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

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 221 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

  1st Session
                                H. R. 221

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 3, 1999

     Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, 
                     Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to permit certain youth 
              to perform certain work with wood products.

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

SECTION 1. EXEMPTION.

    Section 13(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 
213(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(7)(A) Subject to subparagraph (B), in the administration and 
enforcement of the child labor provisions of this Act, it shall not be 
considered oppressive child labor for an individual who--
            ``(i) is at least 14 but under the age of 18, and
            ``(ii) is a member of a religious sect or division thereof 
        whose established teachings do not permit formal education 
        beyond the eighth grade,
to be employed inside or outside places of business where machinery is 
used to process wood products.
    ``(B) The employment of an individual under subparagraph (A) shall 
be permitted--
            ``(i) if the individual is supervised by an adult relative 
        of the individual or is supervised by an adult member of the 
        same religious sect or division as the individual;
            ``(ii) if the individual does not operate or assist in the 
        operation of power-driven woodworking machines;
            ``(iii) if the individual is protected from wood particles 
        or other flying debris within the workplace by a barrier 
        appropriate to the potential hazard of such wood particles or 
        flying debris or by maintaining a sufficient distance from 
        machinery in operation; and
            ``(iv) if the individual is required to use personal 
        protective equipment to prevent exposure to excessive levels of 
        noise and saw dust.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives March 2, 1999.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
Gillman Roddy LONG, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-8558.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 7, 2019.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Summary English Translations of Maximum Credit Line Agreement



 Exhibit 4.17 
 Summary English Translation of Maximum Credit Line Agreement dated September 26, 2011 and entered into on September 27, 2011 by and between Shanghai SIM-BCD Semiconductor Manufacturing Co., Ltd.
and Bank of Nanjing Shanghai Branch 
 Parties: Bank of Nanjing Shanghai Branch (the “Bank”) and Shanghai SIM-BCD Semiconductor
Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (“SIM-BCD”) 
 Date: September 26, 2011 
 Purpose: 
 The Bank agrees to extend a maximum credit line of RMB180,000,000 to SIM-BCD for the
period from September 26, 2011 to September 26, 2011. 
 Summary of Major Terms: 

 

	 	•	 	 Any credit facility which is fully secured, fully and irrevocably guaranteed by a financial institution accepted by the Bank, fully insured or fully
guaranteed by any other risk-eliminating methods shall not be counted towards the maximum credit line. 


  

	 	•	 	 During the period from September 26, 2011 to September 26, 2011, SIM-BCD can apply for credit facilities with the Bank to the extent the
total outstanding amount that SIM-BCD owes to the Bank is less than the maximum credit line. The starting date of any such credit facility shall fall within the period from September 26, 2011 to September 26, 2011 while the expiration date
of such facility shall be determined in the specific agreement. 


  

	 	•	 	 BCD Shanghai Micro-Electronics Limited shall simultaneously enter into a mortgage agreement with the Bank to secure this maximum credit line agreement.



  

	 	•	 	 Governed by PRC law and any dispute shall be submitted to the court where the Bank is located. 



 

	 	•	 	 This maximum credit line agreement shall be notarized by Shanghai Oriental Notary Public and a notary certificate evidencing enforceability shall be
issued. With such notarization, in the event of breach by SIM-BCD, the Bank is entitled to apply for enforcement with a competent court without further litigation and SIM-BCD shall accept such enforcement. 



  
 1 








 Summary English Translation of Notary Certificate for Enforceable Documents Evidencing Credit issued by
Shanghai Oriental Notary Public Office dated October 14, 2011 
 Date: October 14, 2011 

Purpose: To notarize the maximum credit line agreement entered into by and between Bank of Nanjing Shanghai Branch (the “Bank”) and
Shanghai SIM-BCD Semiconductor Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (“SIM-BCD”) dated September 27, 2011 and to cause this maximum credit line agreement to become enforceable. 
 Summary: 
 The notary officers have verified the validity of the maximum credit line
agreement entered into by and between the Bank and SIM-BCD. Specifically, the parties have agreed that the Bank shall be entitled to apply for the enforcement of the maximum credit line agreement with the competent court and SIM-BCD shall accept
such enforcement. 

  
 2
Darrell Lynn DANCY, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-6301.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 13, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Exhibit
32.1

Section
  1350 Certifications

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Strategic Diagnostics Inc. (the
“Company”) hereby certifies, based on such officer's knowledge, that:


| | (i)  | the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of the Company for the period ended March 31, 2005 (the“Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d),
as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | ---- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |      |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 
| | (ii) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.                                                                                                            

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.


|Date: | March 16, 2006 | /s/ | Matthew H. Knight      
|----- | -------------- | --- | -----------------------
|      |                |     |                        
|      |                |     | Matthew H. Knight      
|      |                |     | Chief Executive
Officer




---
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

August 6, 2019

No. 04

- 19

- 00402

- CR

Kyle STONE

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 399th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2018CR12634W
Honorab le Frank J. Castro, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Pursuant to a plea

- bargain agreement, Kyle Magee Stone pled guilty to possession of a
controlled substance

. The terms of his plea bargain agreement were as follows: (1) “ Class A misdemeanor punishment with State Jail Felony Conviction under 12.44 P.C. ” ; (2) “ Punishment
to be asses sed at 90 days BCJ”; (3) “Fine $500”; (4) “There is no application for community

su pervision/deferred adjudication”; and (5) “Full range of punishment if defendant doesn’t appear at sentencing.” On March 20, 2019, the trial court sentenced Stone to eighteen months in state jail. The judgment reflects that Stone “appeared in person with C ounsel.” Appellant’s motion for new trial, however, states that “[a]ll parties agree that Kyle Magee Stone failed to appear on the day of sentencing.” The record, therefore, is not clear with regard to whether the
trial court sentenced Stone in a ccordance with the terms of his plea

- bargain agreement. On March 20, 2019 , the trial court signed a certification of defendant’s right to appeal stating that this “is a plea

- bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 25.2(a)(2). Aft er Stone filed a notice of appeal, the trial court clerk sent copies of the certification and notice of appeal to this court. See id. 25.2(e). The clerk’s record, which includes the trial court’s Rule 25.2(a)(2) certification, has been filed. See id. 25.2( d).

“In a plea bargain case . . . a defendant may appeal only: (A) those matters that were raised by written motion filed and ruled on before trial, (B) after getting the trial court’s permission to appeal; or (C) where the specific appeal is expressly a uthorized by statute.” Id. 25.2(a)(2). We must dismiss an appeal “if a certification that shows the defendant has the right of appeal has not been made part of the record.” Id. 25.2(d).This appeal will be dismissed pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Pr ocedure 25.2(d) unless an amended trial court certification showing that Stone has the right to appeal is made part of the appellate record by September 5, 2019

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 25.2(d), 37.1; Daniels v.

State , 110 S.W.3d 174 (Tex . App.

— San Antonio 2003, order).

We ORDER all appellate deadlines be suspended until further order of the court.

_________________________________ Liz a A. Rodriguez , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto s et my hand and affixed the seal of the said
court on this 6th day of August, 2019

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
<PAGE>   1
                   Spieker Properties, Inc. and Subsidiaries
           Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Combined Fixed Charges
                            and Preferred Dividends
                         (in thousands, except ratios)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                  Three Months Ended
                                               ------------------------
                                               March 31,      March 31,
                                                 1997           1996
                                               ------------------------
<S>                                            <C>             <C>
Earnings:
  Income from operations before disposition
    of property minority interest               $23,812         $14,829
  Interest expense(1)                            12,013           8,837
  Amortization of capitalized interest               72              55
                                                -----------------------
  Total earnings                                $35,897         $23,721
                                                =======================
Fixed charges:
  Interest expense(1)                           $12,013         $ 8,837
  Capitalized interest                            1,235             581
  Series A Preferred Dividends                      573             524
  Series B Preferred Dividends                    2,510           2,510
                                                -----------------------
  Total fixed charges and
    preferred dividends                         $16,331         $12,452
                                                =======================
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges
  (excluding preferred dividends)                  2.71            2.52
                                                =======================
Ratio of earnings to combined fixed
  charges and preferred dividends                  2.20            1.90
                                                =======================
Fixed charges in excess of earnings             $  -            $  -
                                                =======================

</TABLE>

Notes:

   (1) Includes amortization of debt discount and deferred financing fees.
Attorney or Party without Attorney:

Marc Fenster (SBN 181067)

RUSS AUGUST & KABAT 

12424 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor 

Los Angeles, CA 90025

Telephone No: 310-826-7474

Attorney For: Plaintiff Ref. No. or File No.:

4608-003

For Court Use Only

Insert name of Court, and Judicial District and Branch Court:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION

Plaintiff: Headwater Research LLC

Defendant: AT&T Inc., et al.

PROOF OF SERVICE Hearing Date: Time: Dept/Div: Case Number:

2:23-cv-00398-JRG-RSP

1. At the time of service I was at least 18 years of age and not a party to this action.

2. I served copies of the Summons in a Civil Action; Complaint; Civil Case Cover Sheet; Plaintiff’s Rule 7.1 Disclosure Statement;

Report on the Filing or Determination of an Action Regarding a Patent or Trademark; Notice of Related Cases; Notice of

Designation of Lead Counsel

3. a. Party served: AT&T Mobility, LLC

b. Person served: Nelle Williams, Authorized to Accept Service 

served under F.R.C.P. Rule 4.

4. Address where the party was served: 1025 Lenox Park Blvd NE, Atlanta, GA 30319

5. I served the party:

a. by personal service. I personally delivered the documents listed in item 2 to the party or person authorized to receive

process for the party (1) on: Thu, Sep 14 2023 (2) at: 03:42 PM

6. Person Who Served Papers:

a. Kayla Bridges (#CPS346)  d. The Fee for Service was:  $235.85   

b. FIRST LEGAL

1517 W. Beverly Blvd.

LOS ANGELES, CA 90026

c. (213) 250-1111

7. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.

09/19/2023

(Date) (Signature)

PROOF OF

SERVICE

9519696

(5433093)

DocuSign Envelope ID: 025334FF-80FE-4624-818B-760E81B7D304 Case 2:23-cv-00398-JRG-RSP Document 20 Filed 09/22/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 209
Steven D. WILLIAMS, petitioner, v. Jason KENT, Warden.

No. 17-9213.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 22, 2019.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Jeffrey Gray THOMAS, petitioner, v. Laurie ZELON, et al.

No. 18-1113.

Supreme Court of the United States

July 15, 2019.

Petition for rehearing denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          32,077
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         900,979
<DEPRECIATION>                                 165,701
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 862,263
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        324,501
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         10
<COMMON>                                           159
<OTHER-SE>                                     269,076
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   862,263
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               126,211
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   87,357
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,324
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              17,481
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 30,536
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             30,536
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    30,536
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.72
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.70



</TABLE>
Roberto Carlos MARTINEZ-MENDOZA, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-6582

Supreme Court of the United States.

February 24, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Sean WEISNER, petitioner, v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

No. 18-5569.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 22, 2019.

Petition for rehearing denied.
**EXHIBIT 32**

**CERTIFICATION**

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned hereby certifies in his
capacity as an officer of Southern Missouri Bancorp, Inc. (the "Company") that the Annual Report of the Company
on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in such report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the
periods presented in the financial statements included in such report.

|Date: | September 27, 2005 |  | By: | /s/ Greg A. SteffensGreg A. SteffensPresident(*Principal Executive and Principal Financial and Accounting Officer*)
|----- | ------------------ |  | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ex10-1.htm








EXHIBIT 10.1


 





 


CONVERSION AGREEMENT







This Conversion Agreement dated as of March 30, 2012 (the “Agreement”) by and between TS Employment, Inc. (“TSEI”) and Corporate Resource Services, Inc. and its subsidiaries (collectively, “CRS”).







WHEREAS, inter alia, TSEI, (collectively, “TSEI”) and its affiliated and formerly affiliated PEO companies loaned to CRS the sum aggregate of approximately $12,522,000 (the “Loan”) as of December 30, 2011,







WHEREAS, both TSEI and CRS are willing to convert certain of the Loan from debt to shares of CRS Common Stock, $.0001 par value, (the “CRS Shares”) as provided below, whereby the amount set forth below (comprising a portion of the Loan) shall be repaid in the form of CRS Shares; and







The BVA Group, an independent valuation firm has been retained to determine the true share value of the CRS Shares and the number of CRS Shares issuable to TSEI on account thereof.







NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual premises herein contained, the parties agree as follows:




 



	
1.  

	
Pursuant to the BVA analysis, the true value of the CRS Shares is $.4622 per share, (“Per Share Price”)







 



	
2.  

	
The parties agree to convert $12 million in debt due from CRS to TSEI (the $12 Million Debt”) to CRS Shares at the Per Share Price.







 



	
3.  

	
The number of CRS Shares issuable hereunder shall be 25,962,788 Shares (“Issuable Shares”).  This shall be determined by dividing the Per Share Price divided by 12 million into the Price Share Price.







 



	
4.  

	
The Issuable Shares shall be issued to TSEI forthwith in exchange for cancellation of the $12 Million Debt.







 



	
5.  

	
The foregoing has been approved by the Board of Directors, the majority of the stockholders of CRS and the stockholder of TSEI.  Except as expressly provided herein, the debt due TSEI from CRS shall remain unchanged.







 


 


If the foregoing accurately reflects our agreement, please so indicate by signing below.


 




 



	
 


 


 


 

	


TS EMPLOYMENT, INC.


    (on behalf of itself and its affiliates)




 


by: /s/ Robert Cassera                               


       Its: President


 




	
 

	




CORPORATE RESOURCE SERVICES, INC.



and its subsidiaries




 








by: /s/ Jay Schecter                                    


       Its: Chief Executive Officer
Mario Alberto BUENROSTRO-LOPEZ, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-7370

Supreme Court of the United States.

Feb. 24, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
This opinion is subject to administrative correction before final disposition.

Before WOODARD, HITESMAN , and KOVAC , Appellate Military Judges

_________________________ 

### UNITED STATES Appellee

v. Jose A. GA LLARDO

- RAMIRE Z Airman Recruit (E

- 1 ), U.S. Navy Appellant
No. 201900064
Decided: 20 June 2019

. Appeal from the United States Nav y - Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

. Military Judge : Jonathan T. Stephens, JAGC, USN. Sentence adjudged 5 November 2018 by a special court

- martial convened at Naval Base San Diego, California , consisting of a military judge sitting alone . Sentence approved by c onvening authority: confinement for 10 months , and a bad

- conduct discharge. For Appellant: Captain Scott F. H allauer , JAGC, USN. For Appellee: Brian K. Keller , Esq.

_________________________ This opinion does not serve as binding precedent under NMCCA Rule of Appellate Procedure 30.2 (a)
.

_________________________United States v. Gallardo

- Ramirez , No. 201 900064

2 PER CURIAM : After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of error, we have determined that the approved findings and sentence are correct in law and fact and that no erro r materially prejudicial to the a ppellant’s substantial rights occurred. Articles 59 and 66, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859, 866. T he findings and sentence as approved by the convening authority are AFFIRMED

.
FOR THE COURT:

RODGER A. DREW, JR. Clerk of Cour t