alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
H. Res. 350 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

July 9, 2015. 

Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, 

declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole 

House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill 

(H.R. 6) to accelerate the discovery, development, and delivery of 21st century cures, and for other purposes. The first 

reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order 

against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate 

shall be confined to the bill and amendments specified in this 

resolution and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 

controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce. After general debate 

the bill shall be considered for amendment under the fiveminute rule. In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Energy and Commerce now printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature 

of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee 

Print 114–22 shall be considered as adopted in the House 
2 

•HRES 350 EH 

and in the Committee of the Whole. The bill, as amended, 

shall be considered as the original bill for the purpose of further amendment under the five-minute rule and shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the 

bill, as amended, are waived. No further amendment to the 

bill, as amended, shall be in order except those printed in the 

report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such further amendment may be offered only in 

the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a 

Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, 

shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 

divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 

shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 

to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 

the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 

further amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise 

and report the bill, as amended, to the House with such further amendments as may have been adopted. The previous 

question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final passage 
3 

•HRES 350 EH 

without intervening motion except one motion to recommit 

with or without instructions. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
#### John P. HEMMER, Claimant, v. JELCO, INC., Respondent, Industrial Indemnity Company, Insurance Carrier.

No. 49799.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

April 12, 1977.

Rehearing Denied June 13, 1977.

Robert S. Gee, Wallace & Owens, Miami, for claimant.

Whitten, McDaniel, Osmond, Goree & Davis, Tulsa, for respondent and insurance carrier.

DAVISON, Justice:

This case involves an original action brought by respondents in the State Industrial Court, Jelco, Inc., and Industrial Indemnity Company, seeking a review of an order of that court issued on May 19, 1976, in which the court adjudged the claimant, John P. Hemmer, to be totally permanently disabled, and issued an award of compensation to claimant on that basis.

In an unpublished opinion of this Court, written by Justice Berry, Case No. 48,250, this Court has already considered this case. In that opinion, we found the case to be a Special Indemnity Fund Case, as the claimant had, on three occasions in the past, been adjudged and determined by State Industrial Courts to be permanently disabled, thus being a “physically impaired person,” as defined at 85 O.S. § 171.

In the opinion written by Justice Berry, the award was vacated and the cause was remanded to the Industrial Court with directions to hear and determine the ultimate facts required in Special Indemnity Fund case. Unfortunately, upon remand, the trial judge failed to follow the mandate of this Court. In so doing, she stated:

> “THE COURT: And I want to say that a lot of times when we all read transcripts on the cold printed page that our *1004interpretation is different from the actual hearing, and I want this record to go up with complete and utter deference to the Supreme Court.

> But there is no way that I can follow the Supreme Court’s decision and yet at the same time follow the law of the State of Oklahoma.

> I have read the decision and it is the opinion of the Trial Court that the decision is based upon law which is controlled by the Special Indemnity Fund. As a matter of fact, every case that is cited by the Special Indemnity Fund case, and the language which is used by the Supreme Court constantly refers to physical impairments and prior adjudications, and I would invite Justice Berry’s attention to the fact that this is not a Special Indemnity Fund case but is just a regular Workmen’s Compensation ease.

> Consequently, it is the humble opinion of the Trial Court that the wrong law has been applied. Therefore, I will reenter my original order of total permanent disability, * *

In the appeal now before us, respondent points out that the Court refused to follow the mandate of this Court, and in so doing, committed reversible error. The record clearly reflects that the trial court did not follow mandate of this Court, and for that reason, we vacate the award, and remand the case once again to the State Industrial Court. In so doing, we instruct the court to, one, consider the case as an Special Indemnity Fund case, and, two, we instruct the Presiding Judge to reassign this case.

AWARD VACATED AND CAUSE REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.

All the Justices concur.
October
31, 2003

Aames
Capital Corporation350  S. Grand Avenue 40thFloorLos Angeles,
CA 90071

Attn:
Jon Van Deuren

Re:
Revolving Credit and Security Agreement

Dear
Ladies and Gentlemen:

Reference
is hereby made to that Revolving Credit and Security Agreement by and between
Countrywide Warehouse Lending (Lender), Aames Capital Corporation
and Aames Funding Corporation (collectively Borrower) dated June 26,
2003 (the Agreement). Capitalized terms used herein and not
otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to such terms in the
Agreement.

Lender
and Borrower hereby extend the Term of the Agreement to November 30, 2003, (the
Extension), at which time the Agreement will expire.

Nothing
herein shall affect the rights and remedies of Lender under the Agreement and
all terms and conditions of the Agreement remain in full force and effect during
the Extension. This letter agreement shall be construed in accordance with and
governed by the laws of the State of California, without regard to principles of
conflicts of laws.

Please
acknowledge your agreement to the terms and conditions of this letter by signing
in the appropriate space below and returning a copy of the same to the
undersigned. Facsimile signatures shall be deemed valid and binding to the same
extent as the original.

Sincerely,

|COUNTRYWIDE
      WAREHOUSE LENDING |  |                                 
|----------------------------------- |  | --------------------------------
|As Lender                           |  |                                 
|                                    |  |                                 
|                                    |  |                                 
|By: ___________________________     |  |                                 
|Thomas
      C. Williams            |  |                                 
|                                    |  |                                 
|                                    |  |                                 
|                                    |  |                                 
|AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED
      BY:    |  | AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED
      BY:
|                                    |  |                                 
|Aames Capital Corporation           |  | Aames Funding Coroporation      
|As Borrower                         |  | As Borrwer                      
|                                    |  |                                 
|                                    |  |                                 
|By:____________________________     |  | By:____________________________ 
|Name:                               |  | Name:                           
|Title:                              |  | Title:
20732

#### State v. Young

Affirmed
EXHIBIT 32.1



Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350



The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with this quarterly report on Form 10-Q (the Report) for the
purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.



Louis R. Tomasetta, the Chief Executive Officer and Yatin Mody, the Chief Financial Officer
of Vitesse Semiconductor Corporation, each certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:



| | 1. | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Vitesse Semiconductor Corporation.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: August 9, 2005



|                                                              
|--------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                              
|/s/ LOUIS R. TOMASETTA                                        
|Louis R. Tomasetta                                            
|President and Chief Executive Officer                         
|(Principal Executive Officer)                                 
|                                                              
|/s/ YATIN MODY                                                
|Yatin Mody                                                    
|Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer           
|(Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)
# C_2021252EN.01003704.xml

| 28.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/37

---

Order of the General Court of 5 May 2021 — Vital Capital Investments and Others v Council and Others

(Case T-196/18) (1)

(2021/C 252/58)

Language of the case: English

The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 166, 14.5.2018.

---
Exhibit 99.1

                            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 filing of U.S. Home & Garden Inc. (the "Company")
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2003 with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert
Kassel, the 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.


                                        /s/ Robert Kassel
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Robert Kassel
                                        Chief Executive Officer

Date: May 14, 2003

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to U.S. Home and Garden, Inc. and will be retained by U.S. Home and
Garden, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
ACCOMPANYING FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-28-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-28-1997
<CASH>                                         183,935
<SECURITIES>                                    10,068
<RECEIVABLES>                                  238,165
<ALLOWANCES>                                    14,689
<INVENTORY>                                    115,501
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               563,148
<PP&E>                                         256,041
<DEPRECIATION>                                  64,505
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 758,346
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          359,264
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           956
<OTHER-SE>                                     364,615
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   758,346
<SALES>                                      1,955,783
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,955,783
<CGS>                                        1,618,037
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,819,325
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (7,896)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                144,354
<INCOME-TAX>                                    57,092
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    87,262
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.92
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.92
        


</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.20 - 1999 OFFICER BONUS PLAN

The Company has adopted a 1999 Officer Bonus Plan under which all executive 
officers are awarded cash bonuses based on the Company's operating results.  
The respective bonus payments are calculated with reference to the actual 
pre-tax income results as measured against the 1999 Operating Plan presented 
and approved at the Board of Directors meeting on January 29, 1999.  The 
pre-tax income level is measured prior to any accruals reflecting the Company's 
bonus payments.  No profit bonus will be paid for achievement of 50% or less of 
the planned objective.  At 100% achievement, 100% of the profit bonus will be 
paid.  At 150% achievement, 200% of the profit bonus will be awarded.  For 
results between 50% and 100% and between 100% and 150%, the profit bonus will 
scale in a linear fashion (e.g., 50% profit bonus at 75% achievement of plan 
and 150% profit bonus at 125% of plan).
Charge Questions:

Moiemen et al. (2011) 

Study Title: Moiemen, N.S., Shale, E., Drysdale, K.J., Smith, G., Wilson, Y.T., Rapini, R. 

Acticoat dressings and major burns: Systemic silver absorption. The Midlands 

Burn Centre, University Hospitals Birmingham Foundation Trust, United 

Kingdom. Burns, 37, 27-35 (2011). (MRID 48607501) 

1. Is the Moiemen et al. (2011) study scientifically sound, providing reliable data? 

2. If so, can the Moiemen et al. (2011) study be used to support the Agency's conclusion that 

the dermal absorption factor for silver from nanosilver on human skin is less than 0.1%? 

3. Is there adequate information to support a determination that the study was conducted in 

substantial compliance procedures at least as protective as those at subparts A-L of 40 CFR 

Part 26?
# C_2018445EN.01000601.xml

| 10.12.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 445/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.12.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 445/6

---

Appeal brought on 21 September 2018 by The Goldman Sachs Group Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 12 July 2018 in Case T-419/14: The Goldman Sachs Group v European Commission

(Case C-595/18 P)

(2018/C 445/07)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: The Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (represented by: A. Mangiaracina, avvocatessa, J. Koponen, advokat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Prysmian SpA, Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi Srl

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment under appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment under appeal;

| — | annul, in whole or in part (e.g. from May 2007 or November 2007 onwards, where GS Group and its affiliates held only around 45 % and 26 % of Prysmian’s shares respectively), Articles 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Commission Decision C(2014) 2139 (1) dated 2 April 2014 insofar as they concern the appellant; and/or |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, in whole or in part (e.g. from May 2007 or November 2007 onwards, where GS Group and its affiliates held only around 45 % and 26 % of Prysmian’s shares respectively), Articles 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Commission Decision C(2014) 2139 (1) dated 2 April 2014 insofar as they concern the appellant; and/or

| — | reduce the fine imposed on the appellant by Article 2 of Commission Decision C(2014) 2139 dated 2 April 2014; and |
| --- | --- |

—

reduce the fine imposed on the appellant by Article 2 of Commission Decision C(2014) 2139 dated 2 April 2014; and

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

First Plea: The General Court misapplied Article 101 TFEU and Article 23.2 of Regulation 1/2003 (2) by holding the appellant liable for an infringement committed by Prysmian from 29 July 2005 to 3 May 2007 (‘the pre-IPO period’).

Second Plea: The appellant did not exercise decisive influence in the sense required by the case law between 3 May 2007 to 28 January 2009 (‘the post-IPO period’).

Third Plea: Request that the Court of Justice affords the appellant the benefit of any reduction of the fine granted to Prysmian.

---

(1)  Commission Decision of 2 April 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39610 — Power Cables).

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003, L 1, p. 1).

---
**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 Lapis Technologies, Inc. (the "Company")
      on
      Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Harry
      Mund, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      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 and Exchange Act of 1934; and




(2)
      The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.




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




March 30,
      2007




/s/ Harry
              MundHarry
                Mund
              Chief
                Executive Officer
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the Quarterly Report of Belden & Blake Corporation
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2003, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below,
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 the knowledge of the
undersigned:

         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.





Date:    August 12, 2003                     /s/ Robert W. Peshek
     --------------------                    -----------------------------------
                                             Robert W. Peshek, Vice President
                                             and Chief Financial Officer

This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q and shall not be treated as having
been filed as part of the Form 10-Q.






                                       29
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-18-00941-CR

Adrian Gilbert TORRES,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 290th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018CR9951W

Honorable Melisa C. Skinner, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE CHAPA, JUSTICE RIOS, AND JUSTICE WATKINS

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED.

SIGNED January 30, 2019.

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice