Principal 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 quarter ended September 30, 2006 (the Report) of North American Insurance Leaders, Inc. (the Registrant), as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, William R. de Jonge, President 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.



|                        |  |  |  |                              
|----------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------------
|Date: November 14, 2006 |  |  |  | /s/ William R. de Jonge      
|                        |  |  |  | President                    
|                        |  |  |  | (principal executive officer)
#### In re James & Luria BUFFETT Applying for Adoption.

No. 89-CK-0059.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 20, 1989.

In re Buffett, James; Buffett, Luria;— Plaintiff(s); applying for supervisory and/or remedial writs; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 20694-JW; Parish of Union, 3rd Judicial District Court, Div. “B”, No. J.D. 234.

Denied.
#### In re FORFEITURE OF 1985 CHEVROLET CAMARO, 2-DOOR VIN: 1G1FP87H7FL447764 TAG NO. YCU 522; Barbara GRUBB and Jay Alan Grubb, Appellants, v. CITY OF SEBRING, Florida, Appellee.

No. 87-1381.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Jan. 15, 1988.

*464Ronald N. Toward, Bartow, for appellants.

Clifford M. Abies, III, Sebring, for appel-lee.

CAMPBELL, Acting Chief Judge.

In this appeal appellants challenge the forfeiture of a vehicle titled in the name of appellant Barbara Grubb and operated by appellant Jay Grubb when he struck and killed a pedestrian. The petition for forfeiture of the vehicle pursuant to sections 932.701 through 932.704, Florida Statutes (1985) alleged that the vehicle was used or intended to be used in violation of section 782.071, Florida Statutes, Vehicular Homicide. The final judgment and final order of forfeiture finds that the vehicle “was used in the commission of vehicular homicide, a felony of the third degree.” Appellants raise three issues on this appeal. We agree with the first issue and reverse on that basis. We do not find it necessary to reach or decide the other issues. Appellants in their first issue argue that the vehicle was not subject to forfeiture because use of a vehicle is an “element” of the offense of vehicular homicide and, therefore, cannot be considered as an “instrumentality” of the offense as required by section 932.701(2)(e). We agree. *See In re Forfeiture of One 1968 Cessna 310, Serial No. 0037, Registration No. 41370: Heinrich v. Madden,*496 So.2d 995 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); *City of St. Petersburg Beach v. Jewell,*489 So.2d 78 (Fla.2d DCA 1986); *In re Forfeiture of 1979 Mercedes, 4-Door, VIN No. 11603312085778, Tag No. WHJ 371,*484 So.2d 642 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); *Cabrera v. Department of Natural Resources,*478 So.2d 454 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); *City of Indian Harbour Beach v. Damron,*465 So.2d 1382 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985).

The judgment of forfeiture is reversed and this cause remanded for treatment consistent herewith.

FRANK and HALL, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 34 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. CON. RES. 34

            Relating to the observance of ``In Memory'' Day.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 25, 1999

 Mr. Specter submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
            Relating to the observance of ``In Memory'' Day.

Whereas many of the individuals who served in the Armed Forces and in civilian 
        roles in Vietnam during the Vietnam War have since died, in part as the 
        result of illnesses and conditions associated with service in Vietnam 
        during that war;
Whereas these men and women, whose ultimate health conditions had a basis in 
        their service in Vietnam during the Vietnam War, sacrificed their lives 
        for their country in a very real sense;
Whereas under criteria established by the Department of Defense, the deaths of 
        these men and women do not qualify as Vietnam War deaths;
Whereas under Department guidelines, these men and women also do not meet the 
        criteria for eligibility to have their names inscribed on the Memorial 
        Wall of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in the District of Columbia;
Whereas ``In Memory'' Day was established several years ago in order to honor 
        the Americans who gave their lives in service to their country as a 
        result of service in Vietnam but had not otherwise been honored for 
        doing so;
Whereas ``In Memory'' Day is now a project of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial 
        Fund;
Whereas to date 633 Americans have met the criteria for eligibility to be 
        honored by the ``In Memory'' Program; and
Whereas the Americans who have been named by the ``In Memory'' Program are 
        honored each year during a ceremony at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial: 
        Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That it is the sense of Congress that ``In Memory'' Day should be 
observed on the third Monday in April each year, the day on which 
Patriots Day is also observed, in honor of the men and women of the 
United States whose deaths had a basis in their service in Vietnam 
during the Vietnam War and who are thereby true examples to the Nation 
of patriotism and sacrifice.
                                 <all>
```
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 96-40079

Summary Calendar

PREMIER FINANCIAL SERVICES - TEXAS L. P.,

Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellee,

VERSUS

WAYNE A. LUNDQUIST, JR., ET AL.,

Defendants,

WAYNE A. LUNDQUIST, JR.,

Defendant-Counter Claimant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Southern District of Texas

(C-94-CV-545)

November 6, 1996

Before JONES, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

On July 26, 1996, this Court stayed further consideration of

this appeal pending an order of the United States Bankruptcy Court2

for the Southern District of Texas lifting the automatic stay of

that court in the Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding No. 96-22457-C11 filed by appellant Wayne A. Lundquist, Jr. Such automatic stay

has now been lifted by the bankruptcy court and we proceed with

consideration of this appeal.

Premier Financial Services

- Texas L.P. (“Premier”) sued Wayne

A. Lundquist, Jr. (“Lundquist”) and others on a written gua ranty

agreement execute d by Lundquist, guaranteeing the payment of a

promissory note dated October 24, 198 3, executed by Nueces

Development Company payable to Victoria Savings Association in the

original principal sum of $793,000 one year after date. The

maturity date of this note was ultim ately extended by various

renewal and extension agreements until September 19, 1987. The

Resolution Trust Corporation (“RTC”) was appointed conservator of

Victoria Savings Association on June 29, 1989. In December 1990,

after making demand on the maker and Lundquist for payment of this

note, the RTC proceeded to foreclose upon the secured property and

sold the secured property at public auction for the sum of

$161,028, which was credited against the note. In January 1994,

the RTC as receiver for Victoria Savings Association FSA.

transferred the note and guaranty, along with all right, title and

interest therein, to Premier. On December 16, 1994, Premier

brought this suit upon his guaranty against Lundquist seeking to

recover the remai ning amounts due and owing on the note. In

September 1995, Premier moved for a summary judgment on its claims3

against defendant Lundquist and on Lundquist’s counterclaim against

Premier. On December 6, 1995, the district court granted Premier’s

motion for a summary judgment and by a corrected final judgment

entered under date of December 29, 1995, granted recovery in the

amount of $606,345.08 against Lundquist.

We have carefully reviewed the briefs, the record excerpts and

relevant portions of the record itself; and for the reasons stated

by the district court in its order granting motion for summary

judgment entered under date of December 6, 1995, we affirm the

final judgment entered under date of December 29, 1995.

AFFIRMED

.
#### STATE of Louisiana, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT v. Michael R. NASSAR, et al.

No. 87-C-2134.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 13, 1987.

In re Transportation and Dev., Dept, of; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 87-CA-0167; Parish of St. James, 23rd Judicial District Court, Div. “C”, No. 12694.

Prior report: La.App., 512 So.2d 1221.

Denied. Result is correct.