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

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1706

To increase the amount authorized to be appropriated for assistance for

highway relocation with respect to the Chickamauga and Chattanooga

National Military Park in Georgia, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

APRIL 25, 1996

Mr. NUNN (for himself and Mr. COVERDELL) introduced the following bill;

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

A BILL

To increase the amount authorized to be appropriated for

assistance for highway relocation with respect to the

Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Military Park

in Georgia, 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,

3 SECTION 1. ASSISTANCE FOR HIGHWAY RELOCATION IN

4 GEORGIA.

5 Section 1(c) of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act to authorize

6 and direct the National Park Service to assist the State

7 of Georgia in relocating a highway affecting the Chicka8 mauga and Chattanooga National Military Park in Geor-
2

•S 1706 IS

1 gia’’, approved December 24, 1987 (Public Law 100–211;

2 101 Stat. 1442), is amended by striking ‘‘$30,000,000’’

3 and inserting ‘‘$51,900,000’’.

Æ
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
CALLISTO PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31, 2010
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I am the Chief Executive Officer of Callisto Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"). I am delivering this
certificate in connection with the Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2010 and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
("Form 10-Q").

Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the
Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the
Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: May 17, 2010

/s/ GARY S. JACOB Gary S. Jacob Chief Executive Officer


---



QuickLinks
Exhibit 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of In Veritas Medical Diagnostics,  Inc.
(the  "Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the  quarter  ended April 30, 2006 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I, John Fuller, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

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



June 19, 2006                              /s/ John Fuller
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           John Fuller
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer
---

---

EXHIBIT 12.4

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the Annual Report of Elbit Vision Systems Ltd. (the Company)
on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Yaron Menashe, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

| | 1. | the
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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.
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|March 31, 2008 |  | /s/ Yaron Menashe
Yaron MenasheChief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer
|-------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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



---

---
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1
                                                                                



                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

     As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation
of our report dated March 10, 1999, included in this Form 10-KSB, into Online
System Services, Inc.'s previously filed Registration Statement (File No. 333-
13983) on Form S-8, Registration Statement (File No. 333-03282-D) on Form S-3,
Registration Statement (File No. 333-58653) on Form S-3, Registration Statement
(File No. 333-69477) on Form S-3 and Registration Statement (File No. 333-71503)
on Form S-3.



Arthur Andersen LLP
Denver, Colorado
April 15, 1999.
## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02 - 15 - 00146 - CR

EX PARTE GARY DON TA YLOR

---------- FROM THE 371ST DISTR ICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY TRIAL COURT NO. C

- 371

- 009717

- 1201358

- A

---------- 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

---------- Appell ant is attempting to appeal from the court of criminal appeals’s 2013 denial of his postconviction application for writ of habeas corpus

. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07 (West 2015 ). Appellant has not responded to this court’s May 14, 2015 lett er questioning our jurisdiction over such an attempted appeal, nor have we found any authority allowing such an appeal. See, e.g. , id. § 5 (“ After conviction the procedure outlined in this Act shall be exclusive and any other proceeding shall be void and of no force and effect in discharging the

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2 prisoner. ”); Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals , 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (orig. proceeding) (holding that court of appeals usurped court of criminal appeals’s exclusive authority to grant habeas rel ief from final felony conviction ); cf. Padieu v. Court of Appeals of Tex., Fifth Dist. , 392 S.W.3d 115,
117

– 18 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (orig. proceeding) (contrasting court of appeals’s authority to rule on matters potentially related to forthcoming, but no t pending, 11.07 application with the court of criminal appeals’s exclusive jurisdiction to grant postconviction relief) . Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. PER CURIAM PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; DAUPHINOT and GARDNER, JJ. DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: July 30, 2015
#### Alexander GEE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Donald J. RAFFERTY; et al., Defendants, and Star Bank N A, Nominal defendants, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 02-55631.

D.C. No. CV-01-10907-SVW.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 13, 2003.*

Decided Jan. 22, 2003.

Before BEEZER, KLEINFELD, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, we deny Gee’s request for oral argument.

MEMORANDUM **

Alexander Gee appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing his class action, which alleged a bankruptcy court judge’s orders in a prior bankruptcy court action violated due process. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, *Wyler Summit P’ship v. Turner Broad. Sys. Inc.,*135 F.3d 658, *466661 (9th Cir.1998), and we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Swanson, Brian (OST) txrr-o^r'^oO'G-^-^-b 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Subject: 

Devany, Dennis (OST) 

Thursday, January 12, 2012 1:24 PM 

Swanson, Brian (OST) 

Fw: Answers to Pacific Wings 

•I L / ! > i-':UiVO 

ill •~> r ~ , l-'29 

From: David Ainoa0)nps.gov rmailto:David Ainoa(g)nps.gov] 

Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2012 12:57 PM 

To: Devany, Dennis (OST) 

Subject: Answers to Pacific Wings 

I support l^akani Kai 100%, I have used them twice and and it was a pleasure. 

Pacific Wings is, in my opinion a vindictive company that bullies and weasels in their 

way of business. 

I^ahalo Dave Ainoa
#### Francis Parker, *Plaintiff in Error,*v. The State of Florida, *Defendant in Error.*

Opinion filed July 13, 1915.

1. Where a letter written by the witness and put in evidence indicates a hostile attitude of the witness to the defendant, it was in this case harmless, if error, to exclude a question . asked the witness as to whether she was unfriendly to the accused.

2. Requested instructions may properly be refused if they are incorrect or are covered by charges given.

.5. Where the record proper shows that the defendant “on being arraigned plead not guilty,” and affidavits of the jurors state that the indictment was read when the defendant was arraigned, a ground of a motion for new trial that the indictment was not read to the defendant may properly be overruled even though the defendant made an affidavit that the indictment was not read.

4. The testimony is ample to sustain the verdict.

*153Writ of error to Circuit Court, Pinellas County; F. M. Robles, Judge.

Judgment affirmed.

*Macfarlane & Chancey,*for Plaintiff in Error;

*T. F.*West, Attorney General, and *C. O.*Andreivs, Assistant, for the State.

Per Curiam.

This writ of error is to’ a judgment convicting Parker of the statutory offence of having carnal intercourse with an unmarried female under the ag'e of eighteen years.

The court sustained objections to questions asked the mother of the prosecutrix as to whether she was unfriendly to the accused. As a letter written by the witness to the defendant and shown in evidence indicated a hostile attitude of the witness to the defendant, the exclusion of the testimony of the witness on that subject was harmless, if error. In so far as requested instructions were refused, they were either incorrect as statements of the law, or were sufficiently c'overed by charges given.

A ground of the motion for new trial was that the indictment was not read to the defendant. This ground was supported by an affidavit of the defendant that the indictment was not read. The record proper states that the defendant “on being arraigned plead not guilty;” and the court, on an affidavit of the jurors that the indictment was read when the defendant was arraigned, overruled the motion. No error is made to appear. The *154testimony is ample to sustain the .verdict, and the judgment is affirmed.

Taylor, C. J., and Shackleford, Cockrell and Ellis, JJ., concur.

Whitfield, J., absent.
REDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTED REDACTEDREDACTED REDACTEDREDACTED REDACTEDREDACTED REDACTED REDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTED
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1746 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 1746

   To correct the marking requirements for American-made hand tools.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 13, 1996

   Mr. Gramm introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To correct the marking requirements for American-made hand tools.

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

SECTION 1. MARKING OF CERTAIN AMERICAN-MADE HAND TOOLS.

    Section 304 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1304) is amended 
by redesignating subsections (f), (g), (h) and (i) as subsections (g), 
(h), (i) and (j), respectively, and inserting after subsection (e) the 
following new subsection:
    ``(f) Marking of American-Made Metal Forgings.--The marking 
requirements of subsections (a) and (b) shall not apply to--
            ``(1) metal forgings that--
                    ``(A) are imported for processing into finished 
                hand tools in the United States, and
                    ``(B) have not been improved in condition beyond 
                rough burring, trimming, grinding, turning, hammering, 
                chiseling, or filing, and
            ``(2) hand tools made from metal forgings described in 
        paragraph (1).''.
                                 <all>
```
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N
NO. 03-10-00009- CV

Antonio Lab rado, Jr. d/b/a S uns et Enter prises, Appellan t
v. The University of T exas at El P aso, Appellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F TRAVIS CO UNTY, 419 TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. D-1 -GN-0 9-0 0129 6, H ONO RAB LE SCO TT H . JENK INS, J UDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
This Court rec ei v ed notice that appellant Antonio L abra do, J r. d/b/a Sunset Enterpr ises has filed for bankruptc y protec tion (United States Ba nkruptcy Court, W.D. Tex., El Paso Division, Cause No. 11-3011 7 ). T h us, his appea l is suspended pursuant to the statutory automatic stay
. See 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) (West 2004 & Supp. 2010); Tex. R . App. P. 8.

The parties are instructed to file a repor t six ty d ay s fr o m the date of this order informing this Court about the status of the bankruptc y proce eding s. Any

party may file a motion to reinstate u p o n t h e o ccurrenc e of an event that would allow the appea l to proce ed. See Tex. R. App. P. 8.3(a)
. Fa ilure to notify t h i s C o u rt o f a lift of the automatic stay or termination of thebankruptc y case may result in dismiss al of this appea l for want of prosec ution. See Tex
. R. App.

P. 42.3(b).

__________________________________________ J eff Rose, J ustice Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Pemberton and Rose Ba nkruptcy Filed: January

27, 2011

2
#### Henry D. Sedgwick STERN and Walter B. Slocombe, Personal Representatives of the Estate of Philip M. Stern, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, John F. Welch, Jr., Lawrence A. Bossidy, Edward E. Hood, Jr., Richard T. Baker, James G. Boswell II, Silas C. Cathcart, Charles D. Dickey, Jr., Lawrence E. Fouraker, Henry H. Henley, Henry L. Hillman, Robert E. Mercer, Gertrude G. Michelson, Barbara Scott Preiskel, Lewis T. Preston, Frank H. T. Rhodes, Andrew C. Siegler and Walter B. Wriston, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 1471, Docket 93-9281.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Argued April 27, 1994.

Decided May 16, 1994.

Whitney North Seymour, Jr., New York City (Craig A. Landy, Peter James Clines, Brown & Seymour, New York City, of counsel) for plaintiffs-appellants.

Thomas P. Ogden, New York City (Wendy L. Trugman, Davis Polk & Wardwell, New York City, E. Scott Gilbert, Counsel, Gen. Elec. Co., Fairfield, CT, of counsel) for defendants-appellees.

Before: VAN GRAAFEILAND and WINTER, Circuit Judges, and MISHLER, District Judge.*

*

 The Honorable Jacob Mishler, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York, sitting hy designation.

*747PER CURIAM:

We affirm for substantially the reasons stated by the district court. *See Stern v. General Elec. Co.,*837 F.Supp. 72 (S.D.N.Y. 1993); *Stern v. General Elec. Co.,*1992 WL 138339 (S.D.N.Y. June 2, 1992).
##### Table of Contents



UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
 Washington, D.C. 20549
 FORM 8-K
 CURRENT REPORT
Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of
The Securities Exchange Act of 1934
 November 8, 2007
 TRANS1 INC.
  Delaware
(State or other
jurisdiction of
incorporation)
    
    001-33744
(Commission File Number)
    
    33-0909022
(IRS Employer
Identification No.)
 411 Landmark Drive
Wilmington, NC 28412-6303
 (910) 332-1700
   o
 o
 o
 o




---



TABLE OF CONTENTS  Item 2.02 Results of Operations and Financial Condition.Item 9.01 Financial Statements and Exhibits.SignaturesEXHIBIT INDEXEXHIBIT 99.1EXHIBIT 99.2    Table of Contents  
 Item 2.02 Results of Operations and Financial Condition.
    
 Item 9.01 Financial Statements and Exhibits.
 (d) Exhibits.
 Exhibit Number
    
    Description99.1
    
    Press release, dated November 8, 2007.99.2
    
    Conference Call Transcript, dated November 8, 2007.




---



##### Table of Contents



Signatures
  TRANS1 INC.November 9, 2007
    By:
    /s/ Michael LuetkemeyerMichael LuetkemeyerChief Financial Officer




---



##### Table of Contents



EXHIBIT INDEX
 Exhibit Number
    
    Description99.1
    
    Press release, dated November 8, 2007.99.2
    
    Conference Call Transcript, dated November 8, 2007.
#### Carmen CASTRO-VALDEZ, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.

No. 02-70156.

INS No. [ AXX XXX XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 7, 2003.1

Decided Feb. 11, 2003.

Before BROWNING, PREGERSON and REINHARDT, Circuit Judges.

1

. The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM2

Petitioner Carmen Castro-Valdez petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeal’s (BIA) decision to deny her application for asylum and withholding of deportation. The BIA found that petitioner did not meet her burden of proof for eligibility for asylum because she failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution. The BIA also found that petitioner failed to establish that she was denied due process.

We have reviewed Castro-Valdez’s claim for asylum, withholding of deportation and violation of due process. We are, however, precluded from granting the requested relief.

*848An applicant is eligible for asylum if she establishes that she is unable or unwilling to return to the country of her nationality “because of persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(a). We review the factual findings underlying the BIA’s denial of asylum and withholding of deportation under the substantial evidence standard. *Cardenas v. INS,*294 F.3d 1062, 1065 (9th Cir.2002). To reverse the decision of the BIA, a reasonable fact finder must be compelled to conclude that the requisite fear of persecution existed. *INS v. Elias-Zacarias,*502 U.S. 478, 483-84, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992).

Whether an immigration proceeding violates due process is a legal issue and is reviewed *de novo. Colmenar v. INS,*210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir.2000). The BIA’s decision will be reversed on due process grounds if the proceeding is so fundamentally unfair that the person is prevented from reasonably presenting her case. *Id.*at 971.

Evidence presented at the deportation hearing supports the BIA’s finding that petitioner did not establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution. The evidence in the record would not compel a reasonable fact finder to conclude otherwise. Lastly, petitioner was not denied due process. She was given a full and fair hearing and was able to present testimony relevant to her petition. AFFIRMED.

2

. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited in or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### In re MICROSOFT CORPORATION ANTITRUST LITIGATION. SUN MICROSYSTEMS, a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Microsoft Corporation, a Washington corporation, Defendant-Appellant. Wildtangent, Incorporated, Amicus Supporting Appellant.

No. 03-1116.

Nos. CA-02-2739-JFM, CA-00-1332-MDL.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Feb. 3, 2003.

John Bucher Isbister, Tydings & Rosenberg, James Patrick Ulwick, Kramon *&*Graham, Baltimore, MD, Lloyd R. Day, Jr., James Richard Batchelder, Robert M. Galvin, Day, Casebeer, Batchelder & Madrid LLP, Cupertino, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Michael Francis Brockmeyer, Piper Rudnick, LLP, Baltimore, MD, David Bruce Tulchin, Steven Lyon Holley, Sullivan *&*Cromwell, New York, NY, Matthew L. Larrabee, Darryl Snider, A. Mari Maz-our, Heller, Ehrman, White *&*McAuliffe LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

*198Kenneth C. Bass, III, Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox, PLLC, Washington, DC, for Amicus Supporting Appellant.

ORDER

Appellant has filed motions for stay pending appeal, to expedite appeal, and to file a deferred appendix. Appellee has filed a response in opposition to the motion for stay pending appeal, and a response consenting to the motion to expedite and to file a deferred appendix.

Potential intervenor, WildTangent, Inc., has filed a motion for leave to intervene, consented to by appellant. Appellee filed a response in opposition.

The Court grants the motions for stay, to expedite, and to file a deferred appendix. The Court denies the motion for leave to intervene; however, the papers filed by WildTangent, Inc., will be accepted as a brief amicus curiae.
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1
 
                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
 
                  [LETTERHEAD OF JONES, JENSEN & COMPANY, LLC]
 
     We have issued our report dated March 12, 1998 accompanying the financial
statements of Nutronics International, Inc., contained in the Annual Report on
Form 10-KSB (the "10-KSB") for Trimol Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the
"Company") (formerly known as Nutronics International, Inc.) for the year ended
December 31, 1997. We consent to the use of the aforementioned report in the
10-KSB and to the use of our name as it appears therein.
 
                                          /s/ JONES, JENSEN & COMPANY, LLC
 
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Salt Lake City, Utah
                                          April 14, 1998