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

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1055 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1055

    To amend the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 to allow the 
   importation of polar bear trophies taken in sport hunts in Canada.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 12, 2009

 Mr. Young of Alaska introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                 to the Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 to allow the 
   importation of polar bear trophies taken in sport hunts in Canada.

    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 ``Restoration of the U.S.-Russia Polar 
Bear Conservation Fund Act of 2009''.

SEC. 2. PERMITS FOR IMPORTATION OF POLAR BEAR TROPHIES.

    The Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 is amended--
            (1) in section 101(a)(3)(B) (16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(3)(B)), by 
        inserting ``or under section 104(c)(5) of this title'' after 
        ``paragraph (5) of this subsection''; and
            (2) in section 102(b)(3) (16 U.S.C. 1372(b)(3)), by 
        inserting before the semicolon the following: ``, except that 
        this paragraph does not prohibit the importation of polar bear 
        parts under a permit issued under section 104(c)(5) of this 
        title''.
                                 <all>
```
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-12-0000847

30-SEP-2013

08:52 AM
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ismael Pellot, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Thomas Galligan, J.), rendered on September 15, 1988, convicting defendant, upon a plea of guilty, of attempted robbery in the second degree and sentencing defendant to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 2 to 4 years, to run consecutive with a 3-to-6-year sentence imposed in Kings County, unanimously affirmed.

We are unpersuaded that the sentence imposed was unduly harsh or severe. Taking into account, "among other things, the crime charged, the particular circumstances of the individual before the court and the purpose of a penal sanction”, we perceive no abuse of discretion warranting a reduction in sentence. *(People v Farrar,*52 NY2d 302, 305.)

Further, defendant was sentenced in accordance with his plea bargain and within statutory guidelines. "Having received the benefit of his bargain, defendant should be bound by its terms.” *(People v Felman,*141 AD2d 889, 890, *lv denied*72 NY2d 918.) Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Ellerin, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.
EX-4.9



 Exhibit 4.9 

AURINIA PHARMACEUTICALS INC. 

Information on Change in Financial Statement Presentation 

At the second quarter ended June 30, 2015, the Company changed its financial statement presentation to show the change in the valuation of the derivative
warrant liability separately from “other (income) expense” in the consolidated statement of operations and comprehensive loss. This change in presentation had no impact on the comprehensive loss for any period. If this change in
presentation had been applied to the financial statements for the periods ended March 31, 2015 and 2014 and for the year ended December 31, 2014, it would have had the following impact. The change in presentation had no impact on the
financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2013. 
  

																									
	 	  	Three months ended
March 31, 2015	 	 	Three months ended
March 31, 2014	 
	 	  	Previous
format
$	 	  	Change
$	 	 	New
format
$	 	 	Previous
format
$	 	  	Change
$	 	 	New
format
$	 
	 Other (income) expense
	  	 	3,025	  	  	 	2,927	  	 	 	98	  	 	 	1,545	  	  	 	(1,062	) 	 	 	483	  
	 Gain (loss) on derivative warrant liability
	  	 	—  	  	  	 	(2,927	) 	 	 	(2,927	) 	 	 	—  	  	  	 	(1,062	) 	 	 	(1,062	) 

  

													
	 	  	Year ended
December 31, 2014	 
	 	  	Previous
format
$	 	  	Change
$	 	  	New
format
$	 
	 Other (income) expense
	  	 	1,071	  	  	 	2,128	  	  	 	(1,057	) 
	 Gain (loss) on derivative warrant liability
	  	 	—  	  	  	 	(2,128	) 	  	 	(2,128	)
HSBC



HSBC                             Exhibit 10.5



 

 

The Directors

Warwick International Group Limited

Mostyn

Holywell

Flintshire

CH8 9HE


The Directors

Sequa Corporation

200 Park Avenue

New York

New York

10166

USA


 

31 March 2005


Dear Sirs


HSBC Bank plc ('the bank') is pleased to advise that it is willing to continue to make available to Warwick International Group Limited (registered in England with number 2982784) and Sequa Corporation (registered in the state of Delaware USA with number 13-1885030) ("Sequa") banking facilities, subject to the terms and conditions set out in the Facility Letter dated 24 January 2005, save as revised below:


	
1
	
The Security Schedule shall be amended to read as follows

	 	 
	 	
Paragraph (j) relating to cash deposited with HSBC Bank Plc and Barclays Bank Plc is deleted.

	 	 
	
2
	
Additional Matters

	 	 
	 	
Paragraph 4 relating to the amounts of cash collateral to be held with both HSBC Bank Plc and Barclays Bank Plc is deleted.





 

 

Without prejudice to the terms and conditions of the Facility Letter (as amended), the Facilities are due for review in August 2005.


 

 

 

 

HSBC Bank plc

Leeds City Branch, 33 Park Row, Leeds, Yorkshire LS1 1LD

Tel: 08457 404 404 Fax: 0113 296 2166


Registered in England number 14259.  Registered Office: 8 Canada Square, London E14 5HQ

Authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority.

Member of the HSBC Bank marketing group.  We sell life insurance, pensions and collective

investment schemes and advise only on our own range of these products.

HSBC


 

 

To accept the revised terms and conditions relating to the Facilities as set out in this letter please arrange for the enclosed copy to be signed and returned.


 

Yours faithfully


 

/s/: SHARON THEAKER


Sharon Theaker

Corporate Banking Manager

For and on behalf of HSBC Bank plc


 

HSBC


 

 

ACCEPTANCE



 

We Warwick International Group Limited and Sequa Corporation accept the revised terms and conditions relating to the Facilities as set out in the attached letter dated 31 March 2005.


 

 

 

Date:  March 31, 2005   


 

 

Director: /s/ Steve Williams        


 

 

Secretary: /s/ Simon J. Watt-Smith       


 

 

(Signed for and on behalf of Warwick International Group Limited, pursuant to a Resolution of the Board of Directors passed on March 31, 2005).


 

 

Date:  March 31, 2005    


 

 

Vice President and Treasurer  /s/ Kenneth A. Drucker    


 

 

(Signed for and on behalf of Sequa Corporation pursuant to a Resolution of the Board of Directors passed on 28 October 2004).
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1382 

To provide assistance for ultra efficient vehicles under the advanced 

technology vehicles manufacturing incentive program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 9, 2009 

Mr. BILBRAY (for himself, Mr. SCHIFF, Mrs. BONO MACK, Mrs. DAVIS of 

California, Mr. FILNER, Mr. HUNTER, Mr. ISSA, Mr. SHERMAN, and Mr. 

RADANOVICH) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To provide assistance for ultra efficient vehicles under the 

advanced technology vehicles manufacturing incentive 

program. 

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 ‘‘Innovative Vehicle 

5 Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ULTRA EFFICIENT VEHICLES. 

7 Section 136 of the Energy Independence and Security 

8 Act of 2007 (42 U.S.C. 17013) is amended— 

9 (1) in subsection (a)— 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1382 IH

1 (A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ‘‘an 

2 ultra efficient vehicle or’’ after ‘‘means’’; and 

3 (B) by adding at the end the following new 

4 paragraph: 

5 ‘‘(5) ULTRA EFFICIENT VEHICLE.—The term 

6 ‘ultra efficient vehicle’ means a fully closed compart7 ment vehicle designed to carry at least 2 adult pas8 sengers that achieves— 

9 ‘‘(A) at least 75 miles per gallon while op10 erating on gasoline or diesel fuel; 

11 ‘‘(B) at least 75 miles per gallon equiva12 lent while operating as a hybrid electric-gasoline 

13 or electric-diesel vehicle; or 

14 ‘‘(C) at least 75 miles per gallon equivalent 

15 while operating as a fully electric vehicle.’’; 

16 (2) in subsection (b)— 

17 (A) by inserting ‘‘, ultra efficient vehicle 

18 manufacturers,’’ after ‘‘automobile manufactur19 ers’’; 

20 (B) in paragraph (1)— 

21 (i) by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end of sub22 paragraph (A); 

23 (ii) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of 

24 subparagraph (B) and inserting ‘‘or’’; and 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
3 

•HR 1382 IH

1 (iii) by adding at the end the fol2 lowing new subparagraph: 

3 ‘‘(C) ultra efficient vehicles; and’’; and 

4 (C) in paragraph (2), by inserting ‘‘, ultra 

5 efficient vehicles,’’ after ‘‘qualifying vehicles’’; 

6 (3) in subsection (g), by inserting ‘‘or are uti7 lized primarily for the manufacture of ultra efficient 

8 vehicles’’ after ‘‘20 years’’; and 

9 (4) in subsection (h)(1)(B), by striking ‘‘auto10 mobiles’’ and inserting ‘‘ultra efficient vehicles, auto11 mobiles,’’. 

12 SEC. 3. RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR APPLICATIONS. 

13 The Secretary of Energy shall reconsider applications 

14 for assistance under section 136 of the Energy Independ15 ence and Security Act of 2007 (42 U.S.C. 17013) that 

16 were— 

17 (1) timely filed under that section before Janu18 ary 1, 2009; 

19 (2) rejected on the basis that the vehicles to 

20 which the proposal related were not advanced tech21 nology vehicles; and 

22 (3) related to ultra efficient vehicles. 

Æ 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
**EXHIBIT      32.2**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF      2002**

|   | (1) | The                Form 10-Q 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the                Company. |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                       |                                                                                |
|---------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                  |  /s/              Sean B. O’Connor                                       |
| Date:                February 8, 2007 | Sean                    B. O’ConnorChief                    Financial Officer |
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, James F. Lynch,certify that:

 

1.               Ihave reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of SITEL Corporation;

 

2.               Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.               Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.               Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

(a) Designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

(b) Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

(c) Disclosed in thisreport any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.               Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

(a) All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

 

(b) Any fraud, whetheror not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 
| Date:  | May 10, 2004 | /s/ *James F. Lynch*       |
|--------|--------------|----------------------------|
|   |         | **James  F. Lynch**        |
|   |         | *Chief  Executive Officer* |

 

----
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

Friday, April 10, 2015

N o. 04

- 15

- 00123

- CR

Ex Parte Eric LUNA

, Appellant

From the Criminal District Court, Magistrate Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Cou rt No. 2014

- W

- 0464 Honorable Andrew Carruthers, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

This is an accelerated appeal of the trial court’s order denying appellant’s application for writ of habeas corpus. Appellant’s brief was originally due to be filed on March 30, 2015. See

4 TH T EX

. A PP

. (S AN A NTONIO ) L OC

. R . 8.2(a) (requiring appellant’s brief to be filed no later than 20 days after the appellate record is complete). On April 7, 2015, appellant’s attorney was notified that the brief was late and filed a motion requesting an extension of time to file the br ief the same day. The motion is GRANTED IN PART. Appellant’s brief must be filed no later than April 29, 2015.

_________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 10th day of April, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Co urt
#### POTTER v. STATE.

No. 21060.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 15, 1940.

R. E. Eubank, of Paris, for appellant.

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

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant was given 100 days in jail on a charge of liquor law violation. The trial was in the District Court of Red River County, proceeding under statute giving it jurisdiction in certain misdemeanor matters. The sheriff of Red River County, together with other officers, went to George Nash’s place on the highway about a mile south of Detroit. An old filling station and store building had been occupied as a business place but was locked up and no business was being conducted in it at this particular time. It was formerly used by George Nash, but there is no evidence that appellant had ever occupied it or that he had charge of it at any time. Inside the building was found an ice box which was locked. The sheriff prized it open and found inside of it one hundred and thirty two pints of whiskey without any tax stamps on them. Leaving the other officers at the place, he went to Detroit where he found appellant getting in his car. He took •charge of appellant, drove ’ back towards the premises where the liquor was found, and on the way he met the other officers. He stopped and searched appellant, finding on his person a bunch of keys. They returned to the premises and with one key unlocked the door to the building. Another would fit and work the lock on the ice box where the whiskey was found.

Appellant didn’t testify in the case and there is no other evidence connecting appellant with the ownership, possession or •control of the whiskey. He is not shown to have lived near it or even to have visited the place. It is not shown what kind of lock was on the building nor the box, except that it is a padlock. It might have been an ordinary door lock, so far as the record is concerned, or some other kind which many keys would open.

The sheriff testified on cross-examination that he understood the property was owned by George Nash, who was in charge of it and lived across the road from it; that it contained only the ice box and some junk and that it was last used by George Nash. He said further that he didn’t know whether or not the appellant ever conducted a filling station or sold any groceries or anything else in that building and never knew of him having charge of it at any time.

Under this state of facts the evidence does nothing more than create a suspicion against the appellant, but is by no means sufficient to support a conviction. Branch’s Penal Code, Art. 1877; Hernandez v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 72 S.W. 840; Rice v. State, 122 Tex.Cr.R. 64, 53 S.W.2d 629.

The judgment is reversed.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, April 25, 2022. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, April 25, 2022 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A22A1128. IN RE ESTATE OF MARCHEL WALKER, SR. .
Upon consideration of the APPELLANT'S motion FOR PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW THE APPEAL in the above styled case, it is ordered that the motion be hereby GRANTED, and jurisdiction is released back to the trial court upon receipt of this order.
#### HANCOCK v. HOEGMEYER.

No. 3364.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Beaumont.

Oct. 27, 1938.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 2, 1938.

*142Andrew M. Smith and Weber & Wolfe, all of San Antonio, for appellant.

G.. H. Miller, of Columbus, and Baker, Botts, Andrews & Wharton, A. P. Jones, and O. Strother Simpson, all of Houston, for appellee.

O’QUINN, Justice.

This was an action by appellant Hancock against appellee Hoegmeyer for damages growing out of an automobile collision. The jury convicted appellee of actionable negligence, and also found that the collision was an unavoidable accident, and further found that appellant suffered no damages as a result of the accident. On the verdict judgment was rendered for appellee. From that .judgment, appellant brings this appeal.

On oral argument, appellee conceded that a conflict existed in the jury’s findings- — the finding that appellee was guilty of actionable, negligence and the finding that the collision was unavoidable- — but would sustain the judgment on the finding that appellant had suffered no damages.

We sustain appellant’s assignment that the finding of the jury against him on the issue of damages was against the overwhelming weight and preponderance of the evidence, and without reasonable support in the evidence. The evidence greatly preponderates to show that appellant suffered a most serious injury in the collision in question. The great weight of the evidence established that as the .result of the injury, appellant suffered a hernia from which he suffered great pain, and in undergoing an operation and receiving medical attention for same, incurred hospital and medical bills of more than $600.

Because the jury’s finding on the issue of damages is without reasonable support in the evidence, and is against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for another trial.

Reversed and remanded.
**EXHIBIT 31.2****CERTIFICATIONS**I, Robin Risser, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Advanced Photonix, Inc.;     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations 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 andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:     a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;     b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand 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 registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) that occurredduring the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter inthe case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):     a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’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 asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: November 10, 2006       /s/Robin RisserRobin Risser    Chief Financial Officer