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

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 117 (Thursday, August 2, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5686]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                        SECURING ONLINE PRIVACY

  (Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia asked and was given permission to address the 
House for 1 minute.)
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. I've got a cell phone somewhere around here. 
Here it is. I'm going to ask:
  Is this a tracking device or is there somebody in this device who is 
taking my photographs? my videos? my treasured personal stuff like 
that--my address book?
  What is this?
  It is something that we need to be smart about. Smart government 
policies should ensure our data isn't improperly collected, sold, and 
exploited; but what we've learned from SOPA is that we tried to shove 
legislation down the public's throat, and we failed. We learned we'd 
better consult the folks who use the Internet before we regulate it.
  That's why, last week, I launched AppRights.us. Using the Web and 
social media, we are asking what smart policy looks like before we 
write a bill. We are using the Internet to make sure we don't break the 
Internet.
  Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues and the public to visit 
AppRights.us and to send their thoughts and concerns. Tell Congress how 
we can do a better job of securing your privacy.

                          ____________________
```
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, David Ayres, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Prism Software
Corporation;

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue
statement of 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 annual report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual 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 annual report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

         a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 annual report is being prepared;

         b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our 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 that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.


5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, 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 in the design or operation of internal
controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

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


Date: March 31, 2006                                 /S/ DAVID AYRES
                                                     ---------------------
                                                     David Ayres, President
**Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 20 November 2008 – Commission v Spain**

**(Case C‐94/08)**

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Posts of ship’s captain and chief mate – Nationality clause

1.                     *Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of the merits by the Court – Situation to be taken into consideration
– Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 19)*

2.                     *Member States – Obligations – Failure to fulfil obligations – National system pleaded as justification – Not permissible (Art.
226 EC) (see para. 21)*

3.                     *Freedom of movement for persons – Workers – National legislation reserving the posts of captain and chief mate on all vessels
flying the flag of a Member State, other than merchant ships with a gross tonnage of less than 100 GT which carry cargo or
fewer than 100 passengers, to nationals (Art. 39 EC) (see para. 23, operative part)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Article 39 EC – Requirement of Spanish nationality for persons occupying the posts of captain and chief mate on certain ships flying the Spanish flag – Incompatibility with Community law. |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Declares that in requiring in its legislation Spanish nationality for persons occupying the posts of ship’s captain and chief mate of all vessels flying the Spanish flag other than merchant ships with a gross tonnage of less than 100 GT, which carry cargo or fewer than 100 passengers and operate exclusively between ports or points situated in areas in which the Kingdom of Spain has sovereignty, sovereign rights or jurisdiction, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Community law and, in particular, under Article 39 EC; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs. |
Filed 5/7/15 P. v. Trujillo CA4/1 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS 

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for 

publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

DIVISION ONE 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

THE PEOPLE, 

 Plaintiff and Respondent, 

 v. 

JESSE OMAR TRUJILLO, 

 Defendant and Appellant. 

 

 D066180 

 (Super. Ct. No. SCD235443) 

 APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, 

Timothy R. Walsh, Judge. Affirmed. 

 Patrick J. Hennessey, Jr., under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for 

Defendant and Appellant. 

 No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. 

In October 2012, the San Diego County grand jury indicted Jesse Omar 

Trujillo and two codefendants of numerous charges related to a scheme where the 

men used stolen identities to purchase two homes. Trujillo pleaded guilty to one 

count each of conspiracy to commit grand theft (count 1), using personal identifying 
2 

information of another (count 2) and forgery of documents (count 4). He also 

pleaded guilty to two counts of filing a false instrument (counts 8, 17) and admitted 

an allegation that the loss to the victims was more than $500,000. It was agreed 

Trujillo would receive a five-year prison term. 

The trial court later sentenced Trujillo to the upper term of three years in 

prison on count 1, a two-year term for the enhancement, and concurrent midterms 

of two years on the remaining charges. Trujillo received credit for four days of 

presentence custody. The court imposed a number of fines and fees and ordered 

joint restitution to the victim in the amount of $653,421.45. Trujillo timely 

appealed. The court later granted Trujillo's request for issuance of a certificate of 

probable cause. 

DISCUSSION 

Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and 

proceedings below. He presented no argument for reversal, but asked this court to 

review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 

(Wende). We granted Trujillo permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has 

not responded. 

 Our review of the record pursuant to Wende has disclosed no reasonably 

arguable issues on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Trujillo on this 

appeal. 
3 

DISPOSITION 

 The judgment is affirmed. 

 MCINTYRE, J. 

WE CONCUR: 

MCCONNELL, P. J. 

HUFFMAN, J.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6933
SWINDELL BROWN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus NORTH CAROLINA ATTORNEY GENERAL; CHARLES M. CREECY, Respondents - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. Paul Trevor Sharp, Magistrate Judge. (CA-96-933-1) Submitted: October 20, 1997 Decided: November 12, 1997 Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Swindell Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* The parties consented to the exercise of jurisdiction by a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) (1994). 2 PER CURIAM: Appellant filed an untimely notice of appeal. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The time periods for filing notices of appeal are governed by Fed. R. App. P. 4. These periods are "mandatory and jurisdictional." Browder v. Director, Dep't of Corrections , 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson , 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). Parties to civil actions have thirty days within which to file in the district court notices of appeal from judgments or final orders. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1). The only exceptions to the appeal period are when the district court extends the time to appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). The magistrate judge entered his order on April 1, 1997; *Appellant's notice of appeal was filed on June 27, 1997. Appellant's failure to file a timely notice of appeal leaves this court without jurisdiction to consider the merits of Appellant's appeal. We therefore deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense withoral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED3
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis Panel; Exercise training in older adults and the physiologic and functional responses.                    

*Date:*                         February 21, 2024.                    

*Time:*                         10:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Nesar Uddin Akanda, Ph.D., M.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch, National Institute on Aging, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Gateway Bldg., Suite 2E405, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 594-8984,                         *nesar.akanda@nih.gov*.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: December 15, 2023.

Miguelina Perez, 

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2023-28025 Filed 12-20-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
# C_2020320EN.01002302.xml

| 28.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 320/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 320/23

---

Order of the President of the Court of 23 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — VZ v Eurowings GmbH

(Case C-880/19) (1)

(2020/C 320/51)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 87, 16.3.2020.

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Phyllis D. Field, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Winick, J.), rendered July 2, 1990, convicting her of leaving the scene of an incident without reporting as a felony, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

This case was previously before us upon the People’s appeal from so much of an order of the County Court, Nassau County, as granted that branch of the defendant’s post-verdict motion which was to dismiss the indictment. This court reversed the order to the extent appealed from, denied that branch of the defendant’s motion, and reinstated the jury verdict *(see, People v Field,*161 AD2d 660). Pursuant to this court’s decision and order, the matter was remitted to the County Court for the imposition of sentence. This appeal from the judgment of conviction ensued.

We reject the defendant’s contention that because she returned to the scene of the accident and reported to the police, *292her guilt of leaving the scene of an incident in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 600 (2) (a) was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620, 621), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The People presented eyewitness testimony that the defendant accelerated after hitting the victim. The eyewitness followed her and caught up to her at a stop light. He asked her where she was going, and told her she had just hit someone. The defendant made an immediate U-turn, and, upon reaching the corner where the accident took place, drove in the opposite direction of the scene. Both the eyewitness trial testimony, and the defendant’s own Grand Jury testimony, agree that the police had arrived on the scene when the defendant turned away from the accident, and drove off. The defendant did not report to the police, but drove to a delicatessen and telephoned her husband. Only after speaking to her husband did the defendant return to the scene. Under these circumstances, we find that the jury could reasonably conclude that the defendant did not voluntarily return to the scene, but merely realized that she had been identified, and had no choice but to return. Additionally, the jury could reasonably determine that the defendant did not notify the police "as soon as [she was] physically able” (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 600 [2] [a]). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are also satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15 [5]).

We have examined the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be largely unpreserved for appellate review *(see, People v Williams,*46 NY2d 1070), or to the extent they are preserved, we find them to be without merit, or harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence against the defendant *(see, People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230). Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32

Certification of Periodic Financial Report

by the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, we, the undersigned Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of BioLargo, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certify, based on our knowledge, that Amendment No. 1 to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 (the
"Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.



|                   |  |     |  |                        
|------------------ |  | --- |  | -----------------------
|Date: May 21, 2007 |  | By: |  | /s/ Dennis Calvert     
|                   |  |     |  | Dennis Calvert         
|                   |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer
|                   |  |    
|Date: May 21, 2007 |  | By: |  | /s/ Dennis Calvert     
|                   |  |     |  | Dennis Calvert         
|                   |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1103 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1103

 To reinstate and extend the deadline for commencement of construction 
         of a hydroelectric project involving Clark Canyon Dam.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 27, 2015

    Mr. Daines (for himself, Mr. Tester, Mr. Risch, and Mr. Crapo) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
               Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To reinstate and extend the deadline for commencement of construction 
         of a hydroelectric project involving Clark Canyon Dam.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF TIME FOR A FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION 
              PROJECT INVOLVING CLARK CANYON DAM.

    Notwithstanding the time period described in section 13 of the 
Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806) that would otherwise apply to the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission project numbered 12429, the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (referred to in this section as 
the ``Commission'') shall, at the request of the licensee for the 
project, and after reasonable notice and in accordance with the 
procedures of the Commission under that section, reinstate the license 
and extend the time period during which the licensee is required to 
commence construction of project works for the 3-year period beginning 
on the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### Jack TREADWAY, Plaintiff in Error, v. STATE of Oklahoma, Defendant in Error.

No. A-12761.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

Nov. 10, 1959.

*954Cecil E. F. Robertson, Muskogee, for plaintiff in error.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., Sam H. Lattimore, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.

POWELL, Presiding Judge.

Jack Treadway was charged in the county court of Muskogee County with illegal possession of seven bottles of tax-paid intoxicating liquor. A jury was waived and defendant was tried before the Court, convicted and his punishment assessed at a fine of $100, and confinement in the county jail for a period of sixty days. Appeal was duly perfected to this Court.

Although several extensions of time were given, defendant has not filed a brief in this Court. Counsel waived oral argument and the case has been submitted on the record. Under such circumstances; it is the duty of the Court to examine the pleadings, and record, and if no prejudicial error appears, to affirm the judgment.

Such an examination has been made of the record herein, and we find no prejudicial error entitling defendant to-a reversal of. this cause. The judgment is, accordingly, affirmed. Chambers v. State, *97*Okl.Cr. 407, 265 P.2d 506.

NIX and BRETT, JJ., concur.
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-20-00071-CR

SHEILA DEANN WRIGHT,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 52nd District Court

Coryell County, Texas

Trial Court No. 16-23626

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Sheila Deann Wright appeals her conviction for exploitation of a child, or an 

elderly or disabled individual. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §32.53. Because the trial court's 

certificate of right of appeal that Wright signed indicates Wright has waived her right to 

appeal, this appeal must be dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d) ("The appeal must be 

dismissed if a certification that shows the defendant has the right of appeal has not been 

made part of the record under these rules."); Monreal v. State, 99 S.W.3d 615, 622 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2003) (waiver of appeal).
Wright v. State Page 2

Notwithstanding that this appeal must be dismissed, Wright may file a motion for 

rehearing with this Court within 15 days after this opinion and judgment are rendered if 

Wright believes this opinion and judgment are erroneously based on inaccurate 

information or documents. See TEX. R. APP. P. 49.1. Moreover, if Wright desires to have 

the opinion and judgment of this Court reviewed by filing a petition for discretionary 

review, that petition must be filed with the Court of Criminal Appeals within 30 days 

after either the day this Court's judgment is rendered or the day the last timely motion 

for rehearing is overruled by this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2(a).

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Neill

Appeals dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed February 26, 2020

Do not publish 

[CR25]