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

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1219 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the age requirement 

with respect to eligibility for qualified ABLE programs. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 23, 2021 

Mr. CA ́RDENAS (for himself, Mrs. RODGERS of Washington, and Ms. CHU) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways 

and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase 

the age requirement with respect to eligibility for qualified ABLE programs. 

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 ‘‘ABLE Age Adjust5 ment Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OF AGE REQUIREMENT FOR QUALI7 FIED ABLE PROGRAMS. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 529A(e) of the Internal 

9 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ‘‘age 26’’ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1219 IH

1 in paragraphs (1)(A) and (2)(A)(i)(II) and inserting ‘‘age 

2 46’’. 

3 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

4 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

5 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
Filed 1/24/14 G onzalez v. Kuerbiss CA4/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication

or or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

JONATHAN G. GONZALEZ,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JERALDIN KUERBISS,

Defendant and Appellant. D063410

(Super. Ct. No. DV036134 )

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Christine

K. Goldsmith, Judge. Dismissed.

Jeraldin Kuerbiss, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Jeraldin Kuerbiss appeals from a one

- year restraining order prohibiting her from

contacting her former boyfriend, Jonathan Gonzalez. In processing the appeal, we noted

the restraining order expired by its own terms on November 18, 2013. We solicited

supp lemental briefs from the parties on whether the appeal is moot and should be

dismissed. Neither party responded.2

Under well

- established principles, this appeal is moot and must be dismissed. " If

relief granted by the trial court is temporal, and if th e relief granted expires before an

appeal can be heard, then an appeal by the adverse party is moot. " ( Environmental

Charter High School v. Centinela Valley Union High School Dist. (2004) 122

Cal.App.4th 139, 144.) " [A]ppellate courts as a rule will not render opinions on moot

questions: ' [W]hen, pending an appeal from the judgment of a lower court, and without

fault of the [respondent], an event occurs which renders it impossible for [the reviewing

court] if it should decide the case in favor of [appell ant], to grant [appellant] any effectual

relief whatever, the court will not proceed to a formal judgment, but will dismiss the

appeal. ' " ( Ebensteiner Co., Inc. v. Chadmar Group (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1178

-

1179.)

T he restraining order challenged by Kuerbiss has expired . Thus, h er appeal is

moot and must be dismissed.

DISPOSIT I ON

The appeal is dismissed. The parties to bear their own costs.

HALLER, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

M C DONALD, J.

M C INTYRE, J.
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 18

- 00252

- CV

Thomas J. Gesswein

v. Sharon L. Gesswein

On a ppeal from the County Court at Law No

. 6 of Hidalgo County , Texas

Trial Cause No. F

- 4086

- 17

- 6

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered t his cause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED . Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appellant. We further order this decision certified below for obse rvance. October 18 , 2018
exh4_1.htm


 










Exhibit 4.1


 


 




	
Boston Therapeutics Inc.


	
303 East Wacker Drive, Suite 1040


	
Chicago, Illinois 60601







                                                                                                                   October 23, 2015


 


CJY Holdings Limited


12 Repulse Bay Road


Repulse Bay, Hong Kong








	
  

	
Re:

	
Securities Purchase Agreement dated September 24, 2015 (the “SPA”) by and between Boston Therapeutics Inc. and CJY Holdings Limited












Gentlemen:







Reference is hereby made to the SPA.  By executing this letter, the undersigned investor agrees that the offering amount shall be increased from $750,000 to $1,050,000.  Accordingly, it is hereby agreed to by the parties that Section 1(d) of the Agreement shall be amended and restated to state the following:







"d.           Subsequent Financing.  The Note is intended  to provide necessary bridge financing to the Company prior to an anticipated financing in the near future of an amount up to $1,050,000 which is expected to be structured as convertible preferred stock (the "Preferred Financing").  Upon the closing of the Preferred Financing, the Note shall automatically convert into the Preferred Financing."







We kindly request that you execute this letter below indicating that you agree with the above amendment.




 


Sincerely,







Boston Therapeutics Inc.







By: /s/David Platt                  


Name: David Platt


Title: CEO and Director







AGREED AND ACKNOWLEDGED:







CJY Holdings Limited







By: /s/Cheng Chi Him               


Name: Cheng Chi Him


Title:
Exhibit 10.9


 


Description of
Compensation Arrangement


William J.
Harnett, Chairman of the Board, WSB Holdings, Inc.


 


Chairman Harnett
has been retained as a non-executive employee to serve as our Board Chairman
and as an advisor to the CEO and Board. 
In lieu of Board and committee fees paid to our non-employee directors, Mr. Harnett
receives an annual salary of $150,000 and the use of a company-paid automobile,
and is eligible to a receive a bonus as determined in the Board’s
discretion.  Mr. Harnett is also
entitled to certain other benefits in his capacity as a non-executive employee,
including participation in the Bank’s 401(k) plan and life, group health
and dental insurance plans on the same basis as other employees.  Mr. Harnett
is also entitled to a change in control lump sum severance payment in the
amount of $500,000 in the event his employment is involuntarily terminated, or
if his level of compensation does not remain substantially the same (including
bonus) and he voluntarily terminates his employment within 18 months following
a change in control as defined by the Office of Thrift Supervision.
**Exhibit
      32.1**




**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 Annual Report of Enigma Software Group, Inc. (the "Company")
      on Form 10-KSB/A for the period ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Alvin
      Estevez, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      § 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(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/ Alvin EstevezChief
                Executive OfficerMay
                  1, 2007
Will R. NOTTAGE, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D 17-1284

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

SEPTEMBER 18, 2017

Following review of the State of Florida's motion to dismiss and appellant's response thereto, it is ordered that the above styled appeal is hereby dismissed as unauthorized.

ROTHENBERG, C.J., and SALTER and LUCK, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>        5
<MULTIPLIER>          1,000

<S>                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       FEB-03-2001
<PERIOD-START>                          JAN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                            APR-29-2000
<CASH>                                       38,431
<SECURITIES>                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 2,355
<ALLOWANCES>                                      0
<INVENTORY>                                  63,166
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            112,549
<PP&E>                                      127,940
<DEPRECIATION>                               60,471
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              187,374
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        52,734
<BONDS>                                       7,622
<COMMON>                                         14
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                  120,728
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                187,374
<SALES>                                      99,390
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             99,390
<CGS>                                        73,667
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                73,667
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             21,211
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (303)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               4,815
<INCOME-TAX>                                  1,907
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           2,908
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                  2,908
<EPS-BASIC>                                   $0.22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 $0.21





</TABLE>
#### Whetstone *v.*Daniel.

4-9285

233 S. W. 2d 625

Opinion delivered November 13, 1950.

*900
      *Bernard Whetstone,*for appellant.

George Rose Smith, J.

This case went off below on demurrer to the complaint. The plaintiff, a lawyer, alleged in his complaint that he had been employed by a Texas finance company to collect a balance of $226.12 from the defendant or to repossess the car on which this debt was owed. Upon being so employed the plaintiff called on the defendant and obtained a promise that the defendant would on the following day either pay the debt or surrender the car. In disregard of his promise the defendant made a direct settlement with the finance company, after which the latter offered to pay the plaintiff a nominal fee for his services. The complaint asserts that the defendant, by settling with the finance company, deprived the plaintiff of the lien he would otherwise have had on the car or on the proceeds of collection. Judgment is prayed for a reasonable fee, which is said to be half the debt that the plaintiff was employed to collect. The trial court sustained a demurrer to this complaint, and the appeal is from the ensuing order of dismissal.

We agree that no cause of action is stated. Our present statute provides that an attorney shall have a lien on his client’s cause of action from and after service upon the adverse party of written notice by registered mail, or, in the absence of such written notice, from and after the filing of suit. If the adverse party then compromises the claim without the attorney’s consent he is liable *901to the attorney for a reasonable fee. Ark. Stats. 1947, § 25-301.

Here the plaintiff admits that he neither gave written notice nor filed suit. Since, however, the statute is to be liberally construed, *Slayton*v. Russ, 205 Ark. 474, 169 S. W. 2d 571, 146 A. L. R. 64, the appellant insists that his action in visiting the appellee and demanding payment of the claim should be considered substantial compliance with the requirement of written notice by registered mail. But even a liberal interpretation must be consistent with the basic intent of the statute. To construe the law as the appellant suggests would simply dispense with the necessity of giving notice by registered mail. That notice is a necessary element in the legislative scheme. It gives the recipient unmistakable warning that the attorney is insisting upon his lien and that any subsequent compromise will involve liability for the attorney’s compensation. Not having given the appellee the warning required by the statute, the appellant must look to his own client for his fee.

Affirmed.
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.                  

###### National Aeronautics and Space Administration

          - [Notice: (22-009)]

# AGENCY:

National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration announces a meeting of the Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) Engagement Committee of the NASA Advisory Council (NAC). This Committee reports to the NAC.

# DATES:

Thursday, February 17, 2021, 1:00 p.m.-5:00 p.m., Eastern Time.

# ADDRESSES:

Virtual meeting by dial-in teleconference and WebEx only.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Dr. Beverly Girten, Designated Federal Officer, NAC STEM Engagement Committee, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546, (202) 358-0212, or                         *beverly.e.girten@nasa.gov.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    This meeting will be held virtually and will be available telephonically and by WebEx only. You must use a touch tone phone to participate in this meeting. Any interested person may dial the toll-free access number 415-527-5035, and then the access code 2763 189 1436 followed by the # sign. To join via WebEx, use link:                     *https://nasaenterprise.webex.com/​nasaenterprise/​onstage/​g.php?​MTID=​e8c794ada9b86b843b5b6596863ecbdd6*                     with meeting number and access code 2763 189 1436 and password t2nNvj46M5$ (Password is case sensitive.) NOTE: If dialing in, please “mute” your telephone. The agenda for the meeting will include the following:                

—Opening Remarks by Chair

—STEM Engagement Update, Goals and Strategy

—Priorities for 2022

—Review Earlier Findings and Recommendations to the NASA Advisory Council

—Formulation of New Findings and Recommendations

—Other Related Topics

It is imperative that the meeting be held on this date to accommodate the scheduling priorities of the key participants.

Patricia Rausch,

Advisory Committee Management Officer, National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

[FR Doc. 2022-02207 Filed 2-2-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7510-13-P
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

April 4, 2017

d0327 

# Order

Clerk April 4, 2017

153661(46)

DONALD J. RHODA Guardian/Conservator of

TREVOR RHODA, and TAMMIE WALKER,

Plaintiffs

- Appellees,

v SC: 153661

COA: 321363

Marquette CC: 13

- 051044

- NI

PETER E. O’DOVERO, INC. d/b/a

MARQUETTE MOUNTAIN,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s Janua ry 13,

2017 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was

entered erroneously.
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

ODYSSEY MARINE EXPLORATION, INC.

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the Annual Report on Form
10-KSB/A of Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. for the period ending December 31, 2004:



(1) 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 aspects, the financial condition and results of operations of Odyssey Marine
Exploration, Inc.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Michael J. Holmes  
|Michael J. Holmes      
|Chief Financial Officer
|August 1, 2005         



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. and will be retained by Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-28-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-30-1997
<CASH>                                          41,065
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   17,979
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    115,797
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               187,771
<PP&E>                                         192,832
<DEPRECIATION>                                  90,896
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 328,943
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          113,325
<BONDS>                                        185,223
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     69,365
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                    (38,971)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   328,943
<SALES>                                        864,822
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               864,822
<CGS>                                          666,301
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  666,301
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               174,050
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,979
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 14,492
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,943
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,549
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,549
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    98.34
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    98.34
        

</TABLE>
# Rear Admiral Michael L. Baker

##                 Senior Defense Official/Defense Attaché - India            

Rear Adm. Baker is a native of Charlotte, North Carolina. He is a 1995 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy with a Bachelor of Science in History, and a 2005 graduate of Istanbul Bilgi University as an Olmsted Scholar with a Master of Arts in International Relations. He served as a 2010 International Affairs Fellow to the Council on Foreign Relations, and speaks Turkish and French.

Baker is a Navy foreign area officer with experience building partner capability & capacity, enabling U.S. Coalition operations, leading Military Attaché Operations, and directing international strategy and plans in the Africa Command, European Command, Indo-Pacific Command, and Central Command areas of responsibility.

As an E-2C Hawkeye naval flight officer, he deployed to the Western Pacific and Indian Ocean and to the Arabian Gulf and Saudi Arabia in support of Operation Southern Watch. As a foreign area officer, he deployed to Silopi, Turkey and Northern Iraq serving as liaison officer to the Turkish Special Forces in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom; and on board High Speed Vessel Swift in the Indian Ocean to support U.S. Naval Forces Africa’s Africa Partnership Station.

Shore, assignments include: Naval Strike and Air Warfare Center, Weapons & Tactics instructor; Office the Chief of Naval Operations (OPNAV N52), Asia Pacific political-military planner; U.S. Africa Command, director of West Africa Engagement; Senior Defense Official/Defense Attaché to Madagascar, Comoros, Mauritius, and Seychelles; Office of Defense Cooperation Turkey, Chief of Naval Cooperation; Defense Intelligence Agency, director, Defense Attaché Service – Asia Pacific Division; Bahrain, assistant Chief of Staff for Strategy, Plans, and Policy (N5) for U.S. Naval Forces Central/U.S. 5th Fleet; OPNAV N51 Security Cooperation & Posture, and Foreign Area Officer Community Chief of Staff

Baker is the Navy foreign area officer community leader.