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

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2655 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2655

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           November 18, 2013

  Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To amend Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to improve 
            attorney accountability, 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 ``Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 
2013''.

SEC. 2. ATTORNEY ACCOUNTABILITY.

    (a) Sanctions Under Rule 11.--Rule 11(c) of the Federal Rules of 
Civil Procedure is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``may'' and inserting 
        ``shall'';
            (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``Rule 5'' and all that 
        follows through ``motion.'' and inserting ``Rule 5.''; and
            (3) in paragraph (4), by striking ``situated'' and all that 
        follows through the end of the paragraph and inserting 
        ``situated, and to compensate the parties that were injured by 
        such conduct. Subject to the limitations in paragraph (5), the 
        sanction shall consist of an order to pay to the party or 
        parties the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred as a 
        direct result of the violation, including reasonable attorneys' 
        fees and costs. The court may also impose additional 
        appropriate sanctions, such as striking the pleadings, 
        dismissing the suit, or other directives of a nonmonetary 
        nature, or, if warranted for effective deterrence, an order 
        directing payment of a penalty into the court.''.
    (b) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this Act or an amendment made 
by this Act shall be construed to bar or impede the assertion or 
development of new claims, defenses, or remedies under Federal, State, 
or local laws, including civil rights laws, or under the Constitution 
of the United States.

            Passed the House of Representatives November 14, 2013.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
Exhibit 32  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of Tidelands Bancshares, Inc. (the Company), each certify that, to his knowledge on the date of this certification:  1.The annual report of the Company for the period ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on this date (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/ Robert E. Coffee, Jr.Robert E. Coffee, Jr.Chief Executive OfficerMarch 1, 2011/s/ Alan W. JacksonAlan W. JacksonChief Financial OfficerMarch 1, 2011
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                  JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          1,725,896
<SECURITIES>                                    3,081,574
<RECEIVABLES>                                     830,054
<ALLOWANCES>                                          900
<INVENTORY>                                     6,974,310
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                9,565,007
<PP&E>                                          4,285,832
<DEPRECIATION>                                  3,412,723
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 13,519,690
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             401,980
<BONDS>                                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                          369,847
<OTHER-SE>                                     12,133,863
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   13,519,690
<SALES>                                         5,773,922
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                5,971,525
<CGS>                                           3,912,457
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   3,912,457
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                1,288,859
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      900
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   769,308
<INCOME-TAX>                                      276,800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               492,508
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                      492,508
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0.13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0.13



</TABLE>
#### EAKINS v. STATE.

No. 23328.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 10, 1946.

Temple Dickson, of Sweetwater, for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Judge.

Appellant was convicted in the county court of Fisher County for the violation of the liquor law, and his punishment was assessed at a fine of $100 and ninety days confinement in the county jail.

The record is before this court without statement of facts or bills of exceptions. The transcript does not contain any notice of appeal, consequently we have no jurisdiction of the case.

The appeal is dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                           1,845
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,951
<ALLOWANCES>                                       107
<INVENTORY>                                      7,193
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                12,246
<PP&E>                                           9,731
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (5,148)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  18,578
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,975
<BONDS>                                          1,570
<COMMON>                                         2,841
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                       9,914
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    18,578
<SALES>                                         14,799
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                14,799
<CGS>                                           10,017
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   10,017
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    19
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 392
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (317)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (34)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (283)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (283)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.10)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1

Certification

of

Periodic Financial Report

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, John G. Drosdick, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President of Sunoco, Inc., hereby certify that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended June 30, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of Sunoco, Inc.



|                     |  |  |  |  |  |                      |  |                          
|-------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | -------------------- |  | -------------------------
|Date: August 1, 2007 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ John G. Drosdick
|                     |  |  |  |  |  |                      |  | John G. Drosdick         
|                     |  |  |  |  |  |                      |  | Chairman, Chief Executive
|                     |  |  |  |  |  |                      |  | Officer and President
Group 4 – Google’s Responsive Claim Construction Brief 

(Civil Case Nos. 6:20-cv-00572-ADA, 6:20-cv-00581-ADA, and 6:20-cv-00582-ADA) 

EXHIBIT #7 

Case 6:20-cv-00572-ADA Document 34-7 Filed 02/12/21 Page 1 of 5
Case 6:20-cv-00572-ADA Document 34-7 Filed 02/12/21 Page 2 of 5
Case 6:20-cv-00572-ADA Document 34-7 Filed 02/12/21 Page 3 of 5
Case 6:20-cv-00572-ADA Document 34-7 Filed 02/12/21 Page 4 of 5
Case 6:20-cv-00572-ADA Document 34-7 Filed 02/12/21 Page 5 of 5
EXHIBIT 99.5



CERTIFICATION



I, Susan L. Riddell Rose, Chief Executive Officer, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this annual report on Form 40-F of Paramount Energy Trust;



2.

Based on my knowledge, this 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 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 issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4.

The issuers other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the issuer and have:



a)

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the issuer, 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 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 report based on such evaluation; and



c)

Disclosed in this report any change in the issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the issuers internal control over financial reporting; and



5.

The issuers other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the issuers auditors and the audit committee of the issuers board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):





---

2





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 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 issuers internal control over financial reporting.



March 21, 2006

Calgary Alberta

Per:

signed

Susan L. Riddell Rose

Chief Executive Officer

Paramount Energy Operating Corp.

in its capacity as Administrator of Paramount Energy Trust
Exhibit 32.1
 
   1)
    
    the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 25, 2010 fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended; and
 2)
    
    the information contained in the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended December 25, 2010 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.
 /s/ Carl H. Guild, Jr.

Carl H. Guild, Jr.
    
    
    
    /s/ Michael P. Malone

Michael P. MalonePresident and Chief Executive Officer
    
    
    
    Chief Financial OfficerDate: February 8, 2011
    
    
    
    Date: February 8, 2011
R18-2-202. Sulfur Oxides (Sulfur Dioxide)

A. The primary ambient air quality standards for sulfur oxides, measured as sulfur dioxide, are:

1. 0.03 parts per million (ppm) (80 μg/m3) -- annual arithmetic mean.

2. 0.14 parts per million (ppm) (365 μg/m3) - maximum 24-hour concentration not to be 

exceeded more than once per calendar year.

3. 75 parts per billion (ppb) - maximum one-hour concentration. The one-hour primary 

standard is met at an ambient air quality monitoring site when the three-year average of the 

annual 99th percentile of the daily maximum one-hour average concentrations is less than 

or equal to 75 parts per billion, as determined according to 40 CFR 50, Appendix T.

B. The secondary ambient air quality standard for sulfur oxides, measured as sulfur dioxide, is 0.5 

parts per million (ppm) (1300 μg/m3) -- maximum three-hour concentration not to be exceeded 

more than once per year.

C. The level of the standards shall be measured by a reference method based on 40 CFR 50, 

Appendix A or A-1, or by a Federal Equivalent Method designated according to 40 CFR 53.

D. The standards in subsections (A)(1) and (2) shall apply:

1. In an area designated nonattainment for a standard in subsection (A)(1) or (2) as of August 

23, 2011, and areas not meeting a state implementation plan call for a standard in 

subsection (A)(1) or (2), until the state submits pursuant to section 191 of the Act, and the 

Administrator approves, a state implementation plan providing for attainment the standard 

in subsection (A)(3) in that area.

2. In areas other than those identified in subsection (D)(1), until the effective date of the 

designation of that area, pursuant to section 107 of the act, for the standard in subsection 

(A)(3).

Historical Note

Amended effective December 22, 1976 (Supp. 76-5). Former Section R9-3-202 repealed, 

new Section R9-3-202 adopted effective May 14, 1979 (Supp. 79-1). Amended effective 

October 2, 1979 (Supp. 79-5). Amended effective August 29, 1980 (Supp. 80-4). 

Amended subsection (B) effective May 28, 1982 (Supp. 82-3). Amended by deleting 

subsections (C) through (E) effective September 22, 1983 (Supp. 83-5). Former Section 

R9-3-202 renumbered without change as Section R18-2-202 (Supp. 87-3). Amended 

effective September 26, 1990 (Supp. 90-3). Amended by final rulemaking at 11 A.A.R. 

3305, effective October 3, 2005 (Supp. 05-3). Amended by final rulemaking at 18 A.A.R. 

1542, effective August 7, 2012 (Supp. 12-2).
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATION



I, Thomas S. Smith, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Superior Silver Mines, Inc.

2.

Based on my knowledge, this 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 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 report.

4.

The Registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the Registrant and we have:

a)

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Registrant is made known to us by others within the entity, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b)

Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;

c)

Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant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 report based on such evaluation; and

d)

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.

5.

The Registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the Registrants auditors and the audit committee of the Registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

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 Registrant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 Registrants internal control over financial reporting.



Date: May 13, 2008

By:    _/s/ Thomas S. Smith



Thomas S. Smith, President and Director



---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

DEMETRICE HERRON,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 331 MAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Cross

- Petitioner

v.

DEMETRICE HERRON,

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 332 MAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 16th day of February, 2023

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 25 (Monday, February 7, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 5925]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-2677]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

[Order 2000-2-1; Docket OST-99-5798]


Application of Cardinal Airlines, Inc. for Issuance of New 
Certificate Authority

AGENCY:  Department of Transportation

ACTION:  Notice of Order to Show Cause.

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

SUMMARY:  The Department of Transportation is directing all interested 
persons to show cause why it should not issue an order (1) finding 
Cardinal Airlines, Inc., fit, willing, and able, and (2) awarding it a 
certificate to engage in interstate scheduled air transportation of 
persons, property, and mail.

DATES:  Persons wishing to file objections should do so no later than 
February 17, 2000.

ADDRESSES:  Objections and answers to objections should be filed in 
Docket OST-99-5798 and addressed to Department of Transportation 
Dockets (SVC-124, Room PL-401), 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 
20590 and should be served upon the parties listed in Attachment A to 
the order.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Ms. Janet A. Davis, Air Carrier 
Fitness Division (X-56, Room 6401), U.S. Department of Transportation, 
400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590, (202) 366-9721.

    Dated: February 1, 2000.
Robert S. Goldner,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International 
Affairs.
[FR Doc. 00-2677 Filed 2-4-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-62-U
#### Michael Pisano, Appellant, v Joseph Dashefsky et al., Defendants, and Patrick DeRosa, Respondent.

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lockman, J.), dated June 26, 1989, which granted the defendant Patrick DeRosa’s motion for an unconditional order of preclusion and for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him because of the plaintiff’s failure to provide a further bill of particulars; and (2) a judgment of the same court, dated July 19, 1989, which is in favor of the defendant DeRosa and against the plaintiff.

Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent is awarded one bill of costs.

The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action *(see, Matter of Aho,*39 NY2d 241, 248). The issues raised on appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on appeal from the judgment *(see,*CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).

The judgment is affirmed for reasons stated by Justice Lockman at the Supreme Court. Thompson, J. P., Lawrence, Eiber and Ritter, JJ., concur.