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

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5155 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5155

To direct the Secretary of Commerce to conduct an aerial assessment of 
sea turtle populations in United States waters, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 27, 2010

 Mr. Jones (for himself and Mr. Ortiz) introduced the following bill; 
        which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To direct the Secretary of Commerce to conduct an aerial assessment of 
sea turtle populations in United States waters, 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. AERIAL ASSESSMENT OF SEA TURTLE POPULATIONS IN UNITED STATES 
              WATERS.

    (a) Study.--The Secretary of Commerce shall conduct an aerial 
assessment of and report to Congress on the population abundance and 
spatial and temporal distribution of Green, Loggerhead, Leatherback, 
Kemp's Ridley, and Hawksbill sea turtles in State and Federal waters of 
the United States.
    (b) Limitation on Rulemaking Authority.--
            (1) In general.--The Secretary may not issue any rule 
        regarding incidental fisheries bycatch of any of the species 
        referred to in subsection (a) under the Endangered Species Act 
        of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) or the Magnuson-Stevens 
        Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et 
        seq.) before the date the Secretary submits a report to 
        Congress on the findings of the study required under subsection 
        (a).
            (2) Exception.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any rule 
        to alter or restrict use of a specific gear type in a specific 
        fishery, if the Secretary certifies to Congress in writing that 
        the rule is an emergency rule determined by the Secretary, 
        based on independently peer-reviewed science, to be necessary--
                    (A) to protect a species referred to in subsection 
                (a) from being imminently determined by the Secretary 
                under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 
                1531 et seq.) to be an endangered species primarily as 
                a result of incidental take of such species by that 
                gear type in that fishery; or
                    (B) to protect a species referred to in subsection 
                (a) that is listed under that Act as an endangered 
                species from imminent extinction primarily as a result 
                of incidental take of such species by that gear type in 
                that fishery.
                                 <all>
```
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



### November 29, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice


### 134927 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan 

### PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices



### v SC: 134927 COA: 268124 Macomb CC: 2005-002448-FC CORNELIUS HANNIBAL DUNSON, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal th e August 7, 2007 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

p1119 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.

November 29, 2007

Clerk
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63
OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to
Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, as principal financial officer of Xerium Technologies, Inc. (the Company), does
hereby certify that, to his knowledge:

1) the Companys Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009, 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 Companys
Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



/s/ David G. MaffucciDavid G. MaffucciExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)


November 6, 2009
111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5152 

AN ACT 

To adjust the boundary of the Kennesaw Mountain National 

Battlefield Park to include the Wallis House and 

Harriston Hill, 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, 
2 

•HR 5152 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Kennesaw Mountain 

3 National Battlefield Park Boundary Adjustment Act of 

4 2010’’. 

5 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

6 The Congress finds the following: 

7 (1) Kennesaw Mountain National Battlefield 

8 Park was authorized as a unit of the National Park 

9 System on June 26, 1935. Prior to 1935, parts of 

10 the park had been acquired and protected by Civil 

11 War veterans and the War Department. 

12 (2) Kennesaw Mountain National Battlefield 

13 Park protects Kennesaw Mountain and Kolb’s 

14 Farm, which are battle sites along the route of Gen15 eral Sherman’s 1864 campaign to take Atlanta. 

16 (3) Most of the park protects Confederate posi17 tions and strategy. The Wallis House is one of the 

18 few original structures remaining from the Battle of 

19 Kennesaw Mountain associated with Union positions 

20 and strategy. 

21 (4) The Wallis House is strategically located 

22 next to a Union signal station at Harriston Hill. 

23 SEC. 3. BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT; LAND ACQUISITION; AD24 MINISTRATION. 

25 (a) BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT.—The boundary of the 

26 Kennesaw Mountain National Battlefield Park is modified 
3 

•HR 5152 EH

1 to include the approximately 8 acres identified as ‘‘Wallis 

2 House and Harriston Hill’’, and generally depicted on the 

3 map titled ‘‘Kennesaw Mountain National Battlefield 

4 Park, Proposed Boundary Adjustment’’, numbered 325/ 

5 80,020, and dated February 2010. 

6 (b) MAP.—The map referred to in subsection (a) 

7 shall be on file and available for inspection in the appro8 priate offices of the National Park Service. 

9 (c) LAND ACQUISITION.—The Secretary of the Inte10 rior is authorized to acquire, from willing owners only, 

11 land or interests in land described in subsection (a) by 

12 donation or exchange. 

13 (d) ADMINISTRATION OF ACQUIRED LANDS.—The 

14 Secretary of the Interior shall administer land and inter15 ests in land acquired under this section as part of the Ken16 nesaw Mountain National Battlefield Park in accordance 

17 with applicable laws and regulations. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 22, 

2010. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5152 

AN ACT 

To adjust the boundary of the Kennesaw Mountain 

poses. House and Harriston Hill, and for other purNational Battlefield Park to include the Wallis
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
CLARENT CORPORATION'S CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND CONSOLIDATED INCOME
STATEMENT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         238,724
<SECURITIES>                                    42,581
<RECEIVABLES>                                   24,218
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,314
<INVENTORY>                                      8,404
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               316,753
<PP&E>                                          12,696
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,327
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 335,368
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           26,526
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       353,894
<OTHER-SE>                                    (45,052)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   335,368
<SALES>                                         47,823
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                47,823
<CGS>                                           20,305
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   60,681
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 300
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (30,651)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       132
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (30,783)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (30,783)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.87)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.87)


</TABLE>
#### STATE ex rel. Lionel NEWTON v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2002-KH-1808.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Aug. 29, 2003.

Lionel Newton; Applying for Reconsideration of this Court’s order dated May 30, 2003; Parish of Rapides, 9th Judicial District Court, Div. F, No. 223,274; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 02-00990.

Denied.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADDED BY

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of OptimumBank Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30,
2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Albert J. Finch, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as added by § 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 as of and for the period covered
by the Report.
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       |  |     |  |                                         
|---------------------- |  | --- |  | ----------------------------------------
|Date: November 6, 2007 |  | By: |  | /s/ Albert J. Finch                     
|                       |  |     |  | Albert J. Finch, Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit
32.3











CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


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 AFP Imaging Corporation (the “Company”) on
Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Elise Nissen, Chief Financial Officer of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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.








/s/       Elise
Nissen








Elise
Nissen,


Chief
Financial Officer


October
14, 2008




38
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

THOMASINE TYNES,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 548 EAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 23rd day of April, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
#### IN THE MATTER OF: THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT AND FIRST CODICIL OF SALLIE B. ASHLEY

No. 7521SC141

(Filed 7 May 1975)

Appeal by respondent, North Carolina Baptist Homes, Inc., from *Walker, Judge.*Order entered 9 January 1975 in Superior Court, Forsyth County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 16 April 1975.

*680
      *J. Robert Elster and Robert J. Lawing, for propounder ap-pellees.*

*Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice, by E. Lawrence Davis, for respondent appellant.*

MORRIS, VAUGHN and CLARK, Judges.

The appeal is from an order denying a discovery motion and denying an extension of time for discovery. The order is interlocutory. Appellees’ motion to dismiss the appeal is allowed. Certiorari is denied.

Appeal dismissed.
----

----

I Säädökset, jotka on julkaistava

----

KOMISSION ASETUS (EY) N:o 945/2004,

annettu 4 päivänä toukokuuta 2004,

tuonnin kiinteistä arvoista tiettyjen hedelmien ja vihannesten tulohinnan määrittämiseksi

EUROOPAN YHTEISÖJEN KOMISSIO, joka

ottaa huomioon Euroopan yhteisön perustamissopimuksen,

ottaa huomioon hedelmien ja vihannesten tuontijärjestelmän soveltamista koskevista yksityiskohtaisista säännöistä 21 päivänä joulukuuta 1994 annetun komission asetuksen (EY) N:o 3223/94 (1), ja erityisesti sen 4 artiklan 1 kohdan,

sekä katsoo seuraavaa:

ON ANTANUT TÄMÄN ASETUKSEN:

1 artikla

Asetuksen (EY) N:o 3223/94 4 artiklassa tarkoitetut tuonnin kiinteät arvot vahvistetaan liitteessä olevassa taulukossa merkityllä tavalla.

2 artikla

Tämä asetus tulee voimaan 5 päivänä toukokuuta 2004.

Tämä asetus on kaikilta osiltaan velvoittava, ja sitä sovelletaan sellaisenaan kaikissa jäsenvaltioissa.

Tehty Brysselissä 4 päivänä toukokuuta 2004.

Komission puolesta

J. M. SILVA RODRÍGUEZ

Maatalouden pääjohtaja

----

(1)EYVL L 337, 24.12.1994, s. 66. Asetus sellaisena kuin se on viimeksi muutettuna asetuksella (EY) N:o 1947/2002 (EYVL L 299, 1.11.2002, s. 17).

----

LIITE

Tuonnin kiinteistä arvoista tiettyjen hedelmien ja vihannesten tulohinnan määrittämiseksi 4 päivänä toukokuuta 2004 annettuun komission asetukseen

----

(1)  Komission asetuksessa (EY) N:o 2081/2003 (EYVL L 313, 28.11.2003, s. 11) vahvistettu maanimikkeistö. Koodi ”999” tarkoittaa ”muuta alkuperää”.

----

----

HUOMAUTUS LUKIJALLE

Euroopan unionin virallisen lehden erityispainos, joka sisältää toimielinten ja Euroopan keskuspankin ennen liittymistä antamien säädösten tekstit, julkaistaan latviaksi, liettuaksi, maltaksi, puolaksi, slovakiksi, sloveeniksi, tšekiksi, unkariksi ja viroksi. Erityispainoksen osat ilmestyvät vaiheittain toukokuun 1. päivän ja vuoden 2004 lopun välisenä aikana.

Erityispainosta odotellessa tekstit ovat saatavilla sähköisessä muodossa EUR-Lexissa.

EUR-Lexin osoite on: http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/fi/accession.html

----
#### AMMIE ROSS McCONNELL v. CARY JONES McCONNELL

No. 7126DC253

(Filed 28 April 1971)

Appeal and Error § 41 — narration of evidence on appeal

Appeal is dismissed for failure of appellant to state the evidence in narrative form. Rule of Practice in the Court of Appeals No. 19(d).

Appeal by plaintiff from *Gatling, District Judge,*14 January 1971 Session, Mecklenburg District Court.

This is an action for temporary and permanent alimony and counsel fees pursuant to G.S. 50-16.1 et seq. Following a hearing on plaintiff’s motion for alimony *pendente lite*and counsel fees1, the court entered an order in which it found facts in favor of defendant and denied plaintiff’s motion. Plaintiff appealed.

*Gene H. Kendall for plaintiff appellant.*

*J. C. Sedberry for defendant appellee.*

BRITT, Judge.

The purported record on appeal filed in this case does not comply with the Rules of the Court of Appeals. Among other things, the evidence introduced at the hearing is not set forth in narrative form. Plaintiff filed what purports to be a stenographic transcript of the testimony supposedly in compliance with our original Rule 19(d) (2), but Rule 19(d) was amended by the Supreme Court on 11 February 1969, the amendment becoming effective on 1 July 1969. 2 N.C. App. 690. The amendment provides that the “evidence in case on appeal shall be in narrative form” and that the stenographic transcript of the evidence may not be used as an alternative to narration of the evidence. For failure to comply with the Rules, plaintiff’s appeal is, *ex mero motu,*dismissed. *Crosby v. Crosby,*1 N.C. App. 398, 161 S.E. 2d 654 (1968).

Nevertheless, we have carefully reviewed the record on appeal as filed and conclude that the trial court’s order is fully supported by the findings of fact, which findings are amply supported by competent evidence.

*194Appeal dismissed.

Judges Campbell and Graham concur.
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**







**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
        ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906**
 **OF
        THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
 
 Pursuant
        to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned Officer of Opexa Therapeutics,
        Inc.
        (the “Company”), hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that the
        Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A for the year ended December 31, 2006
        (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section
        15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the
        information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
        the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 
 
 By:
        /s/
        LYNNE HOHLFELD
 Lynne
        Hohlfeld
 Chief
        Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer
 
 
 Date:
        November 29, 2007
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

E.J., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Duluth, GA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 20-1350

Issued: February 8, 2021

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

On June 30, 2020 appellant filed an appeal from a December 31, 2019 decision1 of the 

Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the Appellate Boards 

assigned Docket No. 20-1350.

The Board, having duly considered this matter, concludes that the appeal docketed as No. 

20-1350 must be dismissed. The Board’s jurisdiction is limited to the review of final adverse 

OWCP decisions issued under the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act (FECA).2 For final 

adverse decisions of OWCP issued on or after November 19, 2008, the Board’s review authority 

is limited to appeals which are filed within 180 days from the date of issuance of OWCP’s 

decision.3 The 180th day following the December 31, 2019 decision was June 28, 2020. As this 

 

1 The Board notes that appellant indicated on her application for review (AB-1 Form) that she was appealing a 

purported January 7, 2020 OWCP decision. However, the record as transmitted to the Board does not contain a final 

adverse decision issued by OWCP on that date.

2 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.; 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3(a).

3

Id. at § 501.3(e) (2009).
2

fell on a Sunday, appellant had until Monday, June 29, 2020 to file a timely appeal.4 She did not 

file an appeal with the Board until Tuesday, June 30, 2020, more than 180 days after the 

December 31, 2019 OWCP decision. Therefore, the Board finds that the appeal docketed as No. 

20-1350 is untimely filed. The Board is therefore without jurisdiction to review the appeal. 

Appellant has not offered a reason to explain her failure to timely file an appeal with supporting 

documentation sufficient to establish compelling circumstances. Because there is no final, adverse 

decision issued by OWCP within 180 days of the June 30, 2020 filing of the instant appeal, the 

Board concludes that the appeal docketed as No. 20-1350 must be dismissed.5 Accordingly.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 20-1350 is dismissed.

Issued: February 8, 2021

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

 

4 20 C.F.R. § 501.3(f)(2). 

5 The Board’s decisions and orders are “final upon the expiration of 30 days from the date of their issuance.” Supra 

note 3 at § 501.6(d).
<PAGE>


                                   EXHIBIT 21

                       LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT



                     BR Holding, Inc., a Georgia corporation

       Host Communications, Inc., a Kentucky corporation and a subsidiary
                               of BR Holding, Inc.

 Hoop-It-Up International, Inc. (DE), a Delaware corporation and a subsidiary of
                            Host Communications, Inc.

  USA International, S.A.R.L., a corporation organized under the laws of France
                 and a subsidiary of Host Communications, Inc.

          Capital Sports Properties, Inc., a Delaware corporation and a
                         subsidiary of BR Holding, Inc.

          Datasouth Computer Corporation, a Delaware corporation and a
                         subsidiary of BR Holding, Inc.
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

Appeal of

- )

)

Koontz Electric Company, Inc. ) ASBCA No. 62366

)

Under Contract No. W91278

- 13

- C

- 0001 )

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT : Terry L. Salazar, Esq.

Quilling, Selander, Lownds, Winslett

& Moser, P.C.

Dallas, TX

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Michael P. Goodman, Esq.

Engineer Chief Trial Attorney

David C. Brasfield, Jr., Esq.

Donna Ward Black, Esq.

Kaley E. Angus, Esq.

Engineer Trial Attorneys

U.S. Army Engineer District, Mobile

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice.

Dated: February 2 1 , 2024

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 62366

, Appeal of Koontz

Electric Company, Inc. , rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter.

Dated: February 21, 2024 JOHN J. THRASHER

Administrative Judge

Chairman

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals

PAULLA K. GATES

- LEWIS

Recorder, Armed Services

Board of Contract Appeals