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

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6403 

To amend the General Education Provisions Act to require the disclosure 

of student medical and counseling records to parents. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 14, 2023 

Mr. GAETZ introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To amend the General Education Provisions Act to require 

the disclosure of student medical and counseling records 

to parents. 

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 ‘‘Parents’ Right to 

5 Know Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT. 

7 Section 445 of the General Education Provisions Act 

8 (20 U.S.C. 1232h) is amended— 

9 (1) in subsection (a)— 

2 

•HR 6403 IH

1 (A) by striking ‘‘All instructional mate2 rials’’ and inserting ‘‘(1) All instructional mate3 rials’’; and 

4 (B) by adding at the end the following: 

5 ‘‘(2) All medical or counseling records pertaining to 

6 a student shall be available for inspection by a parent of 

7 such student, upon request, unless the inspection of such 

8 record by the parent is prohibited by a protection order 

9 (as defined in section 2266 of title 18, United States 

10 Code).’’; and 

11 (2) in subsection (c)(6)— 

12 (A) by redesignating subparagraphs (D) 

13 through (G) as subparagraphs (E) through (H), 

14 respectively; and 

15 (B) by inserting after subparagraph (C) 

16 the following: 

17 ‘‘(D) MEDICAL OR COUNSELING

18 RECORD.—The term ‘medical or counseling 

19 record’ means a record that— 

20 ‘‘(i) is in the possession of a local edu21 cational agency; and 

22 ‘‘(ii) relates to medical care or aca23 demic or mental health counseling provided 

24 to a student.’’. 

3 

•HR 6403 IH

1 SEC. 3. IMPLEMENTATION. 

2 Not later than 120 days after the date of enactment 

3 of this Act, the Secretary of Education shall issue or mod4 ify any rules, regulations, policies, or guidance necessary 

5 to implement the amendments made by section 2. 

Æ
To iv t\^ df "W, Augutf U( Q6\&

SEP 18 2015

Abel Acosfa, Clerk •

T^l &*+ «TB«h Dbttd (W+, Lib.rh, <Wv court*^

(W>rAhl f> '• NatK flfy**ftM, R»aA»K>3 SEP 18 23'5

(W\W*bw GWk, Abe,Acosta-c,e*

PeMriouer Park* Ur*qufr*to>g-ftr $**&*#*> WV>e$U
EXHIBIT
23.2





GEORGE
STEWART, CPA


316
17TH
AVENUE SOUTH


SEATTLE,
WASHINGTON 98144


(206)
328-8554  FAX (206) 328-0383





To Whom
It May Concern:





The firm
of George Stewart, Certified Public Accountant consents to the inclusion of the
Financial Statements of Wilson Creek Mining Corp. as of November 30, 2009 and
2008, in any filings that are necessary now or in the near future with the U. S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.





Very
Truly Yours,





/S/
George Stewart





George
Stewart, CPA





February
12, 2010
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          12,521
<SECURITIES>                                    33,272
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,326
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        574
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                26,908
<PP&E>                                           4,543
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,129
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  49,696
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,425
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       135,896
<OTHER-SE>                                    (98,150)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    49,696
<SALES>                                          5,666
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                13,416
<CGS>                                            1,799
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,799
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                11,664
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 100
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    599
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       599
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.02


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

Certifications Pursuant to Section 302 

of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002****

 

I, James R. Lavelle, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this report onForm 10-Q of Cotelligent, Inc.; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

 

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others with those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusion about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and 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 that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. Theregistrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors: 

 

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; 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: May 13, 2005
EX-10.4



 Exhibit 10.4 
 Acceptance Agreement between Shandong Xiangrui and Bank of East Asia Qingdao Branch, dated March 7, 2012, for a RMB 10 million loan 

Main contents: 
  

	 ̈	Contract No.: QDAD11049 

  

	 ̈	Accept Items: a Draft of RMB 10,000,000 Yuan 

  

	 ̈	Payee of the Draft: Shandong Runyin Bio-chemical 

  

	 ̈	Draw Date of the Draft: March 7, 2012 

  

	 ̈	Due Date of the Draft: September 7, 2012 

  

	 ̈	The accept applicator should deposit the amount of the draft 10 days before the due date of the draft. The acceptor is entitled to take the money as draft amount
directly for acceptance 1 day before the due date of the draft. 

  

	 ̈	Guarantee Deposit: 

  

	 ̈	Amount of the guarantee deposit: 50% of the draft amount 

  

	 ̈	If the accept applicator has not pay the guarantee deposit as request, the accept applicator shall pay the money as 100% of the draft amount to the acceptor as penalty.


  

	 ̈	Service Fee: 0.05% of the draft amount 

  

	 ̈	Guarantee Method: Guarantee Contract (QDAD11049-01) 

 Headlines of the articles omitted 
  

	 ̈	Assumption of the Acceptance 

  

	 ̈	Commitment of the Accept Application 

  

	 ̈	Effectiveness, Alteration and Termination 

  

	 ̈	Liabilities of Breach of Contract 

  

	 ̈	Dispute settlement 

  

	 ̈	Miscellaneous 

  

	 ̈	Effectiveness 

  

	 ̈	Attention
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>   0001004991
<NAME>  Redwood Broadcasting, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                         1
<CURRENCY>                                U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          51,241
<SECURITIES>                                   240,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                  175,605
<ALLOWANCES>                                     7,800
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               678,299
<PP&E>                                         208,523
<DEPRECIATION>                                  99,647
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,237,405
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          475,979
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    275,000
<COMMON>                                         5,640
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,408,506
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,237,405
<SALES>                                        819,038
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               819,038
<CGS>                                           74,739
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  905,773
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              54,022
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (49,332)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (49,332)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (49,332)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.04)
        



</TABLE>
##### 



Tennessee Valley Authority, -




---



##### 



/s/ John E. Long, Jr.John E. Long, Jr./s/ Michael E. RescoeMichael E. Rescoe
    
    
    
    DateAPPROVED SEQUENTIALLY BY:/s/ Glenn L. McCullough, Jr.Glenn L. McCullough, Jr.
    
    
    
 4-28-04Date/s/ Skila HarrisSkila Harris
    
    
    
    5/3/04Date/s/ Bill BaxterBill Baxter
    
    
    
    4-23-04Date
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT 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 of Depomed, Inc.(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2008as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Carl A. Pelzel, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

 

(1)  TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)  Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
|   | Date:  November 7, 2008 |
|--------|------------------------------|
|   |                         |
|   |                         |
|   | /s/ Carl A.  Pelzel          |
|   | Carl A. Pelzel               |
|   | President and                |
|   | Chief Executive  Officer     |

 

----
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. NATIONAL PLASTIKWEAR FASHIONS, INC., Defendant, Harry I. Greene, Petitioner-Appellant.

No. 161, Docket 30541.

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.

Argued Nov. 4, 1966.

Decided Nov. 9, 1966.

*846Harry I. Greene, pro se.

Alvin H. Meadow, Rye, N. Y. (Robert M. Morgenthau, U. S. Atty., for Southern District of New York, David E. Montgomery, Asst. U. S. Atty., of counsel), for appellee.

Before FRIENDLY, SMITH and FEINBERG, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

 We agree with Judge Tenney’s well-reasoned opinion that Greene’s initial allegations failed to show any outstanding adverse legal consequences from his conviction and one-month sentence for criminal contempt, imposed and served nearly twelve years ago, which were necessary to give the district court jurisdiction of his application to vacate the judgment of conviction even under the liberal scope of *coram nobis.*United States v. Roth, 283 F.2d 765 (2 Cir. 1960), vacated 286 F.2d 635 (2 Cir.), cert. denied, 366 U.S. 961, 81 S.Ct. 1922, 6 L.Ed.2d 1254 (1961). However sympathetic we may be to the desire to be rid of the stigma of even a one-month’s sen-' tence for a misdemeanor, Article III of the Constitution wisely prohibits courts of the United States from diverting their energies to matters without legal effect. And we are not required to decide whether added allegations made in Greene’s motion for reargument in the District Court, if proved, would have sufficed to create a case or controversy even though the initial petition did not. For we are convinced that, as demonstrated in Judge Tenney’s careful opinion on re-argument, Greene was in no way deprived of his right to counsel during his 1954 trial for criminal contempt. Thus, even if there had been error in denying him leave to appeal from his conviction *in forma pauperis*on the basis of the alleged denial, which we strongly doubt, this was *damnum absque injuria.*

Affirmed.
#### Demond Maurice MIMMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gail LEWIS; Oscar Pena, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-56868

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted September 26, 2017 *

Filed October 5, 2017

Demond Maurice Mimms, Los Angeles, CA, Pro Se.

Jay M. Goldman, Deputy Attorney General, Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument, *See*Fed. R. App, P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Demond Maurice Mimms, a former California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing as time-barred his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Jones v. Blanas,*393 F.3d 918, 926 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Mimms’s action because Mimms filed his action more than three years after he be-' gan serving his prison sentence for his 1998 criminal conviction. *See Wallace v. Kato,*549 U.S. 384, 389, 127 S.Ct. 1091, 166 L.Ed.2d 973 (2007) (statute of limitations begins to run “when the alleged false imprisonment ends” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); *Douglas v. Noelle,*567 F.3d 1103, 1109 (9th Cir. 2009) (§ 1983 claims are governed by forum state’s statute of limitations for personal injury actions); *Jones,*393 F.3d at 927 (in California, prior to 2003, one year statute of limitations applicable to personal injury actions; prisoners entitled to two years of statutory tolling).

Contrary to Mimms’s contentions, he is not entitled to equitable tolling because there would be substantial prejudice to defendants in gathering evidence to defend against Mimms’s claims and because Mimms failed to demonstrate good faith and reasonable conduct. *See Fink v. She*
      *523
      *dler,*192 F.3d 911, 916 (9th Cir. 1999) (three-pronged test for equitable tolling in California).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Tommie A. JOHNSON, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 19969.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued July 28, 1966.

Decided Sept. 15, 1966.

See also D.C.Cir., 360 F.2d 844.

Mr. William C. Koplovitz, Washington, D. C. (appointed by this court), for appellant.

Mr. James A. Strazzella, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. David G. Bress, U. S. Atty., Frank Q. Nebeker and David N. Ellenhorn, Asst. U. S. Attys., were on the brief, for appellee.

Before Bazelon, Chief Judge, and Fahy and McGowan, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant was tried jointly with the appellant in Trimble v. United States, 125 U.S.App.D.C. —, 369 F.2d 950, for the same robbery. The judgment of conviction in *Trimble*is affirmed this day.

 The only contention at present not considered in the appeal of Trimble is that a statement, attributed to this appellant as having been made to Officer Daly and testified to by Officer New-ville, was inadmissible under Escobedo v. State of Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977. The disputed statement was that appellant said he saw “the money” fall to the ground, the significance of which is pointed out in *Trimble.*Appellant denied having said this, and contends that the evidence of the prosecution to the contrary fixes the incident at a time when he was deprived of his right to counsel as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. Therefore, he continues, the evidence was inadmissible under *Escobedo.*Without expressing an opinion on the merits of this contention we are of opinion that reliance upon *Escobedo*is unavailable to appellant because the testimony of the prosecution to which objection is made was given in rebuttal of testimony which had been elicited explicitly by appellant’s own counsel in aid of the defense. Thus, in his cross-examination of Officer New-ville, who testified he heard the statement, and also in the direct examination of appellant himself, his counsel probed whether or not he had made a statement after his arrest. Officer Newville testified in response that appellant had done so, but added that no statement had been *950signed. Appellant, however, in response to his counsel’s question, said that he made no statement to the police, but asked for an attorney. In this manner the defense sought to negative the idea that appellant had made a statement, particularly with respect to having seen any money.1 The prosecution accordingly was entitled to pursue the matter as it did. Crawford v. United States, 91 U.S. App.D.C. 234, 198 F.2d 976. Our conclusion is fortified by the failure of appellant clearly to raise the *Escobedo*issue at trial.

Affirmed.

McGOWAN, Circuit Judge, did not participate in the decision of this ease.

1

. His counsel asked appellant first whether he saw any money. Appellant answered in the negative. He was then asked whether he had made any statement to the police relative to “this matter” at the precinct, to which he answered that he had not, that he asked for an attorney.
# SPAR Group, Inc.

EXHIBIT 32.2

# Certification of Chief
Financial Officer Pursuant to 
Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the quarterly
report on Form 10-Q for the six month period ended June 30, 2007 (this
report), of SPAR Group, Inc. (the registrant), the undersigned
hereby certifies that, to his knowledge:

1.                 The
report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
          Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and

2.                 The
information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material           respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the registrant.

| |                                                 
| | ------------------------------------------------
| | /s/ Charles Cimitile                            
| | Charles Cimitile                                
| | Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary
|
| | August 20, 2007                                 

A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to SPAR Group, Inc. and will be
retained by SPAR Group, Inc., and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.

Ex-4
#### Maria Del Carmen PENA; Consuelo Hernandez; Leticia Suarez; Rosemary Dail; Wendell T. Morris, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. TAYLOR FARMS PACIFIC, INC., DBA Taylor Farms, Defendant-Appellant, and Abel Mendoza, Inc.; Manpower, Inc.; Quality Farm Labor, Inc.; Slingshot Connections LLC, Defendants. Maria Del Carmen Pena; Consuelo Hernandez; Leticia Suarez; Rosemary Dail; Wendell T. Morris, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Abel Mendoza, Inc., Defendant-Appellant, and Taylor Farms Pacific, Inc., DBA Taylor Farms; Manpower, Inc.; Quality Farm Labor, Inc.; Slingshot Connections LLC, Defendants.

No. 15-15965, No. 15-15966

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted April 19, 2017 San Francisco, California

Filed May 03, 2017

Patricia Kay Oliver, Kitty Szeto, Attorney, Alexander R. Wheeler, Attorney, John M. Bickford, Parris Law Firm, Lancaster, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellees Maria Del Carmen Pena, Leticia Suarez, Rosemary Dail

Patricia Kay Oliver, Kitty Szeto, Attorney, Alexander R. Wheeler, Attorney, Par-ris Law Firm, Lancaster, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee Wendell T. Morris

Jesse A. Cripps, Jr., Attorney, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Sarah Zenewicz, Joseph Craig Hansen, Gibson, Dunn *&*Crutcher LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellant

Wade Michael Hansard, Esquire, McCormick Barstow Sheppard Wayte & Carruth, Fresno, CA, for Defendant

*527Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and FERNANDEZ and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Taylor Farms Pacific, Inc. (“TFP”) and Abel Mendoza, Inc. (“AMI”) appeal the district court’s order1 which granted class certification to a class comprised of current and former employees who allegedly did not receive the meal breaks required by California law while working at TFP’s produce and food processing facilities in Tracy, California.2 The representative members of the certified classes are Maria Del Carmen Pena, Consuelo Hernandez, and Wendell T. Morris.3 We affirm.

For the reasons set forth in its order,4 we affirm the district court’s grant of “[c]ertification of the mixed hourly worker subclass ... as to meal break claims,” and its “[c]ertification of the waiting time subclass ... [to the extent it] is derivative of the mixed hourly workers subclass.”5 We express no opinion about the district court’s determinations regarding the other subclasses.6

AFFIRMED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

1

. *Pena v. Taylor Farms Pac., Inc.,*305 F.R.D. 197 (E.D. Cal. 2015) (hereafter *Taylor Farms I).*

2

. Class certification was sought on a number of other grounds, but the issues before us involve only a meal break subclass certification and a derivative waiting-time subclass certification.

3

. Morris is a representative member of the meal break subclass only.

4

. *See Taylor Farms I,*305 F.R.D. 197.

5

. *See id.*at 224.

6

. See id. at 207-11, 223-24.