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

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 71 Received in Senate (RDS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 71

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                May 5 (legislative day, April 19), 1993

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
   Authorizing the use of the Capitol grounds for the twelfth annual 
               National Peace Officers' Memorial Service.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),

SECTION 1. USE OF CAPITOL GROUNDS FOR NATIONAL PEACE OFFICERS' MEMORIAL 
              SERVICE.

    The National Fraternal Order of Police and its auxiliary shall be 
permitted to sponsor a public event, the twelfth annual National Peace 
Officers' Memorial Service, on the Capitol grounds on May 15, 1993, or 
on such other date as the Speaker of the House of Representatives and 
the President pro tempore of the Senate may jointly designate, in order 
to honor the 137 law enforcement officers who died in the line of duty 
during 1992.

SEC. 2. TERMS AND CONDITIONS.

    (a) In General.--The event authorized to be conducted on the 
Capitol grounds under section 1 shall be free of admission charge to 
the public and arranged not to interfere with the needs of Congress, 
under conditions to be prescribed by the Architect of the Capitol and 
the Capitol Police Board.
    (b) Expenses and Liabilities.--The National Fraternal Order of 
Police and its auxiliary shall assume full responsibility for all 
expenses and liabilities incident to all activities associated with the 
event.

SEC. 3. EVENT PREPARATIONS.

    (a) Structures and Equipment.--Subject to the approval of the 
Architect of the Capitol, the National Fraternal Order of Police and 
its auxiliary are authorized to erect upon the Capitol grounds such 
stage, sound amplification devices, and other related structures and 
equipment, as may be required for the event authorized to be conducted 
on the Capitol grounds under section 1.
    (b) Additional Arrangements.--The Architect of the Capitol and the 
Capitol Police Board are authorized to make any such additional 
arrangements as may be required to carry out the event.

            Passed the House of Representatives May 4, 1993.

            Attest:

                                           DONNALD K. ANDERSON,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>

THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
ACCOMPANYING FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>


<S>                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                           SEPT-30-1999
<CASH>                                   $2,614,937
<SECURITIES>                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                               590,885
<ALLOWANCES>                                 50,000
<INVENTORY>                                  13,627
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          3,221,324
<PP&E>                                    1,384,977
<DEPRECIATION>                             (776,162)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            3,909,773
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       959,128
<BONDS>                                           0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<COMMON>                                  9,331,532
<OTHER-SE>                               (6,635,516)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              3,909,773
<SALES>                                   1,028,566
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          1,028,566
<CGS>                                       136,111
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               136,111
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          1,139,609
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            8,522
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (229,350)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (229,350)
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                               (229,350)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   .00



</TABLE>
1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Red Lion Hotels Corporation;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 officers 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 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, 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)
    
    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; andd)
    
    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 (the
registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably
likely to materially affect, the registrants internal
control over financial reporting; and;
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the
registrants board of directors:
 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; andb)
    
    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.
  /s/ Jon E. Eliassen
#### HOOVER v. STATE.

No. 26152.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 7, 1953.

No attorney on appeal.

George P. Blackburn, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is aggravated assault with a motor vehicle; the punishment, two months in jail and a fine of $500.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception.

All the proceedings appear regular; and nothing being presented for our review, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
**Exhibit 23.1**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRMWe consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-1258887, 333-92511,333-41204, 333-90048 and 333-143954 on Form S-8 and Registration Statement No. 333-131768 on FormSB-2 of InPlay Technologies, Inc. (formerly Duraswitch Industries, Inc.) of our report dated March21, 2008, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of InPlay Technologies, Inc. andsubsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 2007./s/ Moss Adams LLP
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6381

JORDACHE W. LEACH,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

FRANK L. PERRY,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, 

District Judge. (1:15-cv-00014-CCE-JEP)

Submitted: May 19, 2015 Decided: May 22, 2015

Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jordache W. Leach, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, 

III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Jordache W. Leach seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. 

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Leach has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 

a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 
3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
Exhibit 32.1

 

 

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANTTOSECTION 906**

**OFTHESARBANES-OXLEYACT**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Highwoods Realty Limited Partnership (the “Operating Partnership”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Edward J. Fritsch, President and Chief Executive Officer of Highwoods Properties, Inc., general partner of the Operating Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 Operating Partnership. |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| /s/ EDWARDJ.FRITSCH                                                           |   |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Edward J. FritschPresident and Chief Executive Officer of the General Partner |   |
| May 14, 2008                                                        |   |
#### SIMPSON v. STATE.

No. 25103.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 17, 1951.

None on appeal for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Judge.

The conviction is for driving, while intoxicated, upon a public highway; the punishment, a fine of $250.

No statement of facts and no formal bills of exception appear in the record.

On page 5 of the transcript appellant calls this court’s attention to the form of the information, levelling his complaint against the use of the phrase: “ * * * on the written affidavit of Lester Harris, a competent and creditable person herewith filed prior to the presentment of this information.” Appellant contends that this is an effort to bolster the state’s case by hearsay testimony as to the credibility of state’s witness.

Like contention has been recently held by this court to be without merit. Ashley v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 237 S.W.2d 311.

Appellant insists that a variance exists between the complaint and the information, but fails to point out the same. An inspection thereof fails to reveal any substantial variance.

On page 15 of the transcript there appears, though not in the form of a bill of exception, an exception of appellant to the court’s failure to sustain his motion for new trial. This cannot be considered as a bill of exception because the motion for new trial, itself, sets up at least five separate and distinct grounds and is, there*921fore, multifarious. Smithwick v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 234 S.W.2d 237; Humphrey v. State, 152 Tex.Cr.R. 203, 212 S.W.2d 159; Sharp v. State, 151 Tex.Cr.R. 637, 210 S.W.2d 174; White v. State, 150 Tex.Cr.R. 546, 203 S.W.2d 222; Miller v. State, 129 Tex.Cr.R. 166, 84 S.W.2d 459; Spruell v. State, 119 Tex.Cr.R. 317, 44 S.W.2d 733; Ellison v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 235 S.W.2d 157; Granado v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 228 S.W.2d 530.

No error appearing', the judgment of conviction is affirmed.
Second Amendment to the


Amended and Restated Borders Group, Inc.


2004 Long-Term Incentive Plan








The Amended and Restated Borders Group, Inc. 2004 Long-Term Incentive Plan (the “Plan”), as previously amended effective as of May 21, 2009, is hereby further amended as follows pursuant to the resolution adopted by the Board of Directors of Borders Group, Inc. (the Company”) on September 15, 2010:





1.      The penultimate sentence of Section 3 of the Plan is hereby amended to read as follows:





“Solely for purposes of applying the burn rate analysis to the number of shares granted in a year: (i) share awards will count as equivalent to 1.5 option shares; and (ii) the initial grant of options and restricted shares made to Mr. Edwards following his promotion to President of the Company shall be excluded.”





Except as herein amended, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.








Borders Group, Inc.








By:  \S\ GLEN TOMASZEWSKI


Glen Tomaszewski


Interim Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 4(i)

                           Specimen Stock Certificate

NOT VALID UNLESS COUNTERSIGNED BY TRANSFER AGENT
INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
CUSIP 46145Q 10 1
INVESTNET, INC.
AUTHORIZED COMMON STOCK: 45,000,000 SHARES
PAR VALUE: $.001


This Certifies that ________________________

Is The Record Holder of  ___________________  Shares of INVESTNET,  INC.  Common
Stock  transferable  on the  books  of the  Corporation  in  person  or by  duly
authorized attorney upon surrender of this Certificate  properly endorsed.  This
Certificate  is  not  valid  until  countersigned  by  the  Transfer  Agent  and
registered by the Registrar.

Witness the facsimile seal of the  Corporation  and the facsimile  signatures of
its duly authorized officers.

Dated: ______________                                                     [SEAL]

/s/ Ruairidh Campbell (President)
---------------------------------

/s/ Ruairidh Campbell (Secretary)
---------------------------------
COUNTERSIGNED & REGISTERED BY: [AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE] INTERWEST TRANSFER
COMPANY, INC.








                                       43


<PAGE>
----

(2004/C 84 E/0634)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0247/04

by Elisabeth Jeggle (PPE-DE) and Peter Liese (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 February 2004)

Subject:   Revision of Regulation (EC) No 2571/97 on the sale of butter at reduced prices and the granting of aid for cream, butter and concentrated butter for use in the manufacture of pastry products, icecream and other foodstuffs

We have received queries from medium-sized bakeries with regard to the obligation to provide detailed evidence in respect of butter consumption in excess of seven tonnes per year, and to the problems this causes.

It is impossible for a medium-sized bakery to provide evidence that every single gram of butter sold at reduced prices has been processed, or to bear the huge administrative costs this would entail. This results in regular fines and thus gradual increases in the prices of pastry products.

In this context, is the Commission considering revising the above Regulation (2571/97/EC (1)) so that the obligation for bakeries to provide evidence of processing butter in excess of seven tonnes per year is greatly simplified or abolished? Has a revision procedure to this effect already been started on the initiative of a Member State?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(1 March 2004)

This disposal measure is an important means to maintain a reasonable balance on the butter market and avoid purchases of butter into public intervention.

Appropriate control measures are needed in order to ensure that the rules of the Regulation are respected and to protect against abuse of Community funds. However, the control requirements specified in Article 23 of Regulation (EC) No 2571/97 vary subject to tracing or not of the subsidized products and to the quantities used by the operators incorporating the subsidized product into the intermediary or final products.

For smaller operators undertaking in writing to purchase less than nine tonnes of butter equivalent per 12-month period, the controls are less severe (see Article 23(6) of the Regulation). However, an increase of the maximum quantity of nine tonnes for smaller operators is at present under consideration in the Management Committee for Milk and Milk Products.

It is the responsibility of the competent authorities in the Member States to introduce control measures ensuring that the maximum quantities, for which a less severe control applies, are respected.

For other operators the control requirements for incorporation into the final products and the control frequency are described in Article 23(4). Checks of recipes and records as well as sampling at a frequency based on the quantities used, and, in the case of traced products, at least once a month if five tonnes or more is used in the establishment per month, are required. The control requirements for medium size and bigger operators are considered reasonable measures ensuring that the conditions of the Regulation are respected.

----

(1)OJ L 350, 20.12.1997, p. 3.

----
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 131 (Friday, July 8, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 40419]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-17212]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice: 7521]

Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Prints and the Pursuit of Knowledge in Early Modern 
Europe''

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 
236-3 of August 28, 2000, I hereby determine that the objects to be 
included in the exhibition ``Prints and the Pursuit of Knowledge in 
Early Modern Europe,'' imported from abroad for temporary exhibition 
within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are 
imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners or 
custodians. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the 
exhibit objects at the Harvard Art Museums, Cambridge, MA, from on or 
about September 6, 2011, until on or about December 10, 2011; The Mary 
and Leigh Block Museum of Art, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, 
from on or about January 17, 2012, until on about April 8, 2012, and at 
possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in 
the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these 
Determinations be published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the exhibit objects, contact Julie Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-
632-6467). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, SA-5, L/PD, 
Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505.

    Dated: June 30, 2011.
Ann Stock,
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, 
Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2011-17212 Filed 7-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,

J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk January 16, 2009

p0113 

# Order

January 16, 2009

137736 & (12)(13)

CHRISTY ANDERSON, Guardian of the Estate of YVETTE ANDERSON, a Legally Incapacitated Person, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 137736 COA: 289006 Wayne CC: 05-529951-NF AUTO CLUB INSURA NCE ASSOCIATION, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Chief Jus tice, a stipulation signed by counsel for the parties agreeing to the dismissal of this application for l eave to appeal is considered, and the application for leave to appeal is DISM ISSED with prejudice and without costs.

H ATHAWAY

, J., not participating. To avoid u nnecessary delay to the parties in cases considered by this Cour t before I assumed office, I fo llow the practice of previous justices in transition and p articipate only in cases that need my vote to achieve a majority for a decision.