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

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 34

Designating the week beginning April 30, 1999, as ‘‘National Youth Fitness

Week’’.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

FEBRUARY 11, 1999

Mr. TORRICELLI (for himself, Mr. BAUCUS, Mr. LUGAR, Mr. DURBIN, and

Mr. REID) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary

RESOLUTION

Designating the week beginning April 30, 1999, as ‘‘National

Youth Fitness Week’’.

Whereas the Nation is witnessing a historic decrease in the

health of the youth in the United States, with only 22

percent of the youth being physically active for the recommended 30 minutes each day and nearly 15 percent of

the youth being almost completely inactive each day;

Whereas physical education classes are on the decline, with

75 percent of students in the United States not attending

daily physical education classes and 25 percent of students not participating in any form of physical education

in schools, which is a decrease in participation of almost

20 percent in 4 years;
2

•SRES 34 IS

Whereas more than 60,000,000 people, 1⁄3 of the population

of the United States, are overweight;

Whereas the percentage of overweight youth in the United

States has doubled in the last 30 years;

Whereas these serious trends have resulted in a decrease in

the self-esteem of, and an increase in the risk of future

health problems for, youth in the United States;

Whereas youth in the United States represent the future of

the Nation and the decrease in physical fitness of the

youth may destroy the future potential of the United

States unless the Nation invests in the youth in the

United States to increase productivity and stability for

tomorrow;

Whereas regular physical activity has been proven to be effective in fighting depression, anxiety, premature death, diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure, colon cancer,

and a variety of weight problems;

Whereas physical fitness campaigns help encourage consideration of the mental and physical health of the youth in

the United States; and

Whereas Congress should take steps to reverse a trend which,

if not resolved, could destroy future opportunities for millions of today’s youth because a healthy child makes a

healthy, happy, and productive adult: Now, therefore, be

it

1 Resolved, That the Senate—

2 (1) designates the week beginning April 30,

3 1999, as ‘‘National Youth Fitness Week’’;

4 (2) urges parents, families, caregivers, and

5 teachers to encourage and help youth in the United
3

•SRES 34 IS

1 States to participate in athletic activities and to

2 teach adolescents to engage in healthy lifestyles; and

3 (3) requests the President to issue a proclama4 tion calling on the people of the United States to ob5 serve the week with appropriate ceremonies and ac6 tivities.

Æ
#### Kermit D. WHITTEMORE, Appellant, v. STATE of Alaska, Appellee.

No. 5827.

Court of Appeals of Alaska.

Sept. 3, 1982.

*412Gary I. Amendola, Sitka, for appellant.

Richard Svobodny, Asst. Dist. Atty., Patrick J. Gullufsen, Dist. Atty., and Wilson L. Condon, Atty. Gen., Juneau, for appellee.

OPINION

Before BRYNER, C.J., and COATS and SINGLETON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Kermit Whittemore appeals from an order of the superior court denying his motion, filed pursuant to Criminal Rule 35, requesting the court to strike a provision of his suspended imposition of .sentence that required him to serve two weeks in jail as a special condition of his probation. Whitte-more based his motion on the supreme court’s decision in *Boyne v. State,*586 P.2d 1250 (Alaska 1978).

In *Boyne v. State,*the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that, absent express legislative authority, a jail term could not be ordered as a special condition of probation when the defendant received a suspended imposition of sentence. However, after the ruling in *Boyne,*the legislature enacted AS 12.55.086, which authorized jail terms to be imposed as special conditions of probation in cases involving suspended impositions of sentence. The statute took effect on May 2, 1979, some 153 days after the *Boyne*decision.

Subsequently, in *Zurfluh v. State,*620 P.2d 690 (Alaska 1980), the supreme court held that AS 12.55.086 applied retroactively to cases in which sentencing had occurred in the interim between the decision in *Boyne*and the effective date of AS 12.55.086. Whittemore argues that his case is not covered by *Zurfluh*because his sentencing occurred prior to the supreme court’s decision in *Boyne.*

We believe that the logic used by the court in *Zurfluh*to make AS 12.55.086 retroactive applies with equal force to cases in which sentencings occurred prior to the decision in *Boyne*and cases in which sentencing took place after *Boyne*was decided, but before AS 12.55.086 took effect. We can think of no sound reason why the rule of retroactivity announced in *Zurfluh*should be restricted to the 153-day period between the decision in *Boyne*and the effective date of AS 12.55.086.

Accordingly, the superior court’s order denying Whittemore’s Criminal Rule 35 motion is AFFIRMED.
#### ADMAR OF NEW JERSEY, INC., Appellant/Cross Appellee, v. Harry ROZANY, Appellee/Cross Appellant.

No. 87-0495.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 30, 1988.

Rehearings Denied May 23, 1988.

James Cary Jacobson and Howard E. Horowitz of Jacobson & Gottlieb, Hollywood, for appellant/cross appellee.

Lee Greenfield of Greenfield & Duval, North Miami, for appellee/cross appellant.

GUNTHER, Judge.

We reverse the trial court’s entry of summary judgment on the authority of *GNLV Corp. v. Featherstone,*504 So.2d 63 (Fla. 4th DCA), *rev. denied,*513 So.2d 1061 (Fla.1987). However, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal of the counterclaim. The counterclaim was compulsory in nature and should have been brought in the New Jersey action. *See, Mori v. Hartz Mountain Development Corp.,*193 N.J.Super. 47, 472 A.2d 150 (N.J.Super.Ct.App.Div.1983).

*1197REVERSE AND REMAND in part; AFFIRM in part.

DOWNEY and WALDEN, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 31.1

Certification
Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes - Oxley Act of 2002

I, Andre' DiMino, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB/A of ADM Tronics
Unlimited, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary
to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which
such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows
of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. I am the registrant's only certifying officer and am responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the
registrant and have:

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

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

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's
most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in
the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting; and

5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal
control over financial reporting, 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 and material weaknesses in the design
or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

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

Date:  December 9, 2005               /s/ Andre' DiMino
                                          Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 302 has
been provided to ADM Tronics Unlimited, Inc. and will be retained by
ADM Tronics Unlimited, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**
Exhibit 35.1 

Servicer Compliance Statement of Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation 

**NISSAN MOTOR ACCEPTANCE COMPANY LLC**

**OFFICER’S CERTIFICATE**

The undersigned, Kevin J. Cullum, President and Chief Executive Officer of NISSAN MOTOR ACCEPTANCE COMPANY LLC, a Delaware limited liabilitycompany (the “Company”), does hereby certify, in his capacity as such officer, as follows: 

(1) The undersigned has caused areview of the activities of the Company, in its capacity as Servicer, during the period June 23, 2021 through March 31, 2022 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance pursuant to the Sale and Servicing Agreement, dated asof June 23, 2021 (the “Agreement”), by and among the Company, individually and as servicer, Nissan Auto Receivables Company LLC II, as seller, and Nissan Auto Receivables 2021-A Owner Trust, tobe conducted under his supervision; and 

(2) To the best of the undersigned’s knowledge, based upon such review, the Company hasfulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period. 

This Officer’sCertificate is being furnished pursuant to Item 1123 of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for publicly-issued asset-backed securities. Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to suchterms in the Agreement. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have set my hand effective as of the27th day of June, 2022. 

 

/s/ Kevin J. Cullum
Kevin J. CullumPresident and Chief Executive Officer
 
20 

**
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                      15,988,152
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  562,016
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     14,889
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            16,596,324
<PP&E>                                       5,150,551
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              22,986,312
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          927,698
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                 23,010,000
<COMMON>                                           880
<OTHER-SE>                                   (952,266)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                22,986,312
<SALES>                                      3,034,585
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,034,585
<CGS>                                          673,831
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,209,094
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             9,146,516
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (2,092)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (7,584,803)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (7,584,803)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (7,584,803)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.06)
        

</TABLE>
Supreme Court of Texas

══════════

No. 21-0106

══════════

Benjamin “B.J.” Reynolds, Mark Mewshaw, Wes Hobbs, and 

Terra Energy Partners, LLC,

Petitioners,

v.

Sanchez Oil and Gas Corporation, et al.,

Respondents

═══════════════════════════════════════

On Petition for Review from the

Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas

═══════════════════════════════════════

PER CURIAM

Under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA), a party may 

move to dismiss certain “legal actions” within sixty days of being served. 

TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 27.003(b). We held last term that, 

to the extent an amended or supplemental pleading either 

(1) adds a new party or parties, (2) alleges new essential 

facts to support previously asserted claims, or (3) asserts 

new legal claims or theories involving different elements 

than the claims or theories previously asserted, the new 

pleading asserts a new legal action and triggers a new 

sixty-day period as to those new parties, facts, or claims.
2

Montelongo v. Abrea, 622 S.W.3d 290, 293-94 (Tex. 2021). The same day 

we issued Montelongo, we also reaffirmed that an earlier petition 

sufficiently pleads a legal action “only if the petition gives fair notice of 

the claim involved.” Kinder Morgan SACROC, LP v. Scurry County, 622 

S.W.3d 835, 849 (Tex. 2021).

In a decision issued before we decided Montelongo and Kinder 

Morgan, the court of appeals held in this case that the plaintiffs’ second 

amended petition did not assert a new legal action under the TCPA 

because amended petitions only assert new legal actions if they assert 

“new claims based upon new factual allegations.” 617 S.W.3d 30, 42

(Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2020) (citations omitted). This holding 

conflicts with our decision in Montelongo that either new claims or new 

factual allegations will assert a new legal action to which a new sixtyday deadline applies. 622 S.W.3d at 293. We believe the court of appeals 

should have the opportunity to reconsider this case in light of our 

holdings in Montelongo and Kinder Morgan. Therefore, without hearing 

oral argument, see TEX. R. APP. P. 59.1, we grant the petition for review, 

vacate the judgment below, and remand the case for the court of appeals 

to reconsider its holding in light of Montelongo and Kinder Morgan and 

to reach the remaining issues as necessary to dispose of this 

interlocutory appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 60.2(f).

OPINION DELIVERED: November 19, 2021
#### BARON TRANSPORT and Claims Center, Appellants, v. Teddy R. RILEY, Appellee.

Nos. BT-185 & BT-187.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 16, 1988.

Jack A. Langdon, Gainesville, for appellants.

Ralph J. McMurphy, of Green and Simmons, P.A., Ocala, for appellee.

MILLS, Judge.

The employer/carrier (e/c) in this consolidated workers’ compensation appeal contend that the deputy commissioner erred in awarding the claimant’s attorney a $5,200 fee and in awarding the claimant temporary total disability (TTD) benefits. We affirm the TTD award without further discussion. As to the fee award, we find the order deficient and reverse.

The order purports to award the fee for services rendered by claimant’s attorney in procuring TTD benefits and certain remedial medical treatment. However, the basis of the award, the e/c’s bad faith, has never been determined as to TTD benefits. The order awarding TTD benefits, entered on the same day as the order awarding the attorney’s fee, specifically provides that the responsibility for and the amount of claimant’s attorney’s fee will be determined at a *subsequent*hearing. Moreover, the fee order does not state the dollar amount of benefits obtained for which it had been determined in a previous order that the e/c acted in bad faith. Nor does the order adequately address all the statutory factors. In such a case, the order should be reversed and the cause remanded because meaningful review is impossible. *School Board of Collier County v. Salter,*457 So.2d 1132 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); *Commercial Carrier Corp. v. Porter,*452 So.2d 125 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); *Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services/Division of Blind Services v. Bean,*435 So.2d 967 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983).

*1029The order awarding attorney’s fees is REVERSED and the cause REMANDED for further proceedings. The order awarding TTD benefits is AFFIRMED.

SHIVERS and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Steve MARESCO and Lori Wermuth.

No. 86-K-2013.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 23, 1987.

In re Maresco, Steve; Wermuth, Lori; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. KA-5004; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “G”, No. 297-886.

Prior report: La.App., 495 So.2d 311.

Denied.
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 QC Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q
for the period ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Don Early, Chairman of the Board and 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: August 8, 2008



/s/ Don EarlyDon EarlyChairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer




Page 39
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 63 (Monday, April 2, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 19649]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7866]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RIN 0648- XA938


Marine Mammals; File No. 17029

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice; issuance of permit.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that a permit has been issued to 
Matson's Laboratory, LLC (Gary Matson, Responsible Party), PO Box 308, 
8140 Flagler Road, Milltown, MT 59851 to receive, import, export, and 
possess marine mammal specimens for scientific research.

ADDRESSES: The permit and related documents are available for review 
upon written request or by appointment in the following offices:
    Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, 
NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; 
phone (301) 427-8401; fax (301) 713-0376; and Northwest Region, NMFS, 
7600 Sand Point Way NE., BIN C15700, Bldg. 1, Seattle, WA 98115-0700; 
phone (206) 526-6150; fax (206) 526-6426.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laura Morse or Jennifer Skidmore, 
(301) 427-8401.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On January 25, 2012 notice was published in 
the Federal Register (77 FR 3744) that a request for a permit to import 
specimens for scientific research had been submitted by the above-named 
applicant. The requested permit has been issued under the authority of 
the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et 
seq.), the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine 
mammals (50 CFR part 216), the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 
amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), the regulations governing the 
taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species 
(50 CFR parts 222-226), and the Fur Seal Act of 1966, as amended (16 
U.S.C. 1151 et seq.).
    The permit authorizes the receipt, possession, import and export of 
teeth and prepared microscope slides obtained from all pinniped 
species, expect walrus (Order Pinnipedia). No takes of live animals are 
authorized. The permit will be effective December 01, 2012, and expire 
December 01, 2017.
    In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), a final determination has been made that the 
activity proposed is categorically excluded from the requirement to 
prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.

    Dated: March 27, 2012.
Tammy C. Adams,
Acting Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected 
Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-7866 Filed 3-30-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P