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

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4670 

To establish a program through which each State may provide a bust to 

be displayed in one of the House Office Buildings. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 23, 2010 

Mr. PITTS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on House Administration 

A BILL 

To establish a program through which each State may provide a bust to be displayed in one of the House Office 

Buildings. 

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

3 SECTION 1. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES STATE BUSTS 

4 PROGRAM. 

5 (a) PROGRAM ESTABLISHED.—There is established a 

6 program under which the Architect of the Capitol shall 

7 solicit, accept, and place busts from each of the States 

8 for display in one of the Cannon, Rayburn, or Longworth 

9 House Office Buildings in accordance with this Act. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4670 IH

1 (b) ACCEPTANCE OF BUSTS.—Any bust accepted for 

2 display under this program shall be considered a gift to 

3 the United States. 

4 (c) LIMITATION ON NUMBER OF STATE BUSTS.—No 

5 State may have more than one bust on display under this 

6 Act. 

7 SEC. 2. REGULATIONS. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Committee on House Admin9 istration of the House of Representatives shall promulgate 

10 regulations to carry out the program established in section 

11 1. 

12 (b) ELIGIBILITY OF BUSTS.—In promulgating regu13 lations under subsection (a), the Committee on House Ad14 ministration of the House of Representatives shall specify 

15 standards which must be met by busts provided by the 

16 States under section 1 in order for such busts to be consid17 ered for acceptance and placement by the Architect of the 

18 Capitol. Such standards shall specify at least the fol19 lowing: 

20 (1) Each bust must portray a leading political, 

21 religious, or cultural figure from the history of the 

22 State. 

23 (2) Each bust must conform to roughly uniform 

24 dimensions. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4670 IH

1 (3) Construction of each bust must be in either 

2 bronze or marble. 

3 (4) The style of each bust must be realistic. 

4 (5) No bust representing any individual may be 

5 accepted for display as part of the program until 

6 after the expiration of the 50-year period which be7 gins on the date of the individual’s death. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4657 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make permanent certain 

provisions of the Heartland, Habitat, Harvest, and Horticulture Act 

of 2008 relating to timber, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 13, 2014 

Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas (for himself, Mr. COTTON, Mr. CRAWFORD, and Mr. 

WOMACK) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make 

permanent certain provisions of the Heartland, Habitat, 

Harvest, and Horticulture Act of 2008 relating to timber, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Timber Revitalization 

5 and Economic Enhancement Act of 2014’’. 

6 SEC. 2. TREATMENT OF TIMBER GAINS. 

7 (a) SPECIAL RATE MADE PERMANENT.—Paragraph 

8 (1) of section 1201(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4657 IH

1 1986 is amended by striking ‘‘ending after the date’’ and 

2 all that follows through ‘‘after such date’’ and inserting 

3 ‘‘beginning after the date of the enactment of the Timber 

4 Revitalization and Economic Enhancement Act of 2014’’. 

5 (b) ADJUSTMENT OF SPECIAL RATE.— 

6 (1) IN GENERAL.—Clause (i) of section 

7 1201(b)(1)(B) of such Code is amended by striking 

8 ‘‘15 percent’’ and inserting ‘‘20 percent’’. 

9 (2) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 55(b) 

10 of such Code is amended by striking paragraph (4). 

11 (c) COMPUTATION FOR TAXABLE YEARS IN WHICH

12 RATE FIRST APPLIES.—Paragraph (3) of section 1201(b) 

13 of such Code is amended to read as follows: 

14 ‘‘(3) COMPUTATION FOR TAXABLE YEARS IN

15 WHICH RATE FIRST APPLIES.—In the case of any 

16 taxable year which includes the date of the enact17 ment of the Timber Revitalization and Economic 

18 Enhancement Act of 2014, the qualified timber gain 

19 for such year shall not exceed the qualified timber 

20 gain properly taken into account for the portion of 

21 the year after such date.’’. 

22 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

23 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

24 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### STATE ex rel. Tina EMERSON v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2002-KH-2367.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 19, 2003.

In re Emerson, Tina; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. M, No. 99-6708; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 02 KH 745.

Denied.
================================================================================

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  Wildon Productions  Inc.  (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended August 31, 2006 as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof (the  "Report"),  the
undersigned,  in the  capacities  and  on  the  dates  indicated  below,  hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

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:  October 16, 2006


/s/ Ekaterina Popoff
-------------------------------------
Ekaterina Popoff, President
Chief Executive Officer
2001 OK JUD ETH 5.

#### JUDICIAL ETHICS OPINION 2001-5.

Oklahoma Judicial Ethics Advisory Panel.

March 30, 2001.

*271T0 QUESTION 1: If an attorney appearing before a judge was a worker or donor for the judge in a recent judicial campaign, what is the judge's ethical requirement as to reeu-sal and disclosure?

T1 SPECIFIC FACTS: The attorney appearing before the judge assisted the judge in a judicial campaign within a year prior to the appearance in Court; the work performed was relatively modest (put up yard signs) and made a modest donation of approximately $50.

T2 WE ANSWER: As to recusal: NO.

T3 As to disclosure: YES.

T4 Canon 2: "A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in all of the Judge's Activities"

T5 Canon 3E(1): "A judge should disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned...."

16 Our answer is based on the specific facts set out above. A judge should try to avoid recusal consistent with the judge's obligation to the Court system. On the other hand, the judge may have had moderate campaign assistance from many attorneys that regularly appear before the judge. The minimal assistance suggested in the specific facts would not cause a knowledgeable observer to suspect bias or undue influence. But certainly for a period of time, the judge should make disclosure to adverse counsel.

17 An additional question was if the information concerning the donation is readily available on the Internet or directly from the Ethics Commission. The question arises as to whether a judge is still required to disclose the donation. We answer yes because we believe disclosure is still appropriate and an attorney should not be forced to seek out such information.

18 An additional question submitted with the original question is whether it makes a difference if the donation is $5 or $5,000. We believe a $5 donation would not require any disclosure at any time; we believe that a $5,000 donation would require disclosure for a long period of time. As to a large donation (such as $5000), we suggest the judge should recuse without a request from counsel for a least a year after the campaign; the judge should also make disclosure of reasonable sums donated to him for a least the remainder of the judge's term in office.

19 The general rule we suggest is that the judge should disclose on the record, any information which the judge believes the parties or their attorneys might consider relevant to the question of disqualification, even if the judge believes there is no real basis for disqualification.

[ 10 Robert L. Bailey, Chairman

Robert A. Layden, Vice-Chairman

Milton C. Craig, Secretary
United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-6064EA

 

In re: *

 *

RAMONA MOIX-MCNUTT, *

* Appeal from the United 

 Debtor. * States Bankruptcy Court 

* for the Eastern District

RAMONA MOIX-MCNUTT, * of Arkansas 

*

Appellant, *

-v.- *

*

DAVID D. COOP, DORIS SIMPSON, *

MERCANTILE BANK, FORD MOTOR *

CREDIT COMPANY *

*

Appellees. *

 

Submitted: September 15, 1997

 Filed: October 6, 1997

 

Before KRESSEL, KOGER, and DREHER, Bankruptcy Judges.

 

DREHER, Bankruptcy Judge

The debtor in this case, Ramona Moix-McNutt (“Debtor”), appeals from

an order of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of

Arkansas sustaining objections to confirmation of the Debtor’s proposed

Chapter 13 plan and allowing Debtor twenty days in which to file a motion

to convert the case to one under Chapter 11. The order further provided

that, if the Debtor failed 
2

to convert the case to one under Chapter 11 within such time, the case

would be converted to Chapter 7 without further notice or hearing. One of

the appellees, Mercantile Bank, has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal

for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that the bankruptcy court’s order is not

a final judgment, order or decree within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. §

158(a)(1) (1994).

We hold that we lack jurisdiction to hear this appeal because the

bankruptcy court’s order in this case was not a final order within the

meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1). A bankruptcy court’s order denying

confirmation of a Chapter 13 plan without dismissing the case is not a

final order for purposes of appeal. See Groves v. LaBarge (In re Groves),

39 F.3d 212, 214 (8th Cir. 1994); Lewis v. Farmers Home Admin., 992 F.2d

767, 772 (8th Cir. 1993). In this Circuit, a three-part test is utilized

to determine whether a bankruptcy decision is final. We consider:

(1) the extent to which the order leaves the Bankruptcy Court

nothing to do but to execute the order; (2) the extent to which

delay in obtaining review would prevent the aggrieved party

from obtaining effective relief; and (3) the extent to which a

later reversal on that issue would require recommencement of

the entire proceedings.

Lewis, 992 F.2d at 772. In this case, the bankruptcy court has tasks

remaining to be performed which are not purely mechanical or ministerial,

the Debtor may obtain effective relief by appealing the bankruptcy court’s

order after dismissal or final confirmation, 
3

and a later reversal of a denial of confirmation will not compel extensive

relitigation of the entire proceedings.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
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 on Form 40-F of Silver Standard Resources Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2016, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Gregory J. Martin, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:








|   |                                                                                                                      
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|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.







By:/s/ Gregory J. MartinGregory J. MartinSenior Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerDated: March 22, 2017
**EXHIBIT 12.2**

**Computation of Earnings to Combined Fixed Charges and Preferred Stock Dividends**

 

The following table sets forth HomeBanc Corp.’s consolidated ratios of earnings to combined fixed charges and preferred stock dividends  for the periods shown:
|                                                  |   | **For theThree Months Ended March 31,** |
|-------------------------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------|
|                                                  |   | **2006**                                |   | **2005** |
|                                                  |   | **(Dollars in thousands)**              |
| **Fixed Charges**                                     |   |                                    |   |   |   |   |
| Interest expense                                      |   | $                                       | 64,414 |   | $ | 30,416 |
| Capitalized interest expense                          |   |                                    | 303 |   |   | — |
| Rental expense interest                               |   |                                    | 1,061 |   |   | 954 |
| Total                                                 |   |                                    | 65,778 |   |   | 31,370 |
| **Preferred Stock Dividends**                         |   |                                    | 736 |   |   | — |
| **Total Fixed Charges and Preferred Stock Dividends** | $      | 66,514                                  |   | $ | 31,370 |
|                                                  |   |                                    |   |   |   |   |
| **Earnings**                                          |   |                                    |   |   |   |   |
| Pre-tax income                                        |   | $                                       | 292 |   | $ | (11,066) |
| Income from equity investees                          |   |                                    | (514) |   |   | (376) |
| Fixed charges                                         |   |                                    | 65,778 |   |   | 31,370 |
| Amortization of capitalized interest                  |   |                                    | — |   |   | — |
| Minority interest                                     |   |                                    | 52 |   |   | 25 |
| Total                                                 |   | $                                       | 65,608 |   | $ | 19,953 |
| **Ratio**                                             |   |                                    | **0.99** |   |   | **0.64** |
| **Deficiency**                                        |   | $                                       | 906 |   | $ | 11,417 |
WALTON NC, LLC, et al. v. The CITY OF CONCORD

36P18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 14, 2018

Roy H. Michaux, Jr., Attorney at Law, Charlotte, James E. Scarbrough, Attorney at Law, Concord, Madeline J. Trilling, Attorney at Law, for Walton North Carolina, LLC, et al.

G. Nicholas Herman, Attorney at Law, Valerie Kolczynski, Attorney at Law, for The City of Concord

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 16th of February 2018 by Plaintiffs to Amend Petition for Discretionary Review:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 14th of August 2018."
**EXHIBIT32.2**

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

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Aventine Renewable Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q forthe period ending September 30, 2006 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I,Ajay Sabherwal, Chief Financial Officerof Aventine Renewable Energy Holdings, Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief:

(1)           The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)           The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to AventineRenewable Energy Holdings, Inc.and will be retained by Aventine Renewable Energy Holdings, Inc. and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.
|        | /s/  Ajay  Sabherwal |   |
|--------|---------------------------|--------|
|   | Ajay Sabherwal            |
|   | Chief Financial Officer   |
|   | November 13, 2006         |

 

1

----
jani_ex102.htm


EXHIBIT 10.2


 


ASSIGNMENT AGREEMENT


 


THIS ASSIGNMENT AGREEMENT (this “Agreement”) is entered into as of February 19, 2013, by and between Janus Resources, Inc. (formerly Entheos Technologies, Inc.) (“Janus”) a Nevada corporation with a principal place of business located at 430 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10022 and Millennium Petro-Physics, Inc. (“Millennium”) a Texas corporation with a principal place of business located at 600 Leopard Street, 600 Leopard Street, 600 Building, Suite 1104, Corpus Christi, Texas 78401. Janus and Millennium may hereinafter be referred to individually as a “Party” or collectively as the “Parties.”







RECITALS:







WHEREAS, on September 1, 2008, Bayshore Exploration L.L.C., a Texas limited liability company, assigned a 21.75% of 8/8ths working interest and a 16.3125% of 8/8th net revenue interst to Janus to the Cooke #6 Well located in La Salle County, Texas (the “Cooke Well”) as further set forth on Exhibit A hereto;







WHEREAS, Janus desires to assign its interest in the Cooke Well to Millennium, and Millennium desires to accept the assignment of the Cooke Well from Janus, on the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement.







NOW THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency are hereby acknowledged by the Parties, the Parties hereby agree as follows:







6. Payment. As payment for the assignment of the Cooke Well, Millennium shall pay to Janus the sum of $3,000 (the “Payment Amount”) by check or bank wire.







7. Assignment. Within five (5) business days of Janus’s receipt of the Payment Amount, Janus shall forward an executed Assignment and Bill of Sale, substantially in the form of Appendix A hereto, conveying Janus’ interests in the Cooke Well to Millennium, Millennium shall forward to Janus. It is understood and agreed by the Parties that the interest in the Cooke Well to be assigned in and to the Cooke Well shall be made on an “as-is, where-is” basis and Janus expressly disclaims any warranty of any kind.







8. Warranty Disclaimer. Janus makes no warranty of title, express or implied, with respect to the Cooke Well or any leasehold or other right(s) acquired hereunder. Millennium’s interest in and to the Cooke Well will be acquired on an “as-is, where-is” basis.







9. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement by and between Janus and Millennium and may not be altered or amended except in writing signed by both Parties.







10. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of New York.












[REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
**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**

|   | (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 20, 2008 | By:    | /s/                  *Dengyong                  Jin*                                                                    |
|-------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                |   | Dengyong                  JinPresident                  and Chief Executive Officer (principal executive officer)  |
|                                |        |                                                                                                                    |

| Date:                  May 20, 2008 | By:    | /s/                  *Donghai                  Yu*                                                                                      |
|-------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                |   | Donghai                  YuChief                  Financial Officer (principal                  financial and accounting officer)  |
|                                     |   |                                                                                                                                    |
|                                |   |                                                                                                                                    |
|                                |   |                                                                                                                                    |

----
STATE v. Jeffrey Robert PARISI

65A17-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 7, 2018

John W. Congleton, Assistant Attorney General, Tom Horner, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

Michele A. Goldman, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Parisi, Jeffrey Robert.

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 6th of September 2018 by Defendant:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 7th of September 2018."

Defendant shall have up to and including the 20th day of September 2018 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.