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

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5717 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5717

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 29, 2010

    Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Rules and 
                             Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To authorize the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution to 
  plan, design, and construct a facility and to enter into agreements 
relating to education programs at the National Zoological Park facility 
           in Front Royal, Virginia, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Smithsonian Conservation Biology 
Institute Enhancement Act''.

SEC. 2. FACILITY FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS.

    (a) In General.--The Board of Regents of the Smithsonian 
Institution is authorized to plan, design, and construct a facility on 
National Zoological Park property in Front Royal, Virginia for the 
purpose of conducting research and educational programs.
    (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be 
appropriated to carry out subsection (a)--
            (1) $1,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2010 and 2011; and
            (2) $3,000,000 in the aggregate for all succeeding fiscal 
        years.

SEC. 3. AGREEMENTS FOR HOUSING AND OTHER SERVICES.

    (a) In General.--The Board of Regents of the Smithsonian 
Institution is authorized to enter into agreements for the provision of 
housing and other services to the participants in the programs 
referenced in section 2.
    (b) Costs.--The housing and other services described in subsection 
(a) shall be provided at no cost to the Smithsonian Institution.

SEC. 4. ANIMAL HOLDING FACILITY.

    The Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution is authorized 
to plan, design, and construct animal holding and related program 
facilities on National Zoological Park property in Front Royal, 
Virginia, to be funded from nonfederal sources.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 28, 2010.

            Attest:

                                            LORRAINE C. MILLER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Bryan Vermont, Appellant.

[946 NYS2d 475]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Laura A. Ward, J.), rendered October 19, 2009, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and sentencing him to a term of 90 days, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion without granting a hearing. Defendant’s allegations failed to raise a legal basis for suppression *(see People v Burton,*6 NY3d 584, 587 [2006]). The information provided by the People apprised defendant that his arrest was based on an undercover drug sale. Defendant’s assertion that he “had not committed any act which justified his arrest” was insufficiently specific to address the alleged sale or raise any factual dispute requiring a hearing *(see e.g. People v Bonnet,*288 AD2d 161, 162 [2001], *lv denied*97 NY2d 751 [2002]; *People v Hernandez,*283 AD2d 190 [2001], *lv denied*97 NY2d 641 [2001]). Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Catterson, Acosta, Freedman and Román, JJ.
Exhibit 32.1

Certifications pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted).

I, Elizabeth McLaughlin, Chief Executive Officer of Hot Topic, Inc., certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Hot Topic, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report.

Date: March 19, 2010



/s/    ELIZABETH
MCLAUGHLINElizabeth McLaughlinChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Hot Topic, Inc. and will be retained by Hot Topic, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies the Form 10-K, is not deemed filed with the
SEC and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-K), irrespective of
any general incorporation language contained in such filing.

I, James McGinty, Chief Financial Officer of Hot Topic, Inc.,
certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Hot Topic, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other information
included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report.

Date: March 19, 2010



/s/    JAMES
MCGINTYJames McGintyChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)


A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Hot Topic, Inc. and will be retained by Hot Topic, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies the Form 10-K, is not deemed filed with the SEC and is not to be incorporated by reference into
any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-K), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such
filing.
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 Q.E.P. Co., Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ending
February 29, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Lewis Gould, Chairman and Chief Executive 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/ Lewis Gould                     
|Lewis Gould                         
|Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

May 29, 2008
Exhibit
10.1

    


    Purchase
Contract

    


    Party A
(Purchaser): Xingtai Longhai Steel Wire Ltd.

    Party B
(Seller): Xingtai Longhai Steel Group Ltd.

    


    Concerning
the purchase of steel billet, both parties friendly agree on a fair and free
basis to the terms below:

    


    
      	
              1.

            	
              Contract
      objective: Steel Billet

            


    

    
      	
              2.

            	
              Quality:
      GB700-99, YB2011-83

            


    

    
      	
              3.

            	
              Quantity:
      will be based on Party A market
demand

            


    

    
      	
              4.

            	
              Payment
      terms and price: Based on Party A’s estimated monthly billet consumption,
      as well as on the same product model market price at the beginning of the
      month, Part A will pay party B with purchase order on terms. The closing
      price will be set as the weighted average of prior 10 days sales prices of
      identical product less a 10 rmb per ton discount (as wholesale
      price).

            


    

    
      	
              5.

            	
              Delivery
      place: Party A raw material
warehouse

            


    

    
      	
              6.

            	
              Both
      parties right and obligation:

            


    

    
      	
               
      

            	
              a.

            	
              Party
      B will guarantee Party A has the exclusive priority right to purchase
      billet needed, if due to repair or other unforeseen reasons Party B cannot
      meet Party A’s demand quantities, Party B shall notify Party A in advance
      so they can properly schedule the
purchase.

            


    

    
      	
               
      

            	
              b.

            	
              Party
      B will produce Party A’s order according its product model, Party A should
      notify Party B on the 25th
      of every month next month production product
  model.

            


    

    
      	
               
      

            	
              c.

            	
              Party
      B will be responsible for the delivery to Party A’s raw material
      warehouse, and the delivery fee will be the responsibility of Party
      B.

            


    

    


    Party A
(Purchaser): Xingtai Longhai Steel Wire Ltd.

    


    Party B
(Seller): Xingtai Longhai Steel Group Ltd.

    


    Oct 1,
2008
#### HOOD, Respondent, v. WEAVER, Appellant.

(Supreme Court General Term, Fourth Department.

May 18, 1894.)

Action by George L. Hood against Rollin L. Weaver.

Argued before HARDIN, P. J., and MARTIN and MERWIN, JJ.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with costs.
```

[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 74 (Monday, April 17, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20483-20484]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-9424]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[MT-929-1220-PA-002E]

Notice of Proposed Supplementary Rule Concerning Minors in 
Possession of Alcoholic Beverages on Public Lands Administered by the 
Bureau of Land Management (BLM); Montana, North Dakota, and South 
Dakota

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Underage drinking is a growing problem on the public lands. 
Such activity poses a significant health and safety hazard to both 
underage violators and other users of the public lands and can result 
in the destruction of natural resources and property.
    Therefore, the State Director is prohibiting the possession, or 
providing, of an intoxicating substance by, or to, a person under 21 
years of age upon the public lands in Montana, North Dakota, and South 
Dakota. This action will allow BLM law enforcement officers to restrict 
the supply and possession and/or consumption of alcoholic beverages

[[Page 20484]]

by minors, on BLM-administered public lands and recreation areas, in a 
manner consistent with Montana Code Annotated (MCA) 45-5-624, MCA 16-6-
304, and MCA 16-6-305; ND Century Codes 5-01-01, 5-01-08, and 5-01-09; 
and SD Code 35-1-1, 35-9-1, 35-9-1.1, and 35-9-2. An intoxicating 
substance is defined in MCA 45-2-101 (31)(a).
    This supplementary rule is issued under the authority of 43 CFR 
8365.1-6.

Penalties

    As prescribed under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, 43 
USC, Section 1733(a), and the Taylor Grazing Act, the violation is 
punishable by fines and/or imprisonment under 43 CFR 8360.0-7, with 
fines up to $1000 and/or 12 months in jail, or $500 as authorized under 
the Taylor Grazing Act (43 USC 315a).

DATES: To comply with the Administrative Procedures Act, if no 
significant opposition is received, this rule will go into effect May 
17, 2000, and will remain in effect until rescinded or modified by the 
authorized officer.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Special Agent in Charge, Bureau of 
Land Management, Montana State Office, 5001 Southgate Drive, Billings, 
Montana 59101, (406) 896-5010.

    Dated: March 23, 2000.
Larry E. Hamilton,
State Director.
[FR Doc. 00-9424 Filed 4-14-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-DN-P
```
386 P.2d 794

#### STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Arthur Joseph FRY, Appellant.

No. 1384.

Supreme Court of Arizona. En Bane.

Nov. 20, 1963.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 17, 1963.

*69Skousen, McLaws & Skousen, Mesa, for appellant.

Robert W. Pickrell, Atty. Gen., Charles N. Ronan, County Atty., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was charged with robbery. He pleaded not guilty and the matter came to trial. The morning of the second day of trial the State filed an amended information in open court and without objection by the defendant. The amended information charged the defendant with burglary in the first degree to which he pleaded guilty and was sentenced to from 4 to 8 years in the state prison. Appellant was represented by counsel.

Appellant filed his notice of appeal in propria persona and counsel was appointed by the trial court pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-161, to handle his appeal. In his notice of appeal appellant contended that his plea of guilty was the result of mental coercion. Counsel stated to this court that it was his opinion there was no merit to the appeal. This court ordered the appeal be submitted on the record for examination for fundamental error.

We have examined the record and the transcript of testimony and find no error. The record does not show that appellant’s plea of guilty was the result of any coercion or undue influence.

Affirmed.
#### In the Matter of Sara F. Levitt, Respondent, v Edward J. Mahoney et al., Constituting the Board of Elections of Erie County, et al., Appellants, and Mark A. Pasternak et al., Respondents. (Appeal No. 1.)

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Same memorandum as in *Matter of Levitt v Mahoney*([appeal No. 2] 133 AD2d 516 [decided herewith]). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Fudeman, J.—Election Law.) Present—Denman, J. P., Boomer, Balio and Davis, JJ. (Order entered Aug. 21, 1987.)
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ishmel Williams, Appellant.

[946 NYS2d 892]

— Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated May 22, 2000 *(People v Williams,*272 AD2d 563 [2000]), affirming a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered May 21, 1998.

Ordered that the application is denied.

The appellant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel *(see Jones v Barnes,*463 US 745 [1983]; *People v Stultz, 2*NY3d 277 [2004]). Mastro, A.P.J., Rivera, Skelos and Florio, JJ., concur.
exv10w8xay







Exhibit 10.8(a)


June 9, 2009




Waypoint Capital Management

23 Green St. — Suite 210

Huntington, N.Y. 11743



Attention: Mr. Robert Calabretta




	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Re:
	 	Management Agreement Renewals






Dear Mr. Calabretta:



We are writing with respect to your management agreements concerning the commodity pools to which
reference is made below (the “Management Agreements”). We are extending the term of the Management
Agreements through June 30, 2010 and all other provisions of the Management Agreements will remain
unchanged.





	 	•	 	CTA Capital LLC
	 
	 	•	 	Citigroup Emerging CTA Portfolio L.P.
	 
	 	•	 	Capital Global Diversified Futures Fund L.P.




Please acknowledge receipt of this modification by signing one copy of this letter and returning it
to the attention of Ms. Jennifer Magro at the address above or fax to 212-793-1986. If you have any
questions I can be reached at 212-559-5046.




Very truly yours,




CITIGROUP MANAGED FUTURES LLC




	 	 	 	 	 
	By:

	 	/s/ Jennifer Magro
 

Jennifer Magro
	 	 
	 

	 	Chief Financial Officer & Director	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 





WAYPOINT CAPITAL MANAGEMENT





	 	 	 	 	 
	By:

	 	/s/ Robert E Calabretta
 

	 	 
	Print Name:

	 	Robert E Calabretta	 	 
	 
	JM/sr
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 Trycera Financial, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2006, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), the undersigned principal executive officer of the Company,
hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 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 results of
          operations of the Company.



Date:  April 2, 2007

/S/ Matthew S. Kerper
----------------------------
Matthew S. Kerper, President
(Principal executive officer)
#### JOHN CHURCH CO. v CLARKE.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Fourth Department.

May 18, 1894.)

1. Counterclaim—Existence when Action was Commenced.

Under Code Civ. Proc. § 501, providing that “in an action on contract any other cause of action on contracts existing at the commencement of the action” may he set up as counterclaim, a claim against plaintiff, acquired by defendant after the action was commenced, is not available.

2. Same—Proof under General Denial.

Under a general denial in the reply plaintiff may show that defendant’s counterclaim did not exist in his favor when the action was commenced.

Appeal from circuit court, Chemung county.

Action by the John Church Company against George H. Clarke. From a judgment entered on a verdict in favor of defendant, and from an order of the special term (25 N. Y. Supp. 949) denying a motion for a new trial, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

Argued before HARDIN, P. J., and MARTIN and MERWIN, JJ.

Youmans, Moss & Knipp, for appellant.

Reynolds, Stanchfield & Collin, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

On the trial, the plaintiff offered to prove that the defendant was not, at the commencement of the action, the own*871er of the demand set up in his answer as a counterclaim. This evidence was excluded upon the ground that it was not admissible under the pleadings. The reply consisted of a general denial of the matters set up as a counterclaim. The correctness of this ruling is challenged by the appellant, and presents the only question involved on this appeal. The Code, so far as applicable to the question, provides that, in an action on contract, any other cause of action on contract existing at the commencement of the action may be set up as a counterclaim against the plaintiff. Section 501. Thus the right to set up and prove such a claim depends upon its existence at the time the action was commenced. It has been held that an answer setting up a counterclaim which fails to show that it existed at the commencement of the action is demurrable. Moody v. Steele, 11 Civ. Proc. R. 205; Mayo v. Davidge, 44 Hun, 342; Rice v. O’Connor, 10 Abb. Pr. 362; Van Valen v. Lapham, 5 Duer, 689; Abb. Tr. Brief, p. 400, § 481. Thus it would seem that the defendant must not only prove, but must also allege, that the counterclaim in the hands of the defendant existed in his favor when the action was commenced. Such being the case, it must follow, we think, that the plaintiff, under the general denial contained in the reply herein, was entitled to prove that no such claim existed in the defendant’s favor when the suit was begun. Under a general denial in an action on contract, a party may controvert by evidence anything which the other party is bound to allege and prove in the first instance, to make out his cause of action, and anything he is permitted to prove for that purpose. Milbank v. Jones, 141 N. Y. 340, 36 N. E. 388. These considerations lead to the conclusion that the court erred in excluding the evidence offered by the plaintiff, and that for such error the judgment should be reversed. Judgment and order reversed, and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event.
Exhibit 14.1




Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm




We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-12904) pertaining to the Employees’ Share Purchase Plan and the Share Incentive Plan of Tikcro Technologies Ltd. of our report dated June 29, 2011, with respect to the financial statements of Tikcro Technologies Ltd. included in this Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2010.




June 29, 2011

Tel-Aviv, Israel

/s/ KOST, FORER GABBAY & KASIERER

KOST, FORER GABBAY & KASIERER

A Member of Ernst & Young Global
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk December 28, 2011

y1219 

# Order

December 28, 2011

143523

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v SC: 143523 COA: 303875 Hillsdale CC: 10-342203-FH LAURIE LAINE HARDWAY, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appe al the June 24, 2011 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### WALLACE, Appellant, v. PAYNE, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

December 15, 1896.)

Action by Robert Wallace against George E. Payne, individually, etc.

No opinion. Motion for reargument granted, with $10 costs to abide the event. See 41 N. Y. Supp. 111.
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, the Chief Financial Officer of China BAK Battery, Inc.
(f.k.a.  Medina Coffee, Inc.) (the "Company"),  certifies that, to his knowledge
on the date of this certification:

         (1) The Annual Report of the Company for the period ended  December 31,
2003, as amended,  as filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on this
date (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.



June 22, 2005

                                                          /s/ Han Yongbin
                                                         -----------------------
                                                         Han Yongbin
                                                         Chief Financial Officer