alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 170

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Encouraging corporations to contribute to faithbased organizations.

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 170

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Whereas America’s community of faith has long played a

leading role in dealing with difficult societal problems

that might otherwise have gone unaddressed;

Whereas President Bush has called upon Americans ‘‘to revive the spirit of citizenship . . . to marshal the compassion of our people to meet the continuing needs of our

Nation’’;
2

•HCON 170 EH

Whereas although the work of faith-based organizations

should not be used by government as an excuse for backing away from its historic and rightful commitment to

help those who are disadvantaged and in need, such organizations can and should be seen as a valuable partner

with government in meeting societal challenges;

Whereas every day faith-based organizations in the United

States help people recover from drug and alcohol addiction, provide food and shelter for the homeless, rehabilitate prison inmates so that they can break free from the

cycle of recidivism, and teach people job skills that will

allow them to move from poverty to productivity;

Whereas faith-based organizations are often more successful

in dealing with difficult societal problems than government and non-sectarian organizations;

Whereas, as President Bush recently stated, ‘‘It is not sufficient to praise charities and community groups; we must

support them. And this is both a public obligation and

a personal responsibility.’’;

Whereas corporate foundations contribute billions of dollars

each year to a variety of philanthropic causes;

Whereas according to a recent study produced by the Capital

Research Center, the 10 largest corporate foundations in

the United States contributed $1,900,000,000 to such

causes;

Whereas according to the same study, faith-based organizations only receive a small fraction of the contributions

made by corporations in the United States, and 6 of the

10 corporations that give the most to philanthropic

causes explicitly ban or restrict contributions to faithbased organizations: Now, therefore, be it
3

•HCON 170 EH

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That—

3 (1) Congress calls on corporations in the United

4 States, in the words of the President, ‘‘to give more

5 and to give better’’ by making greater contributions

6 to faith-based organizations that are on the front

7 lines battling some of the great societal challenges of

8 our day; and

9 (2) it is the sense of Congress that—

10 (A) corporations in the United States are

11 important partners with government in efforts

12 to overcome difficult societal problems; and

13 (B) no corporation in the United States

14 should adopt policies that prohibit the corpora15 tion from contributing to an organization that

16 is successfully advancing a philanthropic cause

17 merely because such organization is faith based.

Passed the House of Representatives July 10, 2001.

Attest:

Clerk.
ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION TO FILE TRANSCRIPT 1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

Case No. DA 2 4

- 0144

__________________________________________________________________ DANIEL P. KNUDSEN, ROSE E.

AYERS, ERIC DENNISON, LANCE

FRENCH, ERIK FARNHAM and KAILA JACOBSON
as Class Representatives,

Plaintiffs and Appell ants

,

v.

THE UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA, a unit of the
Montana University System

,

Defendant and Appell ee

_______________________________________________________________

ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE TRANSCRIPT

_______________________________________________________________

On Appeal from Montana Fourth Judicial District Court
Missoula County, Cause No. DV

- 16

- 977

Honorable Shane A. Vanatta

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Appellants

Nicole L. Siefert

SIEFERT & WAGNER, PLLC

1135 Strand Ave., Suite A

Missoula, MT 59801
Telephone: 406

- 226

- 2552

Facsimile: 406

- 226

- 2553
nicole@swl.legal
mail@swl.legal

John L. Amsden, Esq.
Justin Stalpes, Esq.
Conner Bottomly, Esq. Attorneys for Defendant and Appell ee

Lucy T. France Office of Legal Counsel
University of Montana
133 University Hall

Missoula, MT 59812

- 3528
Telephone: 406

- 243

- 6786
Lucy.France@umontana.edu

Maxon R. Davis
Davis, Hatley, Haffeman & Tighe,

P.C. P.O. Box 2103

Great Falls, MT 59403

- 2103 07/09/2024

Case Number: DA 24-0144ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION TO FILE TRANSCRIPT 2

Sydney Best, Esq.

BECK AMSDEN & STALPES, PLLC

610 Professional Drive

Bozeman, MT 59715
Tel: (406) 586

- 8700
Fax: (406) 586

- 8960 amsden@becklawyers.com
justin@becklawyers.com
conner@baslawyers.com
sydney@baslawyers.com
info@becklawyers.com Telephone: 406

- 761

- 5243

max.davis@dhhtlaw.com

This matter comes before the Court upon the Motion for Extension of Time

to Transmit the Record submitted by attorneys for Appellants.

ORDER

For good cause shown, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Court Reporter

Julie Pesanti DeLong is granted additional time to prepare and file the trial

transcript with the Montana Supreme Court for the subject appeal; the new due

date is August 30 , 2024.

Dated and signed electronically below

.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 9 2024
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>              5
<LEGEND>               This schedule contains summary financial information 
                       extracted from Scotsman Industries, Inc. Condensed 
                       Balance Sheet (Unaudited) as of June 29, 1997 and
                       Scotsman Industries, Inc. Condensed Statement of Income
                       (Unaudited) for the Six Months Ended June 29, 1997 and
                       is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
                       financial statements.
<MULTIPLIER>                      1000
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                 DEC-28-1997
<PERIOD-START>                    DEC-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                      JUN-29-1997
<PERIOD-TYPE>                     6-MOS
<CASH>                            20,760
<SECURITIES>                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                     120,768
<ALLOWANCES>                      4,862
<INVENTORY>                       80,507
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  243,821
<PP&E>                            87,496
<DEPRECIATION>                    74,133
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    682,878
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             148,334
<BONDS>                           343,534
<COMMON>                          1,074
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>             0
<PREFERRED>                       0
<OTHER-SE>                        136,453                    
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      682,878
<SALES>                           271,854
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  271,854
<CGS>                             200,757
<TOTAL-COSTS>                     200,757
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                  0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                8,781
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   21,213
<INCOME-TAX>                      10,262
<INCOME-CONTINUING>               10,951
<DISCONTINUED>                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                   (633)
<CHANGES>                         0
<NET-INCOME>                      10,318
<EPS-PRIMARY>                     0.98
<EPS-DILUTED>                     0.96

</TABLE>
IV

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 194

Expressing the sense of Congress to encourage full participation in the Asian

Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 24, 2001

Mr. ACKERMAN (for himself and Mr. CHABOT) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on International

Relations

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of Congress to encourage full participation in the Asian Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC)

forum.

Whereas the Asian Pacific Economic Cooperation forum

meets annually to afford leaders of APEC’s twenty-one

members the opportunity to discuss mutual interests in

economic security and expanded commerce;

Whereas this year’s APEC forum is scheduled to be held October 19–21, 2001, in Shanghai, China, and will be attended by President George W. Bush and President

Jiang Zemin;

Whereas Taiwan enjoys a robust trading relationship with the

United States, importing significantly more goods from
2

•HCON 194 IH

the United States than does the People’s Republic of

China;

Whereas Taiwan possesses the seventh largest trading economy and ninth largest gross domestic product in the

APEC consortium, contributing significantly to economic

stability and commercial expansion across the region;

Whereas bilateral trade and direct investment across the Taiwan Strait has dramatically increased in recent years;

Whereas Taiwan’s democratically elected leaders have offered

to meet for dialogue with leaders of the People’s Republic

of China at ‘‘any time, any place on any topics’’;

Whereas it is demonstrably in the national security interests

of the United States for the leaders across both sides of

the Taiwan Strait to engage without precondition in a

peaceful dialogue on the basis of mutual respect; and

Whereas the United States Trade Representative stated publicly on June 5, 2001, in Shanghai that the personal participation in this year’s APEC forum of Taiwan’s democratically elected president, Chen Shui-bian, ‘‘would be a

constructive step’’: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That Congress supports the initiatives pro3 posed for direct dialogue without precondition between

4 leaders on both sides of the Taiwan Strait and specifically

5 endorses the proposal for full participation in the October

6 2001 Asian Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum

7 by President Chen Shui-bian of Taiwan.

Æ
N OTE : This o rder is non precedential. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________
DUSTI KELLY

- FLEMING, JOHN FLEMIN G, AND TECLARC, INC, Plaintiffs

- Appellants,

v.

THE CITY OF SELMA, T EXAS, Defendant

- Appellee.

______________________

2014

- 1231

______________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas in No. 5:10

- cv

- 00675

- XR, Judge Xavier Rodrigu ez.

______________________
Before L OURIE , D YK , and R EYNA , Circuit Judges

. P ER C URIAM

. O R D E R
The parties were directed to show cause why this a ppeal should not be transferred to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Appellee, the City of Selma, Texas, responds and argues that the appeal should be dismissed or transferred to the Fifth Circuit. Appe llants have not respond ed

. Case: 14-1231 Document: 8 Page: 1 Filed: 04/23/2014KELLY

- FLEMING v. THE CITY OF SELMA , TEXAS 2

This is an appeal of an action asserting violation of the plaintiffs ’ rights under Title II of the Ame ric ans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12 131 et seq. This court is a court of limited jurisdiction and does not have jurisdiction in this matter. 28 U.S.C. § 1295. A s noted by Appellee, an appeal has also been filed with the Fifth Circuit as Dusti Kell y- Fleming, et al. v. City of Selma, Texas , No. 13

- 51192 . Thus, there is no need to transfer this duplicative appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631

. Accordingly,

I T I S O RDERED T HAT : (1) The appeal is dismissed. (2) All pending motions are denied as moot. (3) Each side shall bear its own costs

. F OR THE C OURT

/s/ Daniel E. O’Toole Daniel E. O’Toole Clerk of Court

s25 Case: 14-1231 Document: 8 Page: 2 Filed: 04/23/2014
Exhibit 10.1


 


	
  MOMENTA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

  	
   

  	
  675 WEST KENDALL STREET

  	
   

  	
  T: 617.491.9700  F: 617.621.0431

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  CAMBRIDGE, MA 02142

  	
   

  	
  WWW.MOMENTAPHARMA.COM

  



 





 


August 3, 2005


 


Dr. Robert S. Langer, Jr.


98 Montvale Road


Newton, MA 02459


 


Dear Mr. Langer:


 


Reference is made to the
Consulting Agreement dated July 23, 2001 between Momenta
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (formerly Mimeon, Inc.)  (“Momenta”), and you, as extended by the June 23, 2003 and July 2,
2004 letter agreements (collectively, the “Agreement”).  Capitalized terms used herein and not
otherwise defined shall have the meanings given such terms in the
Agreement.  The parties hereby amend the
Agreement as follows:


 


1.  Pursuant to
Section 1 of the Agreement, Company and Consultant hereby agree to extend
the term of the Agreement for one additional year, effective from July 23,
2005 through July 22, 2006 (the “Renewal Period”).


 


2.  Section 2 of the Agreement is hereby
deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:  “Services.  Consultant shall provide technical and
strategic consulting services in connection with various Momenta programs as
may be reasonably requested by the Company from time to time.”


 


3.  Section 3.1 of the Agreement is hereby
amended by deleting the definition of “Field of Interest” and replacing it with
the following:  “The term ‘Field of
Interest’ shall mean the field of complex mixtures, sequencing, chemical,
enzymatic or biological synthesis, production or modification of linear and
branched sugars and glycoconjugates.”


 


4.  Section 8 of the Agreement is hereby
amended by deleting the second sentence and replacing it with the
following:  “In addition, during the
Renewal Period and for a period of one (1) year thereafter, Consultant
shall not, without the prior written consent of the Chief Executive Officer of
Momenta, which shall not be unreasonably withheld, perform consulting services
in the Field of Interest for or on behalf of any business enterprise.”


 


All other terms and
conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect during the
Renewal Period.


 


If the foregoing is in
conformity with your understanding, please sign both copies of this letter
agreement and return one fully-executed original to me.


 


	
  Very truly yours,

  
	
   

  
	
  /s/ Alan L. Crane

  	
   

  
	
  Alan L. Crane

  
	
  President and Chief Executive Officer

  



 





















 


	
  Agreed and accepted:

  
	
   

  
	
   

  
	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Robert S. Langer, Jr.

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Robert S. Langer, Jr.

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Date:

  	
  August 8, 2005
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

BILLY LONG,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 288 WAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

BILLY LONG,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 289 WAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

BILLY LONG,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 290 WAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM
[288 WAL 2018, 289 WAL 2018 and 290 WAL 2018] - 2

AND NOW, this 28th day of November, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

KEO NOTTAGE,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D21-3238

[August 11, 2022]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Scott Suskauer, Judge; 

L.T. Case No. 50-1997-CF-007324-AXXX-MB.

Richard F. Della Fera of Richard F. Della Fera, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, 

for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Mitchell A. Egber, 

Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

KLINGENSMITH, C.J., GERBER and FORST, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### Larry C. GUILLOT, et al. v. Gregory J. SANDOZ, et al.

No. 87-C-0075.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 30, 1987.

In re Guillot, Larry C.; Guillot, Sheree Louise; Guillot, Sidney Joseph III; Guillot, Eric Jude Individ.; Guillot, Lonie D. Indi-vid.; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 85-1238; Parish of Iberia, 16th Judicial District Court, Div. “C”, No. 52359.

Prior report: La.App., 497 So.2d 753.

Denied.
#### SUCCESSION OF Anthony HERRLE.

No. 88-C-0041.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 5, 1988.

In re Orgeron, Margaret H.; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 87-CA-0338; Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court, Div. “M”, No. 225-841.

*130Prior report: La.App., 517 So.2d 386.

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 Annual Report of ADM Tronics Unlimited, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended March 31, 2006
(the "Report"), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission,
Andre' DiMino, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, of
the Company hereby certifies 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 as amended; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the consolidated financial condition of the Company
as of the dates presented and the consolidated result of operations of
the Company for the periods presented.

Date:  July 14, 2006,                 /s/ Andre' DiMino
                                          Andre' DiMino
                                          Chief Executive Officer and
                                           Chief Financial Officer



The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b)
of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and is not
being filed as part of the Form 10-QSB or as a separate disclosure
document.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or
other document authenticating, 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
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.
#### Robert Lynn VINSON v. Beverly Hope VINSON.

No. 57795.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

July 13, 1988.

Thomas Wright Teel, Sekul, Hornsby & Teel, Biloxi, for appellant.

Eugene C. Tullos, Raleigh, John S. Knowles, III, Jackson, for appellee.

Appeal from Chancery Court, Smith County; J.W. Walker, Chancellor.

Before DAN M. LEE, P.J., and PRATHER and SULLIVAN, JJ.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

ROY NOBLE LEE, C.J., HAWKINS, P.J., and ROBERTSON, ANDERSON, GRIFFIN and ZUCCARO, JJ., concur.
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas** MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04

- 12

- 00471

- CV Cynthia Dawn FRANKLIN , Appellant

v. Jason Lee FRANKLIN , Appellee From the 25th Judicial District Court , Guadalupe County, Texas Trial Court No. 11

- 1926

- CV Honorable W.C. Kirkendall , Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice Phylis Speedlin, Justice Rebecca Simmons, Justice Delivered and Filed: November 21, 2012
DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION The trial court signed a final judgment on April 20, 2012. A timely motion for new trial was filed on May 21, 2012. T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 329b(a). Because appellant timely filed her motion for new trial, the notice of appea l was due to be filed on July 19, 2012. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 26.1(a). Appellant filed her notice of appeal on July 26, 2012. A motion for extension of time in which to file the notice of appeal was due on August 3, 2012, but was not filed. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 26.3.04

- 12

- 00471

- CV

- 2

- A motion for extension of time is necessarily implied when an appellant, acting in good faith, files a notice of appeal beyond the time allowed by Rule 26.1 but within the fifteen

- day grace period provided by Rule 26.3 for filing a motion f or extension of time. See Verburgt v.
Dorner , 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997) (construing the predecessor to Rule 26); Dimotsis v. State Farm Lloyds , 966 S.W.2d 657, 657 (Tex. App.

– San Antonio 1998, no pet.) (stating same under current Rule 26). However, the appellant must offer a reasonable explanation for failing to file the notice of appeal in a timely manner. See id. ; T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 26.3, 10.5( b)(1)(C). Accordingly, on October 2, 2012, this court ordered appellant to file, no later than October 17, 2012, a response presenting a reasonable explanation for failing to file the notice of appeal in a timely manner. Our order informed appellant that if she failed to respond within the time provided, the appeal would be dismissed. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 42.3(c). No response has been filed

. Because appellant’s notice of appeal was not timely filed and because she did not provide any explanation for need ing an ex tension of time , this appeal is dismissed. See Verburgt , 959 S.W.2d at 617.

PER CURIAM
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           7,853
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   32,882
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (7,259)
<INVENTORY>                                     13,171
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                59,720
<PP&E>                                         513,431
<DEPRECIATION>                                 177,943
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 478,749
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           88,215
<BONDS>                                        143,329
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        52,248
<OTHER-SE>                                     109,818
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   478,749
<SALES>                                        339,940
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               339,940
<CGS>                                          189,188
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  189,188
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               286,941
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 6,013
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              15,290
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 37,370
<INCOME-TAX>                                    15,451
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             21,919
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    21,919
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.10
        

</TABLE>