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

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 118 (Friday, August 3, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1394-E1395]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      HUDSON HIGHLANDS LAND TRUST AND THE WESTCHESTER LAND TRUST 
                             ACCREDITATION

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. NAN A.S. HAYWORTH

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, August 2, 2012

  Ms. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to recognize the Hudson 
Highlands Land Trust and the Westchester Land Trust for receiving 
accreditation from the Land Trust Accreditation Commission. 
Accreditation represents the highest standard of excellence in land 
conservation, and provides public recognition of land trusts that are 
engaged in the long-term protection of the land in the public interest.
   As a supporter of legislation to make permanent the tax deductions 
for conservation easements, I am committed to working with 
organizations to promote responsible stewardship of our nation's most 
cherished natural resources. The Hudson Highlands Land Trust and the

[[Page E1395]]

Westchester Land Trust have played a crucial role in protecting the 
beauty of our Hudson Valley; preserving biodiversity; and keeping our 
air, water, and public lands for future generations to enjoy.
   Congratulations to the Hudson Highlands Land Trust and Westchester 
Land trust for their dedication and leadership in conserving land for 
the people of New York, and may they continue to enjoy great success in 
the years to come.

                          ____________________
```
EXHIBIT 13.2



906 Certification



Securities and Exchange Commission

450 Fifth Street, N.W

Washington, D.C. 20549



Ladies and Gentlemen:



The
certificate set forth below is being submitted in connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2004, (the Report) for the purpose of complying with the 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.



Han Zhihao, the Chief Financial Officer of Sinopec Shanghai Petrochemical Company Limited, 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 respect, the financial condition and results of operations of Sinopec Shanghai Petrochemical Company
Limited.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: June 27, 2005



By:

/s/ Han ZhihaoName:

Han ZhihaoTitle:

Chief Financial Officer
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATION**     I, Daniel S. Goldberger certify that:     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Xcorporeal, Inc.;     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations, and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:          a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant is made known to us by others within the entity, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;          b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures 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 financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):          a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s abilityto record, process, summarize, and report financial information; and          b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        Date: August 6, 2007 /s/ DANIEL S. GOLDBERGER   Daniel S. Goldberger   President and Chief Operating Officer
# C_2008171EN.01004003.xml

| 5.7.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/40

---

Action brought on 29 April 2008 — Frag Comercio Internacional v OHIM — Tinkerbell Modas (GREEN by missako)

(Case T-162/08)

(2008/C 171/78)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Frag Comercio Internacional, SL (Esparraguera, Spain) (represented by: E. Sugrañes, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Tinkerbell Modas, Ltda (São Paulo, Brazil)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 February 2008 in case R 1527/2006-2; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 February 2008 in case R 1527/2006-2;

| — | reject the application for Community trade mark No 3 663 234; and |
| --- | --- |

—

reject the application for Community trade mark No 3 663 234; and

| — | order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Applicant for the Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘GREEN by missako’ for goods and services in classes 3, 25, 35 — application No 3 663 234

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited: The Community figurative trade mark ‘MI SA KO’ for goods in classes 18 and 25; the national figurative trade mark ‘MI SA KO’ for services in class 35

Mark or sign cited:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Dismissal of the opposition

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as a mere global likelihood of confusion among consumers is required in order to deny a Community trade mark application.

Pleas in law:

---
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4598 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 4598

To amend the Small Business Act to require public communications about 
    disaster assistance resources to be made in multiple languages.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 7, 2017

Ms. Meng (for herself, Ms. Velazquez, Mr. Soto, and Miss Gonzalez-Colon 
 of Puerto Rico) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                    the Committee on Small Business

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Small Business Act to require public communications about 
    disaster assistance resources to be made in multiple languages.

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

SECTION 1. REQUIREMENT FOR PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS ABOUT DISASTER 
              ASSISTANCE RESOURCES TO BE MADE IN MULTIPLE LANGUAGES.

    Section 7(b)(5) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(b)(5)) is 
amended by inserting ``in multiple languages,'' after ``web-based 
outlets,''.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

EASTERN DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

 Respondent 

 v. 

GREGORY SAMUELS, 

 Petitioner 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 446 EAL 2015 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 16th day of November, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of 

Appeal is DENIED.
#### Bella Granovskaya, Respondent, v Igor Shvakhgeyn et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

— In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants Igor Shvakhgeyn and Ilya Shvakhgeyn appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaccaro, J.), dated February 12, 1990, which denied their motion, *inter alia,*to vacate their defaults in appearing at court-ordered depositions.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion by refusing to vacate the appellants’ defaults in appearing at court-ordered depositions *(see, Pines v Muss Dev. Co.,*153 AD2d 555). The record indicates that the appellants’ counsel did not make diligent efforts to secure their appearance, despite the admonition in a prior court order that the failure of any party to appear would result in that party being precluded from offering any testimony in the matter. Moreover, the appellants otherwise failed to proffer a reasonable excuse for their nonappearance. Thompson, J. P., Lawrence, Balletta and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                       3,883,187
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  822,764
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (65,421)
<INVENTORY>                                    666,203
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,454,286
<PP&E>                                       6,132,001
<DEPRECIATION>                             (3,385,628)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              13,446,628
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          416,056
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       154,187
<OTHER-SE>                                  12,734,350
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                13,446,628
<SALES>                                      3,657,646
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,694,966
<CGS>                                        1,376,156
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,376,156
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             6,983,201
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             1,900,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (5,315,462)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (5,315,462)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.35)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.35)


</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Stephan Pierce, Appellant.

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The record fully supports the suppression court’s finding that defendant made an effective waiver of his *Miranda*rights and, therefore, defendant’s motion to suppress oral and written statements to the police was properly denied *(see, People v Williams,*62 NY2d 285; *People v Williams,*174 AD2d 969; *People v Matthews,*148 AD2d 272, 274, *lv dismissed*74 NY2d 950; *People v Bucknor,*140 AD2d 705, *lv denied*72 NY2d 1043).

A review of the record reveals that defendant was not deprived of effective assistance of counsel *(see, People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137, 146-147). Defendant has failed to preserve for our review his contention that the court erred in accepting his guilty plea *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]), and we decline to review that issue in the interest of justice *(see, People v Pellegrino,*60 NY2d 636; *People v Moore,*150 AD2d 807, *lv denied*74 NY2d 815). Moreover, defendant’s narration of the facts forming the basis of the crime pleaded neither casts material doubt upon his guilt nor draws into question the voluntary character of his plea *(see, People v Lopez,*71 NY2d 662, 666). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Marshall, J. — Murder, 2nd Degree.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Green, Pine, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 108 (Wednesday, July 18, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H4918]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                     SEQUESTRATION TRANSPARENCY ACT

  (Mr. WELCH asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. WELCH. Madam Speaker, this afternoon the House is going to take 
up the Sequestration Transparency Act. It's harmless enough, but it 
doesn't do anything. What is it? A year ago, Mr. Boehner and Mr. 
McConnell took this country to the brink of debt default. They demanded 
that we cut spending by $1.2 trillion to offset the increase in the 
debt limit. Now, their plan was to have the supercommittee get the job 
done any way they wanted to balance the cuts and revenues. But if that 
failed, they had a backup. The backup was automatic cuts that would be 
half Pentagon and half discretionary.
  Now the day arrives. January 1, 2013, those cuts go into effect, but 
they don't want the cuts to go into effect. So this legislation tells 
the Congressional Budget Office to look at the law we passed and tell 
us what did we do, why did we do it, what will happen if what we order 
to be done is allowed to be done. This is a ``Comedy Central'' joke. We 
have to have a balanced approach to a serious problem, but that means 
making decisions today about a balanced approach that includes 
revenues, includes the Pentagon, and includes domestic discretionary.

                          ____________________
```
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 118 (Friday, August 3, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1435]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. BEN RAY LUJAN

                             of new mexico

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, August 2, 2012

  Mr. LUJAN. Mr. Speaker, due to an operational issue with the voting 
machine on the House floor, my vote did not register on the passage of 
H.R. 3803 (Rollcall vote No. 539). Had this issue not arisen, I would 
have voted ``no'' on this vote.

                          ____________________
```
UN PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 6990

ANTHONY MOORE , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. WARDEN TIMOTHY STEWART , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Greenbelt

. George Jarrod Hazel , District Judge. ( 8:15

- cv - 02440

- GJH )

Submitted : December 20, 2017 Decided: January 9, 2018

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed as modified by un published per curiam opinion

. Anthony Moore, Appellant Pro Se. Kelly O. Hayes, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit

.2 PER CURIAM: Anthony Moore, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order s dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition and denying his motion to reconsider. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Moore has failed to sati sfy his burden of demonstrating that 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) is an inadequate or ineffective means of challenging the validity of his detention. See Rice v. Rivera , 617 F.3d 802, 807 (4th Cir. 2010); United States v. Poole , 531 F.3d 263, 267 n.7 (4th Cir. 2008). As such, the district court lacked jurisdiction over Moore’s petition. Rice , 617 F.3d at 807. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm the district court’s orders. However,

we modify the dismissal order, Moore v. Stew art , No. 8:15

- cv - 02440

- GJH (D. Md., filed Sept. 15, 2016 & entered Sept. 16, 2016), to reflect a dismissal without pre judice for lack of jurisdiction, and affirm the dismissal as modified, 28 U.S.C. § 2106 (2012). We dispense with oral argument because th e facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED
No. ___________

In the

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

______________________________________

On Appeal from the 22nd Judicial District Court of

Hays County, Texas

Cause Number 12-0006; and the Opinion of the Third Court of Appeals

in Cause Number 03-13-00131-CR, Delivered May 13, 2015

______________________________________

EDWARD GUZMAN

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

_____________________________________

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE

PRO SE PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

______________________________

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF THE COURT OF CRIMINAL 

APPEALS:

COMES NOW, Kristen Jernigan, the undersigned attorney of record for 

Edward Guzman, the Appellant, herein, and files this Motion for Extension of 

Time to File Pro Se Petition for Discretionary Review. As set out below, the 

undersigned respectfully requests a sixty-day extension so that Appellant can file 

his Pro Se Petition for Discretionary Review. In support of said motion, the 

undersigned would show the Court the following:

1. Appellant’s Petition for Discretionary Review is currently due in this 

case on June 12, 2015.

PD-0594-15

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

Transmitted 5/15/2015 3:31:09 PM

Accepted 5/19/2015 2:21:49 PM

ABEL ACOSTA

CLERK
2. Appellant seeks an extension of sixty days in which to file his Petition 

for Discretionary Review, making his Petition due on or before August 11, 2015.

3. The undersigned counsel will not be representing Appellant after the 

filing of this motion. Appellant will now have to obtain and review the record in 

order to prepare and file a Pro Se Petition for Discretionary Review. The 

undersigned believes that there is insufficient time between now and June 12, 

2015, to accomplish those goals. Consequently, the undersigned respectfully 

requests that the Court grant Appellant the additional time.

4. The undersigned has not filed any previous motions for extension of 

time in this case.

5. For the reasons set forth above, the undersigned respectfully requests 

that Appellant be granted an extension of sixty days so that his brief in this case 

will now be due on August 11, 2015.

PRAYER

 WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the undersigned

respectfully requests that this Court grant this Motion for Extension of Time to File 

Pro Se Petition for Discretionary Review.

Respectfully submitted,

_______/s/__Kristen Jernigan______

KRISTEN JERNIGAN

State Bar Number 90001898

207 S. Austin Ave.

Georgetown, Texas 78626

(512) 904-0123

(512) 931-3650 (fax)

Kristen@txcrimapp.com
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the 

foregoing Appellant’s Motion for Extension of Time has been mailed to the Hays

County District Attorney’s 712 Stagecoach, San Marcos, Texas 78666 on May 15, 

2015.

__/s/ Kristen Jernigan__________________

Kristen Jernigan
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

November 29, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

128521 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

RIVER CITY CONSTRUCTION, INC., Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices 

v SC: 128521 

 COA: 250721 

Oakland CC: 2001-034304-CK 

ABC PAVING COMPANY, 

Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff/

Cross-Plaintiff/Appellant, 

v 

COMMERCE CHARTER TOWNSHIP, 

Third-Party Defendant and 

Cross-Defendant/Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 15, 2005 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

p1121 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

November 29, 2005 

Clerk
# C_2011030EN.01005602.xml

| 29.1.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 30/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.1.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 30/56

---

Order of the General Court of 16 November 2010 — Regione autonoma della Sardegna and Others v Commission

(Joined Cases T-394/08, T-408/08, T-436/08, T-453/08 and T-454/08) (1)

1

()

2011/C 30/99

Language of the case: Italian

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

---

(1)  OJ C 285, 8.11.2008.

1

---