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

Calendar No. 145

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 21

To designate September 29, 1999, as ‘‘Veterans of Foreign Wars of the

United States Day’’.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

APRIL 21, 1999

Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Mr. SARBANES, Mr. CONRAD, Mr. ASHCROFT, Mr.

HUTCHINSON, Mr. GREGG, Mr. WELLSTONE, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. WARNER, Mr. LUGAR, Mr. HAGEL, Mr. CRAPO, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BIDEN,

Mr. FEINGOLD, Ms. COLLINS, Mr. DEWINE, Mr. MCCAIN, Mr. COVERDELL, Mr. GRAMS, Mr. JEFFORDS, Mr. SMITH of Oregon, Mr. ABRAHAM,

Mr. REID, Mr. SPECTER, Mr. THURMOND, Mr. ROTH, Mr. DORGAN, Mr.

CRAIG, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. BAYH, Mr. MACK, Mr. SHELBY, Mr. KERREY, Mr. BUNNING, Mr. BINGAMAN, Mr. EDWARDS, Mr.

LIEBERMAN, Mr. KERRY, Mrs. HUTCHISON, Mr. JOHNSON, Mr. KENNEDY, Mrs. LINCOLN, Mr. HELMS, Mr. GORTON, Mr. GRAMM, Mr.

DOMENICI, Mr. BURNS, Mr. LOTT, Mr. THOMPSON, Mr. COCHRAN, Mr.

SESSIONS, Mr. FRIST, Mr. BYRD, Mr. AKAKA, and Ms. MIKULSKI) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on the Judiciary

JUNE 10, 1999

Reported by Mr. HATCH, without amendment

JOINT RESOLUTION

To designate September 29, 1999, as ‘‘Veterans of Foreign

Wars of the United States Day’’.

Whereas the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States

was founded on September 29, 1899;
2

SJ 21 RS

Whereas the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States will occur on

September 29, 1999;

Whereas for the past 100 years, the Veterans of Foreign

Wars of the United States has made valuable contributions to the well-being of veterans of the Armed Forces

and to the States and their communities, and has exhibited national leadership on issues of importance to all veterans of the Armed Forces; and

Whereas the centennial anniversary of the founding of the

Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States presents

an opportunity to recognize, honor, and pay tribute to

the more than 2,000,000 veterans of the Armed Forces

represented by that organization, and to all the individuals who have served in the Armed Forces: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That September 29, 1999, is designated as ‘‘Veterans of

4 Foreign Wars of the United States Day’’, and the Presi5 dent of the United States is authorized and requested to

6 issue a proclamation calling upon all Government agencies

7 and the people of the United States to observe the day

8 with appropriate ceremonies, programs, and activities.

Calendar No. 145

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 21

JOINT RESOLUTION

To designate September 29, 1999, as ‘‘Veterans of

Foreign Wars of the United States Day’’.

JUNE 10, 1999

Reported without amendment
## SERVEDJUNE 6, 2012 U.S. DEPARTMENTOF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

### ZHll

WASHINGTON, DC IN THEMATTEROF HELOAIR, INC. FAADOCKETNO. [TO BEASSIGNED] (Civil PenaltyProceeding) DMS NO. FAA-2012-0472 NOTICE OFASSIGNMENT OFPROCEEDING MM 

### b

This proceeding (heretofore designated as CaseNo. 2011EA210081) has been assigned to Administrative LawJudge J.E. Sullivan. All future pleadings and othercommunications regardingthis proceeding shall be served onthe Judge, the FAA Hearing Docket, and the other personsonthe attached Service List.**-----~** 

### Attachment - Service ListSERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL ORIGINAL & ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence A venue, S. W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430, Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1 000 1 Whit Baldwin, President Heloair, Inc., Respondent 5721 Gulfstream Road Richmond, VA 23250 TEL: 804-226-3400 FAX: 804-226-3494 ONE COPY Zachery M. Berman, Complainant's Counsel

Office ofthe Regional Counsel, AEA-7 Eastern Region Federal Aviation Administration 1 Aviation Plaza Jamaica, NY 11434 TEL: 718-553-3258 FAX: 718-995-5699

The Honorable J.E. Sullivan, Administrative Law Judge Office ofHearings, M-20 "

U.S. Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-2132 FAX: 202-366-7536

FDMS NO. FAA-2012-0472 (Civil Penalty Action) 1 For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration,

600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. -2-
#### George P. WOODWARD v. Helene G. O’CAIN.

No. 87-C-0666.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 23, 1987.

In re Woodward, George P.; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 86-CA-0016; Parish of East Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court, Div. “H”, No. 259194.

Prior report: La.App., 503 So.2d 1199.

Denied.

CALOGERO and LEMMON, JJ., would grant the writ.
Reversed and Remanded and Majorit y and Dissenting Opinio ns filed April 2 ,

2020.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 18

- 00900

- CV

LISSA WHYTE DOUGLAS , Appellant

V.

MARIA DEL CARMEN AGUILAR , Appellee

On Appeal from the 125th District Court

H ar ris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2016

- 36005

D I S S E N T I N G O P I N I O N

This case is remark ably similar to Ginn v. Pierce , No. 14

- 17

- 00742

- CV, 2019 WL 4511328 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] Sept. 19, 2019, no pet.). There, we reversed the trial court’s de nial of plaintiff’s motion for directed verdict (as to liability) where defendant admitted fault. H ere, defendant admitted responsibility and there was no evidence adduced at trial that plaintiff was contributorily negligent.2

Finding nothing to revers e and concluding the majority erroneously finds otherwise while ignoring our precedent, I believe the trial court’s ruling should be

affirmed.

/s/ Meagan Hassan Justice

Panel consists of Justices Zimmerer, Spain, an d Hassan ( Zimmerer , J., majority )

.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-7289

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

CHARLIE WADE POWELL,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,

Chief District Judge. (CR-88-193)

Submitted: November 8, 2001 Decided: November 16, 2001

Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charlie Wade Powell, Appellant Pro Se. Douglas Cannon, Assistant

United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Charlie Wade Powell appeals the district court’s order denying

his motion for modification of sentence under 18 U.S.C.A.

§ 3582(c)(2) (West 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm

on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Powell,

No. CR-88-193 (M.D.N.C. July 23, 2001). We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       1,958,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  312,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                    85,000
<INVENTORY>                                    127,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,537,000
<PP&E>                                         515,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 311,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,949,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,155,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        32,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     817,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,949,000
<SALES>                                      2,839,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,839,000
<CGS>                                        2,546,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,546,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             7,368,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,376,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (6,618,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (6,618,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (6,618,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.23)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.23)
        

</TABLE>
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

Allou Health & Beauty Care, Inc.
Brentwood, New York

               We  hereby   consent  to  the   incorporation   by  reference  in
Registration Statements on Form S-8, Registration Numbers 33-65020 and 33-65022,
both as filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on June 25, 1993, and
Registration  Number  333-22545,  as filed  with  the  Securities  and  Exchange
Commission  on February  28,  1997,  and to the  inclusion in the Allou Health &
Beauty Care, Inc.'s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 1996
of our  report  dated  June  17,  1997  related  to the  consolidated  financial
statements and schedules of Allou Health & Beauty Care, Inc. and subsidiaries.



                                               /s/ Mayer Rispler & Company, P.C.

                                               Mayer Rispler & Company, P.C.
                                               Certified Public Accountants

June 30, 1997
New York, New York
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 6792** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. WILBUR EDDIS CLINE , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Greenville
. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. ( 6:04

- cr - 01066

- HMH

- 4; 6:12

- cv - 00884

- HMH; 6:11

- cv - 03378

- HMH; 6:07

- cv - 70079

- HFF )

Submitted : June 14, 2012 Decid ed: June 20, 2012

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Wilbur Eddis Cline, Appellant Pro Se. Alan Lance Crick, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Wilbur Eddis Cline seeks to appeal the district court’s order construing his motion for a sentence reduction as a successive 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2011) moti on and dismissing it on that basis. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the con stitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispos itive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Cline has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional proces s.

DISMISSED
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-20784 

Conference Calendar

 

ABRAHAM GALVAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

D. DOWNS; J. HENDERSON; D. DICKSON; J.N. BARRATT; KENT RAMSEY,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-99-CV-264

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

April 11, 2001

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Abraham Galvan, Texas prisoner # 745262, appeals the

district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action

as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Galvan

argues that the district court abused its discretion by not

finding that his due process rights were violated and in holding

that there was some evidence to support the finding of guilt.

Galvan’s claims of a denial of due process and insufficient

evidence in connection with his prison disciplinary proceedings

are not yet cognizable in a § 1983 action. Edwards v. Balisok,
No. 00-20784

-2-

520 U.S. 641, 647-48 (1997). The district court did not abuse

its discretion in dismissing his complaint as frivolous. Siglar

v. Hightower, 112 F.3d 191, 193 (5th Cir. 1997).

Galvan’s appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous. 

See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). 

Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R.

42.2. Galvan is hereby informed that the dismissal of this

appeal as frivolous counts as a strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(g), in addition to the strike for the district court’s

dismissal. See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir.

1996) (“[D]ismissals as frivolous in the district courts or the

court of appeals count [as strikes] for the purposes of

[§ 1915(g)].”). We caution Galvan that once he accumulates three

strikes, he may not proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal

filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless

he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28

U.S.C. § 1915(g).

APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS.
EXHIBIT
32.1




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 Chisen Electric Corporation (the “Company”) on Form
10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the
undersigned hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his
knowledge:




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 operation of the Company.


Date: August
      14, 2009
                By:
                /s/ Xu
KechengName: Xu
      KechengTitle: President,
      Chief Executive Officer
                      andPrincipal
      Executive Officer


A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authentications, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
by Section 906, has been provided to Chisen Electric Corporation will be
retained by Chisen Electric Corporation and furnished to the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### STATE ex rel. Scotty FISHER v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 87-KH-2016.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 25, 1987.

In re Fisher, Scotty; applying for supervisory and/or remedial writs; Parish of Acadia, 15th Judicial District Court, Div. “K”.

Denied. A motion to quash was filed contemporaneously in the district court and is pending there.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Ronald Gilbert TAUZIER.

No. 86-KH-1191.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 20, 1987.

In re Tauzier, Ronald Gilbert; applying for writ of habeas corpus; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “C”, No. 244-878.

Granted. Relator’s 1975 conviction and sentence for violation of R.S. 14:106 (obscenity), proceedings No. 244-878 in Criminal District Court for the Parish of Orleans, is vacated and set aside. *Ballew v. Georgia,*435 U.S. 223, 98 S.Ct. 1029, 55 L.Ed.2d 234 (1978); *Stansberry v. Blackburn,*474 So.2d 941 (La.1985); *Thomas v. Blackburn,*623 F.2d 383 (5th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 953, 101 S.Ct. 1413, 67 L.Ed.2d 380 (1981); *Brown v. Louisiana,*447 U.S. 323, 100 S.Ct. 2214, 65 L.Ed.2d 159 (1980); *Burch v. Louisiana,*441 U.S. 130, 99 S.Ct. 1623, 60 L.Ed.2d 96 (1979).

MARCUS and LEMMON, JJ., dissent from the grant.
Comment Info: =================

General Comment:FAA-2010-1312; 2010-NM-220-AD
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 55 (Wednesday, March 21, 2012)]
[Presidential Documents]
[Page 16649]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6993]




                        Presidential Documents 



Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 55 / Wednesday, March 21, 2012 / 
Presidential Documents

[[Page 16649]]


                Memorandum of March 16, 2012

                
Delegation of Reporting Functions Specified in 
                Section 1045 of the National Defense Authorization Act 
                for Fiscal Year 2012, and Condition 9 of the Resolution 
                of Advice and Consent to Ratification of the Treaty 
                Between the United States of America and the Russian 
                Federation on the Measures for the Further Reduction 
                and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (the ``New 
                Start Treaty'')

                Memorandum for the Secretary of State[,] the Secretary 
                of Defense[, and] the Secretary of Energy

                By the authority vested in me as President by the 
                Constitution and the laws of the United States of 
                America, including section 301 of title 3 of the United 
                States Code, I hereby delegate to the Secretaries of 
                Defense and Energy the reporting functions conferred 
                upon the President by section 1045 of the National 
                Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public 
                Law 112-81), and by section (a)(9)(B) of the Resolution 
                of Advice and Consent to Ratification of the New START 
                Treaty. Subsection (a)(9)(B)(iv) of the Resolution 
                shall be fulfilled in coordination with the Secretary 
                of State.

                The Secretary of Defense is authorized and directed to 
                publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.
                <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
                
                    (Presidential Sig.)

                THE WHITE HOUSE,

                    Washington, March 16, 2012

[FR Doc. 2012-6993
Filed 3-20-12; 11:15 am]
Billing code 5000-04-P
EXHIBIT 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       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 accompanying Annual Report On Form 10-KSB of Charys
Holding Company, Inc. for the fiscal year ending April 30, 2006, I, Billy V.
Ray, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of Charys Holding Company, Inc., hereby
certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:

     1.     Such Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ending April
30, 2006, 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 such Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for
the fiscal year ending April 30, 2006, fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Charys Holding
Company, Inc.

     Dated: August 23, 2006.

                                   /s/  Billy V. Ray, Jr.
                                   ---------------------------------------------
                                   Billy V. Ray, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of
                                   Charys Holding Company, Inc.
Exhibit 10.15


 


www.chargepoint.com      


 


 


 


ChargePoint, Inc.,


1692 Dell Avenue |
Campbell, CA 95008 USA


+1.408.841.4500
or US toll-free +1.877.370.3802


 


December 21, 2012


 


Pasquale Romano


 


		Re:	Amendment to Employment Letter



 


Dear Pat:


 


This letter will serve to amend
your offer letter (the “Offer Letter”), dated January 28, 2011. The sole purpose of the amendment is to provide greater certainty
that the provisions of your letter relating to severance pay fully comply with the requirements of Internal Revenue Code Section
409A. In furtherance of this goal, the following amendments are made to the Offer Letter:


 


1. Section
2 a) is hereby amended by adding the following sentence immediately after the end of the second sentence of Section 2 a): “The
Release must be executed and returned to the Company on or before the date specified in the form (i.e., 21 days after your termination
date) unless the Company provides additional time, with the deadline in no event later than 45 days after your termination of employment.”


 


2. A
new subsection 2 a) iv) is hereby added to read as follows: “All cash payments pursuant to this Subsection 2 shall be paid
on the first day following the effective date of the Release and expiration of any revocation period, and in any event within 60
days after your employment terminates. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the 60-day period described in the preceding sentence
spans two calendar years, payment shall in any event be made in the second calendar year.”


 


Except
as specifically set forth herein, all of the terms of your Offer Letter remain in full force and effect.


 


Please contact Jon Kaplan if you have
any questions or comments.


 


	 	Very truly yours,
	 	 
	 	/s/ Antonio Canova
	 	Antonio Canova


 


	Approved and Accepted:	 
	 	 
	/s/ Pasquale Romano	 
	Pasquale Romano	 
	 	 
	12/21/12	 
	Date