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

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2085

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 18, 1996

Referred to the Committee on House Oversight

AN ACT

To authorize the Capital Guide Service to accept voluntary

services.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

S 2085 RFH

1 That section 441 of the Legislative Reorganization

2 Act of 1970 (40 U.S.C. 851) is amended by striking sub3 section (j) and inserting the following:

4 ‘‘(j)(1) Notwithstanding section 1342 of title 31,

5 United States Code, the Capitol Guide Service is author6 ized to accept voluntary personal services.

7 ‘‘(2) No person shall be permitted to donate personal

8 services under this subsection unless the person has first

9 agreed, in writing, to waive any claim against the United

10 States arising out of or in connection with such services,

11 other than a claim under chapter 81 of title 5, United

12 States Code.

13 ‘‘(3) No person donating personal services under this

14 section shall be considered an employee of the United

15 States for any purpose other than for purposes of chapter

16 81 of title 5, United States Code.

17 ‘‘(4) In no case shall the acceptance of personal serv18 ices under this section result in the reduction of pay or

19 displacement of any employee of the Capitol Guide Serv20 ice.’’.

Passed the Senate September 17, 1996.

Attest: KELLY D. JOHNSTON,

Secretary.
* 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

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-30440

Summary Calendar

HUGH RIGNEY, JR.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

ST. JOHN TOWING, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

(97-CV-780-L)

April 15, 1999

Before POLITZ, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Hugh Rigney, Jr. appeals the judgment on the take-nothing jury verdict in

this Jones Act litigation based o n an accident aboard the M/V LaFOURCHE.

The district court granted his motion for judgment as a matter of law on the issue

of liability and submitted the issue of damages to the jury. The jury found that

Rigney sustained an injury as a result of the accident bu t awarded nothing in

damages.1 Sharp v. City of Houston , 164 F.3d 923 (5 th Cir. 1999).

2 Whitehead v. Food Max of Miss., Inc. , 163 F.3d 265 (5 th Cir. 1998).

2 The district court denied Rigney’s post-verdict motion for judgment as a

matter of law and motion for a new trial, finding that the jury’s verdict was

supported by substantial evidence. Specifically, the district court found that the

evidence was sufficient for the jury to conclude that plaintiff’s injuries were not

caused by his accident on the M/V LaFOURCHE but, instead, were caused by

injuries sustained in his previous jobs and in a prior truck accident.

We review de novo the denial of a motion for judgment as a matter of law,

applying the same standard as the district court and drawing all reasonable

inferences in favor of the non-movant. 1 We review the denial of a motion for

new trial for an abuse of discretion. 2 Applying those standards, our review of

the records and briefs discloses no revers i ble error. Accordingly, on the facts

as found, the authorities cited, and analysis made by the district court in its order

signed March 23, 1998, the judgment appealed is AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of our
report included in this Form 10-K\A, into the Company's previously filed Form
S-8 Registration Statement File No. 333-75351, Form S-8 Registration Statement
File No. 333-34999, Form S-8 Registration Statement File No. 333-83225, Form S-8
Registration Statement File No. 333-95569 and Form S-3 Registration Statement
File No. 333-31046.



                                                             ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP


Dallas, Texas
July 28, 2000
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

*CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350*

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of MedicalCV, Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-QSB, as amended, for the quarter ended July 31, 2005, asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, John H. Jungbauer, Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer ofthe Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.                                       TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.                                       Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

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

 

 
| Dated:   December 7, 2005 | By:                                                  | /s/ John H. Jungbauer |   |
|--------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------|--------|
|                           | John H. Jungbauer                                    |
|                           | Vice President, Finance and

Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
##### Table of Contents



UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
 Washington, D.C.
 
 FORM 8-K
 CURRENT REPORT
Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
 Date of Report: January 29, 2009
 DOLE FOOD COMPANY, INC.
  Delaware
    
    1-4455
    
    99-0035300(State or Other Jurisdiction 
of Incorporation)
    
    (Commission File Number)
    
    (IRS Employer
Identification No.)
 One Dole Drive  Westlake Village, California 91362
 818) 879-6600
  o
    
    Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425).
 o
    
    Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)
 o
    
    Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))
 o
    
    Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c))




---



TABLE OF CONTENTS  Item 8.01. Other EventsItem 9.01. Financial Statements and ExhibitsSIGNATURESEXHIBIT INDEXEXHIBIT 99.1    Table of Contents  Section 8. Other Events
 
 Item 8.01.
    
    Other Events
  Section 9. Financial Statement and Exhibits
 
 Item 9.01.
    
    Financial Statements and Exhibits
 (d)
    
    Exhibits:99.1
    
    Press release concerning asset sale transactions.
 2




---



##### Table of Contents



SIGNATURES
  January 30, 2009
    Dole Food Company, Inc.RegistrantBy:
    /s/ JOSEPH S. TESORIEROJoseph S. TesorieroVice President and
Chief Financial Officer 3




---



##### Table of Contents



EXHIBIT INDEX
 ExhibitNumber
    
    Description99.1*
    
    Press release concerning asset sale transactions.
 
 *
    
    Filed herewith 4
**Exhibit 21.1** **Subsidiaries    of G REIT Liquidating Trust**     G REIT Sutter Square GP, LLC (Delaware)
<PAGE>   1
EXHIBIT 21 -- SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

Name of Subsidiary                                     State of Incorporation
------------------                                     ----------------------

Radiosurgery Centers, Inc.                                   Delaware
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 14 (Monday, January 22, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3925-3926]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-01268]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: Thursday, January 25, 2024, at 10:00 a.m.

PLACE: Hybrid Meeting: 1050 First Street NE, Washington, DC (12th 
Floor) and virtual.

    Note: for those attending the meeting in person, current COVID-
19 safety protocols for visitors, which are based on the CDC COVID-
19 hospital admission level in Washington, DC will be updated on the 
commission's contact page by the Monday before the meeting. See the 
contact page at https://www.fec.gov/contact/. If you would like to 
virtually access the meeting, see the instructions below.


STATUS: This meeting will be open to the public, subject to the above-
referenced guidance regarding the COVID-19 hospital admission level and 
corresponding health and safety procedures. To access the meeting 
virtually, go to the commission's website www.fec.gov and click on the 
banner to be taken to the meeting page.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

Draft Advisory Opinion 2023-11: VoteDown PAC
Audit Division Recommendation Memorandum on the Madison Project, Inc. 
(A21-11)

[[Page 3926]]

Management and Administrative Matters

FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: 
(202) 694-1220.
    Individuals who plan to attend in person and who require special 
assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable 
accommodations, should contact Laura E. Sinram, Secretary and Clerk, at 
(202) 694-1040 or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1360767061766772616a537576703d747c65"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d2a1b7b1a0b7a6b3a0ab92b4b7b1fcb5bda4">[email protected]</span></a>, at least 72 hours prior to the 
meeting date.

(Authority: Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b)

Laura E. Sinram,
Secretary and Clerk of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2024-01268 Filed 1-18-24; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6715-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit
31


CERTIFICATION





I,
Atsushi Maki, certify that:





1. I have
reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Amanasu Environment
Corporation;





2. Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under
which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and
other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all
material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows
of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly
report;





4. I am
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures
(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant
and we have:





a)
Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;





b)
Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report my conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and





c)
Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal
quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and





5. I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and
the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing
the equivalent function):





a) All
significant deficiencies and material weakness in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial data; and





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








Date: May
10, 2005





/s/
Atsushi Maki


___________________________


Atsushi
Maki


CEO, CFO,
CAO
ex10-2.htm


Exhibit 10.2


 


 


AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


 


This Amendment No. 1 to the Executive Employment Agreement (“Amendment Agreement”) is entered into as of March 14, 2017 (the “Effective Date”) by and between OmniComm Systems, Inc. (the “Company”) and Randall G. Smith (the “Executive”).


 


WHEREAS, the Company and Executive entered into an Employment Agreement dated September 1, 2004 (“Employment Agreement”), and


 


WHEREAS, the Company and Executive desire to amend the terms of the Employment Agreement as described herein.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises, which are incorporated in this Amendment Agreement as if fully set forth below, and the mutual covenants and agreements contained herein, the parties hereto agree as follows:


 


	 	
			1.

				
			Section 3(e) of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended as follows (i) deleting the first sentence and replacing said sentence to read as follows:” The Executive shall also be entitled to severance pay equal to twelve (12) months’ salary and benefits in the event of termination by the Company for any reason other than commission of a felony or a crime involving moral turpitude relating to services provided to the Company, or termination by the Company pursuant to Paragraph 2(c).”

			



 


	 	
			2.

				
			Except as expressly provided in this Amendment Agreement, other terms, conditions and provisions of the Employment Agreement shall continue in full force and effect as provided therein. 

			



 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have duly executed this Amendment Agreement as of the date set forth in the first paragraph above.


 


	
			 

				
			OmniComm Systems, Inc.  

				
			 

			
	
			 

				
			 

				
			 

				
			 

			
	
			 

				
			 

				
			 

				
			 

			
	
			 

				
			By: 

				
			/s/ Cornelis F. Wit 

				
			 

			
	
			 

				
			 

				Cornelis F. Wit, Chief Executive Officer 	
			 

			



 


 


 


	
			 

				
			Executive

				
			 

			
	
			 

				
			 

				
			 

				
			 

			
	
			 

				
			 

				
			 

				
			 

			
	
			 

				
			/s/ Randall G. Smith

				
			 

			
	
			 

				
			Randall G. Smith

				
			 

			
	
			 

				
			 

				
			 

				
			 

			



 


 


Page 1 of 1
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
 Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported): March 20, 2009
 NEWPORT CORPORATION
 (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
 Nevada
    
    000-01649
    
    94-0849175(State or other jurisdiction of 
incorporation)
    
    (Commission File Number)
    
    (IRS Employer Identification No.)
 1791 Deere Avenue, Irvine, California
    
    92606(Address of principal executive offices)
    
    (Zip Code)
 (949) 863-3144
 Not Applicable
  o
    
    Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)o
    
    Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)o
    
    Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17
CFR 240.14d-2(b))o
    
    Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17
CFR 240.13e-4(c))




---



##### 



TABLE OF CONTENTS  Item 5.02  Departure of Directors or Certain Officers; Election of Directors; Appointment of Certain Officers; Compensatory Arrangements of Certain OfficersSIGNATURES 
 Item 5.02  Departure of Directors or Certain Officers; Election of Directors; Appointment of
Certain Officers; Compensatory Arrangements of Certain Officers.
 (e)




---



##### 



SIGNATURES
  NEWPORT CORPORATIONDate:  March 26, 2009
    By:
    /s/ Jeffrey B. CoyneJeffrey B. CoyneSenior Vice President, General Counsel and
Corporate Secretary
#### Fred Allen SMITH, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 28339.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 23, 1956.

No attorney for appellant of .record on appeal.

*513Henry Wade, Dist. Atty., Thomas B. Thorp, A. D. Bowie, and George P. Blackburn, Asst. Dist. Attys., Dallas, and Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

PER CURIAM-.

The offense is robbery; the punishment, 50 years.

The record on appeal contains no statements of facts or bills of exception. All proceedings are regular, and nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 14, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 05-10897

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ENRIQUE DOMINGUEZ-PRIMO,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:05-CR-1-1

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

Before KING, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and SMITH, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Enrique

Dominguez-Primo raises arguments that are foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998),

which held that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8

U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The

Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the

judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed September 4, 2014.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-14-00653-CR

CHAD SMALL, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 263rd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1349798

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This is an attempted appeal of an order granting the State’s motion to 

dismiss. The State filed a motion to dismiss in trial court cause number 1349798 

because appellant was convicted in trial court cause numbers 1383973 and 

1349797.1

Generally, an appellate court only has jurisdiction to consider an appeal by a 

criminal defendant where there has been a final judgment of conviction. Workman 

 

1

In his notice of appeal appellant states he has been granted permission to appeal by the 

trial court. Such notice, however, does not appear in the record before this court.
2

v. State, 170 Tex. Crim. 621, 343 S.W.2d 446, 447 (1961); McKown v. State, 915 

S.W.2d 160, 161 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1996, no pet.). 

An order granting the State’s motion to dismiss is not a separately 

appealable order. Because this appeal does not fall within the exceptions to the 

general rule that appeal may be taken only from a final judgment of conviction, we 

have no jurisdiction. 

In addition, the order appellant attempts to appeal was signed May 9, 2014, 

but the notice of appeal was not filed until July 28, 2014. A defendant’s notice of 

appeal must be filed within thirty days after sentence is imposed when the 

defendant has not filed a motion for new trial. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a)(1). If an 

appeal is not timely perfected, a court of appeals does not obtain jurisdiction to 

address the merits of the appeal. Under those circumstances it can take no action 

other than to dismiss the appeal. Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 1998). 

Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Boyce, Jamison, and Donovan.

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit 

___________________________ 

No. 19-2177

___________________________ 

United States of America

 Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Gregory McCloud

 Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis

____________ 

Submitted: January 14, 2020

 Filed: May 26, 2020 

[Unpublished]

____________ 

Before BENTON, GRASZ, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. 

____________ 

PER CURIAM.

 After Gregory McCloud pleaded guilty to two child-pornography counts, the 

district court1 sentenced him to 240 months in prison. See 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a)

1

The Honorable John A. Ross, United States District Judge for the Eastern 

District of Missouri.
- 2 - 

(exploiting a minor for the purpose of producing child pornography). McCloud 

argues that he should not have received a four-level sentence enhancement for

producing “material that portrays . . . sadistic or masochistic conduct or other 

depictions of violence.” U.S.S.G. § 2G2.1(b)(4)(A); see United States v. Morgan, 

842 F.3d 1070, 1075 (8th Cir. 2016) (reviewing the district court’s interpretation of 

the Sentencing Guidelines de novo). Our cases say otherwise, so we affirm.

McCloud took photographs of a minor “in various stages of undress,” 

including one in which McCloud had pulled her underwear to one side and used his 

fingers to penetrate her as she slept. We have repeatedly held that sexual penetration 

of a minor is “per se sadistic or violent” conduct under the Sentencing Guidelines. 

United States v. Belflower, 390 F.3d 560, 562 (8th Cir. 2004) (per curiam); accord, 

e.g., United States v. Dodd, 598 F.3d 449, 453 (8th Cir. 2010). Digital penetration

is no exception. Morgan, 842 F.3d at 1076.

Nor is there an exception, as McCloud suggests, for penetrating a minor who 

is asleep. What matters is the conduct depicted, not the victim’s subjective 

awareness of it. See Dodd, 598 F.3d at 453 (declining to “undertak[e] a fact-specific 

analysis” to determine if the conduct in the video was “sufficiently painful” (citation 

omitted)); United States v. Raplinger, 555 F.3d 687, 694–95 (8th Cir. 2009) 

(allowing an enhancement for sexually explicit photographs of a minor wearing “toy 

handcuffs” that she “voluntarily put on and which did not cause her pain”); United 

States v. Starr, 533 F.3d 985, 1001–02 (8th Cir. 2008) (rejecting an “unpersuasive” 

argument that the enhancement could not apply in “the absence of evidence” of “pain 

or injury suffered”). Under our precedent, the conduct depicted here is “necessarily 

violent.” Belflower, 390 F.3d at 562.2

2

To the extent United States v. Nesmith, 866 F.3d 677 (5th Cir. 2017), holds 

otherwise, our responsibility is to follow our own precedent. See Mader v. United 

States, 654 F.3d 794, 800 (8th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (explaining that we are bound by 

what prior panels have decided).
- 3 - 

We accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court.

______________________________