alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
| 1. | The Bank is Trustee under the Trust Agreement. |
|----|------------------------------------------------|

| 2. | The undersigned is duly authorized as required pursuant to the Trust Agreement to execute and deliver this Certificate to the Trust. |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 3. | This Certificate is delivered pursuant to Item 1123 of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB. |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 4. | A review of the Trustee’s activities during the twelve-month period ended December 31, 2011 and of its performance under the Trust Agreement has been made under my supervision. |
|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 5. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Trustee has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Trust Agreement in all material respects throughout such twelve-month period. |
|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  By:  |         /s/ Laura Cawley         |
|-----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | Name:  |   Laura Cawley   |
|--------|--------|----------------------------|
|   | Title: |   Vice President |

----

----
H. R. 6651 

One Hundred Eighteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and twenty-four 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 603 West 

3rd Street in Necedah, Wisconsin, as the ‘‘Sergeant Kenneth E. Murphy Post 

Office Building’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SERGEANT KENNETH E. MURPHY POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 603 West 3rd Street in Necedah, Wisconsin, 

shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Sergeant Kenneth E. Murphy 

Post Office Building’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Sergeant Kenneth E. Murphy Post Office Building’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
**EXHIBIT32.01**

**SECTION1350 CERTIFICATION**

In connection with thisquarterly report of ML JWH Strategic Allocation Fund  L.P. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for theperiod ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (this “Report”), I, Benjamin Weston, Chief Executive Officerand President, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuantof the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1. This Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

2. The informationcontained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| Date: August 14, 2006                 |                 |
|---------------------------------------|----------------------|
|                                  |                 |
| By                                    | /s/ BENJAMIN  WESTON |   |
| Benjamin Weston                       |
| Chief Executive Officer and President |
| (Principal Executive Officer)         |
|                                       |                      |  |  |  |

 

----
#### Hogan *v.*Hogan.

Atkinson, Presiding Justice.

A suit for divorce was instituted by a husband on grounds of alleged cruel treatment.. The defendant filed an answer which denied the allegations as. to cruel treatment and alleg-ed certain conduct of the plaintiff reflecting upon his conjugal demeanor, including attentions to another woman, younger and more attractive . than defendant. At the trial a verdict for the defendant was returned. The exception is to a judgment overruling the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial.

1. When certain testimony was offered by the plaintiff tending to disprove the defendant’s answer as to attentions by the plaintiff to the other woman, the attorney announced to .the court that he was prepared to strike that part of the answer. The court thereupon excluded the proposed evidence.

*Held,*that the announcement of the attorney was abandonment of that ground of defense, and the ruling shows no cause for reversal.

2. The charge of the court as complained of in ground 5 of the motion for a new trial, referring to statement of contentions of parties and to the pleadings in the case which would be sent out with the jury to be read by them to ascertain the contentions more in detail, was not cause for reversal. *Woodward*v. *Fuller,*145 *Ga.*252 (88 S. E. 974) ; *Varn*v. *Bloodworth,*157 *Ga.*300 (121 S. E. 380.).

3. Ground 6, not being insisted on in the brief of the attorney for the plaintiff in error, will be treated as abandoned.

4. Ground 7 is based on alleged newly discovered evidence. It appears by comparison with the brief of evidence that the newly discovered evidence is merely cumulative and impeaching in character, .and would not likely produce a different result on another trial. Consequently this ground shows no cause for a reversal.

*556No. 13174.

July 9, 1940.

*William F. Ball*and *J. Wilson Parker,*for plaintiff.

*William F. Buchanan*and *Ben Anderson,*for defendant.

5. The evidence, though conflicting, was sufficient to support the verdict for the defendant. The judge did not err in refusing new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           7,886
<SECURITIES>                                    15,274
<RECEIVABLES>                                   26,759
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,530
<INVENTORY>                                     20,148
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                72,665
<PP&E>                                         170,733
<DEPRECIATION>                                  70,967
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 210,068
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           43,102
<BONDS>                                        128,796
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      15,055
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   210,068
<SALES>                                         65,387
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                65,387
<CGS>                                           54,926
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   61,446
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,100
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,389
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    841
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                841
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       841
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
                                           


</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Vincent Lamar BOULWARE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6182

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 20, 2017

Decided: June 30, 2017

Vincent Lamar Boulware, Appellant Pro Se. Donald David Gast, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before DUNCAN, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Vincent Lamar Boulware appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *United States v. Boulware,*No. 1:08-cr-00082-MR-1 (W-D.N.C. Jan. 12, 2017). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
UNDER SECTION 906





Pursuant
to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned
officer of deltathree, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), does hereby
certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:





The
Annual Report for the year ended December 31, 2009 (the "Form 10-K") of the
Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Form 10-K
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.




Dated:
      March 29, 2010
                /s / Effi BaruchEffi
      Baruch, Interim Chief Executive Officer and President, and Senior Vice
      President of Operations and Technology (Principal Executive
      Officer)




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

**** 

**Exhibit31.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANTTO**

**SECTION302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002******

**** 

I,Malcolm Skolnick, certify that:

 

1.     I havereviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of CytoGenix,Inc.;

2.     Based on myknowledge, 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 lightof the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report; 

3.     Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present inall materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.     Theregistrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures(as definedin Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and wehave:

a)        designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared;

b)       designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused suchinternal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision,to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reportingand the preparation of financial statement for external purposes in accordancewith generally accepted accounting principles;

c)        evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this report(the “Evaluation Date”); and

d)        disclosed in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the EvaluationDate;

5.     Theregistrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation, to the registrant’s auditorsand the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent function):

a)        all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internalcontrols which could adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for theregistrant’s auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls;and

b)         any fraud,whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal controls;and

6.     Theregistrant’s other certifying officers and I have indicated in this reportwhether or not there were significant changesin internalcontrols or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controlssubsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any correctiveactions with regard to significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses.

 

 

Date:May 19, 2008

 

/s/Malcolm Skolnick

**MalcolmSkolnick**
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carlos Antonio CERVANTES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-50405

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 11, 2017 *

Filed July 17, 2017

Jean-Claude Andre, Julius J. Nam, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, DOJ—Office of the U-.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, Plaintiff-Appellee

Holly A. Sullivan, Law Office of Holly A. Sullivan, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant Carlos Antonio Cervantes

Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Carlos Antonio Cervantes appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 78-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), and 846. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Cervantes contends that he is entitled to resentencing under *United States v. Quintero-Leyva,*823 F.3d 519 (9th Cir. 2016), because the district court did not consider the 2015 amendment to the minor role guideline, U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2, when evaluating his request for a minor role reduction. We decline to remand because the record reflects that the district court considered the amendment in concluding that Cervantes and his two co-conspirators were not entitled to a minor role adjustment. The record makes clear that the court would not reach a different conclusion if Cervantes’s case were remanded.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6858 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6858

To amend the Social Security Act to limit the recovery of overpayments 
             under titles II and XVI to a ten-year period.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 19, 2023

 Mr. Gallego (for himself and Mr. Graves of Louisiana) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Social Security Act to limit the recovery of overpayments 
             under titles II and XVI to a ten-year period.

    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 ``Social Security Overpayment Relief 
Act''.

SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON RECOVERY OF OVERPAYMENTS.

    (a) Title II Limitation.--Section 204 of the Social Security Act 
(42 U.S.C. 404) is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(h) In any case in which more than the correct amount of payment 
has been made, there shall be no adjustment of payments to, or recovery 
by the United States from, any person of an overpayment that occurred 
10 or more years prior to the date on which the Commissioner finds that 
more than the correct amount of payment has been made to such 
person.''.
    (b) Title XVI Limitation.--Section 1631(b) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
1383(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(9) In any case in which more than the correct amount of payment 
has been made, there shall be no adjustment of payments to, or recovery 
by the United States from, any person of an overpayment that occurred 
10 or more years prior to the date on which the Commissioner finds that 
more than the correct amount of payment has been made to such 
person.''.
                                 <all>
```
118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6826 

AN ACT 

To designate the visitor and education center at Fort 

McHenry National Monument and Historic Shrine as 

the Paul S. Sarbanes Visitor and Education Center. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 6826 EH

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

2 (a) DESIGNATION.—The visitor and education center 

3 at Fort McHenry National Monument and Historic 

4 Shrine, currently located at 2400 E Fort Ave, Baltimore, 

5 MD 21230, is designated as the ‘‘Paul S. Sarbanes Visitor 

6 and Education Center’’. 

7 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg8 ulation, document, paper, or other document of the United 

9 States to the visitor center designated by subsection (a) 

10 shall be deemed to be a reference to the Paul S. Sarbanes 

11 Visitor and Education Center. 

Passed the House of Representatives December 3, 

2024. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6826 

AN ACT 

To designate the visitor and education center at 

cation Center. Shrine as the Paul S. Sarbanes Visitor and EduFort McHenry National Monument and Historic
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6843 Reported in House (RH)]

<DOC>

                                                 Union Calendar No. 621
118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6843

                          [Report No. 118-736]

 To expand the boundaries of the Atchafalaya National Heritage Area to 
                  include Lafourche Parish, Louisiana.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 15, 2023

  Mr. Scalise (for himself, Mr. Graves of Louisiana, Ms. Letlow, Mr. 
   Higgins of Louisiana, and Mr. Carter of Louisiana) introduced the 
    following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural 
                               Resources

                           November 14, 2024

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
                       and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To expand the boundaries of the Atchafalaya National Heritage Area to 
                  include Lafourche Parish, Louisiana.

 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. ATCHAFALAYA NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA EXPANSION.

    Section 213 of the Atchafalaya National Heritage Area Act (subtitle 
B of title II of Public Law 109-338) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (b), by striking ``and Ascension Parish'' 
        and inserting ``Ascension, and Lafourche Parish''; and
            (2) in subsection (c)(2), by striking ``14'' and inserting 
        ``15''.
                                                 Union Calendar No. 621

118th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 6843

                          [Report No. 118-736]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 To expand the boundaries of the Atchafalaya National Heritage Area to 
                  include Lafourche Parish, Louisiana.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           November 14, 2024

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
                       and ordered to be printed
```
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11
 
                           COHR INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
 
                       COMPUTATION OF NET LOSS PER SHARE
                                  (UNAUDITED)
                   (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT NET LOSS PER SHARE)
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                    THREE MONTHS ENDED      NINE MONTHS ENDED
                                                       DECEMBER 31,           DECEMBER 31,
                                                    -------------------    -------------------
                                                     1998        1997       1998        1997
                                                    -------    --------    -------    --------
<S>                                                 <C>        <C>         <C>        <C>
Net loss attributable to common stock.............  $(3,127)   $(10,655)   $(9,248)   $(11,409)
                                                    =======    ========    =======    ========
Common share information:
  Average shares outstanding for basic loss per
     share........................................    6,433       6,433      6,433       6,429
                                                    -------    --------    -------    --------
  Dilutive effect of stock options and warrants
     Shares for diluted loss per share............    6,433       6,433      6,433       6,429
                                                    =======    ========    =======    ========
Net loss per common share:
  Basic and Diluted...............................  $ (0.49)   $  (1.66)   $ (1.44)   $  (1.77)
                                                    =======    ========    =======    ========
</TABLE>
**THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

**Post Office Box 12248**

**Austin, Texas 78711**

**(512) 463-1312**

March 11, 2005

Mr. Timothy F. Lee

Ware,  Jackson,  Lee & Chambers, L.L.P.

2929 Allen Parkway, 42nd Floor

Houston, TX 77019

Mr. Stephen Douglas Pritchett

Vinson & Elkins, L.L.P.

1001 Fannin St., Suite 2300

Houston, TX 77002-6760

Mr. Oscar Luis De La Rosa

The De la Rosa Law Firm

6363 Woodway, Suite 910

Houston, TX 77057

RE:Case Number:  03-0750

Court of Appeals Number:  14-02-00883-CV

Trial Court Number:  2000-31260

Style:ROBINETTA WILKINS

v.

THE METHODIST HEALTH CARE SYSTEM

Dear Counsel:

Today the Supreme Court of Texas delivered the enclosed opinion and judgment in the above-referenced cause.  (Justice Brister not sitting)

Sincerely,

Andrew Weber, Clerk

by Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk

Enclosures

**Case No. 03-0750Page 1**