alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
`[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 184 Engrossed in House (EH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. J. RES. 184

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION


 
 Designating the weekend of October 15-16, 1994, as ``Small Towns and 
                          Townships Weekend''.

Whereas small towns and townships have been the spirit and backbone of this 
        great Nation and have provided many common, traditional ideals and 
        values throughout our history;
Whereas it is appropriate to recognize the importance of small towns and 
        townships in the development of a sense of community and to highlight 
        the spirit of small towns and townships;
Whereas it is vital to unify residents of small towns and townships in the 
        process of revitalizing their own community and reinvigorating small-
        town life; and
Whereas it is fitting that official recognition be given to the importance of 
        small towns and townships and a weekend set aside for activities that 
        are most commonly associated with small towns and townships, such as 
        town festivals, family picnics, and baseball games: Now, therefore, be 
        it
    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the weekend of October 
15-16, 1994, is designated as ``Small Towns and Townships Weekend'', 
and the President is authorized and requested to issue a proclamation 
calling on the people of the United States to observe such weekend with 
appropriate ceremonies and activities.

            Passed the House of Representatives October 7, 1994.

            Attest:






                                                                 Clerk.
                                     







103d CONGRESS

  2d Session

                             H. J. RES. 184

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 Designating the weekend of October 15-16, 1994, as ``Small Towns and 
                          Townships Weekend''.`
103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 290

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Whereas the special delegation sent to Haiti on September 17, 1994, has succeeded in convincing the de facto

authorities in Haiti to agree to leave power;

Whereas on September 18, 1994, after an agreement was

reached in Port-au-Prince that day, the President ordered the present deployment of men and women of the

United States Armed Forces in and around Haiti; and

Whereas the Congress and the people of the United States

have great pride in the men and women of the United

States Armed Forces and fully support them in all their

efforts overseas, including those in Haiti: Now, therefore,

be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That the Congress—

3 (1) commends the efforts of the President in

4 sending former President Jimmy Carter, retired

5 General Colin Powell and Senator Sam Nunn to

6 Haiti in an effort to avoid the loss of American lives;

7 (2) fully supports the men and women of the

8 United States Armed Forces who are carrying out
2

HCON 290 EH

1 their mission in Haiti with professional excellence

2 and dedicated patriotism;

3 (3) supports the efforts of the President,

4 through the special delegation, to provide for the de5 parture from power of the de facto authorities and

6 the return of democracy and the rule of law in Haiti;

7 (4) affirms the commitment to national rec8 onciliation and adherence to the rule of law in Haiti;

9 and

10 (5) supports an orderly withdrawal of all

11 United States Armed Forces as soon as possible.

Passed the House of Representatives September 19,

1994.

Attest:

Clerk.

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 290

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Commending the President and the special delegaArmed Forces in Haiti. tion to Haiti, and supporting the United States
#### Steven Raymond, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Mayer Raymond, Deceased, et al., Respondents-*442Appellants, v Jeffrey Marx, Appellant-Respondent, and Long Island Jewish-Hillside Medical Center, Respondent.

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice and wrongful death, the defendant Jeffrey Marx appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Joy, J.), dated December 19, 1988, as denied his renewed motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against him, and the plaintiffs cross-appeal from so much of that order as directed the payment of sanctions to the defendants’ attorneys, which sums were designated as reimbursements for costs.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, the appellant-respondent’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against him is granted, and the action against the remaining defendant is severed; and it is further,

Ordered that on the cross appeal, the order is modified, as a matter of discretion, by deleting the provision which awarded the attorneys for Dr. Jeffrey Marx the sum of $8,750, and as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as cross appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that the defendant Jeffrey Marx is awarded one bill of costs, payable by the plaintiffs.

In opposition to the appellant-respondent’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs’ medical malpractice and wrongful death causes of action against him, the plaintiffs failed to establish a reasonable excuse for their failure to comply with a conditional order of preclusion dated March 30, 1988 *(see, White v Leonard,*140 AD2d 518; *Martinelli v Hessekiel,*133 AD2d 104; *Rush v Mid Is. Hosp.,*128 AD2d 766). Nor did they submit an affidavit of merit containing evidentiary facts establishing the existence of a viable cause of action sufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment *(see, Canter v Mulnick,*93 AD2d 751, *affd*60 NY2d 689).

Under the circumstances, we find that the court should have dismissed the complaint insofar as it is asserted against the appellant-respondent, rather than imposing monetary sanctions payable to the appellant-respondent’s attorneys. Bracken, J. P., Brown, Kunzeman and Harwood, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-03-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-05-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-04-1998
<CASH>                                          13,777
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  150,194
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    148,752
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               333,181
<PP&E>                                         366,866
<DEPRECIATION>                                  26,369
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 724,006
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          250,869
<BONDS>                                        211,634
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           290
<OTHER-SE>                                     209,994
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   724,006
<SALES>                                        560,046
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               560,046
<CGS>                                          388,651
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  518,633
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   599
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,736
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 29,078
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,782
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             23,296
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    23,296
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .81<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .77
<FN>
<F1>Reflects basic EPS.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 7**  **840**

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. GREGORY FISHER BUTLER, JR. , a/k/a Gregory Fisher Butler , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Charlotte
. Frank D. Whitney , District Judge. ( 3:00

- cr - 00169

- FDW

- 4 )

Submitted : January 22, 2013 Decided: January 25, 2013

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Affirm ed by un published per curiam opinion
. Gregory Fisher Butler, Jr. , Appellant Pro Se. A my Elizabeth Ray , Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding p recedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Gregory Fisher Butler, Jr., appeals the district
court ’ s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2) (2006) motion for sentence reduction . We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Butler , No. 3:00

- cr 00169

- FDW

- 4 (W.D.N.C. Sept. 25, 2012) . We dispense with oral argument because the fact s and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### MASSEY v. FISCHER.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Nov. 16, 1951.

William 0. Ware and Ware & Ware, all of Covington, for appellant.

Eugene C. Benzinger, E. H. Henry, and-Bert J. King, all of *Covington, for*appellee.

MOREMEN, Justice.

Appellant, Prudie Massey, was the successful bidder at a sale held by a master commissioner. Thereafter she filed excep*890tions to the judgment and order of sale and to the report of sale in which she specifically assigned a number of reasons that she believed sufficient to cause the sale to he set aside and the sale bonds cancelled. The court caused the following order to be entered :

> “This cause being now submitted on the. exceptions to the Report of Sale herein filed by purchaser, Prudie Massey, and the court being sufficiently advised,

> “It Is Now Ordered and Adjudged that said exceptions be and the same are hereby overruled, to all of which the purchaser, Prudie Massey, objects and excepts and prays an appeal to the Court of Appeals which is granted.”

We have held in many cases that no appeal may be had to this court where, the record contains no final order and, in the case of Farmers Bank & Trust Co. v. Stanley, 190 Ky. 762, 228 S.W. 691, 692, said: “That no appeal may be prosecuted to this court, except from final orders, is too well settled to require reference to the cases, and, should an appeal be prosecuted from an interlocutory order, it would be promptly dismissed upon motion, or without motion, if the attention of the court should be directed to it.”

We have defined a final order or judgment from which an appeal lies as being one which either terminates the action itself or operates to vest some right in such a manner as to put it out of the power of the court making the order to place the parties in their original condition after the expiration of the term. Searcy v. Three Point Gold Co., 280 Ky. 683, 134 S.W.2d 228; Faulkner v. Faulkner, 270 Ky. 693, 110 S.W.2d 465.

In the case of Kramer v. Kramer, 276 Ky. 504, 124 S.W.2d 744, we held that an order which overruled exceptions to a commissioner’s report and granted an appeal to this court was not a “final order” from which an appeal would lie.

It will be noted that the order above set forth fails to confirm the sale. The final act which consummates a decretal sale has not been performed.

It is with reluctance that we remand this case on this rather technical ground but in matters concerning title to real estate, it is best to place the condition of the title and the record title beyond even the threat of a future law suit involving a possible defect.

Appeal is dismissed.
#### ELLIS v. STATE.

No. 21264.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 27, 1940.

*177R. W. Webb, of Snyder, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Conviction is for selling whisky in dry territory; punishment assessed being a fine of $100.

The transcript fails to show that any judgment was entered of record. In fact, a memoranda on the margin of the transcript — presumably made by the Clerk of the County Court — shows affirmatively that no judgment is of record. A memo-randa on the trial docket recites that a verdict was returned by the jury fining appellant $100 and “judgment entered in accordance with said verdict.” Such entry' on the trial docket does not meet the requirement of Art. 766, C.C.P., which .contemplates the entry of the judgment in the minutes of a court of record. Walling v. State, 90 Tex.Cr.R. 463, 235 S.W. 888. Without a final judgment the jurisdiction of this court does not attach. Hellman v. State, 87 Tex.Cr.R. 460, 222 S.W. 980.

The appeal is dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>
 
<ARTICLE>                                                           5 

        
<S>                                                   <C> 
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                   3-MOS 
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                         DEC-31-1996 
<PERIOD-START>                                            JAN-01-1996 
<PERIOD-END>                                              MAR-31-1996 
<CASH>                                                         94,139 
<SECURITIES>                                                        0 
<RECEIVABLES>                                                       0 
<ALLOWANCES>                                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                                         0 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                               94,139 
<PP&E>                                                         50,628 
<DEPRECIATION>                                                 26,234 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                120,374
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                       1,584,151 
<BONDS>                                                             0 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                               0 
<PREFERRED>                                                         0 
<COMMON>                                                       13,427
<OTHER-SE>                                                  8,363,766 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                1,584,151 
<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-PRIMARY>                                                   (0.01) 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                       0 
         


</TABLE>
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### Health Resources and Services Administration 

In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Public Law 92-463), announcement is made of the following National Advisory body scheduled to meet during the month of December 2000. 

*Name:*                         Council on Graduate Medical Education (COGME).                    

*Date and Time:*                         December 13, 2000; 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m.; December 14, 2000; 8:30 a.m.-10:30 p.m.                     

*Place:*                         Holiday Inn Capitol, 550 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20024.                    

The meeting is open to the public. 

## Agenda

                        The agenda will include: Welcome and opening comments from the Administrator, Health Resources and Services Administration; the Associate Administrator for Health Professions; and the Acting Executive Secretary of COGME. New COGME members will be introduced. The Council will be given an update on the COGME and the National Advisory Council on Nurse                               ( print page 69320)                            Education and Practice (NACNEP) Report. There will be presentations on the Hispanic Physician Workforce and on Regional Trends in the Physician Workforce. The Council will hear reports from its work groups on GME Financing and Physician Workforce. There will be a discussion on future directions for the Council.                     

Anyone requiring information regarding the meeting should contact Stanford M. Bastacky, D.M.D., M.H.S.A., Acting Executive Secretary, Council on Graduate Medical Education, Division of Medicine and Dentistry, Bureau of Health Professions, Room 9A-27, Parklawn Building, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857, telephone (301) 443-6326. 

Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate. 

Dated: November 9, 2000. 

Jane M. Harrison, 

Director, Division of Policy Review and Coordination. 

[FR Doc. 00-29328 Filed 11-15-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4160-15-P
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 (the  "report") of GFSB Bancorp,  Inc.
(the  "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended December 31, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
we,  Richard C.  Kauzlaric,  President,  and Jerry R. Spurlin,  Chief  Financial
Officer,  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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/Richard C. Kauzlaric                         /s/Jerry R. Spurlin
--------------------------------------          --------------------------------
Richard C. Kauzlaric                            Jerry R. Spurlin
President                                       Chief Financial Officer




February 5, 2003
Buddy Garcia, Chairman Larry R. Soward, Commissioner Bryan CZl. Shaw, Ph.D., Commissioner Glenn Shankle,Executive Director 

## TEXAS COMMISSION ON 

## ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Proteci~ng Texas byReduc~ng andPreuentmngPollutzon March 11,2008

Richard E. Greene,Regional Administrator U.S. EnvironmentalProtectionAgency 

### -Region 6 1445Ross Avenue. Dallas, Texas 75202-2733 Re: Submission of Section 110(a)StateImplementationPlans (SIPs) for the 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone and Fine Particulate Matter (PM2J National Ambient

### Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
Dear Mayor Greene: 

### In late December 2007, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) received the letter from Stephen Page, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), regarding the submission of section 110(a) SIPs for the 1997 eight-hour ozone and PM25NAAQS. 

### In this letter, the EPA informed the State of Texas of the extension of the deadline for the EPA to make findings of failure to submit 11 0(a) SIPS for these respective standards. TCEQ staff is currently in the process of reviewing the Texas SIP in order to supplement its December 12, 2007, submission for ozone and make its PM23 submission concerning "infrastructure elements" in accordance with EPA's "Guidance for SIP Submissions to Meet Current Outstanding ObligationsUnder Section 1lO(a)(2)(D)(i) for Eight-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS" and Section 110(a)(2) of the Federal Clean Air Act. The TCEQ will provide this additional information as soon as practicable. If you have any additional comments, please contactDavid C. Schanbacher,Chief Engineer, at 5121239-1228. Sincerely,

cc: Carl Edlund, EPA Region 

### VI Tom Diggs, EPA Region VI Guy Donaldson, EPA Region V

P.O. Box 13087 a Austin, Texas 78711-3087 512-239-1000 

### * Internet address: ww~r.tceq.state.tx.us rbrint,.<l u,: ~~cycl~d.~,~~~~: umgs,~-l~;md nk
Exhibit 99.1



STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF

HIGHWOODS PROPERTIES, INC., GENERAL PARTNER OF

HIGHWOODS REALTY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Highwoods Realty Limited Partnership (the Operating Partnership) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Ronald P. Gibson, 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/    RONALD P. GIBSONRonald P. Gibson President and Chief Executive Officer of the General
Partner May 6, 2003