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

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 108 (Wednesday, July 18, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1276-E1277]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                         A TRIBUTE TO HILLSIDES

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. ADAM B. SCHIFF

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, July 18, 2012

  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Hillsides, a nonprofit 
organization for abused and emotionally disturbed children, in 
Pasadena, California upon its 100th Anniversary.
  In 1913, Evelyn Wile, a kindhearted young deaconess of the Episcopal 
Church, opened Hillsides Home for Children in Highland Park for 13 
abandoned children that sought to reject the established approach of 
cold, uncaring institutions and provide a personal and empathetic 
community for homeless children.
  Ms. Wile's vision of a campus of cottages where children could 
flourish in a country-like environment surrounded by sunshine, fresh 
air, and open space became a reality in 1918, when she moved the home 
from Highland Park to 17 acres in the San Rafael Hills of Pasadena, 
where it has remained to this day. The increase in space allowed Evelyn 
to build more residential cottages and an administration building, 
which was completed in 1927. Over the next 40 years, Hillsides Home for 
Children was a safe haven where children were the top priority. In the 
1960s, Hillsides shifted focus from being an orphanage to becoming a 
center for abused and emotionally disturbed children. By the late 
1970s, it had grown to include 14 on-campus buildings and 2 satellite 
homes. Hillsides Education Center was established in 1982 to offer 
specialized instruction for students with behavioral challenges or 
learning disabilities, and the Family Center was created that same year 
to provide crisis intervention and parent education for at-risk 
families. Hillsides Home for Children's name changed to Hillsides in 
1999. In 2005, Hillsides Youth Moving On was established, a 
transitional living program for young adults leaving foster care.
  In the last century, Hillsides has grown tremendously from Ms. Wile's 
original home that served 13 children. To date, Hillsides has rescued 
over 110,000 families and is recognized as a leader in children's 
rights advocacy issues. Encompassing a comprehensive network of 
residential and community facilities that provide an unmatched depth 
and breadth of resources to at-risk children and families, Hillsides 
has pioneered techniques that have become standard practices and ranks 
among the region's most respected and trusted organizations in the 
field.

[[Page E1277]]

  I am honored to recognize Hillsides for its 100 years of loving care 
and support to countless children and families and I ask all Members to 
join me in congratulating Hillsides for its remarkable achievements.

                          ____________________
```
[Cite as State v. Harris , 2018-Ohio-1012.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

BUTLER COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2017-09-140

: D E C I S I O N - vs - 03/19/2018 : KEITH DOUGLAS HARRIS, JR., : Defendant-Appellant. :

CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Case No. CR2017-04-0664

Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, Lina N. Alkamhawi, Government Services Center, 315 High Street, 11th Floor, Hamilton, OH 45011, for plaintiff-appellee Mary K. Martin, P.O. Box 300, Orient, OH 43146, for defendant-appellant

Per Curiam. {¶1} This cause came on to be considered upon a notice of appeal, the transcript of the docket and journal entries, the transcript of proceedings and original papers from the Butler County Court of Common Pleas, and upon the brief filed by appellant's counsel. {¶2} Counsel for defendant-appellant, Keith Douglas Harris, Jr., has filed a brief with this court pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), which (1) indicates that a careful review of the record from the proceedings below fails to discloseButler CA2017-09-140 any errors by the trial court prejudicial to the rights of appellant upon which an assignment of error may be predicated; (2) lists two potential errors "that might arguably support the appeal," Anders , at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; (3) requests that this court review the record independently to determine whether the proceedings are free from prejudicial error and without infringement of appellant's constitutional rights; (4) requests permission to withdraw as counsel for appellant on the basis that the appeal is wholly frivolous; and (5) certifies that a copy of both the brief and motion to withdraw have been served upon appellant. {¶3} Having allowed appellant sufficient time to respond, and no response having been received, we have accordingly examined the record and find no error prejudicial to appellant's rights in the proceedings in the trial court. The motion of counsel for appellant requesting to withdraw as counsel is granted, and this appeal is dismissed for the reason that it is wholly frivolous.

S. POWELL, P.J., RINGLAND and M. POWELL, JJ., concur.
SusGlobal Energy Corp. - Exhibit 4.1 - Filed by newsfilecorp.com






 





For Value Received, ______________________________________
hereby sell, assign and transfer unto 

	 	

	 	PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL INSURANCE NUMBER OF
      ASSIGNEE 



	 
	PLEASE PRINT OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND ADDRESS OF ASSIGNEE
  
	 
	 
	 


________________________________________________________________________ 
Shares 
Of the capital stock represented by the within certificate, and do
hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint 


________________________________________________________________________
Attorney,
to transfer the said common shares on the Books of the within-named Corporation,
with full power of substitution in the premises. 


Dated ______________________________________

 

	 	 
	 	 
	 	 
	In the presence of 	 
	 	 
	 	 
	 	 


 

NOTICE: THE SIGNATURE TO THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST CORRESPOND WITH
THE NAME AS WRITTEN UPON THE FACE OF THE CERTIFICATE, IN EVERY PARTICULAR
WITHOUT ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT, OR ANY CHANGE WHATEVER.
#### In the Matter of the Habeas Corpus of George S. BOW, Petitioner, v. R. R. RAINES, Warden, Oklahoma State Penitentiary, Respondent.

No. A-12885.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

June 1, 1960.

*146George S. Bow, petitioner, pro se.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., Lewis A. Wallace, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

This is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by George S. Bow, Petitioner, wherein he contends that he is being unlawfully restrained of his liberty by R. R. Raines, Warden of the Oklahoma State Penitentiary.

The petitioner is being restrained as a result of a certain judgment and sentence of 99 years for the crime of armed robbery, as a second and subsequent offense; said judgment and sentence having been imposed by the District Court of Oklahoma County.

Petitioner bases his first contention for relief upon the grounds that the punishment is excessive. This is a matter for direct appeal and the Court cannot modify except upon appeal. It was said by this Court in the case of Cottrell v. McLeod, Okl.Cr., 342 P.2d 240, 245:

> “Claim that the sentence is excessive cannot be considered in a habeas corpus action.”

Petitioner next contends that the Habitual Criminal Statute authorizing punishment for subsequent conviction (Title 21 O.S.A.1951 § 51) should not be used by the prosecution in capital felonies because there can be no cumulative punishment in a capital case. This question has been passed on by this Court numerous times adverse to petitioner’s contention. See Salisbury v. State, 80 Okl.Cr. 13, 156 P.2d 149; Sheppard v. State, Okl.Cr., 269 P.2d 791.

Petitioner contends that he was denied a fair trial because the county attorney during the course of the trial, pointed an exhibit (a' pistol) at the jury creating an *147emotional stigma in the minds of the jury as to render an unfair verdict. This is a question that should have been raised at the time of trial and determined by direct appeal and relief cannot be sought by method of habeas corpus.

Petitioner states that his court-appointed attorney was incompetent and failed to properly represent him. In absence of proof to the contrary, the Court will presume that an attorney performs his duty in representing a client to the very best of his ability and such contention in absence of proof would be without merit.

The petition in the instant case is not attested and petitioner failed to attach a certified copy of the information and the judgment and sentence. This court laid down the rule in the case of In re Morgan, Okl.Cr., 309 P.2d 1089:

> “In habeas corpus proceedings it is necessary for the petitioner not only to verify his petition, but attach thereto a certified copy of the information and the judgment and sentence of the lower court.”

For the foregoing reasons the writ is denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4277 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 4277

  To ensure that the Federal share of the costs of certain assistance 
  relating to Hurricanes Irma and Maria is 100 percent, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            November 7, 2017

Mr. Gutierrez (for himself and Mr. Espaillat) introduced the following 
    bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and 
                             Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To ensure that the Federal share of the costs of certain assistance 
  relating to Hurricanes Irma and Maria is 100 percent, and for other 
                               purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Waiver of Emergency Payments Act''.

SEC. 2. FEDERAL SHARE OF ASSISTANCE.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, including any 
agreement, the Federal share of assistance, including direct Federal 
assistance, provided for Puerto Rico in connection with Hurricanes Irma 
and Maria under sections 403, 404, 406, 407, and 408 of the Robert T. 
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5170b, 
5170c, 5172, 5173, and 5174) shall be 100 percent of the eligible costs 
under such sections.
                                 <all>
```
#### In the Matter of the Habeas Corpus of Janies Vernon VASSAR, Petitioner.

No. A-12726.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

April 15, 1959.

James Vernon Vassar, pro se.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

This is an original proceeding in habeas corpus filed by James Vernon Vassar to secure his release from confinement in the state penitentiary.

The records before this court show that petitioner was convicted of the crime of second degree burglary after former conviction of a felony in Tulsa County on the 19th day of December, 1956. He lodged his appeal in this court in due time and the case was affirmed on June 11, 1958. Vassar v. State, 328 P.2d 445. This application for a writ of habeas corpus was filed in this court on February 9, 1959. Petitioner now asks for his discharge upon the singular grounds that the petitioner was denied due process in that the information recites a former conviction of the crime of forging conviction being in the Federal court for United States government obligations; said the Northern district of Oklahoma for which petitioner received a sentence of *360three, years in the Federal reformatory at El Reno.

Petitioner contends that his restraint is illegal because the information was defective in that the Federal conviction was in no way a violation of the state statutes, and could not have constituted a basis for a subsequent prosecution. He further contends that the information did not inform as to what was to be defended against affecting the prior Federal conviction.-

A review of petitioner’s appeal before this court shows that in substance the things and matters raised in his application for this writ were raised by direct appeal which was affirmed as heretofore stated.

In such cases this court has consistently refused to entertain a writ of habeas corpus to review matters that could have been raised or were incorporated in a former appeal. This court, in the case of In re Booth, 74 Okl.Cr. 406, 126 P.2d 751. stated:

> “The Criminal Court of Appeals will not issue writ of habeas corpus where accused has appealed his judgment of conviction, the judgment is affirmed and questions raised in habeas corpus proceedings were in existence and known to petitioner at time of appeal and were matters which properly should have been presented by appeal.

> “Criminal Court of Appeals will not permit an accused to appeal his judgment of conviction and speculate upon his chances of securing a reversal and then, after the judgment of conviction is affirmed, come into court in a habeas corpus proceeding and raise the same or other grounds which might entitle the petitioner to a new trial or his release from custody, unless the question raised is such as to show that the judgment is wholly void.”

The writ of habeas corpus is denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
COMPANY'S  ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K FOR THE TWELVE  MONTHS ENDED  DECEMBER 31,
1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000856573
<NAME>                        NORTH AMERICAN VACCINE, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                                 563
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        3,537
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                          3,285
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     8,138
<PP&E>                                              59,825
<DEPRECIATION>                                      40,157
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      33,591
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               15,064
<BONDS>                                            100,326
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                          6,538
<COMMON>                                            90,473
<OTHER-SE>                                       (195,198)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        33,591
<SALES>                                              5,049
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    10,958
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       52,029
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   9,967
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (49,573)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (49,573)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (49,573)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (1.52)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       (1.52)



</TABLE>
18036

#### State v. Jelks

March 18, 1997

Order No. 97-27

Affirmed
# C_2010328EN.01000301.xml

| 4.12.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.12.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 5 October 2010 — European Commission v French Republic

(Case C-512/08) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Article 49 EC - Social security - Medical treatment proposed in another Member State and requiring the use of major medical equipment - Requirement of prior authorisation - Planned treatment provided in another Member State - Difference in the levels of cover in force in the Member State of affiliation and in the Member State of stay, respectively - Insured person’s right to assistance by the competent institution to supplement that of the institution of the Member State of stay)

2010/C 328/04

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: N. Yerrell, G. Rozet and E. Traversa, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: French Republic (represented by: A. Czubinski and G. de Bergues, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Interveners in support of the defendants: Kingdom of Spain (represented by J.M. Rodríguez Cárcamo, acting as Agent), Republic of Finland (represented by A. Guimaraes-Purokoski, acting as Agent), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by I. Rao, and subsequently by S. Ossowski, acting as Agents, assisted by M.-E. Demetriou, Barrister)

Interveners in support of the defendants:

Re:

Re:

Failure to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 49 EC — Requirement of prior authorisation, from the State of insurance, in order to obtain repayment for certain non-hospital treatment received in another Member State — Failure to pay the difference between the amount received by the insured, who receives hospital treatment in a Member State other than the Member State of insurance, and the amount to which he would have been entitled had he received the same treatment in the Member State of insurance — Unjustified obstacles to the freedom to provide services

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs;

| 3. | Orders the Kingdom of Spain, the Republic of Finland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Kingdom of Spain, the Republic of Finland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 44, 21.2.2009.

1

---
IC 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1090 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 17, 2015 

Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

AN ACT 

To amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act to provide eligibility for broadcasting facilities to receive certain disaster assistance, 

and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

S 1090 RFH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Emergency Informa3 tion Improvement Act of 2015’’. 

4 SEC. 2. ELIGIBILITY OF BROADCASTING FACILITIES FOR 

5 CERTAIN DISASTER ASSISTANCE. 

6 (a) PRIVATE NONPROFIT FACILITY DEFINED.—Sec7 tion 102(11)(B) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief 

8 and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122(11)(B)) 

9 is amended by inserting ‘‘broadcasting facilities,’’ after 

10 ‘‘workshops,’’. 

11 (b) CRITICAL SERVICES DEFINED.—Section 

12 406(a)(3)(B) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief 

13 and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5172(a)(3)(B)) 

14 is amended by striking ‘‘communications,’’ and inserting 

15 ‘‘communications (including broadcast and telecommuni16 cations),’’. 

Passed the Senate September 17, 2015. 

Attest: JULIE E. ADAMS, 

Secretary. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 32.2

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 on Form 10-QSB of Advanced Cell Technology, Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended
September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, Ivan Wolkind, Chief Accounting Officer of the Company, hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:





| |  | /s/ IVAN WOLKINDIvan Wolkind
Chief Accounting Officer
| |  | -----------------------------------------------------

---



QuickLinks
#### James NEELY, Petitioner, v. COUNTY ATTORNEY OF CREEK COUNTY, Oklahoma, Respondent.

No. A-12748.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

May 13, 1959.

*792James Neely, petitioner, pro se.

Clyde Patrick, County Atty., Creek County, Sapulpa, for respondent.

POWELL, Presiding Judge.

Petitioner, James Neely, is confined in the State Penitentiary at McAlester, where he is serving a life sentence imposed by judgment of the district court of Tulsa County, where petitioner was convicted on a charge of slaying a Tulsa policeman.

Herein on March 26, 1959, James Neely filed his petition, seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the county attorney of Creek County to either afford him a speedy trial in a case filed in the court of an examining magistrate of Creek County, charging petitioner with the theft of an automobile, or in lieu thereof that said case be ordered dismissed. See Thacker v. Marshall, Okl.Cr., 331 P.2d 488.

The County Attorney of Creek County was ordered to respond, and subsequently the case was set for hearing on April 29, 1959. On March 28, 1959 Clyde Patrick, Esq., County Attorney of Creek County filed a response to said petition, setting up that at no time since January 1, 1951 until the present time had the defendant or anyone representing him made any demand for trial, but rather all demands have been for dismissal of the preliminary information filed before an examining magistrate. But respondent says that immediately upon receipt from this Court of order to respond to the rule to show cause, request was made of the examining magistrate where charge pending to set a day for preliminary hearing, which was made for April 2, 1959, at 10:00 A.M., and subpoena for witnesses issued, and that the district court of Creek County issued order directed to the Warden of the State Penitentiary at McAlester, Oklahoma, to permit the sheriff of Creek County to bring James Neely, No. 47836 to Sapulpa for said hearing, and respondent moved that inasmuch as relief prayed for has been afforded, that the petition be dismissed.

On April 3, 1959 the County Attorney filed herein a statement setting out that when petitioner was confronted with witnesses he waived preliminary hearing, and thereafter entered a plea of guilty in the district court to the charge of larceny of an automobile, and was by the court sentenced to three years in the State Penitentiary at McAlester.

The petition for writ of mandamus is,, in view of such facts, dismissed.

NIX and BRETT, JJ., concur.