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

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 659 

Designating September 2020 as ‘‘School Bus Safety Month’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 28, 2020 

Mrs. FISCHER (for herself and Ms. DUCKWORTH) submitted the following 

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

AUGUST 6, 2020 

Committee discharged; considered and agreed to with an amended preamble 

RESOLUTION 

Designating September 2020 as ‘‘School Bus Safety Month’’. 

Whereas, in an average year, on every school day in the 

United States, approximately 500,000 public and private 

school buses carry more than 26,000,000 K–12 students 

to and from school; 

Whereas school buses comprise the largest mass transportation fleet in the United States; 

Whereas, in an average year, 48 percent of all K–12 students 

ride a school bus for each of the 180 school days in a 

year, and school bus operators drive school buses a total 

of nearly 4,680,000,000 miles; 

Whereas the Child Safety Network (referred to in this preamble as the ‘‘CSN’’), which is celebrating 31 years of 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

SRES 659 ATS 

public service in the United States, supports the CSN 

Safe Bus campaign, which is designed to provide the 

school bus industry with driver training, the latest technology, and free safety and security resources; 

Whereas the designation of School Bus Safety Month will 

allow broadcast and digital media and social networking 

industries to commit to disseminating public service announcements that are produced to— 

(1) provide free resources designed to safeguard children; 

(2) recognize school bus operators and professionals; 

and 

(3) encourage the driving public to engage in safer 

driving behavior near school buses when students board 

and disembark from school buses; 

Whereas key leaders who deserve recognition during School 

Bus Safety Month and beyond have— 

(1) provided security awareness training materials to 

more than 14,000 public and private schools; 

(2) trained more than 116,800 school bus operators; 

and 

(3) provided more than 163,120 counterterrorism 

guides to individuals who are key to providing both safety 

and security for children in the United States; and 

Whereas School Bus Safety Month offers the Senate and the 

people of the United States an opportunity to recognize 

and thank the school bus operators and the professionals 

focused on school bus safety and security in the United 

States: Now, therefore, be it 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

SRES 659 ATS 

1 Resolved, That the Senate designates September 

2 2020 as ‘‘School Bus Safety Month’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Dear Sir Madame ;

We are writing to you in support of the Island Air Express Service, and our local Mail service, We Strongly Support our local Airlines ( Island Air Express ) and there efforts of delivering our Mail to our island, as many of you know it's not easy these days to own businesses on our island with the economy the way it is, So KU

- do's to them for the continued on time flights they give to our folks on Prince of Whales Island, these Folks are very prompt, and ON TIME, when nobody else is a ble to get to and from our Island these folks are able to do so with the IFR service, They are Locally owned and operated and employee our folks whom live on the Island, There for they can and would be the first to be able to bring our mail to the island a nd off the island when NO others can make it. We Island Folks have no other choice but to travel to and from Ketchikan, and do not get any benefits at all. If you were and Elder and traveled to Ketchikan on a tour boat you would be allowed a Tax exempt

card, We on the other hand whom not only travel our Elders but continue to support the Ketchikan community by having to travel through, and have to pay taxes, and get no benefit's. We used to be able to place an out of town order and have things such as groce ries, and or furniture shipped to us on POW and Metlakatla, but that has stopped as well, When we place an order for shipment we pay there city sales TAX. So it is only fitting that We would, And by all means should support OUR local folks in something as simple as our Mail. I am from the Community of Hydaburg where we only get mail on Monday, Wednesday, & Fridays, if the weather should permit. sometimes we have gone as long as two weeks without Mail. With Island Air Express this would make it so we would A ll (everyone on POW ) get mail the five days a week Washington DC thinks we get.

So with that I hope you would see fit to give OUR LOCALLY owned and operated folks the chance to continue the great service they do along with getting our mail which is the u pmost important to and from our Island.

Sincerely,

Jolene Edenshaw Hydaburg Alaska. Frequent flyer of Island Air Express. Because of the great Service They do.
Walter Mortgage Company 

LLC, 

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 13, 2014

No. 04-13-00882-CV

Joseph ZAPATA and Maria Banda,

Appellants

v.

WALTER MORTGAGE COMPANY LLC, ET AL.,

Appellees

From the 79th Judicial District Court, Jim Wells County, Texas

Trial Court No. 10-03-48880-CV

Honorable Richard C. Terrell, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant's request for a 10 day extension to pay the $195.00 filing fee is hereby 

GRANTED. Time is extended to January 17, 2013.

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

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

court on this 13th day of January, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
**EXHIBIT 23.01**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRMWe consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Nos.333-62724, 333-67424 and 333-105497) and Form S-8 (Nos. 333-88543, 333-95713, 333-35738, 333-44768,333-61218, 333-63900, 333-67730, 333-86324, 333-102771, 333-105498, 333-113856, 333-123377 and333-132490) of our reports dated March 1, 2007, relating to (1) consolidated financial statementsof Silicon Image, Inc. (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatoryparagraph regarding the adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123(R),Share-Based Payment) as of December 31, 2006 and 2005, and for the years then ended, and (2)management’s report on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, appearing inthis Annual Report on Form 10-K of Silicon Image, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2006.\s\ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLPSan Jose, California
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PAULA J. TERRELL,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

 v.

J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.;

QUALITY LOAN SERVICE

CORPORATION OF WASHINGTON,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 14-35909

D.C. No. 2:14-cv-00930-MJP

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

Marsha J. Pechman, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 13, 2016** 

Before: HAWKINS, N.R. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Paula J. Terrell appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing

her action alleging federal and state law claims stemming from the servicing of her

mortgage. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse

FILED

SEP 21 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
of discretion the denial of a motion for leave to amend. Cervantes v. Countrywide

Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.

The district court properly denied Terrell’s motion for leave to file an

amended complaint because amendment was futile. See Johnson v. Mammoth

Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992) (“[L]eave to amend should be

granted unless amendment would cause prejudice to the opposing party, is sought

in bad faith, is futile, or creates undue delay”); see also Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,

550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (plaintiff’s complaint must set forth “more than labels

and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will

not do”).

We reject as without merit Terrell’s contention that her action should have

been dismissed without prejudice.

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

in the opening brief, including the district court’s underlying dismissal of the

action. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

2 14-35909
#### Hale vs. Gaines et al.

(For the principles involved in this case, see *Rector et al. vs. Gaines et al., ante.)*A Cherokee pre-emption cannot be located upon the same tract of land upon which a pre-emption has been proved and allowed, and a patent certificate issued.

*Appeal from the Circuit Court of Hot Spring county.*

The Hon. John C. Murray, Special Judge, presiding.

Flanagin, and Williams & Williams, for appellant.

Watkins & Gallagher, for appellees.

Mr. Justice Scott

delivered the opinion of the Court.

In all respects, material, this case is like that of Loretta Hunter, except that, in addition to the evidence offered, or relied upon, the defendant below also offered to prove that he applied to the Register and Receiver of the land office at Washington, Arkansas, the 16th of October, 1850, to locate the land in controversy with a Cherokee pre-emption certificate, which application these officers refused, as the documents offered in evidence showed upon their face. This evidence the Court below refused, and we think very properly. The land was clearly not subject to be located with this Cherokee preemption at the time of that application.

But, although there was no error, otherwise, in the ruling of the Court below, there was error in its ruling as to the recovery of rents and profits in this action, and for that the judgment must be reversed unless the appellees shall elect to enter a re-mittitur as in the other cases where this point has been considered.

.Mr. Chief Justice English did not sit in this case.
**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**





In
      connection with Amendment No. 2 to the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB (the
“Annual Report”) of China Sky One Medical, Inc. (the “Registrant”) for the year
      ending December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
      on the date hereof, I, Zhang Yukun, Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant,
      certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
      906
      of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)  The
      Annual 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 Annual Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
      Registrant.




By:
              /s/
                Zhang
                YukunZhang
                YukunChief
                Financial Officer(principal
                financial and accounting officer)Dated
                this 13th day of August, 2008
Maria Kapenda,

Plaintiff,

V.

Kenneth L. Parker,

Defendant.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

Case No. 2:18-cv-593

Judge Michael H. Watson

Magistrate Judge Kimberly Jolson

ORDER

On August 3, 2018, Magistrate Judge Jolson issued a report and

recommendation ("R&R") recommending that this case be remanded. EOF No.

8.

Magistrate Judge Jolson notified the parties of their right to file objections

to the R&R pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Id. at 3. She also specifically

advised the parties that the failure to object to the R&R within fourteen days

would result In a waiver of both the right to de novo review by the District Judge

and the right to appeal the decision of the District Court adopting the R&R. Id.

The deadline for filing such objections has passed, and no objections were

filed. Having received no objections, the R&R is ADOPTED. This case Is

REMANDED. The Clerk of Court shall TERMINATE this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED. i ./•/,//;

MICHAEL H. WATSON, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Exhibit 21

                        PIONEER FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.

     Subsidiary                                       Jurisdiction

 1.  Pioneer Life Insurance Company of Illinois       Illinois
 2.  Health and Life Insurance Company of America     Illinois 
 3.  National Group Life Insurance Company            Illinois
 4.  Design Securities Corporation formerly           Delaware
     First Pioneer Equity Corporation
 5.  Pioneer Fire & Casualty Insurance Company        Pennsylvania
 6.  Administrators Service Corporation               Illinois
 7.  Association Management Corporation               Illinois
 8.  Network Air Medical Systems, Inc.                Illinois
 9.  National Benefit Plans, Inc.
     formerly National Group Holding
     Corporation                                      Delaware
10.  Design Benefit Plans, Inc.
     formerly National Group Marketing Corporation    Illinois
11.  Partners Health Group, Inc. formerly 
     Union Capital Corporation                        Delaware
12.  National Marketing Specialists                   Delaware
13.  Target Ad Group, Inc. formerly National
     Benefit Finance, formerly Select Marketing 
     Corporation                                      Illinois
14.  Response Air Ambulance Network, Inc.             Illinois
15.  Direct Financial Services, Inc.                  Illinois

16.  National Health Services, Inc.                   Wisconsin

17.  Manhattan National Life Insurance Company        North Dakota

18.  United Group Holdings, Inc.                      Delaware

19.  Advantage Financial Systems, Inc.                Delaware

20.  NHS Coordinated Care of Texas, Inc. formerly
     American Managed Care of Texas, Inc.             Texas
21.  NHS Coordinated Care, Inc.                       Nevada

22.  Continental Life & Accident Company              Iowa

23.  Continental Marketing Corporation                Idaho

24.  Healthcare Review Corporation                    Kentucky

25.  Connecticut National Life Insurance Company      Illinois

26.  ACMG, Inc.                                       Ohio

27.  Preferred Health Choice, Inc.                    Illinois

28.  PL Holdings, Inc.                                Nevada

29.  Personal Healthcare, Inc.                        Delaware

30.  Success Training Corporation                     Illinois
<PAGE>
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, I, Kenneth Y. Tanji,
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of American Skandia Life Assurance Corporation (the Company), hereby certify that the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 (the
Report) 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 Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.

Dated: August 10, 2007



/s/ Kenneth Y. TanjiName:

Kenneth Y. TanjiTitle:

Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not
being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

Pursuant to 18 USC. § 1350, As Adopted
Pursuant to

§ 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002



In connection with the filing with the
Securities and Exchange Commission of the Annual Report of Lakeland Industries, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A
for the fiscal year ended January 31, 2016 (the “Report”), I, Teri W. Hunt, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 USC. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best
of my knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 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.





By: /s/ Teri W. Hunt

Teri W. Hunt

Chief Financial Officer



February 17, 2017
#### Block *v.*Terry.

5-1019

291 S. W. 2d 520

Opinion delivered June 25, 1956.

*Talley*& *Owens*and *William L. Blair,*for appellant.

*Dave E. Witt,*for appellee.

Sam RobiNsoN, Associate Justice.

This is a suit by real estate agents for a commission. It is alleged that *666the principal violated his contract to sell; a jury was waived; the conrt held against the agents and they have appealed.

Raymond E. Block, Sam A. Block and Lewis S. Block, doing business as the Block Realty Company, entered into an agreement with John W. Terry to sell for Terry Lot 10, Block 3, Sheldon’s Addition to the City of Little Rock, for the price of $8,500. Appellants were to receive $425 as their commission. Appellants obtained as purchasers for the property Samuel Wilkins and his wife, Moliee; but the Wilkins’ offer of purchase was conditioned on their obtaining an $8,000 loan. In preparing to make the loan the lending agency had the lot surveyed, and it was discovered that a driveway used by the occupants of Lot 10 was not located altogether on that lot, but part of the driveway was on the adjoining Lot 9, which is owned by the father and mother of John W. Terry, appellee. Before the lending agency would complete the loan to Wilkins, it required that the owners of Lot 9 execute an easement on that part of the lot on which the driveway was situated. The owners of Lot 9 refused to give an easement, and the sale of Lot 10 was not completed.

It is contended by the real estate agents that the deal fell through because appellee Terry refused to convey Lot 10, but the finding of the court that the actual reason for the sale not being completed was that no easement could be obtained on Lot 9 is supported by substantial evidence. The record is convincing that the lending agency would not lend the money to Wilkins to buy the property unless an easement for the driveway was obtained from the owners of Lot 9.

Terry’s contract pertained to Lot 10, and he stood ready and willing to convey that lot, but he had made no agreement with reference to Lot 9; He could do nothing about obtaining an easement from the owners of Lot 9, nor did his contract obligate him to do so.

Affirmed.
Case: 1:18-cv-00574-TSB-KLL Doc #: 4 Filed: 08/20/18 Page: 1 of 8 PAGEID #: 21
Case: 1:18-cv-00574-TSB-KLL Doc #: 4 Filed: 08/20/18 Page: 2 of 8 PAGEID #: 22
Case: 1:18-cv-00574-TSB-KLL Doc #: 4 Filed: 08/20/18 Page: 3 of 8 PAGEID #: 23
Case: 1:18-cv-00574-TSB-KLL Doc #: 4 Filed: 08/20/18 Page: 4 of 8 PAGEID #: 24
Case: 1:18-cv-00574-TSB-KLL Doc #: 4 Filed: 08/20/18 Page: 5 of 8 PAGEID #: 25
Case: 1:18-cv-00574-TSB-KLL Doc #: 4 Filed: 08/20/18 Page: 6 of 8 PAGEID #: 26
Case: 1:18-cv-00574-TSB-KLL Doc #: 4 Filed: 08/20/18 Page: 7 of 8 PAGEID #: 27
Case: 1:18-cv-00574-TSB-KLL Doc #: 4 Filed: 08/20/18 Page: 8 of 8 PAGEID #: 28
#### Cantley *v.*Irby.

4-2822

Opinion delivered November 14, 1932.

*W. E. Rhea*and *G. B. Segraves,*for appellant.

McHaNey, J.

Petitioner is the receiver of the St. Louis Joint Stock Land Bank, and respondent is the judge of the chancery court of Lawrence County. It is sought to compel, by mandamus, the respondent to appoint a receiver in certain mortgage foreclosure suits now pending in his court. In addition to the mortgage indebtedness and default in its payment, the complaints alleged that the lands were not of sufficient value to pay the amount of the judgment that should be rendered against them, and that the mortg’ag’ors were insolvent. The respondent declined to appoint a receiver or to hear any testimony in support of the above allegations, because of the provisions of § 1 of act 253, Acts 1931, p. 791. This section reads as follows: “In an action by a mort*493
      *gagee*for the foreclosure of Ms mortgage, and the sale of the mortgaged property, a receiver may be appointed where it appears that the mortgaged property is in danger of being lost, removed, or materially injured, or that the conditions of the mortgage have not been performed, and that the property is probably insufficient to discharge the mortgage debt; provided, however, that no receiver shall be appointed at the instance of the holder of the mortgage where it appears that the debtor or mortgagor has mortgaged his crops, or his interest therein, for the purpose of obtaining money or supplies for the making of the crop and/or waived his rents, for said purpose, and that said mortgage debt and/or the consideration for said waiver of rents has not been repaid. ’ ’

This statute does not make it obligatory on the court to appoint a receiver, but the provision is that it “may” do so, except in case the mortgagor has mortgaged his crops or waived his rents to obtain money to make the crops, which is thé situation in the cases now pending in respondent’s court.

The writ of mandamus will not issue to control the judicial discretion of an inferior court, but only to compel an exercise of such discretion. Such has always been the rule in this court since *Gunn*v. *County of Pulaski, 3*Ark. 427, and still is. *Miller*v. *Tatum,*170 Ark. 152, 279 S. W. 1002. The respondent was vested with the discretion to appoint or to refuse to appoint a receiver. He exercised such discretion by refusing to appoint, and his action in so doing can be reviewed in this court only by appeal on the whole case. In this court, on a proper showing that the fruits of the litigation might be lost through delay, the case would be advanced.

Therefore petitioner had a complete and adequate remedy by appeal, and the writ of mandamus will be denied.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

BILL GRANT,

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§ 

No. 08-13-00087-CR 

Appeal from the

County Criminal Court No. 4 

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 20100C08307)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the Appellant’s motion to dismiss the appeal, and 

concludes the motion should be granted and the appeal should be dismissed, in accordance with 

the opinion of this Court. We therefore dismiss the appeal. This decision shall be certified 

below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 28TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2013.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Rodriguez, JJ.