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

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 383 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 383

  To provide for the establishment of policy on the deployment by the 
   United States of an antiballistic missile system and of advanced 
                    theater missile defense systems.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

            February 10 (legislative day, January 30), 1995

 Mr. Thurmond (for himself, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Smith, Mr. Lott, Mr. Inhofe, 
 Mr. McCain, and Mr. Kempthorne) introduced the following bill; which 
     was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To provide for the establishment of policy on the deployment by the 
   United States of an antiballistic missile system and of advanced 
                    theater missile defense systems.

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

SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF POLICY.

    It shall be the policy of the United States to--
            (1) deploy at the earliest practical date an antiballistic 
        missile system that is capable of providing a highly effective 
        defense of the United States against ballistic missile attacks; 
        and
            (2) provide at the earliest practical date highly effective 
        theater missile defenses (TMDs) to forward-deployed and 
        expeditionary elements of the Armed Forces of the United States 
        and to friendly forces and allies of the United States.

SEC. 2. ACTIONS OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE.

    (a) ABM Systems.--The Secretary of Defense shall develop for 
deployment at the earliest practical date a cost-effective, 
operationally effective antiballistic missile system designed to 
protect the United States against ballistic missile attacks.
    (b) Advanced Theater Missile Defenses.--The Secretary of Defense 
shall develop for deployment at the earliest practical date advanced 
theater missile defense systems.

SEC. 3. REPORT TO CONGRESS.

    (a) Requirement.--Not later than 60 days after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the 
congressional defense committees a plan for the deployment of an 
antiballistic missile system pursuant to section 2(a) and for the 
deployment of theater missile defense systems pursuant to section 2(b).
    (b) Congressional Defense Committees.--For purposes of this 
section, the term ``congressional defense committees'' means--
            (1) the Committee on National Security and the Committee on 
        Appropriations of the House of Representatives; and
            (2) the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on 
        Appropriations of the Senate.
                                 <all>
```
**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, Bondy Tan, certify that:
| 1. | I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Global Innovative Systems Inc.; |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

2.            Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state 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 quarterly report;

3.            Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer 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)) and 15d-15(f)) for the small business issuer and I have:

a)             designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

b)            evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this quarterly report based on such evaluation; and

c)             disclosed in this quarterly report any change in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting.

5.             I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal controls over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a)             all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b)            any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting.

 

Date: August 21, 2006

 

/s/ Bondy Tan

Bondy Tan, President and Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)
SCWC-14-0001134 

________________________________________________________________ 

U.S. BANK N.A. IN ITS CAPACITY AS TRUSTEE FOR THE REGISTERED 

HOLDERS OF MASTR ASSET BACKED SECURITIES TRUST 2005-NC1, 

MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2005-NC1, 

Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, 

vs. 

JOSEPH KEAOULA MATTOS, CHANELLE LEOLA MENESES, 

Petitioners/Defendants-Appellants, 

and
 

CITIFINANCIAL, INC., ASSOCIATION OF APARTMENT OWNERS OF 

TERRAZA/CORTEBELLA/LAS BRISAS/TIBURON, 

EWA BY GENTRY COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, 

Respondents/Defendants-Appellees.
 

________________________________________________________________ 

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS 

ORDER ACCEPTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI 

 Petitioners/Defendants-Appellants Joseph Keaoula 

Mattos and Chanelle Leola Meneses’ application for writ of 

certiorari filed on May 9, 2016, is hereby accepted and will be 

Electronically Filed 

Supreme Court 

SCWC-14-0001134 

23-JUN-2016 

10:04 AM 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAII 

(CAAP-14-0001134; CIV. NO. 11-1-1539) 

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.) 
 

Gary Victor Dubin 

and Frederick J. Arensmeyer

for petitioners 

 

 

 

 

scheduled for oral argument. The parties will be notified by 

the appellate clerk regarding scheduling. 

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, June 23, 2016. 

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald 

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama 

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna 

/s/ Richard W. Pollack 

/s/ Michael D. Wilson 

2
#### Dillard FRAZIER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 28253.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 11, 1956.

*605No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

PER CURIAM.

The offense is murder, with punishment assessed at five years’ confinement in the penitentiary.

The record on appeal contains no statement of facts or bills of exception. All proceedings appear to be regular. Nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
#### Stewart KIMMEL et al., Appellants, v. Lee H. LYTTON, Jr., et al., Appellees.

No. 4170.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Waco.

Oct. *24,*1963.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 14,1963.

William C. Wright, Laredo, for appellants.

Patrick J. Horkin, Jr., Corpus Christi, Waggoner Carr, Atty. Gen., Austin, Den-man Moody, Houston, Lee H. Lytton, Jr., Sarita, Lloyd, Lloyd & Dean, Alice, M. Harvey Weil, Corpus Christi, Perkins, Floyd, Davis *&*Oden, Alice, Elmore H. Borchers, Laredo, for appellees.

McDONALD, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal from an order of the District Court of Jim Wells County dismissing intervenors from a suit. Plaintiff Lytton filed such suit against defendants John G. and Marie Stella Kenedy Memorial Foundation, et al., to determine the title to and possession of offices of a charitable corporation organized under the laws of Texas. Issue was joined as to who were the legal officers of the foundation by the various defendants.

Thereafter, appellants herein filed their plea of intervention and a host of amendments and supplements thereof, seeking varied relief, but sought neither title to nor possession of the offices in the Memorial Foundation which are in dispute in the main suit.

The Trial Court sustained motions of the other parties to the original suit to dismiss appellants’ pleas of intervention. Appellants appeal, contending that the trial court erred in striking and dismissing their petition in intervention in the pending litigation.

Appellees have filed motion to dismiss appellants’ appeal.

A judgment dismissing a petition of intervention is not such a final judgment as will authorize an appeal by the intervenor, before final judgment rendered in the court below on the matters in issue between plaintiff and defendant. Stewart v. State, 42 Tex. 242.

Under the general rule that a final judgment is one that disposes of all issues and parties in the case, a judgment which fails to dispose of all issues between the original parties, or between an original party and an intervenor, is not appealable. Accordingly, no appeal lies from an order dismissing a petition in intervention or *928denying permission to intervene, until after a final judgment has been rendered. 3 Tex. Jur. p. 136; Pioneer American Ins. Co. v. Knox, Tex.Civ.App., Er.Ref., 199 S.W.2d 711; Polk County v. Thurman, Tex.Civ.App., Er.Ref., 285 S.W.2d 487; Mueller v. Banks, Tex.Civ.App., Er.Ref., 302 S.W.2d 447.

Appellees’ motion to dismiss appeal is sustained. Appeal dismissed.
Exhibit 32.2



                            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 Soyo Group, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended  September 30, 2007 as filed with the  Securities and
Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  the undersigned,  Nancy
Chu, Chief  Financial  Officer of the Company  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 operations of the Company.


 /s/ Nancy Chu
-----------------------
Nancy Chu
Chief Financial Officer
November 14, 2007
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 64

To amend title VII of the Public Health Service Act to make certain graduate

programs in clinical psychology eligible to participate in various health

professions loan programs, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 4, 1995

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

to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources

A BILL

To amend title VII of the Public Health Service Act to

make certain graduate programs in clinical psychology

eligible to participate in various health professions loan

programs, 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. PARTICIPATION IN VARIOUS HEALTH PROFES4 SIONS LOAN PROGRAMS.

5 (a) LOAN AGREEMENTS.—Section 721 of the Public

6 Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 292q) is amended—

7 (1) in subsection (a), by inserting ‘‘, or any

8 public or nonprofit schools that offer graduate pro-
2

•S 64 IS

1 grams in clinical psychology’’ after ‘‘veterinary medi2 cine’’;

3 (2) in subsection (b)(4), by striking ‘‘or doctor

4 of veterinary medicine or an equivalent degree’’ and

5 inserting ‘‘doctor of veterinary medicine or an equiv6 alent degree, or a graduate degree in clinical psy7 chology’’; and

8 (3) in subsection (c)(1), by inserting ‘‘, or

9 schools that offer graduate programs in clinical psy10 chology’’ after ‘‘veterinary medicine’’.

11 (b) LOAN PROVISIONS.—Section 722 of such Act (42

12 U.S.C. 292r) is amended—

13 (1) in subsection (b)(1), by striking ‘‘or doctor

14 of veterinary medicine or an equivalent degree’’ and

15 inserting ‘‘doctor of veterinary medicine or an equiv16 alent degree, or a graduate degree in clinical psy17 chology’’; and

18 (2) in subsection (k)—

19 (A) by striking ‘‘or podiatry’’ and inserting

20 ‘‘podiatry, or clinical psychology’’ in the matter

21 preceding paragraph (1); and

22 (B) by striking ‘‘or podiatric medicine’’ in

23 paragraph (4), and inserting ‘‘podiatric medi24 cine, or clinical psychology’’.

Æ
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Cora Lea Byford v. Lila Thompson

Appellate case number: 01-20-00180-CV

Trial court case number: 20CCV0001

Trial court: County Court of Chambers County

Appellant’s brief was originally due on May 11, 2020. The En Banc court issued an order 

on May 19, 2020, extending the time for all pending motions for extension until June 30, 2020. 

We granted appellant’s motion for extension until August 3, 2020. Notice of late brief issued on 

August 12, 2020, advising appellant that unless her brief was filed within 10 days, the appeal might 

be dismissed. Appellee filed a motion to dismiss on August 13, 2020, seeking dismissal based on 

appellant’s failure to file a brief. On August 24, 2020, appellant filed a second motion for 

extension and the Court granted this until October 12, 2020. Another notice of late brief issued on 

October 21, 2020. This notice was returned to the Court undelivered. On January 15, 2021, 

appellee filed another motion to dismiss. Appellant filed a third motion for extension which the 

Court granted until March 4, 2021. No brief has been filed. 

The Court will dismiss this appeal this appeal unless appellant files her brief within 10 

days of the date of this order. No further extensions will be granted. 

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: _____/s/ Peter Kelly_____

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: __March 18, 2021_____
p. 1 

# OAR Box 1875 Prepped byOllie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 73 ) ll-F-2 0 Docket Number: 

# A-90-1 9

Printed 12/1/200811:12:48AM

Sheet 73 of 86P. 2

• r X 

## A-90-1 9 ll-F-2 0

Note s fro

m10/15/9 2 meeting betwee n Ra yLudwiszewski , EPA/Offic e o f Genera l Counse l an d Davi d Rivkin , Offic e o f th e Vic e President , Counci l o n Economi c Competitiveness . Agreemen t o n broade r averaging scheme . Ra yLudwiszewski' s note s wer e transcribe d fo r eas e o f reading—actua l handwritte n not e i s attached . Propos e trading withi n a sourc e categorya s i n curren t EP A draft . As k fo r commen t o n broade r trading wit hregulatorylanguag e i n preambl e la you t briefl yth e lega l approach . solici t commen t o n lega l authorit yan d o n polic y implications . approac hlai d ou t i n sufficien t detai l t o g o final , i f appropriate .



## < 1 

## \ « \] EPAA £ DOCKS -P. 3

. ^ *



# <u > \(A*^o\ 

# V°^ Z /**•

iOO ® O 8o*S T o6/J-0/T T
|  Name                          |  Jurisdiction            | Percent      Owned byLive Current Media      Inc. |
|-------------------------------------|-------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------|
|                                |                          |                                              |
| Domain      Holdings Inc.           | Alberta,      Canada          | 98.2%                                             |
|                                |                          |                                              |
| Communicate.com      Delaware Inc.  | Delaware                      | 100%                                              |
|                                |                          |                                              |
| Acadia      Management              | British      Columbia, Canada | 100%                                              |
|                                |                          |                                              |
| 0778227      BC Ltd.                | British      Columbia, Canada | 100%                                              |
|                                |                          |                                              |
| 613784      BC Ltd.                 | British      Columbia, Canada | 100%                                              |
|                                |                          |                                              |
| LCM      Cricket Ventures Pte. Ltd. | Singapore                     | 100%                                              |
#### Betty Lou SHIRLEY, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Sept. 14, 1956.

John W. Coomes, New Castle, for appellant.

*637Jo M. Ferguson, Atty. Gen., Wm. F. Simpson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Betty Lou Shirley, was convicted in the Oldham Circuit Court of the offense of keeping alcoholic beverages for the purpose of sale in dry territory in violation of KRS 242.230(1), and her punishment was fixed by the jury at $50 fine and thirty days in jail. She has moved this court to grant her an appeal and urges reversal upon the sole ground that the search of the premises of her restaurant was illegal and the evidence obtained by the search inadmissible because the search warrant was issued upon an insufficient affidavit.

We have examined the affidavit and find it sufficient under the authority of the following cases: Commonwealth v. Thomas, 225 Ky. 603, 9 S.W.2d 719; Commonwealth v. Elliott, 305 Ky. 554, 204 S.W.2d 948.

The judgment is affirmed.
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 Soyo Group,  Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period  ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the  Securities  and
Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  the  undersigned,  Ming
Tung Chok,  Chief  Executive  Officer of the Company  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  13a-14(b) or
15d-14(b) 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.


 /s/ Ming Tung Chok
-----------------------
Ming Tung Chok
Chief Executive Officer
August 13, 2007
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1208 

CA 13-00581 

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, VALENTINO, AND WHALEN, JJ. 

 

CIPRIANA MARTINEZ, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

WILLIAM T. MURDOCK AND EMILY A. MURDOCK, 

DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS. 

(APPEAL NO. 2.) 

LAW OFFICES OF MARC JONAS, UTICA (JASON D. FLEMMA OF COUNSEL), FOR

PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT. 

SANTACROSE & FRARY, ALBANY (ELISE CASSAR OF COUNSEL), FOR

DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Oneida County (David

A. Murad, J.), entered January 7, 2013. The order, inter alia,

granted those parts of the motion of defendants for an order

compelling plaintiff to appear for a medical examination and affording

defendants an extension of time in which to file any “dispositive

motions”. 

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed

without costs. 

Same Memorandum as in Martinez v Murdock ([appeal No. 1] ___ AD3d

___ [Nov. 15, 2013]).

Entered: November 15, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONSOLIDATED
BALANCE SHEET AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF EARNINGS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          10,687
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,800
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     12,663
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                41,102
<PP&E>                                          36,979
<DEPRECIATION>                                (21,620)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  61,593
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,419
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           334
<OTHER-SE>                                      51,974
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    61,593
<SALES>                                         74,297
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                74,357
<CGS>                                           42,407
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   66,629
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   422
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,818
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,877
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,941
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,941
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .87
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .86


</TABLE>