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

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1587

To amend the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985

to ensure the continued enforcement of the pay-as-you-go budget requirement until such time as the budget is balanced in order to protect

the social security trust funds, the Federal military retiree trust fund,

the highway trust funds, the medicare trust fund, the civil service retirement trust fund, the unemployment trust fund, and the airports trust

fund.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 29, 1998

Mr. HOLLINGS introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred jointly pursuant to the order of August 4, 1977, as modified by

the order of April 11, 1986, to the Committees on the Budget, and Governmental Affairs, with instructions that if one committee reports, the

other committee have thirty days to report or be discharged.

A BILL

To amend the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 to ensure the continued enforcement

of the pay-as-you-go budget requirement until such time

as the budget is balanced in order to protect the social

security trust funds, the Federal military retiree trust

fund, the highway trust funds, the medicare trust fund,

the civil service retirement trust fund, the unemployment

trust fund, and the airports trust fund.

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

•S 1587 IS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Pay-as-you-go Exten3 sion Act’’.

4 SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO THE BALANCED BUDGET ACT.

5 Section 252(a) of the Balanced Budget and Emer6 gency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended by adding

7 at the end the following: ‘‘This section shall be effective

8 until the Federal budget excluding the receipts and dis9 bursements of the social security trust funds, and any

10 other Federal trust fund included in the gross Federal

11 debt is in balance or surplus.’’.

Æ
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 Quarterly Report of Bay Banks of Virginia, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Treasurer (principal financial
officer) of the Company hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that based on their knowledge and belief: 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 as of and for the periods covered in
the Report.



|                                               
|-----------------------------------------------
|/s/ Austin L. Roberts, III                     
|Austin L. Roberts, III, Chief Executive Officer
|                                               
|/s/ Richard C. Abbott                          
|Richard C. Abbott, Treasurer                   



May 6, 2004
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

LOREN & VALERIE KRUESI, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

LINN COUNTY, a municipal corporation; and 

BRUCE DAVIS; DAVID SNIPPEN; & RICK 

CAMPBELL, individuals in their individual 

capacities, 

Defendants. 

Case No. 6:14 CV 1465-TC 

ORDER 

Magistrate Judge Coffin filed his Findings and Recommendation on September 11, 

2015. The matter is now before me. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(B) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). 

No objections have been timely filed. This relieves me of my obligation to give the factual 

findings de novo review. Lorin Corp. v. Goto & Co., Ltd., 700 F.2d 1202, 1206 (9th Cir. 

1982). See also Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 

Having reviewed the legal principles de novo, I find no error. 

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, I adopt Judge Coffin's Findings and 

Recommendation. 

;{t:L Dated this~ day of October, 2015. 

·. 

Ann 

~~ Aiken, United States District Judge 

Order-- Page 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          35,928
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   47,431
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    115,042
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               269,348
<PP&E>                                         891,472
<DEPRECIATION>                                 833,277
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 381,735
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,296,946
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       212,430
<OTHER-SE>                                 (4,127,741)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   381,735
<SALES>                                        292,750
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               292,750
<CGS>                                          176,228
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,228,425
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             6,537,493
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             556,867
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (12,206,263)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (12,210,263)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (14.40)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (14.40)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Joan Katzeff, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Thanksgiving Coffee Company, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge,
this quarterly 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 small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The small business issuers other certifying officers 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 small business issuer 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 small business issuer, 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 small business issuer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 small business issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuers most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting;

5. The small business issuers
other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuers auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer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 small business issuers ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting.



|                        |  |                 
|----------------------- |  | ----------------
|Date: November 9, 2006 
|                        | 
|By:                     |  | /s/ Joan Katzeff
|Joan Katzeff, President
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO**

**SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT RULES 13a-14(a) AND 15d-14(a), AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Evelyn Milam, certify that:

 

1.              I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Force Protection, Inc.; and

 

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.

 

 
| Date: February 25, 2013 | /s/ Evelyn Milam                                               |
|-------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------|
|                    | Evelyn Milam    Vice President *(Principal Financial Officer)* |

 

----
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
 Range Management Research: Las Cruces, NM
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Comprehensive Publications
                    Research SummarySearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Plains Area Las Cruces, New Mexico Range Management Research People & Locations







Georgia R Harrison

                                                                (PhD)
                        Range Management Research

                        




                        
                        Research Ecologist
                        Phone: (575) 646-2961
                        
                        
                        Fax: (Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)


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
PAGE 1 – ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

WILLIAM DILLON, SCOTT GRAUE, 

DAVID HODGES, and ALBERT LOVE,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CLACKAMAS COUNTY and

CRAIG ROBERTS,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:14-cv-820-YY

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS

Michael H. Simon, District Judge.

United States Magistrate Judge Youlee Yim You issued Findings and Recommendations

in this case on April 20, 2020. ECF 221. Judge You recommended that Defendants’ motion for 

summary judgment (ECF 210) be granted in full and the case be dismissed with prejudice.

Under the Federal Magistrates Act (“Act”), the Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in 

whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1). If a party objects to a magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations, “the court 

shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings 

or recommendations to which objection is made.” Id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). 

Case 3:14-cv-00820-YY Document 225 Filed 05/19/20 Page 1 of 2
PAGE 2 – ORDER

For those portions of a magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations to which neither 

party has objected, the Act does not prescribe any standard of review. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 

U.S. 140, 152 (1985) (“There is no indication that Congress, in enacting [the Act], intended to 

require a district judge to review a magistrate’s report to which no objections are filed.”); United 

States. v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (holding that the court 

must review de novo magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations if objection is made, “but 

not otherwise”). Although in the absence of objections no review is required, the Act “does not 

preclude further review by the district judge[] sua sponte . . . under a de novo or any other 

standard.” Thomas, 474 U.S. at 154. Indeed, the Advisory Committee Notes to Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 72(b) recommend that “[w]hen no timely objection is filed,” the Court review the magistrate 

judge’s recommendations for “clear error on the face of the record.”

Plaintiffs timely filed objections (ECF 223), to which Defendants responded. ECF 224.

Plaintiffs object to the entirety of Judge You’s Findings and Recommendation. The Court has 

reviewed Judge You’s Findings and Recommendation de novo and adopts them. The Court 

GRANTS Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF 210) and DISMISSES this case 

with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 19th day of May, 2020.

/s/ Michael H. Simon

Michael H. Simon

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-00820-YY Document 225 Filed 05/19/20 Page 2 of 2
#### Taylor *et al.*v. Johnson *et al.*

No. 2173,

Okla. T.

Opinion Filed January 13, 1909.

(99 Pac. 645.)

TRIAL — Instructions—Necessity of Exception. #This court will not review an instruction given by the trial court to the jurj-, unless the instruction was duly excepted to at the time of the trial.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

*Error from, District Court, Lincoln County; J. H. Burford, Trial Judge.*

Action by H. M. Johnson against Shédrick Taylor and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants Shedriek Taylor and Nancy Taylor bring error.

Affirmed.

This action was brought by the defendant in error H. M. Johnson to recover on a non-negotiable promissory note, and to foreclose a mortgage given to secure the same. He alleges in his petition that the note and mortgage were executed by the plaintiffs in error, and that the note is past due and unpaid. Plaintiffs in error in their answer make a general denial, and specifically deny that they executed and delivered the note to the payee therein, and further allege that if said note and mortgage were obtained from them they were obtained by fraud, and without their knowledge or consent. Upon a verdict in favor of defendant in error judgment ivas rendered by the trial court, from which plaintiff in error appealed.

*W. H. McCarver*and *Devereux*cC- *Hildreth,,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Owen & Neeley,*for defendants in error.

Hayes, J.

(after stating the facts as above). Plaintiffs in error make the following assignments of error in their brief:

> “First, that the court erred in ruling that the pleadings in this case only raised the issue of *‘non est*factumsecond, that *51the court erred in instructing the jury that the only question for them to find under the pleadings in this case was whether the present plaintiffs in error executed the note and mortgage sued on; third, that the court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial.”

Counsel for plaintiffs in error in their argument on these assignments have discussed them all under the second assignment, and the matters complained of arose in the ■ instructions of the court to the jury. The court instructed the jury that the only question for their consideration was whether the note and mortgage were executed by plaintiffs in error. The instructions are fully set out in the record and we have carefully examined same, but we have been unable to find from the record that the instruction complained of was excepted to by plaintiffs in error, and this court will not review instructions given on the trial of a cause unless the instruction complained of in this court was excepted to at the time. *Everett v. Akins,*8 Okla. 184, 56 Pac. 1062; *Boyd v. Bryan,*11 Okla. 56, 65 Pac. 940; *Glaser v. Glaser,*13 Okla. 389, 74 Pac. 944.

The evidence in this case fairly tends to support the verdict of the jury; and, since no error of the trial court has been presented to this court for which the ease should be reversed, the' judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

All the Justices concur.
exv4w19









Exhibit 4.19




CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT

TO

CERTIFICATE OF TRUST

OF

ACE CAPITAL TRUST IV




          THIS Certificate of Amendment to Certificate of Trust of ACE Capital Trust IV (the “Trust”),
is being duly executed and filed by the undersigned trustee to amend the Certificate of Trust of
the Trust, which was filed on May 14, 2002 (the “Certificate of Trust”) with the Secretary of State
of the State of Delaware under the Delaware Statutory Trust Act (12 Del. C. § 3801,
et seq.)(the “Act”).




          1. Name. The name of the statutory trust is ACE Capital Trust IV.




          2. Amendment to Certificate of Trust. The Certificate of Trust is hereby amended by
amending and restating Section 2 thereof in its entirety as follows:




          “2. Delaware Trustee. The name and business address of the trustee of the Trust with
its principal place of business in the State of Delaware are:



BNY Mellon Trust of Delaware

White Clay Center, Route 273

Newark, Delaware 19711.”




          3. Effective Date. This Certificate of Amendment shall be effective upon filing.




          IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned trustee of the Trust has executed this Certificate of
Amendment in accordance with Section 3811(a)(2) of the Act.




	 	 	 	 	 
	 	BNY MELLON TRUST OF DELAWARE,

not in its individual capacity, but solely as trustee

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Kristine K. Gullo
 	 
	 	Name:  	Kristine K. Gullo 	 
	 	Title:  	Vice President
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Registrant's Consolidated Interim Financial Statements for the six months ended
June 30, 1998 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such interim
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                             451
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,650
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      6,132
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                18,442
<PP&E>                                          29,947
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  73,168
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,322
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              775
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        27,338
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,765
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    73,168
<SALES>                                         33,744
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                33,744
<CGS>                                           24,543
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   24,543
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,118
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 688
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,423
<INCOME-TAX>                                       904
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,499
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,499
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.21
        

</TABLE>