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

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 172 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                        Calendar No. 77
104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 172

                          [Report No. 104-55]

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
              documentation for the vessel L. R. BEATTIE.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

              January 6 (legislative day, January 5), 1995

 Mr. Jeffords introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
   referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

                             April 18, 1995

    Reported, under authority of the order of the Senate of April 6 
  (legislative day, April 5), 1995, by Mr. Pressler, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
              documentation for the vessel L. R. BEATTIE.

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

SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF CERTIFICATE OF DOCUMENTATION.

    Notwithstanding sections 12106, 12107, and 12108 of title 46, 
United States Code, and section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 (46 
App. U.S.C. 883), as applicable on the date of enactment of this Act, 
the Secretary of Transportation may issue a certificate of 
documentation for the vessel L. R. BEATTIE, United States official 
number 904161.
                                     

                                                        Calendar No. 77

104th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                 S. 172

                          [Report No. 104-55]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
              documentation for the vessel L. R. BEATTIE.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             April 18, 1995

                       Reported without amendment
```
<PAGE>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 8.1
                                                                TO ANNUAL REPORT
                                                                    ON FORM 20-F

      LIST OF SIGNIFICANT SUBSIDIARIES OF GUANGSHEN RAILWAY COMPANY LIMITED

      The following table lists information concerning the significant
subsidiaries of Guangshen Railway Company Limited as of December 31, 2004:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                 COUNTRY OF      PERCENTAGE OF INTEREST
                 NAME                                           INCORPORATION   HELD BY GUANGSHEN RAILWAY
                 ----                                           -------------   -------------------------
<S>                                                             <C>             <C>
DIRECTLY HELD BY THE COMPANY

Guangzhou East Station Dongqun Trade and Commerce Service           PRC                  100%
   Company
Shenzhen Fu Yuan Enterprise Development Company                     PRC                  100%
Shenzhen Guangshen Railway Civil Engineering Company                PRC                  100%
Shenzhen Guangshen Railway Travel Service Ltd.                      PRC                  100%
Shenzhen Jian Kai Trade Company                                     PRC                  100%
Shenzhen Jing Ming Industrial & Commercial Company Limited          PRC                  100%
Shenzhen Railway Station Travel Service Company(i)                  PRC                   75%
Shenzhen Longgang Pinghu Qun Yi Railway Store Loading and
   Unloading Company                                                PRC                   55%
Dongguan Changsheng Enterprise Company                              PRC                   51%
Shenzhen Guangshen Railway Electric Section Service Limited         PRC                  100%
Shenzhen Railway Station Passenger Services Company Limited         PRC                  100%

INDIRECTLY HELD BY THE COMPANY

Shenzhen Nantie Construction Supervision Company                    PRC                  100%
Shenzhen Guangshen Railway Economic and Trade Enterprise
   Company                                                          PRC                  100%
Shenzhen Railway Property Management Company Limited                PRC                  100%
Shenzhen Yuezheng Enterprise Company Limited                        PRC                  100%
Shenzhen Road Multi-modal Transportation Company Limited            PRC                   60%
</TABLE>

--------------------
(i) Sino-foreign co-operative joint ventures.
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeal of -- ) 

) 

Novel Construction Company ) 

) 

Under Contract No. W91B4L-12-C-0242 ) 

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

ASBCA No. 61005 

Mr. Nasir Ahmady 

Corporate Officer 

Raymond M. Saunders, Esq. 

Army Chief Trial Attorney 

MAJ Christopher M. Coy, JA 

Trial Attorney 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

On 18 January 2017, appellant filed a notice of appeal with the Board, docketed as 

ASBCA No. 61005. Among the attachments accompanying its notice of appeal, an 

undated document deemed by appellant as its claim letter sought payment under the 

contract. On 16 February 2017, the government moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of 

jurisdiction, alleging that appellant did not submit a claim to the contracting officer prior 

to filing the appeal and a claim was later received by a contracting officer in 

February 2017. 

By order dated 2 March 2017, the Board directed appellant to either provide 

documentation that it submitted a claim to a contracting officer prior to the filing of its 

18 January notice of appeal, or confirm that it desires to receive a final decision on its 

claim submitted in February 201 7. In an email on the same date, appellant 

communicated that it had submitted a claim letter to a contracting officer and requested a 

status of the final decision. The Board treated this correspondence as appellant's 

concurrence with the government's jurisdictional motion in ASBCA No. 61005. By 

order dated 8 March 2017, the Board informed the parties that it intended to dismiss this 

appeal unless either party objected within 14 days of the date of the Order. The Board 

received no objection from either party. 
Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction without prejudice to 

the filing of a timely appeal from the denial, or deemed denial, of the claim received by 

the contracting officer in February 2017. 

Dated: 27 March 2017 

Administrative Judge 

Vice Chairman 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 61005, Appeal ofNovel 

Construction Company, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

2 

JEFFREY D. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals
#### Mohamed BENTAALLA, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 01-71521.

INS No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 15, 2003.*

Decided Feb. 6, 2003.

Before FRIEDMAN,** KOZINSKI, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

**

The Honorable Daniel M. Friedman, Senior United States Circuit Judge for the Federal Circuit, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM***

There was sufficient evidence to support the BIA’s determination that Mohamed Bentaalla (“Bentaalla”) was unable to appreciably differentiate his situation from that of his fellow Algerian citizens. *See Pedro-Mateo v. INS,*224 F.3d 1147, 1151 (9th Cir.2000); *see also Alonzo v. INS,*915 F.2d 546, 548 (9th Cir.1990). The BIA did not abuse its discretion or make inconsistent findings when it granted Bentaalla relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture, while denying his asylum and withholding of removal claims. *See Kamalthas v. INS,*251 F.3d 1279, 1283-84 (9th Cir.2001).

PETITION DENIED.

***

 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.
In The Matter Of: AIRCAL, INC. Respondent 

### SERVED: NOVEMBER 10, 2015 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS WASHINGTON, DC ) ) ) ) ) DocketNo. FAA-2015-1324 Case No. 2014WP910129



### ORDERDISMISSING PROCEEDING
OnOctober 8, 2015, an Order Reassigning Proceeding was filed, which reassignedthis proceeding to the undersigned. On October 15,2015, the FAA filed the Complainant's Renewed Motionto Deem Allegations Admitted and to Dismiss Appeal ("Renewed Motion"). OnNovember 5, 2015, the Respondent, Aircal Inc., filed a Withdrawal ofAppeal, stating that the parties have "entered into a mutually agreeable SettlementAgreement therefore this Appeal is herebywithdrawn." After having reviewed the case file, all pleadings and motions, all relevant caselaw, statutes, regulations, rules, and authority, andbeing fully advised; 

### ITIS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. Based onthe parties' settlement, the FAA's Renewed Motion is deemed moot.

.. , • t**~** •• f'l**~1** 2. Pursuantto 14 C.P.R.§ 13.215, the Respondent has withdrawnits Request for a Hearing, ·andthis proceeding is dismissed withprejudice.

Attachment: Service ListDocketNo. FAA-2015-1324 (Civil Penalty Action)

. . , . SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL ORIGINAL & ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W10001 ONE COPY Mr. David F. Shayne Complainant's Counsel Northwest Mountain Region, ANM-7 Federal Aviation Administration 1601 Lind Ave., S.W. Renton, WA 98057 TEL: 425-227-1847 FAX: 425-227-1007 Mr. Leonardo Concepcion, President Aircal, Inc. Respondent 6411 West Imperial Highway Los Angeles, CA 90045 FAX: 503-678-3374 Judge J.E. Sullivan US. Administrative LawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-6941 FAX: 202-366-7536 Mr. Kevin Sullivan Respondent's Representative TEL: 714-844-2520 MOBILE: 714-337-6912 EMAIL: krs500@msn.com

.> t·.\

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2WIOOO, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**

January 6, 2015

N o. 04

- 14

- 00488

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF T.F., A Child,

From the 288th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2011

- PA

- 02356 Honorable David A. Canales, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

This is an appeal from a judgment terminating appellant mother’s parental rights. Appellant ’ s court

- appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief and motion to withdraw pursuant
to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he asserts there are no meritorious issues to raise on appeal. See In re RR , No. 04

- 03

- 00096

- CV, 2003 WL 21157944 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio May 21, 2003, order) (holding that Anders procedures apply to appeals from orders
term inating parental rights), disp. on merits , 2003 WL 22080522 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio Sept. 10, 2003, no pet.) (mem. op.). Counsel has informed a ppellant of h er right to obtain and review the record and file h er own brief. See id. ; Nichols v. State , 954 S.W .2d 83, 85

- 86 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio July 23, 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State , 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 1996, no pet.). Counsel provided appellant with a form for requesting the record and instruction on filing same. See Kelly v. Sta te , No. PD

- 0702

- 13, 2014 WL 2865901 (Tex. Crim. App. June 25, 2014). Appellant did not file the form with this court or otherwise request the record.

If appellant desires to file a pro se brief, we order that s he do so on or before February 5, 2015

. If appellant files a timely pro se brief, appellee may file a responsive brief no later than twenty days after appellant ’ s pro se brief is filed in this court. We further order the motion to withdraw filed by appellant ’ s counsel held in abeyance pending further order of the court.

We further order the clerk of this court to serve a copy of this order on appellant mother, appellant father, and all counsel.

_________________________________ Karen Angelini, JusticeIN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 6th day of January, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle Clerk of Court
#### Loretta L. LUCERO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Greg GREENLEE and Jay Longley, personally and in their official capacities, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 02-2092.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Jan. 29, 2003.

Michael E. Vigil, Marchiondo & Vigil, Albuquerque, NM, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

William D. Slease, Slease & Martinez, Robert Tabor Booms, Emily A. Franke, Butt, Thornton & Baehr, Albuquerque, NM, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before KELLY, McKAY and O’BRIEN, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

PAUL KELLY, JR., Circuit Judge.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Plaintiff Loretta L. Lucero filed this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that law enforcement officers Greg Greenlee and Jay Longley violated her constitutional rights by submitting materially false affidavits to support warrants to search her home, arresting her, and filing criminal charges against her without probable cause. She also asserted several state common-law claims. The parties consented to have a magistrate judge conduct proceedings in the case, including entry of final judgment. *See*28 U.S.C. § 636(c). The magistrate judge entered summary judgment in favor of defendants on Ms. Lucero’s federal claims, based on principles of qualified immunity, and dismissed her state claims. Ms. Lucero appeals the summary judgment ruling.

The parties are familiar with the underlying facts. Therefore, we do not repeat them here. This court “reviews issues surrounding the grant of summary judgment based on qualified immunity de novo, considering all evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving parties under Rule 56(c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” *Olsen v. Layton Hills Mall,*312 F.3d 1304, 1311 (10th Cir.2002). “Summary judgment is ultimately appropriate when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and ... the moving party is *517entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” *Id.*(quotation omitted).

We have reviewed the record on appeal, as well as the briefs submitted by the parties. Applying the standards set out above, we conclude that Ms. Lucero has not raised a genuine issue of material fact relating to defendants’ entitlement to qualified immunity. We AFFIRM the judgment for substantially the same reasons stated in the magistrate judge’s March 1, 2002 Memorandum Opinion and Order.

*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION

In connection with the Annual Report of EP MedSystems, Inc. (the Company)
on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, based on his knowledge hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to 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 Exchange Act of 1934; and
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: March 28, 2008



/s/ David I. BruceDavid I. BrucePresident and Chief Executive Officer (Principal
Executive Officer)
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

STATEMENT OF CHIEF FINANCIALOFFICERPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, I, Thomas R. Moyes, certify that:

 

1.  The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSBfor the quarter ended September 30, 2005 (the “Report”) of MediCor Ltd.(the “Company”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.  The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of MediCor.

 

Date: November 14, 2005

 

 
|   | /s/ Thomas R. Moyes     |   |
|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|   | Thomas R. Moyes         |
|   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.2



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

         Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and in
connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Post Properties, Inc. ("Post")
and Post Apartment Homes, L.P. ("PAH", and together with Post, the
"Registrants") for the year ended December 31, 2002, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, the Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Post
and Post GP Holdings, Inc., PAH's general partner, certifies 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 Registrants.



/s/ R. Gregory Fox
----------------------------
R. Gregory Fox
Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
March 27, 2003
II

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1880

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to correct the treatment

of tax-exempt financing of professional sports facilities.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 14, 1996

Mr. MOYNIHAN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and

referred to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to correct

the treatment of tax-exempt financing of professional

sports facilities.

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 ‘‘Stop Tax-Exempt

5 Arena Debt Issuance Act’’.

6 SEC. 2. TREATMENT OF TAX-EXEMPT FINANCING OF PRO7 FESSIONAL SPORTS FACILITIES.

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 141 of the Internal Reve9 nue Code of 1986 (defining private activity bond and

10 qualified bond) is amended by redesignating subsection (e)
2

•S 1880 IS

1 as subsection (f) and by inserting after subsection (d) the

2 following new subsection:

3 ‘‘(e) CERTAIN ISSUES USED FOR PROFESSIONAL

4 SPORTS FACILITIES TREATED AS PRIVATE ACTIVITY

5 BONDS.—

6 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of this title,

7 the term ‘private activity bond’ includes any bond is8 sued as part of an issue if the amount of the pro9 ceeds of the issue which are to be used (directly or

10 indirectly) to provide professional sports facilities ex11 ceeds the lesser of—

12 ‘‘(A) 5 percent of such proceeds, or

13 ‘‘(B) $5,000,000.

14 ‘‘(2) BOND NOT TREATED AS A QUALIFIED

15 BOND.—For purposes of this title, any bond de16 scribed in paragraph (1) shall not be a qualified

17 bond.

18 ‘‘(3) PROFESSIONAL SPORTS FACILITIES.—For

19 purposes of this subsection—

20 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘professional

21 sports facilities’ means real property or related

22 improvements used for professional sports exhi23 bitions, games, or training, regardless if the ad24 mission of the public or press is allowed or

25 paid.
3

•S 1880 IS

1 ‘‘(B) USE FOR PROFESSIONAL SPORTS.—

2 Any use of facilities which generates a direct or

3 indirect monetary benefit (other than reim4 bursement for out-of pocket expenses) for a

5 person who uses such facilities for professional

6 sports exhibitions, games, or training shall be

7 treated as a use described in subparagraph (A).

8 ‘‘(4) ANTI-ABUSE REGULATIONS.—The Sec9 retary shall prescribe such regulations as may be ap10 propriate to carry out the purposes of this sub11 section, including such regulations as may be appro12 priate to prevent avoidance of such purposes through

13 related persons, use of related facilities or multiuse

14 complexes, or otherwise.’’

15 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

16 this section shall apply to bonds issued on or after June

17 14, 1996.

Æ
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION

In connection with the Annual Report of EP MedSystems, Inc. (the Company)
on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, based on his knowledge hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to 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 Exchange Act of 1934; and

2. The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.

Date:
March 30, 2007



/s/    DAVID I.
BRUCEDavid I. BrucePresident and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)