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

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 50

Designating March 25, 1999, as ‘‘Greek Independence Day: A National Day

of Celebration of Greek and American Democracy’’.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

FEBRUARY 25, 1999

Mr. SPECTER (for himself, Mr. BIDEN, Mr. ABRAHAM, Mrs. BOXER, Mr.

COCHRAN, Mr. BREAUX, Mr. DODD, Mr. DEWINE, Mr. DURBIN, Mr.

DOMENICI, Mr. EDWARDS, Mr. FITZGERALD, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr.

GRASSLEY, Mr. HOLLINGS, Mr. GREGG, Mr. INOUYE, Mr. HAGEL, Mr.

KENNEDY, Mr. LUGAR, Mr. KERREY, Mr. MURKOWSKI, Mr. KERRY, Mr.

ROTH, Mr. KOHL, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. SHELBY, Mr.

LEVIN, Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Mr. SMITH of

Oregon, Ms. MIKULSKI, Ms. SNOWE, Mr. MOYNIHAN, Mr. STEVENS, Mrs.

MURRAY, Mr. THOMAS, Mr. REED, Mr. THOMPSON, Mr. REID, Mr. WARNER, Mr. ROBB, Mrs. HUTCHISON, Mr. ROCKEFELLER, Mr. HATCH, Mr.

SARBANES, Mr. SCHUMER, and Mr. TORRICELLI) submitted the following

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

RESOLUTION

Designating March 25, 1999, as ‘‘Greek Independence Day:

A National Day of Celebration of Greek and American

Democracy’’.

Whereas the ancient Greeks developed the concept of democracy, in which the supreme power to govern was invested

in the people;

Whereas the Founding Fathers of the United States of America drew heavily upon the political experience and philoso-
2

SRES 50 IS

phy of ancient Greece in forming our representative democracy;

Whereas the founders of the modern Greek state modeled

their government after that of the United States in an

effort to best imitate their ancient democracy;

Whereas Greece is one of the only 3 nations in the world, beyond the former British Empire, that has been allied with

the United States in every major international conflict

this century;

Whereas the heroism displayed in the historic World War II

Battle of Crete epitomized Greece’s sacrifice for freedom

and democracy as it presented the Axis land war with its

first major setback and set off a chain of events which

significantly affected the outcome of World War II;

Whereas these and other ideals have forged a close bond between our 2 nations and their peoples;

Whereas March 25, 1999, marks the 178th anniversary of

the beginning of the revolution which freed the Greek

people from the Ottoman Empire; and

Whereas it is proper and desirable to celebrate with the

Greek people and to reaffirm the democratic principles

from which our 2 great nations were born: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the Senate—

2 (1) designates March 25, 1999, as ‘‘Greek

3 Independence Day: A National Day of Celebration of

4 Greek and American Democracy’’; and

5 (2) requests the President to issue a proclama6 tion calling upon the people of the United States to
3

SRES 50 IS

1 observe the day with appropriate ceremonies and ac2 tivities.

Æ
#### In re A.A., a child. Pearl ANTHONY, Petitioner, v. Phillip WASSERMAN and Diane Wasserman, Respondents.

No. 73187.

Supreme Court of Florida.

May 25, 1989.

William D. Slicker of William D. Slicker, P.A., St. Petersburg, for petitioner.

Thomas E. Reynolds of the Law Offices of Edward D. Foreman, P.A., St. Peters-burg, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

We have for review the order of the Second District Court of Appeal dismissing the petitioner’s appeal from the final judgment in this juvenile proceeding. The district court certified the following question of great public importance:

> DOES FLORIDA RULE OF JUVENILE PROCEDURE 8.820(b)(3) RESCIND FLORIDA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.020(g) THEREBY LIMITING THE TIME FOR TAKING AN APPEAL TO THIRTY DAYS AFTER RENDITION OF THE FINAL JUDGMENT INSTEAD OF THIRTY DAYS AFTER RENDITION OF A FINAL ORDER ON THE MOTION FOR REHEARING?

*1257
      *In re:*4.4, 531 So.2d 1050-51 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.

This case, like *In the Interest of E.P.,*544 So.2d 1000 (Fla.1989), involves a conflict between Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.020(g), which permits a motion for rehearing to toll the time for taking an appeal, and Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.820(b)(3), which does not permit a motion for rehearing to toll the time allowed for taking an appeal in juvenile cases. There is no doubt that the rules conflict and that those appellants who come under the juvenile rules are denied either a rehearing or an appeal. If a party wishes to take an appeal from a juvenile proceeding, it appears that he or she must forego a motion for rehearing in order to file a timely notice of appeal. Likewise, if a party wishes to move for a rehearing, he or she must forfeit their appellate rights.

As in our opinion in *In The Interest of E.P.,*the rules of juvenile procedure control in juvenile cases. Accordingly, we answer the certified question in the affirmative, and approve the order of the Second District Court of Appeal.

It is so ordered.

EHRLICH, C.J., and OVERTON, McDonald, shaw, barkett, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 62 (Friday, March 30, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19405-19406]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7652]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration <greek-i>13054 and <greek-i>13055]


West Virginia Disaster <greek-i>WV-00027

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major 
disaster for the State of West Virginia (FEMA-4061-DR), dated 03/22/
2012.

[[Page 19406]]

    Incident: Severe Storms, Flooding, Mudslides, and Landslides.
    Incident Period: 03/15/2012 and continuing.
    Effective Date: 03/22/2012.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 05/21/2012.
    Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date: 12/24/2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing And Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of 
the President's major disaster declaration on 03/22/2012, applications 
for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other 
locally announced locations.
    The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected 
by the disaster:

Primary Counties (Physical Damage and Economic Injury Loans): Logan.
Contiguous Counties (Economic Injury Loans Only):
    West Virginia: Boone, Lincoln, Mingo, Wyoming.

    The Interest Rates are:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Physical Damage:
  Homeowners With Credit Available Elsewhere.................      3.750
  Homeowners Without Credit Available Elsewhere..............      1.875
  Businesses With Credit Available Elsewhere.................      6.000
  Businesses Without Credit Available Elsewhere..............      4.000
  Non-Profit Organizations With Credit Available Elsewhere...      3.125
  Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available                3.000
   Elsewhere:................................................
For Economic Injury:
  Businesses & Small Agricultural Cooperatives Without Credit      4.000
   Available Elsewhere.......................................
  Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere      3.000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 13054B 
and for economic injury is 130550.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

James E. Rivera,
Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2012-7652 Filed 3-29-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Ecolocap Solutions Inc., formerly XL Generation International Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Alexander C. Gilmour, Chief Executive 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:

|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.

Dated this 14th day of November, 2007.

ALEXANDER GILMOUR
Alexander C. GilmourChief Executive Officer

















---
EXHIBIT
32.1


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 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 Executive 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
      20, 2008
            By:
            /s/ Hugo
      M. CancioHugo
      M. CancioTitle:
      Principal Executive Officer
**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATION**I, Stephen J. Hawrysz, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Eagle Test Systems, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange 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 tobe 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) [Paragraph omitted in accordance with SEC transition instructions contained in SEC Release No. 34-47986];  (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in thisreport our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter inthe case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant rolein the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.Date: August 02, 2007/s/ Stephen J. Hawrysz
#### Rose H. ROBBINS, Appellant, v. Albert F. ROBBINS, Appellee.

No. 88-950.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 21, 1988.

*1054Rose H. Robbins, in pro per.

Emilia Diaz-Fox, Miami, for appellee.

Before HUBBART, DANIEL S. PEARSON and FERGUSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The order under review which transferred to Broward County this action to modify a 1984 final judgment of dissolution solely because the dissolution was entered in Broward County is reversed upon a holding that (1) under Section 61.14(1), Florida Statutes (1987), the appellant-wife, being, without dispute, a long-term resident of Dade County when she filed her modification action, was entitled to bring the action in the county of her residence, notwithstanding that venue was also proper in the county where the order sought to be modified was entered, *Torres v. Torres,*516 So.2d 11 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); *Carr v. Carr,*489 So.2d 889 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); *Sikes v. Sikes,*286 So.2d 210 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973); *Stewart v. Carr,*218 So.2d 525 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969); and (2) apart from the showing that the dissolution was entered in Broward County, where the appellee-hus-band resides — facts legally insufficient to defeat the wife’s choice of Dade County as the venue for her motion to modify — there are no other facts shown on this record to establish that Dade County is, as urged by the husband, a forum non conveniens.

Reversed and remanded.
**Exhibit** **32.1**

 

**Certification of Chairman and Chief Executive Officer**

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of MPC Corporation. (the “*Company*”) hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:

 

(i) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A of the Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 (the “*Report*”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

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

 

 

|           | /s/ John P. Yeros                    |
|----------------|--------------------------------------|
| March 30, 2007 | John P. Yeros                        |
|           | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Kenneth Marvin Wasmund, Relator, against Charles C. McCloskey, as Sheriff of Chautauqua County, et al., Respondents.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Erie County,

January 26, 1959.

*Charles J. McDonough*for relator.

*Edwin C.*O’Connor, *District*Attorney, for respondents.

Regis O’Brien, J.

This is an application, hy means of a writ of habeas corpus, to review the decision of the Chautauqua County Judge, dated January 20, 1959, denying the relator’s request that he he admitted to hail and that the amount thereof be fixed. The decision also fixed the date of trial for the opening day of the next term of court, viz.: March 3, 1959. The attorney for the relator and the District Attorney stated that they are ready, and expect to proceed with the trial on that date.

The determination of the question of whether or not the prisoner should be admitted to bail is the prerogative of the court having jurisdiction of the matter, in this case the County Judge of Chautauqua County. While his determination may be reviewed, it cannot be upset unless there is a showing that he *660acted arbitrarily, improvidently, or abused Ms discretion *(People ex rel. Shapiro*v. *Keeper of City Prison,*290 N. Y. 393, 398-399).

At the cited pages, the Court of Appeals states: *“*But an order denying bail is non-appealable (Code Grim. Pro., §§ 517, 566, *supra)*and so any attack on such a denial of bail must be by other means. The method is by resort to the prisoner’s separate and different right to test, by the ancient remedy of habeas corpus, the legality of his detention * * * [the prisoner] had a right to be heard in the Supreme Court on the return of his writ, and so the Special Term was not wholly without jurisdiction * * * But its inquiry was only as to the *legality*of the denial of bail, as to whether or not the denying Court [Court of General Sessions] has abused its discretion by denying bail without reason or for reasons insufficient in law.”

The decision of the Chautauqua County Judge enumerates the various reasons why he denied the application for bail.

The facts supporting the claim presented to this court are practically the same as those presented to the County Judge, which in effect makes tMs application an appeal from the decision of the County Court, which was rendered as a matter of discretion.

The record before this court does not warrant a finding that the County Judge abused his discretion.

Under the decision in the *Shapiro*case *(supra)*the court states that wMle an order denying bail is nonappealable by authority of any statutory law and may be tested by a writ of habeas corpus, as heretofore stated (p. 399): *“*It does not

follow, however, that the court which entertained the writ could exercise an independent discretion as to bail. ’ ’

There being no showing of an abuse of discretion by the Chautauqua County Judge and this court being without power to exercise any independent discretion, the writ must be, and hereby is, dismissed.
1 In The


### Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________ N O . 09

- 22

- 00060

- CV

__________________ SHERAKA FRANKLIN , Appellant

V.

BEAUMONT HOUSING AUTHORITY , Appellee

__________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1 Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 137,152

__________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION
The trial court signed a final judgment in this case on January 28, 2022.
Appellant Sheraka Frankl i n filed a notice of appeal
, but she has failed to file a brief.

On Ju ly 8 , 202 2 , we notified the parties that the Appellant’s brief had not been filed
and that the appeal would be submitted without briefs unless we received
Appellant’s brief and a motion for extension within ten days , and we warned
Appellant that the appeal could be dismissed for want of prosecution if the appeal

was submitted without briefs

. On August 1 , 202 2 , we notified the parties that the2 appeal would be submitted to the Court on August 2 2 , 202 2 , without briefs and
without oral argument. See Tex. R. App . P. 39.8.
In the absence of a brief assigning error for appellate review, we dismiss the
appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1); Tex. R. App. P.
42.3(b).

APPEAL DISMISSED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on August 22 , 2022 Opinion Delivered August 25 , 2022
Before Golemon, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, JJ.
**EXHIBIT 10.1**

**Executive OfficerCompensation Arrangements (2006 Bonus)**

On September 7,2006, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of NeuroMetrix, Inc.(the “Company”) determined the following compensation information for certainexecutive officers of the Company regarding target cash bonuses for 2006. This compensation information is as follows:
| **Name**                     | ** ** | **Title**                                        | ** ** | **2006 Target Bonus  ($ and % of Base Salary)(1)** | ** ** |
|------------------------------|------------|--------------------------------------------------|------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------|
| Shai N. Gozani, M.D.,  Ph.D. |       | Chairman,  President and Chief Executive Officer |       |                                                                                  | $          | 131,250 (50%) |   |
|                         |       |                                             |       |                                                                                  |       |   |
| Gary Gregory                 |       | Chief  Operating Officer                         |       |                                                                                  | $          | 123,375 (50%) |   |
|                         |       |                                             |       |                                                                                  |       |   |
| W. Bradford Smith            |       | Chief  Financial Officer                         |       |                                                                                  | $          | 69,300 (30%) |   |
|                         |       |                                             |       |                                                                                  |       |   |
| Guy Daniello                 |       | Senior  Vice President of Information Technology |       |                                                                                  | $          | 47,545 (25%) |   |
|                         |       |                                             |       |                                                                                  |       |   |
| Michael Williams             |       | Senior Vice President  of Engineering            |       |                                                                                  | $          | 49,612 (25%) |   |

 

----

(1)             Theaward of cash bonuses in 2006 will be determined by the Compensation Committeebased on the executive officer’s and the Company’s achievement of a number ofobjective and subjective goals specifically established for each executiveofficer by the Compensation Committee.

----
#### DELTA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, Appellant, v. Horacio FERAUD, a/k/a Horacio Feraud Stagg, Appellee.

No. 88-471.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 11, 1988.

Stanley Jay Bartel, Miami, for appellant.

Ezell, Menendez, Patterson, Claussen & Daniel and John H. Patterson, Jr., Miami, for appellee.

Before NESBITT, DANIEL S. PEARSON and JORGENSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *Quinones v. Siviss Bank Corp. (Overseas), S.A.,*509 So.2d 273 (Fla.1987); *Manrique v. Fabbri,*493 So.2d 437 (Fla.1986).