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

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2322 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 2322

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the Federal building located at 320 North Main Street in 
     McAllen, Texas, as the ``Kika de la Garza Federal Building''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

     The Federal building located at 320 North Main Street in McAllen, 
Texas, shall be known and designated as the ``Kika de la Garza Federal 
Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

     Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the Federal building referred to in 
section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Kika de la Garza 
Federal Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 27, 2006.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
109th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 2322

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the Federal building located at 320 North Main Street in 
     McAllen, Texas, as the ``Kika de la Garza Federal Building''.
```
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

AROGANT HOLLYWOOD; ALISON 

HELEN FAIRCHILD, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

 v. 

CARROWS CALIFORNIA FAMILY 

RESTAURANTS, INC.; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 20-55012 

D.C. No. 2:18-cv-02098-JGB-GJS 

MEMORANDUM*

AROGANT HOLLYWOOD; ALISON 

HELEN FAIRCHILD, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

 v. 

PUBLIC STORAGE, INC.; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 20-55013 

D.C. No. 5:18-cv-01822-JGB-GJS 

AROGANT HOLLYWOOD, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

No. 20-55014 

D.C. No. 2:18-cv-05607-JGB-GJS 

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

FILED

MAR 22 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 20-55012, 20-55013, 20-55014, 20-55075 

CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

AROGANT HOLLYWOOD; ALISON 

HELEN FAIRCHILD, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

 v. 

2200 ONTARIO LLC, a California Limited 

Liability Corporation; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 20-55075 

D.C. No. 5:18-cv-01664-JGB-GJS 

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Jesus G. Bernal, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 16, 2021**

Before: GRABER, R. NELSON, and HUNSAKER, Circuit Judges.

In these consolidated appeals, Arogant Hollywood and Alison Helen 

Fairchild appeal pro se from the district court’s order declaring them to be 

vexatious litigants and entering a pre-filing review order against them. We have 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. 

** The panel unanimously concludes these cases are suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
3 20-55012, 20-55013, 20-55014, 20-55075 

Ringgold-Lockhart v. County of Los Angeles, 761 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir. 2014). 

We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in declaring Hollywood and 

Fairchild to be vexatious litigants and entering a pre-filing review order against 

them after providing notice and an opportunity to be heard, developing an adequate 

record for review, making substantive findings as to the frivolous and harassing 

nature of Hollywood and Fairchild’s litigation history, and narrowly tailoring the 

prohibition on future filings. See id. (setting forth requirements for pre-filing 

review orders).

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

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

Hollywood’s opposed motion for an order requiring appellees to re-serve the 

supplemental excerpts of record is denied. All other pending motions are 

granted. The Clerk will file Hollywood’s corrected reply brief, Hollywood’s 

supplemental brief, Fairchild’s supplemental brief, and Fairchild’s reply brief.

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 13.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADDED BY

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Tsakos Energy Navigation Limited (the Company) on Form 20-F for the
period ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Paul Durham, Chief Financial Officer and Chief Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, as added by § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on 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/ Paul DurhamPaul DurhamChief Financial Officer and Chief Accounting OfficerDate: May 15, 2007
USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00033-RLM-MGG document 233 filed 06/03/19 page 1 of 2
USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00033-RLM-MGG document 233 filed 06/03/19 page 2 of 2
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Genetics and Sustainable Agriculture Research: Mississippi State, MS
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                                    Software
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Southeast Area Mississippi State, Mississippi Crop Science Research Laboratory Genetics and Sustainable Agriculture Research





- ARS News & Events
- AgResearch Magazine
- Image Gallery
- News

Newsheadline bar Research continues with scientists at Academy of Science, Republic of Uzbekistan.Bekzod Abdurakhmonov from the institute is enrolled in graduate school at MississippiStateUniversity with research under the supervision of scientists in the Genetics and Precision Agriculture Research Unit.
    ARS News Articles  USDA Researchers Develop Naturally Fire-Resistant Cotton LinesJan 18, 2023USDA's Agricultural Research Service Honors Scientists of the YearSep 09, 2014Newly Found Genes May Lead to Nematode-resistant Upland CottonJul 26, 2012ARS Study Helps Farmers Make Best Use of FertilizersJun 09, 2010


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
#### MOTT et al., Appellants, v. MOTT, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

October 11, 1907.)

Action by Leon A. Mott and others against Emma H. Mott.

No opinion. Motion to resettle order granted, without costs.
**Exhibit 13.1**

 

**Certification**

 

**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)**

 

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 NTT DoCoMo, Inc., a Japanese corporation (the “Company”), hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that: 

 

The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended March 31, 2005 (the“Report”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

 

Date:September 28, 2005
**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 United Companies Corporation (the
“ Company ”)
      on
      Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the United
      States Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “ Report ”),
      the
      undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby
      certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
      906
      of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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 operation of the Company.


Date:
              April 2, 2007
            By:
            */s/*
              Robert M. CarmichaelName:Robert
              M. CarmichaelTitle:Chief
                Executive Officer




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
      authentications, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
      in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
      by Section 906, has been provided to United Companies Corporation and will
      be
      retained by United Companies Corporation and furnished to the United States
      Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
REPORT OF VOTE BY PROXY COMMITTEE                                Page 2

                   REPORT OF VOTE BY PROXY COMMITTEE
                              
                       CCB FINANCIAL CORPORATION
                              
                  1998 ANNUAL MEETING OF SHAREHOLDERS

I.  We, the undersigned, have been duly appointed,
    jointly and severally, to vote at the Annual Meeting of
    the Shareholders of CCB Financial Corporation the shares
    of common stock of CCB Financial Corporation standing in
    the name of the shareholders of record at the close of
    business on February 27, 1998 who have filed valid
    appointments of proxy with the Secretary.

II. We, the undersigned, have been duly authorized,
    jointly and severally, to vote the shares of common
    stock of CCB Financial Corporation evidenced by valid
    appointments of proxy filed with the Secretary
    representing 17,434,927 shares of the total of
    20,789,901 shares entitled to vote at such meeting, and
    we do hereby vote the total shares so presented as
    follows:

                               FOR            AGAINST       ABSTAIN
Proposal No. 1:            13,566,449         970,452       181,500


Proposal No. 2 - Election of Directors:

            NOMINEE                           FOR          WITHHELD
       
       One-Year Term:
       Blake P. Garrett, Jr.               17,311,822        44,372
       Two-Year Term
       William L. Abercrombie, Jr.         17,310,499        45,695
       Three-Year Term:
       John M. Barnhardt                   17,313,753        42,441
       James B. Brame, Jr.                 17,313,041        43,153
       David B. Jordan                     17,311,890        44,304
       C. Dan Joyner                       17,310,417        45,777
       Eric B. Munson                      17,310,299        45,895
       Dr. David E. Shi                    17,312,761        43,433
       Jimmy K. Stegall                    17,309,765        46,430
       
       
                               FOR            AGAINST       ABSTAIN
Proposal No. 3:
                           17,257,748          30,203        68,242


WITNESS our signatures this 21st day of April, 1998.


______________________________
Leo P. Pylypec


______________________________
W. Harold Parker, Jr.


______________________________
Manuel L. Rojas
# L_2009164DE.01006601.xml

| 26.6.2009 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 164/66 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.6.2009

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 164/66

---

Berichtigung der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 555/2008 der Kommission vom 27. Juni 2008 mit Durchführungsbestimmungen zur Verordnung (EG) Nr. 479/2008 des Rates über die gemeinsame Marktorganisation für Wein hinsichtlich der Stützungsprogramme, des Handels mit Drittländern, des Produktionspotenzials und der Kontrollen im Weinsektor

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 170 vom 30. Juni 2008
  )

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 170 vom 30. Juni 2008

Seite 45, Anhang IV, Fußnote 2:

anstatt:

| „(2) | Termin für die Mitteilung: 30. Mai.“ |
| --- | --- |

„(2)

Termin für die Mitteilung: 30. Mai.“

muss es heißen:

| „(2) | Termin für die Mitteilung: 1. März und 30. Juni.“ |
| --- | --- |

„(2)

Termin für die Mitteilung: 1. März und 30. Juni.“

---
#### Stevan E. PELIKAN; Deborah A. Pelikan, Petitioners-Appellants, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 08-70482.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 24, 2011.*

Filed June 7, 2011.

Stevan E. Pelikan, Portland, OR, pro se.

Deborah A. Pelikan, Portland, OR, pro se.

Carol Barthel, Esquire, Richard Morrison, Esquire, Steven W. Parks, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Robert R. Di Trolio, Esquire, Clerk, U.S. Tax Court, Washington, DC, Donald L. Korb, Esquire, Acting Chief Counsel, Washington, DC, for Respondent-Appel-lee.

Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Stevan E. and Deborah A. Pelikan appeal pro se from the Tax Court’s decision after a trial upholding the denial of innocent spouse relief to Stevan under 26 U.S.C. § 6015(b) and (f) from joint liability for tax deficiencies in 1999. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review for clear error the Tax Court’s finding that Stevan is not entitled to innocent spouse relief under § 6015(b). *Wiksell v. Comm’r,*90 F.3d 1459, 1461 (9th Cir.1996). We review de novo the Tax Court’s decision whether the Commissioner of Internal Revenue abused his discretion in denying equitable relief under § 6015(f). *Fargo v. Comm’r,*447 F.3d 706, 709 (9th Cir.2006); *United States v. Washington,*157 F.3d 630, 642 (9th Cir.1998). We affirm.

*787The Tax Court did not clearly err by finding that Stevan was not entitled to innocent spouse relief under § 6015(b) because there was evidence showing that the understatement of tax was not solely attributable to Deborah, that Stevan knew or had reason to know of the understatement, and that it would not be inequitable to hold Stevan liable for the deficiency. *See 26*U.S.C. § 6015(b); *Ordlock v. Comm’r,*533 F.3d 1136, 1139 (9th Cir.2008) (requirements to qualify for innocent spouse relief under § 6015(b)). Contrary to the Peli-kans’ contention, the standard set forth in *Culver v. Commissioner,*116 T.C. 189, 2001 WL 314341 (2001), is inapplicable, because *Culver*concerns § 6015(c), and Stevan stipulated that he was not entitled to relief under that section.

The Tax Court properly concluded that the Commissioner did not abuse his discretion by denying Stevan equitable relief under § 6015(f). *See*26 U.S.C. § 6015(f); Rev. Proc.2003-61 § 4.03(2) (nonexclusive list of factors for determining whether to grant equitable relief under § 6015(f)).

We do not consider whether the Tax Court erred by sustaining the negligence penalty imposed under 26 U.S.C. § 6662 because the issue was not raised in the opening brief. *See Friends of Yosemite Valley v. Kempthorne,*520 F.3d 1024, 1033 (9th Cir.2008) (deeming waived issues not raised in the opening brief).

The Pelikans’ remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

**

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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

FORT WAYNE DIVISION 

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) 

 ) 

 v. ) CASE NO.: 1:16-CR-60-TLS 

 ) 

FERNANDO GUAPO GARCIA ) 

 

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

 This matter is before the Court on the Findings and Recommendation of the United States 

Magistrate Judge [ECF No. 44], filed on December 7, 2016. The Defendant has waived objection 

to the Findings and Recommendation, and the Court, being duly advised, adopts the Findings 

and Recommendation [ECF No. 44] in its entirety and accepts the recommended disposition. 

Subject to this Court’s consideration of the Plea Agreement pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal 

Procedure 11(c), if applicable and necessary, the plea of guilty to the offense charged in Count 

One (1) of the Indictment is hereby accepted, and the Defendant is adjudged guilty of such 

offense. 

 The notice of sentencing and pre-sentence scheduling deadlines will be issued by separate 

order.

SO ORDERED on December 22, 2016. 

 s/ Theresa L. Springmann 

 JUDGE THERESA L. SPRINGMANN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, 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.

 October 22, 2014

p1021

Order 

Clerk

October 22, 2014

150231 & (10)(11)(12)

MATTHEW CHRISTENSEN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 150231

COA: 323404

Oakland CC: 2013-131850-NH

MARK A. PLEATMAN, M.D.,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED. 

The application for leave to appeal the October 3, 2014 order of the Court of Appeals is 

considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented 

should be reviewed by this Court. The motion to waive stay request and transcript 

requirement is GRANTED. The motion for stay is DENIED.
EXHIBIT 23.1



Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 Nos. 333-96923, 333-118705 and 333-106975) pertaining
to the Quantum Fuel Systems Technologies Worldwide, Inc., 2002 Stock Incentive Plan of our reports dated June 22, 2005, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Quantum Fuel Systems Technologies Worldwide, Inc., Quantum
Fuel Systems Technologies Worldwide, Inc. managements assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Quantum Fuel Systems Technologies
Worldwide, Inc., included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended April 30, 2005.



/s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP



|                       
|-----------------------
|Los Angeles, California
|June 30, 2005
#### SCHWARTZWAELDER CO. v. SILVERMAN.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

May 9, 1912.)

Corporations (§ 661*)—Foreign Corporations—Right to Sue.

A foreign corporation, doing business in the state without filing the certificate required by General Corporation Law (Consol. Laws 1909, c. 23) § 15, may not maintain an action for goods sold and delivered.

[Ed. Note.—For other eases, see Corporations, Cent. Dig. §§ 2539, 2543, 2544, 2546, 2563-2567; Dec. Dig. § 661.*]

Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, First District.

Action by the Schwartzwaelder Company against Charles Silver-man, doing business under the firm name and style of the Eagle Raincoat Company. From a judgment of the Municipal Court of the City of New York, rendered for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed, and complaint dismissed.

Argued April term, 1912, before SEABURY, GUY, and GERARD, JJ.

Charles B. Harris, of New York City, for appellant.

Gallert & Heilborn, of New York City (Walter S. Heilborn, of New York City, of counsel), for respondent.

*

For other cases see same topic *&'§*number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, *&*RepT Indexes

SEABURY, J.

The plaintiff, a foreign corporation, has recovered a judgment for goods sold and delivered against the defendant. It *1115appears from the evidence that the plaintiff was doing business in the state, and that it failed to file a certificate as required by section 15 of the General Corporation Law. Under these circumstances it was prohibited access to our courts, and its complaint should have been dismissed.

Judgment reversed, with costs, and complaint dismissed, with costs. All concur.