alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1198

AN ACT

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide

permanent authority for entry into the United States

of certain religious workers.

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 ‘‘Religious Workers Act

5 of 1997’’.
2

S 1198 ES

1 SEC. 2. PERMANENT AUTHORITY FOR ENTRY INTO UNITED

2 STATES OF CERTAIN RELIGIOUS WORKERS.

3 Section 101(a)(27)(C)(ii) of the Immigration and

4 Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(27)(C)(ii)) is amended

5 by striking ‘‘before October 1, 1997,’’ each of the two

6 places it appears.

7 SEC. 3. WAIVER OF NONIMMIGRANT VISA FEES FOR CER8 TAIN CHARITABLE PURPOSES.

9 Section 281 of the Immigration and Nationality Act

10 (8 U.S.C. 1351) is amended by adding at the end the fol11 lowing new sentence: ‘‘Subject to such criteria as the Sec12 retary of State may prescribe, including the duration of

13 stay of the alien and the financial burden upon the chari14 table organization, the Secretary of State shall waive or

15 reduce the fee for application and issuance of a non16 immigrant visa for any alien coming to the United States

17 primarily for, or in activities related to, a charitable pur18 pose involving health or nursing care, the provision of food

19 or housing, job training, or any other similar direct service

20 or assistance to poor or otherwise needy individuals in the

21 United States.’’.

Passed the Senate September 18, 1997.

Attest:

Secretary.
105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1198

AN ACT

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to

United States of certain religious workers.provide permanent authority for entry into the
ACCEPTED 03-14-00529-CV 4765120 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS 4/6/2015 9:50:42 AM JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK NO. 03-14-00529-CV JEROME J. ISAAC AND MICHELLEP. ISAAC, Appellants,


### v. VENDORRESOURCE MANAGEMENT, INC.; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC. AND CITIMORTGAGE,INC., Appellees. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

COMPLIANCE WITHRULE 9.4(i)(3) I certify that this document was produced using Microsoft Word 2010 and Adobe Acrobat X and contains 3,960 words, as determined by the computer's software word-count function, excluding the sections of the document listed in Texas Rules ofAppellate Procedure 9.4(i)(l).
Is/Chris Ferguson Chris Ferguson
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

JONATHAN D. LIGHTFOOT )
. Plaintiff, )
’ )
¥ )

v. ) No. 01C9746
: )
CITY COLLEGES OF. CHICAGO )
Defendant. )

OFFER OF JUDGEMENT

To: J. Hayes Ryan
Alholm, Monohan, Keefe & Klauke, L.L.C. DOGKETED \e

Attorney for Jonathan Lightfoot J ws
180 North Wacker, Suite 600 UL 12 2099 -
Chicago, IL 60606 i >

NOW COMES Defendant, Board of Trustees of Community College District No. 508,
County of Cook and State of Illinois d/b/a City Colleges of Chicago (“City Colleges”), by and
through its attorneys, Yolande Bourgeois, General Counsel, and Kwame Raoul, Staff Attorney,
and pursuant Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure make an offer to allow judgement
to be taken against it in a lump sum amount of $10,000.00 including costs and fees with-any
further equitable relief, including, but not limited, to reinstatement or appointment to any
position with the City Colleges of Chicago, being denied. Please note that you have ten (10) days
from service of this offer of judgement to accept, and the offer shall be deemed withdrawn if not

accepted within ten (10) days. If said offer is rejected or not accepted within ten (10) days and

|


the judgement finally obtained by plaintiff is not more favorable than this offer of judgement,
plaintiff will be required to pay all costs, including but not limited to Defendant’s attorneys fees

and related expenses, incurred subsequent to the making of this offer.

fa fZf

(KWAME RAOUL
One of Defendant’s Attorneys

Kwame Raoul
City Colleges of Chicago
Office of the General Counsel
226 West Jackson Boulevard, 14" Floor
Chicago, Illinois 60606
(312) 553-2543
Atty # 06217240
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Kwame Kaov! , certify that I served a copy of this notice and the attached Offer
of Judgement by personally delivering a copy of same to the above listed person at the above

listed address on July 3rd, 2002, before 5:00 p.m. Cz Za

2
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 32.01

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
           AS ENACTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2004 of Hartford Life, Inc. (the "Company"), filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 as enacted by
section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      1)    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
            section 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/ Thomas M. Marra
                                ---------------------------------------------
                                Name:  Thomas M. Marra
                                Title: President and Chief Operating Officer
                                Date:  August 12, 2004

                                       46
<PAGE>   1
                                                                  EXHIBIT 11.1


                               TRITEAL CORPORATION
         STATEMENT REGARDING CALCULATION OF NET INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE
                    (In thousands, except per share amounts)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                        Years Ended
                                                         March 31,
                                               --------------------------------
                                                1997        1996         1995
                                               ------     -------      -------
<S>                                           <C>         <C>          <C>    
Net income (loss) ........................    $(1,910)    $(4,842)     $   116
                                              =======     =======      =======
Average common shares outstanding ........      7,520       3,493        4,011
Adjustments to reflect requirements of the
Securities and Exchange Commission
(Effect of SAB 83) .......................        908       2,492        2,492
Effect of assumed conversion of Series A
convertible preferred shares from date of
issuance .................................          -         727            -
                                              -------     -------      -------
Adjusted shares outstanding ..............      8,428       6,712        6,503
                                              =======     =======      =======
Net income (loss) per share(1) ...........     $ (.23)    $  (.72)     $  0.02
                                              =======     =======      =======
</TABLE>


(1) Common equivalent shares are excluded from the computation for loss periods,
as their effect is antidulitive, except that, pursuant to SAB 83, common shares
and common equivalent shares issued during the 12 months prior to the Company's
June 1996 initial public offering have been included in the calculation as
outstanding for all periods prior to the initial public offering.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Frank Rodriguez, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Leahy, J.), rendered November 17, 1982, convicting him of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

We find nothing in the record indicating that defendant was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel. Defense counsel’s decision to introduce evidence of defendant’s good character was employed as a trial strategy designed to rebut the People’s proof that defendant was a violent person. Mere losing trial tactics do not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel when the attorney has provided "meaningful representation”, considering all of the facts and circumstances of the particular case *(People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137, 146-147; *cf. People v Ofunniyin,*114 AD2d 1045).

We decline to invoke our discretion to modify the sentence imposed by the trial court *(see, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80). Thompson, J. P., Brown, Weinstein and Fiber, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32

                            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 Quarterly Report of American Soil Technologies, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending December 31, 2007 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Carl P. Ranno, Chief Executive Officer, President, and Chief Financial Officer
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to
ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     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 result of operations of
          the Company.


/s/ Carl P. Ranno
-----------------------------------
Carl P. Ranno,
Chief Executive Officer, President,
and Chief Financial Officer
February 19, 2008
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Melvin Gilliard, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Martin, J.), rendered June 30, 1983, convicting him of attempted *658murder in the second degree, attempted robbery in the first degree (two counts), and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of defendant’s motion to suppress identification testimony.

Judgment affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and find that the suppression court properly concluded that the hospital room showup was not improper under the circumstances *(see, People v Soto,*87 AD2d 618). In such instances, one-on-one confrontations which occur in close spatial and temporal proximity to the crime are indicative of good police work aimed at apprehending the perpetrator and releasing innocent suspects as soon as possible, as the witness’s memory is most fresh at that time *(see, People v Love,*57 NY2d 1023; *People v Cole,*100 AD2d 442; *People v Brnja,*70 AD2d 17, *affd*50 NY2d 366). Moreover, in the case at bar, the People proved by clear and convincing evidence that there was a reliable independent source for each witness’s identification of defendant *(see, Manson v Brathwaite,*432 US 98).

There is also no merit to defendant’s claim that the sentencing court erroneously adjudicated him a second felony offender. He failed to prove by substantial evidence that the prior conviction based upon his guilty plea was unconstitutionally obtained *(see, People v Harris,*61 NY2d 9, 15).

We have considered appellant’s *pro se*argument that the sentence imposed was excessive and find it to be without merit. Mollen, P. J., Niehoff, Rubin and Lawrence, JJ., concur.
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
 Crop Improvement and Protection Research: Salinas, CA
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Pacific West Area Salinas, California Crop Improvement and Protection Research People & Locations







Tiffany  Masuda
                        Crop Improvement and Protection Research

                        




                        
                        Biological Science Lab Technician
                        Phone: (831) 755-2837
                        
                        
                        Fax: (831) 755-2898(Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)
                            **Publications**
                                                (Clicking on the reprint icon
                                                    Reprint Icon
                                                    will take you to the publication reprint.)Procedures of laboratory nitric oxide fumigation for pest control
                                                        

- (Peer Reviewed Journal)Liu, Y.-B., Yang, X., Masuda, T. 2017. Procedures of laboratory fumigation for pest control with nitric oxide gas. Journal of Visualized Experiments. 129:e56309. https://doi.org/10.3791/56309.


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
*

 This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of

the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its

persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

March 4, 2011

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff–Appellee,

No. 10-3244

(D.C. Nos. 2:03-CR-20051-JWL-DJW1 and 2:08-CV-02295-JWL)

(D. Kan.)

v.

CARLOS PORTILLO-QUEZADA,

a/k/a Luis Quezada,

Defendant–Appellant.

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY*

Before O’BRIEN, McKAY, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges.

Defendant seeks a certificate of appealability to appeal the district court’s

denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 habeas petition. Defendant was convicted on

multiple counts relating to a drug-distribution conspiracy, and his conviction and

sentence were affirmed by this court on direct appeal. See United States v.

Portillo-Quezada, 469 F.3d 1345 (10th Cir. 2006). In his habeas petition,

Defendant raised ten claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The district
-2-

court concluded Defendant was not entitled to relief on any of these claims and

accordingly dismissed the petition. 

After carefully reviewing Defendant’s brief and the record on appeal, we

conclude that reasonable jurists would not debate whether the district court erred

in dismissing the petition. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). As

the district court correctly concluded, none of Defendant’s claims, considered

either individually or cumulatively, reflected constitutionally deficient or

prejudicial performance by trial counsel. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S.

668, 687-88 (1984). Therefore, for substantially the same reasons explained by

the district court, we DENY the application for a certificate of appealability and

DISMISS the appeal. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Monroe G. McKay

Circuit Judge
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM EUROTECH,
LTD. BALANCE SHEET AS OF MARCH 31, 2000 AND STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE
THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 2000, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<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>                                           7,101
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 7,101
<PP&E>                                              42
<DEPRECIATION>                                      19
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  14,672
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,693
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            11
<OTHER-SE>                                       7,968
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    14,672
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,809
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  92
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,901)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,901)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,901)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.07)


</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT31.1**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO****SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002**

I, Gordon McGilton,certify that:

1.                               Ihave reviewed this quarterly report of Force Protection, Inc.;

2.                               Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.                               Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4.                               Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant andhave:

(a)                         Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b)                        Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and

(c)                         Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.                               Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors:

(a)                         Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

(b)                        Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

Date:  August 9, 2007
|        |   | /s/ Gordon McGilton     |
|--------|--------|-------------------------|
|   |   | Gordon McGilton         |
|   |   | Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
**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, the undersigned officers of Manhattan
      Pharmaceuticals, Inc. hereby certifies that, to the best of their
      knowledge:




(a)
      the
      Annual Report on Form 10-K of Manhattan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. for the year
      ended
      December 31, 2007 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section
      13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




(b)  information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of Manhattan Pharmaceuticals,
      Inc.




Dated:
                March 31, 2008
            /s/
                Douglas AbelDouglas
                AbelPresident
                and Chief Executive OfficerDated:
                March 31, 2008
            /s/
                Michael G. McGuinnessMichael
                G. McGuinnessChief
                Financial Officer