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

Private Calendar No. 1 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 1857 

[Report No. 112–617] 

For the relief of Bartosz Kumor. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 11, 2011 

Mr. CONYERS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

JULY 24, 2012 

Referred to the Private Calendar and ordered to be printed 


ebenthall on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1857 RH

A BILL 

For the relief of Bartosz Kumor. 


ebenthall on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1857 RH

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

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR BARTOSZ 

4 KUMOR. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding subsections (a) 

6 and (b) of section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality 

7 Act, Bartosz Kumor shall be eligible for issuance of an 

8 immigrant visa or for adjustment of status to that of an 

9 alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence upon fil10 ing an application for issuance of an immigrant visa under 

11 section 204 of such Act or for adjustment of status to 

12 lawful permanent resident. 

13 (b) ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.—If Bartosz Kumor 

14 enters the United States before the filing deadline speci15 fied in subsection (c), he shall be considered to have en16 tered and remained lawfully and shall, if otherwise eligible, 

17 be eligible for adjustment of status under section 245 of 

18 the Immigration and Nationality Act as of the date of the 

19 enactment of this Act. 

20 (c) DEADLINE FOR APPLICATION AND PAYMENT OF

21 FEES.—Subsections (a) and (b) shall apply only if the ap22 plication for issuance of an immigrant visa or the applica23 tion for adjustment of status is filed with appropriate fees 

24 within 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act. 


ebenthall on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
4 

•HR 1857 RH

1 (d) REDUCTION OF IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBER.— 

2 Upon the granting of an immigrant visa or permanent res3 idence to Bartosz Kumor, the Secretary of State shall in4 struct the proper officer to reduce by 1, during the current 

5 or next following fiscal year, the total number of immi6 grant visas that are made available to natives of the coun7 try of the alien’s birth under section 203(a) of the Immi8 gration and Nationality Act or, if applicable, the total 

9 number of immigrant visas that are made available to na10 tives of the country of the alien’s birth under section 

11 202(e) of such Act. 

12 (e) DENIAL OF PREFERENTIAL IMMIGRATION

13 TREATMENT FOR CERTAIN RELATIVES.—The natural 

14 parents, brothers, and sisters of Bartosz Kumor shall not, 

15 by virtue of such relationship, be accorded any right, privi16 lege, or status under the Immigration and Nationality Act. 


ebenthall on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with BILLS

ebenthall on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Private Calendar No. 1 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 1857 

[Report No. 112–617] 

A BILL 

For the relief of Bartosz Kumor. 

JULY 24, 2012 

Referred to the Private Calendar and ordered to be 

printed 


ebenthall on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS




We have issued our report dated March 15, 2001,  accompanying  the  consolidated
financial  statements  included in the Annual  Report of Telebyte,  Inc. on Form
10-KSB  for  the  year  ended  December  31,  2000.  We  hereby  consent  to the
incorporation  by  reference  of said report in the  Registration  Statement  of
Telebyte, Inc. on Form S-8 (File No. 333-02091), effective March 29, 1996.





GRANT THORNTON LLP


Melville, New York
March 15, 2001
#### Bercie GARNER (Now King), Appellant, v. Willard GARNER, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Oct. 7, 1955.

James E. Gillenwater, George J. Ellis, Jr., Glasgow, for appellant.

A. P. Carter, Tompkinsville, for appellee.

CAMMACK, Judge.

This is an appeal from an order providing alternate custody of two infant girls, ages four and five. The appellant, Bercie King, was granted a divorce from the ap-pellee, Willard Garner, in October, 1954, and was given custody of the children. The appellee was given the right to take the children to his home, where the children had been reared, for one weekend each month. The father lives with his parents out in the county. The mother remarried December 31, 1954. She lives in town. On February 5, 1955, on motion by the appellee, the court entered an order granting custody to each parent during alternate months until Motion Day, December 20, 1955. This appeal is from that order.

Bercie King contends that the order does not reflect the best interests of the children, and that she, as the mother, is entitled to their custody in the absence of a showing that she is unfit for such a responsibility.

The mandate of KRS 403.070 is that custody must be governed by the interest and welfare of the children. Trial courts are peculiarly adapted to the fact-finding process, especially in a case such as this, which must precede the application of this rule. In the absence of an abuse of discretion in awarding custody, this Court will not interfere with the decision of the chancellor. Newby v. Newby, Ky., 275 S.W.2d 779; Price v. Price, 306 Ky. 214, 206 S.W.2d 924. In view of this rule, *851coupled with the fact that the order appealed from will terminate by its own terms in the very near future, we deem it desirable to maintain the status quo until the lower court again considers the problem.

Upon the termination of the order appealed from, the chancellor will enter an order reflecting his determination of the best interests and welfare of the children as of that time. He will, of course, take into consideration all the surrounding facts and circumstances concerning the welfare of the children, including the inherent evils of alternate custody.

Judgment affirmed.
#### LORRAINE OTTAWA *v.*JOCKO OTTAWA

(14538)

SchaUer, Spear and Hennessy, Js.

Submitted on briefs December 14, 1995

decision released March 5, 1996

*Michael R. Hasse,*with whom, on the brief, *was Richard T. Miller,*certified legal intern, for the appellant (defendant).

*Lois J. Lawrence,*for the appellee (plaintiff).

PER CURIAM.

The defendant appeals from the judgment dissolving his marriage to the plaintiff. Custody and visitation matters were resolved by a stipulation that was signed by the parties and their attorneys and accepted by the trial court. After a hearing on contested financial matters, the court entered orders regarding property, alimony, counsel fees and child support and rendered judgment accordingly.

*459The defendant asserts that the trial court (1) violated the defendant’s right to due process of law by awarding counsel fees to the attorney for the minor children without affording the defendant an evidentiary hearing, (2) improperly accepted the stipulation of the parties and (3) entered financial awards in contravention of settled law.

The defendant contends that the court awarded fees to the children’s attorney without a hearing despite his request for such a hearing. He states in his brief that “[t]his order is in complete disregard of the defendant’s due process rights to a hearing. It completely ignores a constitutional issue that was raised, questioned and presented by the defendant [at the beginning] of the trial. The trial court deprived the defendant of his right to a hearing on the fees for the attorney for the minor children.”

Our review of the transcript shows that the court offered to have the attorney for the minor children brought to court to testify regarding her bill. In response to that offer, the defendant’s trial counsel responded that “[h]e’s willing to stipulate to the amount. Our concern is how that bill is going to be paid.” The defendant’s counsel then suggested that “if he could just review it in the recess, that would do it . . . .” After a twenty minute recess was called by the court to allow the defendant and his counsel to review the attorney’s bill and to discuss the matter, the following colloquy took place:

> “The Court: Where do we stand with the issue I left you with?

> “[Defense Counsel]: He has agreed. Yes.”

The hearing then proceeded with other testimony because the court properly considered the fees for the children’s attorney to be a closed issue. The defendant

*460clearly agreed to the fees and waived his right to a hearing on the issue.

After a careful review of the record and the briefs of the parties, we also conclude that the remaining issues are equally lacking in merit.

The judgment is affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           30,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        11,500
<OTHER-SE>                                    (41,500)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT
      32.2








CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350
      OF CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES
      CODE as adopted pursuant to
      SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








I,EdwardAlexander,
      the chief executive officer and chief
      financial officer of Proton Laboratories, Inc. , certify that (i) the Quarterly
      Report on Form 10-QSBAmendment
      Number 1for the quarter
      endedMarch 31,
      2007, as filed by the
      Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission, to which this Certification
      is an Exhibit, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and (ii) the information contained
      in the Form 10-QSB financial statements fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Proton
      Laboratories, Inc.




January
                17,
                2008
            By:
            /s/
            EdwardAlexanderEDWARDALEXANDERPrincipal
                Accounting officer and
                Chief Financial Officer




This
      certification accompanies this
      Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall
      not
      be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.





A
      signed original of this written
      statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Proton Laboratories,
      Inc.
      and will be retained by Proton Laboratories, Inc. and furnished to the
      Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.
EXHIBIT
32.2





STATEMENT
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


BY
PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER








I,
O'Donnell Iselin II, herby certify, to my knowledge, that:





1.
the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of Cadiz Inc. for the year ended
December 31, 2007 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended; and





2.
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Cadiz
Inc.





IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Statement as of the date
first written above.





Dated:
March 14, 2008








/s/ O'Donnell Iselin
II


O'Donnell
Iselin II


Chief
Financial Officer and Secretary
#### Ysidoro CASTILLYA, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27420.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 16, 1955.

*491No attorney on appeal for appellant.

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

PER CURIAM.

The offense is unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale in a dry area; the punishment, a fine of $100.

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.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1835 

To direct the Architect of the Capitol to fly the flag of a State over the 

Capitol each year on the anniversary of the date of the State’s admission 

to the Union. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 11, 2011 

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on House Administration 

A BILL 

To direct the Architect of the Capitol to fly the flag of 

a State over the Capitol each year on the anniversary 

of the date of the State’s admission to the Union. 

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 ‘‘State Admission Day 

5 Recognition Act of 2011’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FLYING STATE FLAG OVER CAPITOL ON ANNIVER7 SARY OF STATE’S ADMISSION TO UNION. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—To honor the anniversary of each 

9 State’s admission to the Union, the Architect of the CapVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:56 May 13, 2011 Jkt 099200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H1835.IH H1835

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1835 IH

1 itol shall fly the flag of the State over the Capitol each 

2 year on the anniversary of the date of the State’s admis3 sion to the Union. 

4 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The Architect of the Capitol 

5 shall fly the first flag of a State over the Capitol under 

6 this section on the first December 7 which occurs after 

7 the date of the enactment of this Act, in honor of the anni8 versary of the admission of Delaware, the first State ad9 mitted to the Union. 

10 SEC. 3. REGULATIONS. 

11 The Committee on House Administration of the 

12 House of Representatives and the Committee on Rules 

13 and Administration of the Senate may promulgate jointly 

14 such regulations as may be appropriate to carry out this 

15 Act, including regulations permitting the Architect of the 

16 Capitol to honor the District of Columbia, the Common17 wealth of Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the 

18 United States Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana 

19 Islands by flying the flag of each such jurisdiction over 

20 the Capitol each year on an appropriate date for that ju21 risdiction. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
#### Troy SALMON, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 26601.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 7, 1953.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Wesley' Dice,. State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is robbery; the punishment, ten years.

The record before us contains an affidavit in proper form, executed by appellant, requesting the dismissal of the appeal.

The request is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.
---

---

EXHIBIT 23.1

# CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the
incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-72654,
333-48605 and 333-79567) of Tofutti Brands Inc. of our report dated April 10, 2008, with
respect to the financial statements of Tofutti Brands Inc., included in the Annual Report on
Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 29, 2007.

Amper, Politziner &
Mattia, P.C. /s/ Amper, Politziner & Mattia, P.C.

Edison, New Jersey April 10, 2008



---

---
CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM




We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements Nos.
333-127717 and 333-136728 on Form S-8 and Nos. 333-140246 and 333-141934 on
Form  S-3 of our report dated September 22, 2009, with respect to the
consolidated balance sheets of IsoRay, Inc. and Subsidiaries as of June 30, 2009
and 2008, and the related consolidated statements of operations, changes in
shareholders’ equity and cash flows for the years then ended, which report
appears in the Form 10-K filing for IsoRay, Inc. to be filed on or about
September 25, 2009.





/s/
DeCoria, Maichel & Teague, P.S.





DeCoria,
Maichel & Teague, P.S.


Spokane,
Washington


September
22, 2009
Exhibit 13.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Certification of Chief
Executive Officer

In connection with the Annual Report
of New World Batteries, Inc. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Patrick OBrien, Chief Executive Officer certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

(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.

|             |                                                            
|------------ | -----------------------------------------------------------
|May 30, 2006 | /s/ Patrick O'Brien
Patrick O'Brien
Chief Executive Officer

---
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 28, 2011
 
 
 PHILLIPS-VAN HEUSEN CORPORATION
  (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
  
 Delaware
001-07572
13-1166910(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation)
(Commission File Number)
(IRS Employer Identification No.)200 Madison Avenue, New York, New York
10016(Address of principal executive offices)
(Zip Code)
 
  Registrant’s telephone number, including area code  (212)-381-3500
  Not Applicable
 (Former name or former address, if changed since last report.)
 
  Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously satisfy the filing obligation of the registrant under any of the following provisions:
   ̈  Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)
  ̈  Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)
  ̈  Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act
 (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))
  ̈  Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act
 (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c))
   
 
 
   ITEM 2.02                      RESULTS OF OPERATIONS AND FINANCIAL CONDITION
   On March 28, 2011, Phillips-Van Heusen Corporation (the “Company”) issued a press release to report the Company’s earnings for the fourth quarter and full year 2010, which is attached to this report as Exhibit 99.1.
   The information in this Form 8-K and the Exhibit attached hereto shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or otherwise subject to the liabilities of that section, nor shall it be deemed incorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
   
  ITEM 9.01                      FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND EXHIBITS
  (d)  Exhibits.
  Exhibit
Description99.1
Press Release, dated March 28, 2011.
  
   
   
   
   
   SIGNATURES
   Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized.
   PHILLIPS-VAN HEUSEN CORPORATION
   
   By:/s/ Bruce Goldstein
  Bruce Goldstein
 Senior Vice President and Controller
  
   Date: March 28, 2011
   
   Exhibit Index
  
 Exhibit
Description99.1
Press Release, dated March 28, 2011.
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA PAGE 1 of 1

STATE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

REGULATION FOR EMISSIONS TRADING (9 VAC 5 CHAPTER 140)

9 VAC 5 CHAPTER 140.

REGULATION FOR EMISSIONS TRADING.

PART I.

NOX Budget Trading Program.

ARTICLE 10.

State Trading Program Budget and Compliance Supplement Pool.

9 VAC 5-140-900. State trading program budget.

For use in each control period for the years 2004 –2008 year 2004 and each year thereafter, the 

total number of NOX tons apportioned to all NOX Budget units is the sum of the NOX tons apportioned under 9 

VAC 5-140-920 and 9 VAC 5-140-930.

9 VAC 5-140-910. Compliance supplement pool budget for years 2004 and 2005.

For use in each control period for the years 2004 and 2005, the total number of NOX tons 

apportioned to all NOX Budget units for use as a compliance supplement pool is the number of NOx tons 

specified for the Commonwealth of Virginia in Appendix D to 40 CFR Part 97.

9 VAC 5-140-920. Total electric generating unit allocations.

A. For use in each control period for the years 2004 –2008, the total number of NOX tons 

apportioned to all NOX Budget units under 9 VAC 5-140-40 A 1 is the number of NOx tons specified for EGUs 

in the Commonwealth of Virginia in Appendix C to 40 CFR Part 97.

B. For use in each control period for the year 2009 and each year thereafter, the total number of 

NOX tons apportioned to all NOX Budget units under 9 VAC 5-140-40 A 1 is 17,091.

9 VAC 5-140-930. Total non-electric generating unit allocations.

A. For use in each control period for the years 2004 –2008, the total number of NOX tons 

apportioned to all NOX Budget units under 9 VAC 5-140-40 A 2 is 4,104.

B. For use in each control period for the year 2009 and each year thereafter, the total number of 

NOX tons apportioned to all NOX Budget units under 9 VAC 5-140-40 A 2 is 4,104.

TEMPLATES\NOIRA\REG-PRO

REG\DEV\K08-REG-BD.DOC
Order entered March 5 , 2014

In The



## Court of Appeals

**Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05

- 12

- 01390

- CV

BRIAN ANTHONY BERARD INELLI, Appellant

V.

NOVA LYNNE PICKELS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 162nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Tr ial Court Cause No. DC

- 11

- 10998



### O RDER

We DENY as moot appellant’s March 3, 2014 motion for an extension of time to file a

reply brief. By order dated, March 4, 2014, the Court granted appellant’s February 27, 2014

motion for an extension and ordered the reply brief filed as of the date of that order.

/s/ ADA BROWN

JUSTICE