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

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5105 

To clarify that Arizona is in compliance with the Equal Educational 

Opportunities Act of 1974 with respect to English language learners. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 5, 2006 

Mr. HAYWORTH introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by 

the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To clarify that Arizona is in compliance with the Equal 

Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 with respect to 

English language learners. 

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 ‘‘lllllll Act 

5 of 2006’’. 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5105 IH 

1 SEC. 2. ARIZONA IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE EQUAL EDU2 CATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES ACT OF 1974 

3 WITH RESPECT TO ENGLISH LANGUAGE 

4 LEARNERS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of the Equal Edu6 cational Opportunities Act of 1974 (title II of Public Law 

7 93–380; 20 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)— 

8 (1) the funding for English language learners 

9 provided pursuant to Chapter Four of the State of 

10 Arizona’s 47th Legislature’s Second Legislative Ses11 sion is adequate; and 

12 (2) any failure of Arizona (or by any agency or 

13 subdivision of Arizona) to provide funding for 

14 English language learners in excess of the funding 

15 referred to in paragraph (1)— 

16 (A) is not a denial by Arizona (or by any 

17 agency or subdivision of Arizona) of equal edu18 cational opportunity for purposes of section 

19 204(f) of that Act (20 U.S.C. 1703(f)); and 

20 (B) is not a basis for a civil action, or for 

21 relief, against Arizona (or against any agency 

22 or subdivision of Arizona) under section 207 of 

23 that Act (20 U.S.C. 1706). 

24 (b) APPLICABILITY TO CURRENT LITIGATION.—This 

25 Act applies to litigation pending as of the date of the enVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:49 Apr 07, 2006 Jkt 049196 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H5105.IH H5105

ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
3 

•HR 5105 IH 

1 actment of this Act, including the litigation known as Flo2 res v. Arizona. 

Æ 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6213

LEON L. BAXTER,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Anthony John Trenga, 

District Judge. (1:11-cv-01259-AJT-IDD)

Submitted: May 24, 2012 Decided: May 30, 2012

Before MOTZ and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Leon L. Baxter, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Leon L. Baxter seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Baxter has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 
3

presented in the materials before the court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
In the MATTER OF: I.G.A., D.A.A.

No. COA18-1179

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: June 4, 2019

AFFIRMED IN PART. VACATED IN PART. REMANDED.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

Fort Stockton Holdings, L.P., Pecos 

County, City of Fort Stockton, Pecos 

County Water Control and Improvement 

District No. 1, and Brewster County 

Groundwater Conservation District,

 

 Appellants,

v.

Middle Pecos Groundwater Conservation 

District,

 Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-15-00382-CV

Appeal from the

83rd District Court

of Pecos County, Texas 

(TC# P-7047-83-CV)

O R D E R

The Court on its own motion VACATES the June 22, 2017 submission setting for the 

above styled and numbered cause pending a ruling on the Joint Motion to Vacate the District 

Court’s Judgment without Regard to Merits and Remand Case to Appellee District.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 31st day of May, 2016.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez and Palafox, JJ.
## U t ah State Un i ve rsity

__ . " , " " , , _ ~ MOA8 E D UCATIO N C EN T E R
A u gu s t 

### 2 0 , 2 0 13 Mr
. D ennis DeVany C hief of the E AS Divis i on Aviation A n a lysi s 

### 120 0 New Jers e y Ave . S.L Washin gton , D
. C
. 

### 20590 D ear Mr. De Van y , Ple a se a c cept m y unreserved endo rsemen t for the S ky W e st essential air servic e proposal f o r the Canyon l an d s F i eld A i rp o rt at M o a b , Utah. I t i s ve ry i mp o rt ant to Mo a b ' s f u ture eco n o mic and s ocial develop m ent that Sky W est be awarded this co n tract. T he e xi st i ng servi ce p rovided b y Great L akes Airlines has been notorio u s l y inconsi s tent w i th ina d eq u ate ca p a c ity and s e rv ice t h at is limi t ed t o a re g i on t hat is pe r ip h eral to Moa b' s nee ds
. Ut a h S tate Un i ve rs i ty ' s regional camp u s ba s ed i n Moab co n tinues 

### to g row a n d develo p wi t h a n e w cam pus f a c i l i ty sched ul ed for developme n t in th e nea r futu re . The USU ca m pus emphasizes prog rams that take a d vantage of Moab ' s unique surro un d i ngs , including re c reation re source m a nagement , geology, n atura l re sou rces , and hospi t ality a nd tourism managem e nt. It is i mp o rtant to t he developme n t of the Un i ve rs i ty that w e h ave co n s i s ten t a i r s erv ice , w ith d i re ct ti es to the S a l t Lake C i ty Inte r n ati o nal A ir p o rt , t h at ca n su pport a m u ch h i g h e r cap a city. The Un i versity antic i pates an important rol e f o r a i r travel to Mo a b for s tude n t s , f a c u l ty, an d attendees at educati ona l co nfere n c e s an d ot her Uni versi ty events a n d f un cti o ns. US U h as stro n g p a rt ne rsh i ps in t he comm uni ty in t he areas 

### of tour i sm and re c reation manage m en t , and sees the t ran s it i on of a i r serv i c e to S ky West as a crit i ca l s tep fo rwa rd i n me et ing community deve lopmen t g o a l s in these i m p o rta nt areas. I t is my s i n cere jud gment th at t h e S ky We st prop o s al i s mu c h b etter s u ited t o m eet t h e ne eds of t he 

### Moab c o m mu nity. Please g i ve f u ll co nsi de rat i on to th e S ky W e st pro posa l
. S i nce re l y , 

### ,/\



### ~ 

# ~ v -- - - Steven 

### R . Hawks , EdO , MB A Dea n 

### an d Exe c utive Di re ct o r , M o ab a nd S ou t hwest R e gion Reg i on al Ca mpuses 

### & D i s t a nce Educat i o n Utah S tat e Un i ve rsi ty 

### 1 25 W . 200 S . M o a b, UT 

### 34 53 2 435-2 5 9 - 7432 steve . h awks @usu
. e du
ex10_05.htm











EXHIBIT 10.05







Amendment No. 4 to that certain Secured Note dated as of July 29, 2004 in the principal sum of $750,000, as amended by Amendment 1 dated March 27, 2008, Amendment 2 dated February 12, 2009, and Amendment 3 dated March 5, 2010 (“Note”).







For good and valuable consideration, the parties to the Note amend the Note to extend the Maturity Date from January 1, 2011 to January 1, 2012.







Except as set forth above, the Note is hereby ratified and confirmed in all respects.


 


Dated: March 1, 2011








	
Colonial Commercial Corp.

	  
	  	  	  	  
	  	
By:

	
/s/ William Pagano

	  
	  	
Name:

	
William Pagano, Chief Executive Officer

	  
	  	  	  	  
	  	  	  	  
	
Subsidiaries that are “Grantors of a Security Interest” under the Note:

	  
	  	  	  	  
	
Universal Supply Group, Inc.

	  
	  	  	  	  
	  	 
By:

	
/s/ William Pagano

	  
	  	 
Name:

	
William Pagano, President

	  
	  	  	  	  
	
The RAL Supply Group, Inc.

	  
	  	  	  	  
	  	 
By:

	
/s/ William Pagano

	  
	  	 
Name:

	
William Pagano, Executive Vice President

	  
	  	  	  	  
	
Confirmed:

	  	  
	  	  	  	  
	
Goldman Associates of New York, Inc.

	  
	  	  	  	  
	  	
By:

	
/s/ Michael Goldman

	  
	  	
Name:

	
Michael Goldman, President
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000837895
<NAME>                        ENEX OIL & GAS INCOME PROGRAM III - SERIES 7, L.P.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              dec-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 jan-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   dec-31-1997
<CASH>                                         6200
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  29319
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               37829
<PP&E>                                         2011788
<DEPRECIATION>                                 1830664
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 218953
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          117126
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     101827
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   218953
<SALES>                                        258565
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               258565
<CGS>                                          308902
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  352280
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                0
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (66458)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0



</TABLE>
### Martin , Michae l (OST ) Subject : FW : EA S MG Z



# . ^ Oo-csv ~ ofcc^'^St^a a From : Arnald o Dele o rmailto:ADeleo@prpa.qobierno.pr 1 Sent : Wednesday , Februar y16 , 201 1 10:3 8 A M To : EA S (OST ) ^-- • Cc : andrew.bonney(gicapeair.co m : •^ , Subject : EA

S MGZ ^^ „v-. c February16 , 201 1 Qjz:^r n T o Who m I t Ma yConcern : —^O O hr ; ; ^ ~ n RECOMMENDATIO N FO R CAP E AI R T O CONTINU E SERVIC E A TTH E EUGENI O MARI AD E HOSTO S AIRPOR TI N MAYAGUEZ , PUERT O RIC O Dea rSir

. Tli e Puert o Ric o Port s Authorit y(PRPA ) i s a publi ccorporatio n an d a componen tuni tofth e governmen tofPuert o Rico , responsibl e fo rth e maintenance , operation , developmen tan d improvemen tofth e islan d aviatio n an d maritim e transportatio n facilities , includin g th e Eugeni o Maria s d e Hosto s airporti n Mayaguez , an d th e Lui s Muno z Mari n Internationa l Airport

. Wit h thi s lette rw e ar e reques t tha t th e departmen to fTransportatio n grant s Cap e Ai rth e essentia l ai rservic e contractat th e Eugeni o Mari a d e Hosto s du e t o th e followin g reasons
. Sinc e Ma y1 , 200 5 Cap e ai ri s offerin g schedule ai r transportatio n ofpersons , propert yan d mai l wit h fou rdail yno n stop s flight s betwee n Mayague z an d Sa n Juan

. I t i s essentia l tha t thi s service s betwee n Mayague z an d Sa n Jua n continue s becaus e th e Puert o Ric o capital , Sa n Juan , i s th e islan d mai n aviatio n center , A s a hu b fo rdomesti can d internationa l operations , i tprovide s a lin k t o man ycities , th e mainlan d U S an d throug h th e Caribbean , Lati n American , Europ e an d th e World

. Mayague z i s locate d i n th e wes tcoas t withi n 9 8 mile s fro m Sa n Juan

. Ther e i s n o othe rairlin e o rcompan ytha trender s tha tservic e neithe rfro m th e neares t airport

. Th e Rafae l Hernande z Airport i n Aguadilla , wh o offe rfe wno n stop s flight s t o th e mainlan d bu tonl ydunn g nigh t time

. W e appreciat e you rconsideratio n an d approva l t o thi s request

. I ffurthe rinformatio n i s required , d o nothesitat e t o contact u s a t (787 ) 791-483 5 o r(787 ) 791-1010

. Than k yo u i n advanc e you rsupportan d attentio n t o thi s matter

. Sincerely , Arnald o Dele o Genera l Manage rLui s Muno z Mari n Internationa l an d Regiona l Airport s
Exhibit 99.1

Written Statement of Co-Chief Executive Officers and Chief Financial Officer  Pursuant to Section 906  of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350)

The undersigned, the Co-Chief Executive Officers and the Chief Financial Officer of Regal Entertainment Group, a Delaware corporation (the "Company"),
each hereby certifies that, to his/her knowledge on the date hereof:



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.

| |  | /s/MICHAEL L. CAMPBELLMichael L. Campbell
Co-Chief Executive Officer
May 12, 2003
| |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  | /s/KURT C. HALLKurt C. Hall
Co-Chief Executive Officer
May 12, 2003              
| |  | /s/AMY E. MILESAmy E. Miles
Chief Financial Officer
May 12, 2003                 



QuickLinks
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1



                                   CONSENT OF
                    INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


Patriot Scientific Corporation
San Diego, California


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in this Registration of our
report dated July 17, 1998, except for notes 4 and 15, which are as of June 15,
1999, relating to the consolidated financial statements of Patriot Scientific
Corporation, appearing in the Company's Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form
10-KSB for the year ended May 31, 1998.

/s/  BDO SEIDMAN, LLP


Denver, Colorado
June 21, 1999
Dale Thomas WINKLER; and DJ'S Heating Service v. NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF PLUMBING, HEATING & FIRE SPRINKLER CONTRACTORS

No. 319PA18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 14, 2019

John N. Fountain, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for NC State Board of Plumbing, Heating & Fire Sprinkler Contractors.

Reed N. Fountain, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for NC State Board of Plumbing, Heating & Fire Sprinkler Contractors.

Angela Farag Craddock, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for NC State Board of Plumbing, Heating & Fire Sprinkler Contractors.

Jeffrey P. Gray, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Winkler, Dale Thomas, et al.

M. Jackson Nichols, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for NC Board of Architecture & State Board of Chiropractic Examiners.

Anna Baird Choi, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for State Licensing Board for General Contractors.

Janet B. Thoren, Attorney at Law, for NC Real Estate Commission.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 24th of September 2018 by Plaintiffs in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

*820"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 14th of August 2019."

Therefore the case is docketed as of the date of this order's certification. Briefs of the respective parties shall be submitted to this Court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 15(g)(2).
#### W. E. Sirmans and Edith T. Sirmans, his Wife; S. E. Walker and Betty P. Walker, his Wife, and Sirmans-Walker Company, a Corporation, *Defendants-Appellants,*v. J. W. Tompkins, *Complainant-Appellee.*

Division B.

Opinion Filed March 15, 1928.

Petition for Rehearing Denied May 10, 1928.

*Gaines & Futch,*for Defendants-Appellants;

*J. W. Hunter*and *Hardee & Martin,*for ComplainantAppellee.

Per Curiam.

In this case there was an appeal from the final decree of foreclosure and later another appeal from the order confirming the sale and rendering a deficiency judgment. Both appeals were returnable to this Court on the same date and the transcript in the first appeal was considered as a part of the transcript of the second appeal, and, therefore, the two appeals have been considered together and will be disposed of as a consolidated case by this order.

The bill was to foreclose a purchase money mortgáge, the balance of the indebtedness for the purchase price of the *484property described in the mortgage being evidenced by certain promissory notes.

The formidable objections presented on the appeal are addressed to matters of pleading and practice. (While the record discloses that the bill of complaint was prepared in a loose and inaccurate manner and the evidence of such looseness and inaccuracies is reflected on the part of complainant’s solicitors throughout the conduct cf the case,) we are unable to reach the conclusion that the bill was without equity, that the Court did not acquire jurisdiction of the parties and of the subject matter or that the decrees appealed from were clearly erroneous and that they are not in accord with equity and good conscience. The decrees appealed from should, therefore, be affirmed and it is so ordered.

Affirmed.

Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.

Ellis, C. J., and Strum and Brown, J. J., concur in the opinion and decree.
No. 11-5322.

#### Brian Elston, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 901, 132 S. Ct. 297,

181 L. Ed. 2d 180,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5659.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.

Same case below, 423 Fed. Appx. 190.
#### Alcus Ward, *Plaintiff in Error,*v. The State of Florida, *Defendant in Error.*

Division A.

Decision Filed May 21, 1928.

*S. K. Gillis,*for Plaintiff in Error;

*Fred H. Davis,*Attorney General, and *II. E. Garter,*Assistant, for the State.

Per Curiam.

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the judgment herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being-now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said judgment; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the said judgment of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby affirmed.

Ellis, C. J., and Strum and Brown, J. J., concur.
CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

Exhibit 31.1
Tiens Biotech Group (USA), Inc.

I, LI Jinyuan, certify that:

1. I have  reviewed  this report on Form 10-QSB of Tiens  Biotech  Group  (USA),
   Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain 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 this report;

3. Based  on  my  knowledge,  the  financial  statements,  and  other  financial
   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  officer  and  I  are  responsible  for
   establishing and maintaining  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 material information relating to the registrant,  including
      its consolidated subsidiaries,  is made known to us by others within those
      entities,  particularly  during the  period in which this  report is being
      prepared;

   b) evaluated the  effectiveness of the registrant's  disclosure  controls and
      procedures  and  presented  in  this  report  our  conclusions  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
      over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent
      fiscal quarter that has materially  affected,  or is reasonably  likely to
      materially  affect,  the  registrant's  internal  control  over  financial
      reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed,  based on our
   most recent evaluation of internal control over financial  reporting,  to the
   registrant's  auditors  and the  audit  committee  of  registrant's  board of
   directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

   a) all  significant  deficiencies  and material  weaknesses  in the design 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 a significant role in the registrant's internal control
      over financial reporting.

Date: May 13, 2004

/s/ LI Jinyuan
--------------------
LI Jinyuan
Chairman
STATE v. Marion BEASLEY, Jr.

504P04-3

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 14, 2019

Marion Beasley, Sr., Maury, For Beasley, Marion (Sr.)

Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, For State of N.C.

James R. O'Neill, District Attorney, For State of N.C.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 1st of April 2019 by Defendant for Appeal:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 14th of August 2019."