alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 151

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives

2 concurring), That in the enrollment of the bill (H.R. 2348)

3 entitled ‘‘An Act to authorize the Bureau of Reclamation

4 to provide cost sharing for the endangered fish recovery

5 implementation programs for the Upper Colorado and San

6 Juan River Basins.’’, the Clerk of the House of Represent7 atives shall make the following correction:

8 Strike section 4 and insert:

9 ‘‘SEC. 4. EFFECT ON RECLAMATION LAW.

10 ‘‘Specifically with regard to the acreage limitation

11 provisions of Federal reclamation law, any action taken

12 pursuant to or in furtherance of this title will not—

13 ‘‘(1) be considered in determining whether a

14 district as defined in section 202(2) of the Reclama15 tion Reform Act of 1982 (43 U.S.C. 390bb) has dis16 charged its obligation to repay the construction cost

17 of project facilities used to make irrigation water

18 available for delivery to land in the district;
2

SCON 151 ES

1 ‘‘(2) serve as the basis for reinstating acreage

2 limitation provisions in a district that has completed

3 payment of its construction obligations; or

4 ‘‘(3) serve as the basis for increasing the con5 struction repayment obligation of the district and

6 thereby extending the period during which the acre7 age limitation provisions will apply.’’.

Passed the Senate October 13 (legislative day, September 22), 2000.

Attest:

Secretary.
106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 151

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

To make a correction in the enrollment of the bill,

H.R. 2348.
DISMISS and Opinion Filed December 14 , 2015 .

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 15 - 01481 - CV No. 05 - 15 - 01482 - CV IN RE DONALD GENE BL ANTON , Relator On Appeal from the 86th Judicial District Court

Kaufman County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 23078 - 86 , No. 23592 - 86 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Lang, Fillmore, and Brown Opinion by Justice Lang In this petition for writ of mandamus relator requests that the Court order the trial court to vacate its July 1, 2005 judgment of conviction and order the dismissal of cause number 23592

- 86. Relator’s petition represents a collateral attack on his final felony conviction. “It is well established that only the C ourt of Criminal Appeals possesses the authority to grant relief in a post

- conviction habeas corpus proceeding where there is a final felony conviction.” Ex parte Alexander, 685 S.W.2d 57, 60 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985); T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC
. art. 11.07 § 5 (We st 2015). Any attempt by a lower court to grant habeas relief from a final felony conviction in other procedural postures represents a usurpation of the exclusive authority of the Court of Criminal Appeals to grant post

- conviction relief. Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 802 S.W.2d 241 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to address relator’s complaints. See id.– 2

–

We dismiss the petition for want of jurisdiction.

151481F.P05 /Douglas S. Lang/ DOUGLAS S. LANG JUSTICE
United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 03-2323

TEN TAXPAYER CITIZENS GROUP; CAPE COD MARINE TRADES ASSOCIATION,

INC.; RAOUL D. ROSS; THE MASSACHUSETTS BOATING AND YACHT CLUBS

ASSOCIATION, INC.,

Plaintiffs, Appellants,

v.

CAPE WIND ASSOCIATES, LLC,

Defendant, Appellee.

ERRATA SHEET

The opinion of this Court issued on June 28, 2004 is amended

as follows:

On the cover page, "Kurt W. Hague, with whom Timothy J. Dacey

and Goulston & Storrs, P.C. were on brief, for appellee." should be

changed to "Timothy J. Dacey, with whom Kurt W. Hague and Goulston

& Storrs, P.C. were on brief, for appellee."
#### Jon R. FORD, Appellant, v. Jane FORD, Appellee.

No. 63212.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Jan. 14, 1985.

ORDER

Upon consideration of the motion for a supersedeas bond, THE COURT RULES:

> 1. Property division judgments directing the payment of money are subject to stay of execution by supersedeas bond as a matter of statutory right. 12 O.S. 1981 § 968(1). *Wilks v. Wilks,*Okl, 632 P.2d 759, 763 (1981).

> 2. When a good and sufficient undertaking shall have been posted by the appellant with the clerk of the trial court to stay *the entire money award*made against him for spousal property division, as distinguished from support alimony, child support and attorney fees, that award will stand suspended in its effectiveness by operation of law.

> 3. The trial court shall withdraw its pri- or stay order insofar as it affects the property division money award and fix the time limit within which an undertaking may be posted with the court clerk to stay that award.

All Justices concur.
#### F. Gary GIESEKE, Appellant/Cross Appellee, v. Haydee GIESEKE, Appellee/Cross Appellant. S. Robert ZIMMERMAN and James Walden, Cross Appellants, v. F. Gary GIESEKE and Haydee L. Gieseke, Cross Appellees. F. Gary GIESEKE, Appellant, v. Haydee GIESEKE, Appellee.

Nos. 85-238, 85-876.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 10, 1987.

Allan M. Lemer of Lerner, Harris & Pearce, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for F. Gary Gieseke.

Edna L. Caruso of Edna L. Caruso, P.A., West Palm Beach, for Haydee Gieseke.

PER CURIAM.

Gary Gieseke appeals a final judgment of dissolution of marriage and post-judgment contempt order; Haydee Gieseke cross appeals the final judgment. Recognizing that reasonable people could differ as to the propriety of the trial court’s rulings, we find no abuse of discretion in the equitable distribution of the parties’ assets or in the trial court’s award of attorney’s fees. We therefore affirm the final judgment. *See Canakaris v. Canakaris,*382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980); *Shaw v. Shaw,*334 So.2d 13 (Fla.1976); *Gellman v. Wolf,*424 So.2d 972 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); *Hartley v. Hartley,*399 So.2d 1126 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). We also affirm the contempt order. *See Bowen v. Bowen,*471 So.2d 1274 (Fla.1985); *Cobb v. Cobb,*399 So.2d 479 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); *Gersten v. Gersten,*281 So.2d 607 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); §§ 61.1301, 181, Fla. Stat. (Supp.1984).

AFFIRMED.

BASKIN, NATALIE, PEARSON, DANIEL S., and FERGUSON, WILKIE D., JR., Associate Judges, concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>  5
<LEGEND>


This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
balance sheets and statements of operations found on the Company's Form 10-K
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.

</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000846535
<NAME> RICHMOND CAPITAL CORPORATION
<PERIOD-TYPE>                     YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUL-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUL-31-1996
<CASH>                                             18682                   
<SECURITIES>                                        6500
<RECEIVABLES>                                     103616
<ALLOWANCES>                                           0
<INVENTORY>                                        49888
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  178686
<PP&E>                                             73271
<DEPRECIATION>                                         0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    269359
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             151451
<BONDS>                                                0
<COMMON>                                            1787
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0 
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<OTHER-SE>                                        116121
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      269359
<SALES>                                          1466173
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1466173
<CGS>                                             968826
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     968826
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  488441
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  5132 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     9074
<INCOME-TAX>                                        2870 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    0   
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0    
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                        6204  
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        .00

</TABLE>
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Samuel HULL.

No. 87-KH-0759.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 23, 1987.

In re Samuel Hull; applying for supervisory writ; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “D”, No. 248-278.

Granted to order trial court to furnish relator his Boykin exam. Otherwise denied.
EXHIBIT
32.2


CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C.
1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In
connection with the Quarterly Report of FUEGO ENTERTAINMENT, INC. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q /A, First Amendment , for the period
ended August 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Hugo M. Cancio, Principal Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





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





The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date:  October
      21, 2008
            By:
            /s/ Hugo
      M. CancioHugo
      M. CancioTitle:
      Principal Financial Officer
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2200 

To suspend temporarily the duty on 2,6-Bis(2,4-dihydroxybenzyl)-p-cresol 

ester with 6-diazo-5,6-dihydro-5-oxo-1-naphthalnenesulfonic acid and 

methane sulfonic acid. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

Mr. SPECTER (for himself and Mr. CASEY) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on 2,6-Bis(2,4- 

dihydroxybenzyl)-p-cresol ester with 6-diazo-5,6-dihydro5-oxo-1-naphthalnenesulfonic acid and methane sulfonic 

acid. 

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

3 SECTION 1. 2,6-BIS(2,4-DIHYDROXYBENZYL)-P-CRESOL 

4 ESTER WITH 6-DIAZO-5,6-DIHYDRO-5-OXO-1- 

5 NAPHTHALNENESULFONIC ACID AND METH6 ANE SULFONIC ACID. 

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

8 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2200 IS

1 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

2 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 2,6-Bis(2,4-dihydroxybenzyl)- 

p-cresol ester with 6-diazo5,6-dihydro-5-oxo-1- 

naphthalnenesulfonic acid 

and methane sulfonic acid 

(provided for in subheading 

2927.00.25) ........................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2011 ’’. 

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

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

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

6 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
#### In the Matter of Brian Confoy, Petitioner, v New York State Division of Parole et al., Respondents.

Crew III, J.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondents which denied petitioner release on parole.

Petitioner struck and killed a teenage pedestrian while driving under the influence of alcohol. He was convicted for criminally negligent homicide and leaving the scene of an accident without reporting. Presently, he is incarcerated at Downstate Correctional Facility in Dutchess County, serving two consecutive indeterminate terms of imprisonment of *VA*to 4 years. Upon his application for parole, respondents determined that petitioner would "not remain at liberty without further violation of the law” and that his "release * * * would be incompatible with the welfare of society”. Respondents denied petitioner parole and scheduled his reconsideration for 24 months. In this CPLR article 78 proceeding, petitioner challenges the determination as being irrational, arbitrary *1015and capricious, and not supported by substantial evidence. Supreme Court transferred the matter to this court pursuant to CPLR 7804 (g).

The central issue is whether respondents’ determination was made in accordance with Correction Law § 805. We determine that it was. As noted, respondents determined that petitioner would not remain at liberty without violating the law and that his release would be incompatible with the welfare of society. In support of those conclusions, respondents cited the interview with petitioner, the seriousness of his offense, the multiple counts being served, his prior history of irresponsible driving and the District Attorney’s opposition to early release (Correction Law § 805; 9 NYCRR 8002.1; *see,*Executive Law § 259-i [2] [a]). Respondents’ determination is supported by the record and was made in accordance with the law, thereby foreclosing judicial intervention *(see, Matter of McKee v New York State Bd. of Parole,*157 AD2d 944, 945; *Matter of Davis v New York State Div. of Parole,*114 AD2d 412).

Petitioner also contends that respondents’ scheduling of his reconsideration hearing 24 months later, i.e., March 1992, was improper because it prevents him from continued participation in the temporary release program. We disagree. Petitioner’s participation in that program is a privilege, not a right. Respondents were acting within their discretion when determining petitioner’s new hearing date and this court will not disturb that determination *(see,*9 NYCRR 8002.3 [d]; *People ex rel. Feliciano v Waters,*99 AD2d 850; *Matter of Ryder v New York State Bd. of Parole,*87 AD2d 891).

Determination confirmed, and petition dismissed, without costs. Casey, J. P., Mikoll, Levine, Mercure and Crew III, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 10.17
 FUEL TECH, INC.  2011 APC Officer and GSM Commission Plan
 1. OBJECTIVE; EFFECTIVE DATE
 Objective
 1.2. Effective Date
 2. DEFINITIONS
       3. COMMISSION
 Commission
 Payments




---



##### 



4. ADDITIONAL TERMS
 Dispute Resolution
 Modification, Amendment or Termination
 4.3 No Effect on Employment . This Plan is not intended to and does not in any way alter
the at-will nature of the Officers employment with Fuel Tech, nor does it constitute a guarantee
of employment for a specified period. Employment with Fuel Tech is at will, which means that
either the Officer or Fuel Tech may terminate the employment relationship at any time, with or
without cause or prior notice. This Plan does not create a contractual relationship or any
contractually enforceable rights between the Company or its wholly owned subsidiaries and the
employee.
 4.4 Disclaimer . This Plan is only valid for the year 2011. There is no guarantee that in
2012 or in subsequent years a commission plan or similar plan shall be adopted, and, if adopted,
the terms, conditions and provisions of any such plan shall be determined in the sole and absolute
discretion of the Board of Directors of Fuel Tech.
 2
#### Maurice BROWNELL v. DIETZ MOTOR LINES, et al.

No. 87-C-0683.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 23, 1987.

In re Brownell, Maurice; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 18436-CA; Parish of Bossier, 26th Judicial District Court, Div. “B”, No. 65884.

Prior report: La.App., 503 So.2d 1069.

Denied.

DIXON, C.J., and CALOGERO and DENNIS, JJ., would grant the writ.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### APPEAL 

### O F 

### F LORIDA 

### S ECOND 

### D ISTRICT

EDWARD BERNARD HILLS,

Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. No. 2D23-2162 March 27, 2024 Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Philip J. Federico, Judge. Edward Bernard Hills, pro se. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. SLEET, C.J., and BLACK and SMITH, JJ., Concur. Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2247 

To extend the suspension of duty on Fenpropathrin. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend the suspension of duty on Fenpropathrin. 

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

3 SECTION 1. FENPROPATHRIN. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.05.22 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 Fenpropathrin) is amended by striking ‘‘12/31/2009’’ and 

7 inserting ‘‘12/31/2011’’. 

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

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

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

11 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
**Exhibit
      32.2**





**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 SRKP 5, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
      10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Anthony C.
      Pintsopoulos, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant
      to
      ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to 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 results of operations of the Company.




/s/ Anthony
              C. PintsopoulosAnthony
                C. PintsopoulosPrincipal
              Financial OfficerMay
                14, 2007
EXHIBIT
      32.2








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 Presstek, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
      10-K
      for the for the period ended December 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jeffrey Cook, Senior
      Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify,
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of the Company.


April
                24, 2007
            /s/
                Jeffrey CookJeffrey
                Cook
              Senior
                Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
              (Principal
                Financial and Accounting Officer)





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Presstek, Inc. and will be retained by Presstek, Inc. and furnished to the
      Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.
ampg_ex109.htm

EXHIBIT 10.9
   
 SunBiz Holdings Corp.
 31 Route22
 Suite 200
 Bridgewater, NJ 08854
  
 February 14. 2018
  
 Advisory Agreement
  
 Parties:
  
 SunBiz Holdings Corp. (Advisor), with a principal place of business at 991 Route 22, Suite 200, Bridgewater, NJ 08807, agrees to provide to Amplitech Group. Inc. located at 620 Johnson A.venue. Bohemia, NY 11716, and its related parties and principals ( Amplitech’’) strategic advisory services. 
  
 Services:
  
 Advisor agrees to provide the following services to Arnplitech Group Inc.:
  
 	  
	 ·
	Specific assistance in managing and developing market awareness of its corporate image in Asia and the Middle  East.
	  
	  
	  

	  
	 ·
	Specific assistance in presentation of Ampltitech's products and1heir promotion, sales and distribution in Asia and the Middle East
	  
	  
	  

	  
	 ·
	 Specific assistance in reviewing and qualifying industry professionals that are interested in doing business wi1h Amplitech in the United States and abroad


  
 Terms:
  
 The agreement will last for a period of 24 months from the date signed, herein
  
 Compensation
  
 Advisor will be paid compensation of a total of 2.2 million shares of Amplitech’s restricted common stock at current opening market price of $0.0325 per share on 2/14/2018. The stock will be issued on (2) different dates as follows:
  
 	  
	 1} 
	First installment of 500,000 shares will be issued to-day
	  
	  
	  

	  
	 2) 
	Second and final installment of 1,700,000 shares will be issued next quarter on 4/1/12018

  
 The first installment will be payable upon commencement and signing of the agreement in the name of “SunBiz Holdings Corp.”, and the second installment will be payable on 4/1/2016.
  
 Warranties and Representations
  
 Advisor hereby warrants and represents:
  
 	  
	 ·
	That It is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice, but will rather defer to Amplitech’s SEC attorney on all legal matters.

     
 The above terms are agreed upon:
  
 SunBiz Holding Corp.
 /s/ Suneel Sawant, CEO 
 Suneel Sawant, CEO
  
 Amplitech Group, Inc. 
 /s/ Fawad Maqbool
 Fawad Maqbool, CEO