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

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5005 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5005

       To repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 13, 2010

    Mr. Griffith (for himself, Mr. Inglis, Mr. Jones, Mr. Rogers of 
Alabama, Mr. Souder, Mr. Olson, Ms. Jenkins, Mrs. Bachmann, Mr. Bishop 
of Utah, Mr. Tiahrt, Mr. King of Iowa, Mr. Wamp, Mr. Broun of Georgia, 
     Mr. Campbell, Mr. Gohmert, Mr. Bonner, Mr. Gary G. Miller of 
  California, Mr. Aderholt, and Mr. Duncan) introduced the following 
 bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and 
 in addition to the Committees on Ways and Means, Education and Labor, 
the Judiciary, Natural Resources, House Administration, Appropriations, 
 and Rules, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, 
 in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the 
                jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
       To repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

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

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF PPACA.

    Effective as of enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable 
Care Act, such Act is repealed, and the provisions of law amended or 
repealed by such Act are restored or revived as if such Act had not 
been enacted.
                                 <all>
```
#### William Ezzard, plaintiff in error, *vs.*John R. Worrill *et al.,*defendants in error.

(By two judges.) Where an accommodation indorser on a note made prior to June, 1865, has been compelled, by judgment, since that time, to pay the same or any part thereof, and sues the maker, securities and prior indorser, to recover the amount so paid by him, he is not obliged to file the affidavit of the payment of the taxes required by the Relief Act of 1870. The debt to him did not exist until the payment of the judgment by him. 27th February, 1872.

Indorsers. Relief Act of 1870. Before Judge Clark. Sumter Superior Court. December, 1871.

The facts are in the opinion.

C. T. Goode, for plaintiff in error.

W. A. Hawkins, for defendants.

*630Montgomery, Judge.

In 1862, John R. Worrill, with E. H. Worrill as surety, made his note for about $>1,600, payable to N. J. Hammond, as guardian, or bearer, on which the other defendant was indorser. After his indorsement, Ezzard put his name on it as an accommodation indorser.

In 1869, Hammond obtained judgment against Ezzard in Fulton Superior Court, of the pendency of which suit the prior indorser, surety and maker were notified and requested to defend the same. Ezzard was compelled to pay off the judgment, and the present suit is brought to reimburse himself for the amount thus paid. Defendants moved to dismiss the suit for failure to file the tax affidavit required by the Relief Law of 1870. The Court granted the motion. We think the Court erred.

An accommodation indorser is considered merely as a surety: Code, 2123. Payment by him entitles him to proceed immediately against his principal: Code, 2134. If the payment was made under judgment, the amount of the judgment is conclusive against the principal: Code, 2135.

A surety cannot call on his principal until he has actually paid the money, and then only for the amount paid by him. Powell vs. Smith, 8 Johns., 249; Bonney vs. Seeley, 2 Wendell, 481. Hence, no debt is owing to the surely by the .principal until the former has paid the original creditor, and not then on the note, but on the implied *assumpsit*raised by the law. Powell vs. Smith, *ubi. supra.*

This did not occur in the present case until 1869. Hence, we reverse the judgment below.
<PAGE>

[RYDER SCOTT COMPANY LETTERHEAD APPEARS HERE]


                  CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS



We hereby consent to the use of this Annual Report on Form 10-K of our reserve
report dated February 18, 2000 relating to the oil and gas reserves of
Bellwether Exploration Company at January 1, 2000. We also consent to the
references to us under the heading "Reserves" in the Notes to the Consolidated
Financial Statements of Bellwether Exploration Company in such report.


                                         /s/Ryder Scott Company L.P.
                                         ---------------------------
                                         RYDER SCOTT COMPANY, L.P.



Houston, Texas
March 24, 2000
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 200 (Tuesday, October 18, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 60554]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-20769]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[FEMA-1603-DR]


Louisiana; Amendment No. 4 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Emergency Preparedness and 
Response Directorate, Department of Homeland Security.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Louisiana (FEMA-1603-DR), dated August 29, 2005, and 
related determinations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 7, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal 
Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2705.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Louisiana is hereby amended to include the following 
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by 
the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his 
declaration of August 29, 2005:

All parishes in the State of Louisiana are eligible to apply for 
assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) 
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community 
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund Program; 97.032, Crisis 
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services Program; 97.034, 
Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management 
Assistance; 97.048, Individuals and Households Housing; 97.049, 
Individuals and Households Disaster Housing Operations; 97.050 
Individuals and Households Program--Other Needs, 97.036, Public 
Assistance Grants; 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.)

R. David Paulison,
Acting Under Secretary, Emergency Preparedness and Response, Department 
of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 05-20769 Filed 10-17-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-10-P
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5299 

To temporarily prohibit United States loans to the International Monetary 

Fund to be used to provide financing for any member state of the 

European Union. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 13, 2010 

Mr. PENCE (for himself, Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS, Mr. LEWIS of California, 

Mr. HENSARLING, and Ms. GRANGER) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To temporarily prohibit United States loans to the International Monetary Fund to be used to provide financing 

for any member state of the European Union. 

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 ‘‘European Bailout Pro5 tection Act’’. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5299 IH

1 SEC. 2. TEMPORARY PROHIBITION ON UNITED STATES 

2 LOANS TO THE INTERNATIONAL MONETARY 

3 FUND TO BE USED FOR FINANCING FOR ANY 

4 MEMBER STATE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION. 

5 Section 17 of the Bretton Woods Agreements Act (22 

6 U.S.C. 286e–2) is amended by adding at the end the fol7 lowing: 

8 ‘‘(e) A loan may not be made under this section in 

9 a calendar year to enable the Fund to provide financing, 

10 directly or indirectly, to any member state of the Euro11 pean Union, until the ratio of the total outstanding public 

12 debt of each such member state to the gross domestic 

13 product of the member state, as of the end of the most 

14 recent fiscal year of the member state ending in the pre15 ceding calendar year, is not more than 60 percent.’’. 

16 SEC. 3. TEMPORARY UNITED STATES OPPOSITION TO 

17 INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND FINANC18 ING FOR ANY MEMBER STATE OF THE EURO19 PEAN UNION. 

20 The Bretton Woods Agreements Act (22 U.S.C. 286 

21 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following: 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 5299 IH

1 ‘‘SEC. 68. TEMPORARY OPPOSITION OF UNITED STATES TO 

2 INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND FINANC3 ING FOR ANY MEMBER STATE OF THE EURO4 PEAN UNION. 

5 ‘‘The Secretary of the Treasury shall instruct the 

6 United States Executive Director at the Fund to use the 

7 voice and vote of the United States to oppose the provision 

8 of financing by the Fund, directly or indirectly, to any 

9 member state of the European Union in a calendar year, 

10 until the ratio of the total outstanding public debt of each 

11 such member state to the gross domestic product of the 

12 member state, as of the end of the most recent fiscal year 

13 of the member state ending in the preceding calendar year, 

14 is not more than 60 percent.’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
23

Exhibit 99.2


                            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 AFP Imaging Corporation (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2002, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I Donald Rabinovitch,
Co-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 results of operation of
         the Company.


/s/ Donald Rabinovitch


Donald Rabinovitch,
President
(Co-Principal Executive Officer)
September 26, 2002
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 99.1

                           CERTIFICATIONS 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 Nurescell, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-KSB for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2002, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, James Samuelson,
acting President 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:

         (1)      The Report fully complies with the requirements of section
                  13(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
                  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/ James Samuelson
                                    ---------------------------------
                                    By:  James Samuelson
                                    Acting President
                                    August 14, 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Nurescell, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-KSB for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2002, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, James Samuelson,
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:

         (3)      The Report fully complies with the requirements of section
                  13(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
                  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/ James Samuelson
                                    ---------------------------------
                                    By: James Samuelson
                                    Chief Financial Officer
                                    August 14, 2002
#### JOAN BARBARA MUSCELLI, Appellant, v. EMILIO MUSCELLI, Respondent.

No. 10384

January 10, 1980

604 P.2d 1237

*42*Jolley, Urga & Wirth,*Las Vegas, for Appellant.

*Wiener, Goldwater & Waldman, Ltd.,*Las Vegas, for Respondent.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

Appellant argues that the district court erred in granting respondent’s motion for summary judgment because questions of material fact remain. We agree.

In this action appellant seeks to set aside a divorce decree and property settlement agreement on the grounds of extrinsic fraud. Extrinsic fraud consists of fraud which prevents the opposing party from knowing its rights or defenses, or from having a fair opportunity to present them at trial. A judgment obtained by extrinsic fraud may later be set aside. Murphy v. Murphy, 65 Nev. 264, 193 P.2d 850 (1948); Lauer Et Al. v. District Court, 62 Nev. 78, 140 P.2d 953 (1943).

In reviewing a summary judgment, the record must be construed most favorably to the party against whom the judgment *43has been rendered. Berge v. Fredericks, 95 Nev. 183, 591 P.2d 246 (1979). Thus construed, the record in this case discloses that respondent threatened to inflict physical violence upon appellant, to spread malicious rumors against her, and to send an adopted child back to its natural parents, and that appellant, in succumbing to this coercion, acquiesced in the property settlement terms and choice of counsel dictated by respondent.

It is contended that our decisions in Applebaum v. Applebaum, 93 Nev. 382, 566 P.2d 85 (1977), and Calvert v. Calvert, 61 Nev. 168, 122 P.2d 426 (1942), require us to affirm the summary judgment. However, both decisions rest on the premise that the complaining party had free access to an attorney of her own choosing and are, therefore, readily distinguishable.

We conclude that appellant’s allegations, which are supported by sworn complaint and affidavit, are sufficient to maintain an action based on extrinsic fraud. *See,*e.g., Parke v. Parke, 242 P.2d 860 (Idaho 1952); Dennis v. Harris, 153 N.W. 343 (Iowa 1915); Burton v. Burton, 56 P.2d 385 (Okla. 1936); Chaney v. Chaney, 156 P.2d 559 (Or. 1945).

Accordingly, we reverse and remand for trial.
Exhibit 32.2  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  In connection with the Quarterly Report of Xtra-Gold
Resources Corp. (theCompany) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30,
2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (theReport), I, JAMES WERTH LONGSHORE, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (a)
        the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
  (b)
        the information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  Date:
        August 12, 2009
        /s/
        James Werth Longshore
  By:
        James Werth Longshore
 Principal Financial Officer  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-12-00146-CR

No. 10-12-00147-CR

No. 10-12-00148-CR

No. 10-12-00149-CR

STEVEN RUBY WILLIAMSON,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 54th District Court

McLennan County, Texas

Trial Court Nos. 2006-1728-C2, 2006-1729-C2,

2006-1730-C2 and 2006-1733-C2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In 2007, Appellant was convicted in these four cases. He is now seeking to obtain 

court records from the district clerk in these cases. Upon his request to the district court 

to instruct the district clerk to provide him with the records, the district court entered an 

order denying the request for court records in each case. Appellant filed a notice of 

appeal of the order.
Williamson v. State Page 2

This court has jurisdiction over criminal appeals only when 

expressly granted by law. Everett v. State, 91 S.W.3d 386, 386 (Tex. App.—

Waco 2002, no pet.). No statute vests this court with jurisdiction over an 

appeal from an order denying a request for a free copy of the trial record 

when such a request is not presented in conjunction with a timely filed 

direct appeal. Id.; see Self v. State, 122 S.W.3d 294, 294-95 (Tex. App.—

Eastland 2003, no pet.). Furthermore, an intermediate court of appeals has 

no jurisdiction over post-conviction writs of habeas corpus in felony cases. 

Self, 122 S.W.3d at 295 (citing TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07).

Clegg v. State, 214 S.W.3d 671 (Tex. App.—Waco 2007, no pet.).

We notified Appellant that unless he showed grounds for continuing his appeals, 

we might dismiss them for want of jurisdiction. Appellant has not filed a response. 

Accordingly, we dismiss these appeals for want of jurisdiction.

REX D. DAVIS

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Appeals dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed June 13, 2012

Do not publish

[CR25]
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4972 

To repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 25, 2010 

Mr. KING of Iowa (for himself, Mr. ADERHOLT, Mr. AKIN, Mrs. BACHMANN, 

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina, Mr. BISHOP of Utah, Mr. BONNER, Mr. 

BURTON of Indiana, Mr. BUYER, Mr. CAMPBELL, Mr. CARTER, Mr. 

COBLE, Mr. DUNCAN, Mr. FLEMING, Mr. GOHMERT, Mr. GOODLATTE, 

Mr. GRIFFITH, Mr. HENSARLING, Mr. INGLIS, Mr. ISSA, Mr. JOHNSON

of Illinois, Mr. JONES, Mr. KINGSTON, Mr. LAMBORN, Mr. LATTA, Mr. 

MARCHANT, Mr. MCHENRY, Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California, Mr. 

NEUGEBAUER, Mr. PENCE, Mr. SMITH of New Jersey, Mr. SMITH of 

Texas, Mr. SOUDER, Mr. TIAHRT, Mr. WAMP, Mr. WESTMORELAND, Mr. 

ROGERS of Alabama, Mr. OLSON, Ms. JENKINS, Mr. BROUN of Georgia, 

and Mrs. LUMMIS) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on Ways and Means, Education and Labor, the Judiciary, Natural 

Resources, Rules, House Administration, and Appropriations, for a period 

to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 

concerned 

A BILL 

To repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. 

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


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4972 IH

1 SECTION 1. REPEAL OF PPACA. 

2 Effective as of the enactment of the Patient Protec3 tion and Affordable Care Act, such Act is repealed, and 

4 the provisions of law amended or repealed by such Act 

5 are restored or revived as if such Act had not been en6 acted. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
**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 |
|--------|----------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                          |                                                                                  |                                      |
|-------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------|
| October              23, 2007 |                                                                                  | /s/ William              D. Kirkland |
|                          | William D. KirklandChief Executive Officer and Chief Financial                Officer |

----
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

J.A., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE,

Philadelphia, PA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-0743

Issued: May 26, 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

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On April 20, 2021 appellant filed a timely appeal from a purported April 5, 2021 decision

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

assigned Docket No. 21-0743.

In a letter received April 28, 2021, appellant requested that the appeal be dismissed.

The Board has duly considered the matter and concludes that appellant’s request for the 

dismissal of the appeal should be granted. Accordingly, 
2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT appellant’s request for the dismissal of the appeal is 

granted. The appeal docketed as No. 21-0743 is dismissed.

Issued: May 26, 2021

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employee’’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board