alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

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 Quarterly Report of Silesia Enterprises, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2002, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of the
undersigned's knowledge, 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.


8/19/02                                    /s/ Gerry Martin
---------------                            -------------------------------------
Date                                       President and Chief Executive Officer

8/19/02                                    /s/ Gerry Martin
---------------                            -------------------------------------
Date                                       Principal Financial Officer
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4853 

To require FERC to examine certain hydropower licences. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 19, 2018 

Mr. BABIN (for himself, Mr. WEBER of Texas, and Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana) 

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To require FERC to examine certain hydropower licences. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Commonsense Flood 

5 Prevention Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EXAMINATION OF LICENSES FOR CERTAIN 

7 PROJECTS LOCATED IN DISASTER AREAS. 

8 Not later than one year after the date of enactment 

9 of this Act, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

10 shall examine each license issued by the Commission under 

11 part I of the Federal Power Act for the following projects: 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4853 IH

1 (1) Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

2 project numbered 2305. 

3 (2) Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

4 project numbered 12362. 

Æ 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
#### Elehue Amos HALEY, Plaintiff in Error, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Defendant in Error.

No. A-12203.

Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma.

Nov. 2, 1955.

*178S. S. Lawrence, Tulsa, for plaintiff in error.

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

POWELL, Judge.

Elehue Amos Haley was convicted in the Municipal Criminal Court' of the City of Tulsa of operating a motor vehicle over and upon a public highway in Tulsa, while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. The jury assessed punishment at 90 days confinement in-the city jail of Tulsa, Oklahoma.

While some six grounds of error are set up in the petition in error, on oral argument we were not convincingly advised of any circumstance amounting to reversible error. The chief complaint was that the punishment assessed was excessive.

We have carefully read the entire record. The prosecution used five witnesses, and conclusively showed that the def end-ant was driving a motor vehicle upon the streets of the city of Tulsa at the time charged while he was in a state of intoxication. A breath test given defendant disclosed an alcoholic content of 0.24. Defendant’s vehicle dented the fender of a car parked at the curb on Harvard Street, Tulsa. Defendant later refused to stop his car, but his pathway was blocked and his arrest followed. Defendant did not testify, and offered no evidence.

We note that defendant was in a line of traffic where the cars were bumper-to-bumper. He was driving an old model car. At best the handling of the car so as not to dent fenders of parked cars was a problem. One needed all his faculties functioning at.their best in order to drive safely. Defendant must pay the penalty for his error. Intoxicated drivers account for a large portion of the fatal accidents on the highways of this State and Nation. The sentence of 90 days as a deterrent is, under the repord, found to be excessive by 30 days, and the verdict and judgment is modified to 60 days imprisonment in the jail of the city of Tulsa.

As so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

JONES, P. J., and BRETT, J.,'concur.
THE STATE EX REL. THOMAS, APPELLANT, V. MONEY, WARDEN, APPELLEE. 

[Cite as State ex rel. Thomas v. Money (1997), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.] 

Habeas corpus not available to challenge either sentencing errors or the validity 

or sufficiency of an indictment — Habeas corpus not available when 

petitioner has adequate remedy at law by way of appeal. 

 (No. 97-1463 — Submitted December 3, 1997 — Decided December 31, 

1997.) 

 APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Marion County, No. 9-97-32. 

 In 1989, appellant, Ralph Thomas, was convicted of several offenses, 

including theft, and was sentenced accordingly. In 1997, Thomas filed a petition 

in the Court of Appeals for Marion County for a writ of habeas corpus to compel 

his immediate release from prison. Thomas claimed that the sentence for his theft 

conviction was unlawful and that his indictments were invalid because they did 

not contain a theft charge. Thomas subsequently moved for leave to amend his 

petition to add a claim that he was not present when sentenced by the trial court. 

The court of appeals granted Thomas’s motion but dismissed the petition, as 

amended. 

 The cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of right. 

__________________ 

Ralph Thomas, pro se. 

Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Donald Gary Keyser, 

Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. 

__________________ 

Per Curiam. Thomas asserts in his propositions of law that the court of 

appeals erred by dismissing his habeas corpus petition. Thomas contends that the 
 2

sentence for his theft conviction is void based on the claims he raised in the court 

of appeals. 

 The court of appeals, however, correctly dismissed the petition. Habeas 

corpus is not available to challenge either sentencing errors or the validity or 

sufficiency of an indictment. State ex rel. Massie v. Rogers (1997), 77 Ohio St.3d 

449, 449-450, 674 N.E.2d 1383; Smith v. Seidner (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 172, 173, 

677 N.E.2d 336. These claims can be raised on direct appeal. Massie and Smith. 

Similarly, Thomas had an adequate remedy by appeal to raise his remaining claim 

that he was not present at his sentencing. See, e.g., State v. Welch (1978), 53 Ohio 

St.2d 47, 7 O.O.3d 128, 372 N.E.2d 346. 

 Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. 

Judgment affirmed.

 MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and

LUNDBERG STRATTON,JJ., concur.
<PAGE>
 

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23
 
              CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

Advanced Deposition Technologies, Inc.
Taunton, Massachusetts

     We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration
statements of Advanced Deposition Technologies, Inc on Form S-8, dated December
11, 1996 (SEC file No. 333-17653), on Form S-8, dated April 24, 1997 (SEC file
No. 333-25801), and on Form S-3, dated May 9, 1996 (SEC file No. 033-98400), of
our report dated March 6, 1998, relating to the consolidated financial
statements of Advanced Deposition Technologies, Inc., appearing in the Company's
Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 1997.

                                             /s/ BDO Seidman, LLP

                                             Boston, Massachusetts
                                             April 3, 1998
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-41037

In the Matter of: ASARCO, L.L.C.,

Debtor

--------------------------------------------------

MERITAIN HEALTH, INC.,

Appellant

v.

ASARCO, L.L.C.,

Appellee

--------------------------------------------------

Consolidated With

Case No. 12-41047

In the Matter of: ASARCO, L.L.C.; ET AL,

Debtor

--------------------------------------------------

ASARCO, L.L.C.; ET AL, Debtor in Possession,

Appellee

v.

SCRIP WORLD, L.L.C.,

Appellant

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 11, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 12-41037 Document: 00512270449 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/11/2013
No. 12-41037

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC Nos. 2:11-CV-225 & 2:11-CV-228

Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

AFFIRMED. See 5TH CIR. R. 47.6.

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

2

 Case: 12-41037 Document: 00512270449 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/11/2013
#### Guy T. HELVERING, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Petitioner on Review, v. A. B. BETZ, Respondent on Review.

No. 8416.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Oct. 9, 1939.

Samuel O. Clark, Jr., J. P. Wenchel, and Sewall Key, all of Washington, D. C., for petitioner.

James A. Farrell, of Cleveland, Ohio, £qj* respondent,

Before HICKS and SIMONS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of a stipulation to docket and dismiss the petition to review the decision of the United States Board of Tax Appeals entered in said cause, executed on behalf of both the respondent on review and the petitioner on review, to which is attached a certificate of the clerk of said Board, showing that the petition to review was duly filed with said Board, it is ordered that the above-entitled cause be by the clerk of this court docketed, and that the said petition to review be, and the same is hereby dismissed.

It is further ordered that the clerk of this court forthwith transmit a certified copy of this order to the clerk of the United States Board of Tax Appeals at Washington, D. C.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 127 (Wednesday, September 19, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Page S6393]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                              S E N A T E

Vol. 158

WASHINGTON, WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 2012

No. 127
```
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S

N O . A P - 7 6 , 8 7 5

I N R E S T A T E O F T E X A S E X R E L . M A R K S K U R K A , R e l a t o r ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF M ANDAM US

CAUSE NO. 0 2
- C R - 1 2 8 9
- D I N T H E 1 0 5 D I S T R I C T C O U R T O F N U E C E S C O U N T Y

T H

P e r c u r i a m . O P I N I O N

R el ator has filed a motion for leave to file a writ of mandamus pursuant to the orig i n al jurisdiction of this Court. He reque sts that this Court order the district court to vacate its order which direc ted Relator to prepa

re a judgme nt stating that rea l party in interest, Br andon Coronado, be not convicted of the underly ing offe nse and that the district court hold a new sentenc ing hear ing pursuant to this C ourt’s opinion in AP-76,787 delivere d May 2, 2012. On J uly 26, 2012, this Court held this application in abey ance and order ed the Honora ble Ang elica E. Her

nandez to respond. J udg e Her nandez stated that she believed this Court’s opiniontook Coronado back to the time of the motion to adjudicate g uilt and that she was acting in

compliance with this Court’s opinion. The opinion of May 2 , 2 0 1 2 v acated only Coronado’s
sentenc e, not the adjudication of g uilt, there fo re J u d g e Her nandez’s order to dismiss the char g es ag ainst Coronado is contra ry to the previous opinion issued by this Court. We c onditionally g rant mandamus relief and direc t the Respondent to: ( 1) vacate her order
to dismiss char g es ag ainst Coronado, and; (2) hold a sentenc ing hear ing to sentenc e Coronado to a term of y ear s within the applicable punishment rang e of the offe nse in compliance with this Court’s May 2 opinion in the underly ing case . The writ of mandamus wi ll issue only in the event the

n d Respondent fa ils to comply within thirty

day s of the date of this opinion.
Filed: September

12, 2012 Do not publish
Amendment to Morgan Stanley 401(k) Plan



 Exhibit 10.1 
 AMENDMENT TO THE 
  
 MORGAN STANLEY 401(k) PLAN 
  
 Morgan Stanley
& Co. Incorporated (the “Corporation”) hereby amends the Morgan Stanley 401(k) Plan (the “Plan”), effective February 10, 2005, as follows: 
  
 1. Appendix B of the Plan, Morgan Stanley Participating Companies, shall be amended by adding the following paragraph to the
end thereof: 
  
 “The Barra, Inc. 401(k) Plan (the
“Barra Plan”) shall be merged with and into the Plan effective February 10, 2005. The contributions, benefits and other rights of Participants in the Barra Plan with respect to the period prior to such merger are determined under the terms
of the Barra Plan as in effect prior to its merger with the Plan. Any person who was covered under the Barra Plan prior to its merger with the Plan and who was entitled to benefits under the provisions of the Barra Plan as in effect prior to its
merger with the Plan shall continue to be entitled to the same amount of accrued benefits without change under the Plan; provided, however, that effective February 10, 2005 for benefits with annuity starting dates beginning on or after
February 10, 2005, the forms of distribution (including for these purposes the time, manner and medium of distribution) available with respect to such accrued benefits shall be the forms of distribution available under the otherwise applicable
provisions of the Morgan Stanley 401(k) Plan plus any other forms of distribution that were available under the Barra Plan immediately prior to February 10, 2005 and that may not be eliminated under Code section 411(d)(6).” 
  
 2. It is intended that this Amendment satisfy any further determination or
approval required under the terms of the Barra Plan with respect to the merger of the Barra Plan with and into the Plan. 
  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused this Amendment to be executed on its behalf as of this 2nd day of February, 2005. 
  

			
	MORGAN STANLEY & CO. INCORPORATED
		
	By:	 	 /s/ KAREN JAMESLEY
<PAGE>   1

                                                                  Exhibit 23 (a)


                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

The Board of Directors
Purina Mills, Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No.
333-45806) on Form S-8 of Purina Mills, Inc. of our report dated February 13,
2001, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Purina Mills, Inc. and
Subsidiaries as of December 31, 2000 and 1999, and the related consolidated
statements of operations, stockholders' equity (deficit), and cash flows for the
six month period ended December 31, 2000, the six month period ended June 30,
2000, the year ended December 31, 1999 and the period March 13, 1998 through
December 31, 1998, which report appears in the December 31, 2000 Annual Report
on Form 10-K of Purina Mills, Inc.

/s/ KPMG LLP
St. Louis, Missouri
March 26, 2001



                                       63
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 4.11


                           SHORT TERM PROMISSORY NOTE

US$25,000.00                                                    October 3, 2005

         FOR VALUE RECEIVED, Voyager One, Inc. promises to pay to the order of
Quest Manufacturing, Inc. at such place as the holder of this Note may from time
to time designate, the principal sum of Twenty Five Thousand and 00/100 Dollars
(US$25,000.00) together with simple interest at the rate of six percent (6) per
annum on the principal balance.

         The note matures and becomes due anytime on demand. The amount of the
payment shall be an amount equal to the outstanding principal and unpaid
interest.

         All payments on account of the indebtedness evidenced by this note
shall be first applied to interest on the unpaid principal balance and the
remainder to principal.

         All parties to this note severally waive presentment for payment,
notice of dishonor, protest and notice of protest.

         This note shall be effective October 3, 2005 regardless of when it is
signed.

   "Payor"                                "Payee"

Voyager One, Inc.                   Quest Manufacturing, Inc.
859 West End Court                  2503 Spring Ridge Drive-Unit F
Suite I                             Spring Grove, IL 60081
Vernon Hills, IL 60061              Phone: (815) 675-2442
Phone: 847-984-6200                 Fax: (815) 675-3109
Fax: 847-984-6201

BY: /S/ SEBASTIEN C. DUFORT         BY: /S/ JOHN A. LICHTER
---------------------------         --------------------------------------
SIGNATURE & DATE                    SIGNATURE & DATE
SEBASTIEN C. DUFORT                 JOHN A. LICHTER
PRESIDENT                           CEO
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13

- 60161 Summary Calendar

WILLIAM H. OLIVER , Plaintiff

- Appellant /Cross

- Appellee , v.
BANKFIRST , Defendant

- Appellee , BILL SKINNER , Defendant

- Appellee , Cross

Appellant.

Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 4:09

- CV

- 29

Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK , and HIGGINSON , Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
P ro se p laintiff William H. Oliver appeals from the dismissal , much earlier in this proceeding, of all his claims relating to the defendants’ actions

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED January 16, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 13-60161 Document: 00512503248 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/16/2014No. 1 3

- 60161
concerning Oliver’s former property following a foreclosure sale

. Oliver’s brief, such as it is, consists of a short series of conclusory statements without any le gal or factual anal ysis. “Failure to provide any legal or factual analysis of an issue results in waiver.” 1 While we construe pro se briefs liberally, pro

se plaintiffs are still required to adequately brief issues for review

. 2 Accordingly, we dismiss Oliver’s appeal. Defendant

- appellee and cross

- appellant Bill Skinner appeals from the district court’ s judgment, following a bench trial, dismissing Skinner’s counterclaims, including abuse of process, attorney’s fees, costs, sanctions, and injunctive relief. As Skinner concedes in his brie f, our review on these issues is for abuse of discretion, and our review of the facts is limited to clear error. 3 We find no abuse of discretion or clear error in any part of the district court’s order supporting its final judgment. 4 We specifically note that the district court granted Skinner’s motion for Rule 11 sanctions and imposed sanctions in the amount of $250 against Oliver. 5 We will not upset this award. Accordingly, we affirm the final judgment of the district court.

1 American States Ins. Co. v. Bailey , 133 F.3d 363, 372 (5th Cir. 1998).

2 See G rant v. Cuellar , 59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir. 1995).

3 See United States v. Mississippi , 921 F.2d 604, 609 (5th Cir. 1991).

4 See Oliver v. Skinner , No. 4:09

- CV

- 29

- CWR

- LRA, 2013 WL 667664 (S.D. Miss. Feb. 22, 2013).

5 Id.

2 Case: 13-60161 Document: 00512503248 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/16/2014
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 128 (Thursday, September 20, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H6161]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                              {time}  1200
                              AFTER RECESS

  The recess having expired, the House was called to order by the 
Speaker at noon.

                          ____________________
```
Map Created: July 2018

Data Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 

American Community Survey, 2012–2016

High School Completion Rates in Appalachia, 2012–2016

(County Rates)

A high school completion rate is the percentage of persons ages 

25 and over with a high school diploma or more. The map uses 

natural breaks in the distribution to organize the data into groups 

of common values. 

0 50 100

Miles

GEORGIA

ALABAMA

MISSISSIPPI

SOUTH

CAROLINA

NORTH CAROLINA

VIRGINIA

WEST

VIRGINIA

KENTUCKY

OHIO ILLINOIS INDIANA

WISCONSIN

MICHIGAN

DE

NJ PENNSYLVANIA

MARYLAND

NEW YORK

TENNESSEE

58.5% - 73.4%

73.5% - 80.1%

80.2% - 85.9%

86.0% - 94.5%

Completion Rate

U.S. average = 87.0%

Appalachian average = 85.9%

(Natural Breaks Classification)
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

June 26, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 133534 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 133534 

 COA: 265378 
 Wayne CC: 05-004056-01

DEMARZE LAMONT MOORE,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 27, 2007 

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. 

d0618 

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. 

June 26, 2007 

 Clerk