alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
`[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1177 Introduced in Senate (IS)]







105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1177

  To prohibit the exhibition of B-2 and F-117 aircraft in public air 
                shows not sponsored by the Armed Forces.


_______________________________________________________________________


                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 15, 1997

  Mr. Warner introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
              referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL


 
  To prohibit the exhibition of B-2 and F-117 aircraft in public air 
                shows not sponsored by the Armed Forces.

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






105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1177

  To prohibit the exhibition of B-2 and F-117 aircraft in public air 
                shows not sponsored by the Armed Forces.


_______________________________________________________________________


                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 15, 1997

  Mr. Warner introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
              referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL


  To prohibit the exhibition of B-2 and F-117 aircraft in public air 
                shows not sponsored by the Armed Forces.

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

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION OF STEALTH AIRCRAFT EXHIBITIONS AT PUBLIC AIR 
              SHOWS.

    No B-2 or F-117 aircraft may be exhibited, in flight or otherwise, 
at any public air show other than an air show that is sponsored by one 
or more of the Armed Forces of the United States.
                                 <all>`
Exhibit 23.01


                              CONSENT



We have issued our report dated October 1, 1999,  accompanying  the consolidated
financial  statements  included in the Annual Report of  Lifschultz  Industries,
Inc. on Form 10-KSB for the year ended July 31, 1999.  We hereby  consent to the
incorporation  by  reference  of said report in the  Registration  Statement  of
Lifschultz Industries, Inc. on Form S-8 (File No. 333-05487,  effective June 26,
1996.)


                                                      GRANT THORNTON LLP


Provo, Utah
October 1, 1999
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Jamshid Banakar v. Ulrike Krause

Appellate case number: 01

- 21

- 00609

- CV

Trial court case number: 2016

- 88890

Trial court: 308th District Court of Harris County

On March 10, 2022, a ppellee / c ross

- appellant, Ulrike Krause, filed a Motion for Supplemental Clerk ’ s Records. In the motion

, a ppell ee / cross

- appellant asks this Court to order the Harris County District Clerk to supplement the clerk ’ s record to include those items identified in a ppellee /cross

- appellant ’ s Sup p lemental Designat ion of Items to be I ncluded in the Clerk ’ s R ecord , which was filed on December 20, 2021, and in the Second Supplemental
D e signation of Items to be I ncluded in t h e Clerk ’ s Record, w hich was filed on February 18, 2022. Appellee / cross

- appellant states in the certificate of conference that counsel for appellant /cross

- appellee agr ees to the motion

. The motion is granted

. To the extent the clerk ’ s record does not already contain the documents at issue, w e order the trial court clerk to file within fifteen days of the date of this order a supplemental clerk’s record containing the items identified in a ppell ee / cross

- appellant ’ s Supplemental D esignation of Items to be I ncluded in the Clerk ’ s R eco rd and Second Supplemental D e signation of Items to be I ncluded in t h e Clerk ’ s Reco rd

. It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature:

___________ /s/ Julie Countiss

__________ Acting individually

Date: March 17, 2 022
Exhibit 32.2


                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 on Form 10-Q of Franklin Street
Properties Corp. (the "Company") for the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
the undersigned, John G. Demeritt, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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 results of operations
            of the Company.


Date:  May 8, 2006                  /s/ John G. Demeritt
                                    ----------------------
                                    John G. Demeritt
                                    Chief Financial Officer
```

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

I, Marc Baker, the Chief Executive Officer & Chief Financial Officer of
Optical Concepts of America, Inc. (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best
of my knowledge:

(1)      the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the period ended
         September 30, 2003 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements
         of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15
         U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

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

Dated: October 23, 2003

                                              /s/   Marc Baker
                                              ---------------------------------
                                              Name: Marc Baker
                                              Title:Chief Executive Officer &
                                                    Chief Financial Officer
```
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 March 31, 2008 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.


Carl P. Ranno,
-----------------------------------
Chief Executive Officer, President,
and Chief Financial Officer
May 19, 2008
CERTIFICATIONS  UNDER  SECTION  302

I,  Michael  Watts,  certify  that:

    1.  I  have  reviewed  this  quarterly  report  of  Force  Protection
Corporation;

    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(s) 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 (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual  report)  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(s) and I have disclosed, based
on  our  most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
the  registrant's  auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors  (or  persons  performing  the  equivalent  functions):

         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  17,  2004


/s/  Michael  Watts
--------------------
Michael  Watts
Chief  Executive  Officer
NUMBER 13-17-00429-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG 

 

ENRIQUE ANGEL RAMOS, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

 

On appeal from the 206th District Court

of Hidalgo County, Texas.

 

ORDER ABATING APPEAL

Before Justices Rodriguez, Contreras, and Benavides

Order Per Curiam

Appellant’s counsel, the Honorable Alegra Hill with the Law Offices of Brandy 

Wingate Voss, PLLC, has filed a motion requesting to withdraw as counsel. According 

to her motion to withdraw, good cause exists for her to withdraw because she has 

accepted a position with the Office of the Governor of Texas starting October 1, 2018, 
2

and will no longer be practicing appellate law or available to represent private parties.

Adequate reason for the discharge of counsel and appointment of new counsel 

rests within the sound discretion of the trial court. Carroll v. State, 176 S.W.3d 249, 255 

(Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, pet. ref'd). In those circumstances where the 

appointment of substitute counsel may be necessary, an appellate court, when faced with 

a motion to withdraw, should abate the proceeding to the trial court for determination of 

this issue. Accordingly, we ABATE the appeal and REMAND the cause to the trial court 

for further proceedings consistent with this order.

Upon remand, the trial court shall determine whether appellant’s court-appointed 

attorney should remain as appellant's counsel; and, if not, whether appellant is entitled to 

new appointed counsel. If the trial court determines that there is no reason to discharge 

appellant’s current appointed attorney and appoint substitute counsel, the court shall 

enter an order to that effect. If the trial court determines that new counsel should be 

appointed, the name, address, telephone number, email address, and state bar number 

of the newly appointed counsel shall be included in the order appointing counsel. The 

trial court shall further cause its order to be included in a supplemental clerk's record to 

be filed with the Clerk of this Court on or before the expiration of ten days from the date 

of this order. 

It is so ordered.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish.

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the 28th

day of September, 2018.
#### Arnold ANDRADE-QUIROZ; Deysi Marelly Andrade-Quiroz, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 10-71453.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 12, 2011.*

Filed July 19, 2011.

Claudia Jasmine Lopez, Esquire, Law Offices of Mendez & Lopez, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioners.

Oil, Margot Carter, Trial, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Arnold Andrade-Quiroz and Deysi Mar-elly Andrade-Quiroz, natives and citizens of Honduras, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an im*123migration judge’s decision denying their application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, *Cerezo v. Mukasey,*512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir.2008), except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s determination of the governing statutes and regulations, *Simeonov v. Ashcroft,*371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir.2004). We review for substantial evidence factual findings. *Zehatye v. Gonzales,*453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2006). We deny the petition for review.

Petitioners’ due process contention regarding the BIA’s streamlined decision is foreclosed by *Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft,*350 F.3d 845, 851 (9th Cir.2003) (BIA’s summary affirmance procedure does not violate due process).

We reject petitioners’ claim that they are eligible for asylum and withholding of removal based on their anti-gang political opinions or membership in a particular social group. *See Barrios v. Holder,*581 F.3d 849, 854-55 (9th Cir.2009) (rejecting as a particular social group “young males in Guatemala who are targeted for gang recruitment but refuse because they disagree with the gang’s criminal activities”); *see Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey,*542 F.3d 738, 745-46 (9th Cir.2008) (rejecting as a particular social group “young men in El Salvador resisting gang violence,” and holding that general aversion to gangs is not a political opinion). Accordingly, petitioners’ asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. *See Barrios,*581 F.3d at 856.

Finally, substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of petitioners’ CAT claim because they failed to demonstrate it is more likely than not that they will be tortured if they return to Honduras. *See Santos-Lemus,*542 F.3d at 748.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### Village of Lindenhurst, Respondent, v Lizza Industries, Inc., Respondent.

[942 NYS2d 809]

In an action to recover damages for continuing public nuisance, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Pitts, J.), dated September 28, 2011, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as time-barred.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff alleges that, pursuant to a contract with Suffolk County, the defendant completed certain sewer construction work in 1976, and that defects in the construction work constitute and contribute to a continuing public nuisance. The action is time-barred for the reasons stated in the companion case of *Village of Lindenhurst v J.D. Posillico, Inc.*(94 AD3d 1101 [2012] [decided herewith]).

*1103The plaintiffs contentions relating to alleged statutory violations are not properly before this Court. Rivera, J.E, Dillon, Angiolillo and Leventhal, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 11.1

                           VARI-LITE INTERNATIONAL, INC.
                       COMPUTATION OF INCOME PER COMMON SHARE
                 FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1997 AND 1998
                          (In thousands except share data)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                            1997             1998
                                                                            ----             ----
<S>                                                                     <C>             <C>

Net income. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .        $1,210           $   0

Weighted average shares outstanding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .     5,785,039       7,800,003

Dilutive effect of stock warrants after application of treasury stock
  method. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .        19,473               0

Shares used in calculating diluted income per share . . . . . . . .     5,804,512       7,800,003

Basic net income per share. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .         $0.21           $0.00

Diluted net income per share. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .         $0.21           $0.00

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Leslie Mellen, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berkman, J.), rendered on February 27, 1984, unanimously affirmed.

Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted. *(See, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833.) We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous points which could be raised on this appeal. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Asch, Fein and Rosenberger, JJ.
II

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1393

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for the permanent

extension of the incentives for alcohol used as a fuel.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

NOVEMBER 6, 1997

Mr. DORGAN (for himself, Mr. DASCHLE, Mr. JOHNSON, and Mr. CONRAD)

introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the

Committee on Finance

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide

for the permanent extension of the incentives for alcohol

used as a fuel.

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

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT EXTENSION OF INCENTIVES FOR

4 ALCOHOL USED AS A FUEL.

5 (a) FUEL TAX RATE REDUCTIONS.—

6 (1) Section 4041(b)(2) of the Internal Revenue

7 Code of 1986 is amended by striking subparagraph

8 (C).
2

•S 1393 IS

1 (2) Section 4041(k) of such Code is amended

2 by striking paragraph (3).

3 (3) Section 4081(c) of such Code is amended by

4 striking paragraph (8).

5 (4) Section 4091(c) of such Code is amended by

6 striking paragraph (5).

7 (b) REFUNDS.—Section 6427(f) of the Internal Reve8 nue Code of 1986 is amended by striking paragraph (4).

9 (c) INCOME TAX CREDIT.—Section 40(e)(1) of the

10 Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as fol11 lows:

12 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—This section shall not apply

13 to any sale or use for any period during which the

14 rates of tax under section 4081(a)(2)(A) are 4.3

15 cents per gallon.’’

16 (d) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS TO TARIFF SCHED17 ULE.—

18 (1) The effective period column of the heading

19 9901.00.50 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of

20 the United States (19 U.S.C. 3007) is amended to

21 read as follows: ‘‘The rate for articles described in

22 this heading shall not apply during any period dur23 ing which the rates of tax under section

24 4081(a)(2)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986

25 are 4.3 cents per gallon.’’
3

•S 1393 IS

1 (2) The effective period column of the heading

2 9901.00.52 of such Schedule is amended to read as

3 follows: ‘‘The rate for articles described in this head4 ing shall not apply during any period during which

5 the rates of tax under section 4081(a)(2)(A) of the

6 Internal Revenue Code of 1986 are 4.3 cents per

7 gallon.’’

8 (e) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

9 this section shall take effect on the date of enactment of

10 this Act.

Æ
1 Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R.

47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

____________

No. 96-40804

____________

JAMES C. JOHNSTON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

AMERICAN MEDICAL INTERNATIONAL, ET AL,

Defendants

AMERICAN MEDICAL INTERNATIONAL; AMI

NACOGDOCHES MEDICAL CENTER HOSPITAL; NATIONAL

MEDICAL ENTERPRISES, INC.; TENET HEALTH CARE

CORPORATION; MORRIS JACKSON; LISA JACKSON,

Mrs.; THOMAS CLAYTON, M.D.;

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Eastern District of Texas

(9:95-CV-191)

September 24, 1997

Before WISDOM, JOLLY and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:1

AFFIRMED. See 5TH CIR. R. 47.6.
Case: 1:01-cv-04366 Document #: 760 Filed: 11/12/03 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:5668
Case: 1:01-cv-04366 Document #: 760 Filed: 11/12/03 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:5669
Case: 1:01-cv-04366 Document #: 760 Filed: 11/12/03 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:5670
Case: 1:01-cv-04366 Document #: 760 Filed: 11/12/03 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:5671
Case: 1:01-cv-04366 Document #: 760 Filed: 11/12/03 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:5672
Case: 1:01-cv-04366 Document #: 760 Filed: 11/12/03 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:5673
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

EDUARDO SANCHEZ

,

Appellant

,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

,

State

. §

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 20

- 00179

- C R

Appeal from

243 rd District Court

of El Paso C ounty, Texas

(TC# 970D11378 )

O R D E R

The record before us does not contain the trial court’s certification of the defendant’s right

of appeal. T EX .R.A PP .P. 25.2(a)(2), (d). The trial court is ordered to prepare and file with the trial

court clerk within thirty days from the date of this order a certification of the defendant’s right of

appeal as required by T EX .R.A PP .P. 25.2(a)(2) and 25.2 (d). The trial court clerk shall prepare a

supplemental clerk’s record containing the certification and file it with this Court no later than

November 19 , 2020.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 5 th d ay of October

, 20 20

.

PER CURIAM

Before Alley

, C.J., R odriguez and Palafox , JJ.