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

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 276 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 276

To provide for criminal penalties for defrauding financial institutions 
   carrying out programs under the Small Business Act and the Small 
        Business Investment Act of 1958, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

             January 25 (legislative day, January 10), 1995

  Mr. D'Amato introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for criminal penalties for defrauding financial institutions 
   carrying out programs under the Small Business Act and the Small 
        Business Investment Act of 1958, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Small Business Financial Institution 
Protection Act''.

SEC. 2. CRIMINAL PENALTIES.

    Section 1344 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``or the Small Business 
        Administration'' after ``financial institution''; and
            (2) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``or the Small Business 
        Administration'' after ``financial institution,''.
                                 <all>
```
| (1) | The quarterly 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 quarterly report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| By:          | /s/  Daniel N. Ford          |   | Dated this 9th day of May 2011. |   |
|--------------|-----------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------|--------|
|         | Daniel N. Ford          |   |                       |   |
|    | Chief Financial Officer |   |                            |   |

----
Exhibit 32.1 
Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley act of 2001.

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Gulf Coast Oil & Gas, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form10-QSB/A for the period ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Massimiliano Pozzoni, President of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.
Dated: May 19, 2005         /s/ Massimiliano Pozzoni   Massimiliano Pozzoni, President
Exhibit 32.2



Certification of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



In connection with this quarterly report on
Form 10-Q of OPNET Technologies, Inc. (the Company), I, Joseph W. Kuhn, 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:



(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.



|                      |  |     |  |                                           
|--------------------- |  | --- |  | ------------------------------------------
|Dated: August 9, 2004 |  | By: |  | /s/ Joseph W. Kuhn                        
|                      |  |     |  | Joseph W. Kuhn                            
|                      |  |     |  | Vice President and Chief Financial Officer



A signed original of this written
statement required by 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 has been provided to OPNET Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by OPNET Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
!4910-13-Pj DEPAIHMENT OF TRANSPORTAnON Federa! Aviatjon Administration 14CFR P3rt39 IDocket No. FAA-2010-0222; Directorate Iden,tifier 20OS·NM-012-AD; Am~ndme 

# 11;'2!.l i!#-iD 39- ,f\D 2010-~1 RIN 2120·.4 ..



### ..,..64 Aimonhine.ss Directives; BAE SYSTEMS (Operations) 

### limlled Model Avro 146-R and BAe 1% Airplanes I AGENCY: Fede;ml Avi:!tion AdminiSlration 

# (FlA), Dcpanmcnt ofT ranspon:ttion (!JOT). 

### 7T-//t; 

# :;g;;z;v "'21J.,f~

o

The uns;rfe condition could result in loss ora \Vi]g or controllability afthe alrplane. We

FAA Form 1~60.' 4.1 (6.S9) O;FrClAL FILE COpy <>v.sGQ".'L ••-e....,. •..,••.•

1N1l O""c. ,-
<Page>

32.1    Certification of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
        of Apogee Robotics, Inc. pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley
        Act of 2002


                            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 on Form 10-KSB of Apogee Robotics, Inc.
(the "Company") for the year ended June 30, 2000 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned
Michael Anthony, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Apogee
Robotics, Inc., certify, 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.

Dated: August 28, 2007

                                                      /s/ Michael Anthony
                                                      ----------------------
                                                      Michael Anthony
                                                      Chief Executive Officer


                                                      /s/ Michael Anthony
                                                      ----------------------
                                                      Michael Anthony
                                                      Chief Financial Officer
#### Mrs. Jeannette NAJER et vir, Appellants, v. ABEGG & REINHOLD COMPANY et al., Appellees.

No. 4115.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Waco.

May 15, 1963.

Helm, Jones, Pletcher & Winkelman, Albert P. Jones, Houston, for appellants.

Baker, Botts, Shepherd & Coates, A. J. Watkins, Houston, for appellees.

WILSON, Justice.

Plaintiffs appeal from an adverse judgment in a rear-end automobile collision case asserting, in effect, that there is insufficient evidence, or none, to support the verdict. The jury made findings favorable to the driver of the rear vehicle on issues as to his proper lookout, application of brakes and speed; found the collision was the result of an unavoidable accident, and that plaintiffs suffered no personal injury damages as a result of the collision.

The driver of the vehicle which struck plaintiffs’ car from the rear died before trial. The collision occurred at night in the center lane of a street in Houston. *950Plaintiff driver and his wife testified that as their car approached an intersection “some car was coasting, and some car in front of us had stopped, so we stopped” behind two preceding automobiles, and “a car came at pretty good speed down at the back before we could realize what it was.” Plaintiffs did not see this car before the collision. “It was a pretty heavy blow.” Plaintiff testified he had his foot on the brake and his car did not strike the preceding vehicle which was a car-length ahead. The evidence is not clear as to how long plaintiff was stopped before impact. Although he once testified, “maybe a minute and a half, a minute, something like that”, when his counsel reminded him that “a minute is a pretty good while”, he testified “there was some time in between.” Repair cost to his Cadillac automobile was $130.

This is the full extent of the evidence we have been able to find in the record, and we are unable therefrom to sustain the points as to no evidence and overwhelming preponderance of the evidence relating to negligence. Other points thereby become immaterial. Affirmed.
-1- 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

COURT OF APPEALS 

NORTH SHORE INJURY CENTER, INC., 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, 

UNPUBLISHED 

March 21, 2017 

v No. 330124 

Wayne Circuit Court 

GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, LC No. 14-008704-NF 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

Before: MARKEY, P.J., and WILDER and SWARTZLE, JJ. 

SWARTZLE, J. (concurring). 

 I concur in the result. There is no question that defendant—“GEICO General Insurance 

Company”—did not insure the vehicle involved in the accident at issue here. Rather, the vehicle 

was insured by “GEICO Casualty Company,” a separate, albeit similarly named, insurance 

company. Given this, I am not aware of any legal theory under which defendant could be held 

liable to the plaintiff under Michigan’s no-fault regime. 

 I write separately to make clear that these proceedings were prolonged by defendant’s 

own actions. In answer to plaintiff’s interrogatories served early in the case, defendant answered 

“Yes” to the following question: “Is the name and entity of the Defendant correctly stated in the 

pleadings? If not, what corrections should be made?” One would have expected that, in answer 

to this interrogatory, defendant would have made clear that it was not the insurer of the vehicle 

and therefore not a proper defendant to this lawsuit. This ambiguous answer might have been an 

isolated matter and otherwise overlooked. But then defendant compounded the confusion when 

it simultaneously referred to itself as “GEICO General Insurance Company” in its summary 

disposition motion and “GEICO Casualty Company” in the attached brief in support. 

 While perfection in pleadings and papers may not be expected, diligence certainly 

is. Michigan Court Rule 2.309(B)(1) requires that, in answer to an interrogatory, a party must 

provide information that “is available” to it, and one would expect that a party would know its 

own name. Moreover, a lawyer who signs a document represents that the lawyer has read it and 

that it “is well-grounded in fact,” and defendant’s brief misstated a fundamental fact at issue 

here—defendant’s name. MCR 2.114(D). I do not suggest that either of these were sanctionable 

errors; honest mistakes, of course, are made, especially in light of the similarity of defendant’s 

and the insurer’s names. But, I do highlight these matters to illustrate that plaintiff’s confusion, 
-2- 

and the trial court’s ire, are understandable given defendant’s missteps below. If fees or costs are 

sought, then these considerations may be relevant to that proceeding. 

/s/ Brock A. Swartzle
#### Gilbert Allen SANDERSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 28275.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 25, 1956.

*582No attorney on appeal for appellant.

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

PER CURIAM.

The conviction is for the unlawful possession of a narcotic drug; the punishment, seven years in the penitentiary.

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

The judgment is affirmed.
Order filed, February 7, 2020.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 19

- 00893

- CR

____________ CARLOS OMAR VILLAN UEVA , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 228th District Court

Harris County, Te xas Trial Court Cause No. 1570999

ORDER
The reporter’s record in this case was originally due December 23, 2019

. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.1. On January 3, 2020 , this court granted the court reporters request for extension of time to file the record until February 4, 2020 . To date, the record has not been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record was not filed within the time prescribed in the first request, the court issues the following order

.We order Arlene Webb , the court reporter, to file the record in this appeal

within 30 days of the date of this orde r . No further extension will be entertained absent exceptional circumstances . The trial and appellate courts are jointly responsible for ensuring that the appellate record is timely filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.3(c). If Arlene Webb does not timely file the rec ord as ordered, the Court may issue an order directing the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine
the reason for the failure to file the record.

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Justices Wise, Jewell and Poissant.
March 1, 2013 OST Docket 98-3305 Dockets Facility (SVC-121.30) U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE. Washington, DC 20590 RE: 14 C.F.R. § 243.13 Filing Requirements To Whom ItMay Concern: SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO. Laurie Barnett Director Corporate Outreach & Preparedness

This correspondence is intended to supersede and replace AirTran Airways, Inc.'s ("AirTran") previous letter dated December 18,2008 and submitted to OST docket 98-3305. AirTran is a wholly-owned subsidiary ofSouthwest Airlines Co. Forpurposes ofpassenger-carrying flight segments operating to or from the United States (i.e., the flight segment where the last point ofdeparture orthe first point ofarrival is in the United States), AirTran (FAA operating air carrier certificate number SW AA304A) will verbally solicit an emergency contact name and telephone number from eachU.S. citizenpassenger upon check-in at the ticket counter. Additionally, AirTran representatives assigned to gates with flights operating to orfrom destinations outside the United States will verbally solicit an emergency contact name and telephone number from each U.S. citizenpassenger at various intervals priorto departure in the gate area. Uponrequest, passengers will be provided an emergency contact form. The emergency contact form contains a place for a name and telephone number ofa designated emergency contact. All collected emergency contact forms will be retained in a secure location for a minimum oftwenty-four hours after the flight's departure. Ifan accident occurs, the contact forms will be transmitted from the station at which they are retainedto the Southwest Airlines' Headquarters Emergency Command Center. Emergency Contact information will be kept confidential and released only to the U.S. Department ofTransportation, the National Transportation Safety Board (upon NTSB's request), and the U.S. Department ofTransportationpursuantto oversight of 14 C.F.R. § 243. SouthwestAirlines will also inform the Managing Director ofOverseas Citizen Services, Bureau ofConsular Affairs, U.S. Department ofState immediately upon learning ofan aviation disaster involving a covered flight. The information collectedpursuantto 14 C.F.R. § 243 will be faxed to the U.S. Department ofState as quickly as possible, butnot later than 3 hours, after we learn ofan aviation disaster involving a covered flight segment. Upon request, we will transmit a complete and accurate compilation ofthe information collectedpursuantto 14 C.F.R. § 243 to the Director, Family Support Services, National Transportation Safety Board. The SouthwestAirlines Operations Coordination Center, may be contacted at any time AirTran is operating a covered flight segment and canbe consulted concerning information gatheredpursuantto 14 C.F.R. § 243. Sincerely,

Laurie Barnett, Director Corporate Outreach & Preparedness SouthwestAirlines Co.