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

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2613 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2613

 To amend the Tariff Act of 1930 to permit duty drawbacks for certain 
         jewelry exported to the United States Virgin Islands.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 23, 2000

  Mr. Graham introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Tariff Act of 1930 to permit duty drawbacks for certain 
         jewelry exported to the United States Virgin Islands.

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

SECTION 1. DUTY DRAWBACK FOR CERTAIN JEWELRY.

    (a) In General.--Section 313 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 
1313) is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(x) Jewelry Exported to the United States Virgin Islands.--
            ``(1) General rule.--Merchandise described in paragraph (2) 
        shall be eligible for drawback under subsection (j)(1), if duty 
        was paid on the merchandise upon importation into the United 
        States and the person claiming the drawback demonstrates that 
        the merchandise has been exported and has entered the customs 
        territory of the United States Virgin Islands.
            ``(2) Merchandise described.--Merchandise described in this 
        paragraph means jewelry, watches, watch straps, bands and 
        bracelets, and parts thereof classifiable under chapter 71 or 
        91 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States.''.
    (b) Application to Foreign Trade Zones.--Section 3(a) of the Act of 
June 18, 1934 (commonly known as the Foreign Trade Zones Act; 19 U.S.C. 
81c(a)) is amended by striking the periods at the end and inserting the 
following: ``: Provided further, That jewelry, watches, watch straps, 
bands and bracelets, and parts thereof classifiable under chapter 71 or 
91 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States may be 
withdrawn from warehouse for entry into the commerce of the United 
States Virgin Islands without payment of duty.''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of enactment of 
this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### Michael P. Burns and John L. Olmstead, Doing Business as Burns & Olmstead, Appellants, v. John H. Quirk, Impleaded with Jonathan Bates, Respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. No opinion.
NUMBER 13

- 11

- 00 209

- CV



### COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

- EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

SARA DUBOSE

, A ppellant

,

v.

JERRY KAY DUBOSE, INDIVIDUALLY, AND

AS CO

- TRUSTEE OF THE DUBOSE FAMILY TRUST,

& JOHN STEEN DUBOSE, INDIVIDUALLY, AND

AS CO

- TRUSTEE OF THE DUBOSE FAMILY TRUST,

AND CHERYL DUBOSE & SAN SABA ROYALTY

COMPANY

, A ppellees

.

____________________________________________________________

On Appe al from the County Court

of Gonzales County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________



### MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Rodriguez, Vela, and Perkes

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

The appellant's brief in the above cause was due on September 23, 2011 . On

October 5, 2011 , the Clerk of the Court notified appellant that the brief had not been timely2

filed and that the appeal was subject to dismissal for want of prosecution under Texas

Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.8(a)(1), unless within ten days from the date of receipt of

this letter, appellant reasonably explained the failure and the appellee was not

significantly injured by the appellant's failure to timely file a brief. To date, no response

has been received from appellant.

Appellant has failed to either reasonably explain h er failure to file a brief, file a

motion for extension of time to file h er brief, or file h er brief. Accordingly, the appeal is

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 38.8(a), 42.3(b).

PER CURIAM

D elivered and filed the

3rd day of November , 20 11

.
No. 1,781.

#### LANGSETH, Appellant, *v.*PLYMOUTH GOLD MINING COMPANY, Respondent.

*Appeal from District Court, Lewis <& Ciarle County.*

On motion to dismiss appeal.

Decided February 24, 1902.

*554*Mr. 8. A. Balliet,*for Appellant.

Per CuriaM.

— The motion, to- dismiss tbis appeal is hereby sustained, and the appeal is dismissed without prejudice.
Cite as 2014 Ark. 56

SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS

No. CV-14-36

LINDA MARSTON, PATSY

ELLIFRITZ, DENNIS TAYLOR, and

WANDA GRAGG

APPELLANTS

V.

JAMES E. TAYLOR, DIANE CRIMS,

JANICE HAGLER, and JOANN

MORGAN

APPELLEES

Opinion Delivered February 6, 2014

MOTION FOR RULE ON CLERK

REMANDED.

PER CURIAM

Appellants Linda Marston, Patsy Ellifritz, Dennis Taylor, and Wanda Gragg, filed a

motion for rule on clerk seeking an order of this court directing the Arkansas Supreme Court

Clerk to accept their record for filing. Appellants tendered the record on December 30, 2013,

under an extension of time granted by the circuit court on November 8, 2013. The clerk

refused to file the record because the extension order did not comply with Ark. R. App.

P.–Civ. 5(b)(1), which provides as follows:

(b) Extension of time.

(1) If any party has designated stenographically reported material for inclusion in the

record on appeal, the circuit court, by order entered before expiration of the period

prescribed by subdivision (a) of this rule or a prior extension order, may extend the

time for filing the record only if it makes the following findings:

(A) The appellant has filed a motion explaining the reasons for the requested extension

and served the motion on all counsel of record;
Cite as 2014 Ark. 56

(B) The time to file the record on appeal has not yet expired;

(C) All parties have had the opportunity to be heard on the motion, either at a hearing

or by responding in writing;

(D) The appellant, in compliance with Rule 6(b), has timely ordered the

stenographically reported material from the court reporter and made any financial

arrangements required for its preparation; and

(E) An extension of time is necessary for the court reporter to include the

stenographically reported material in the record on appeal.

This court has made clear that it expects compliance with the requirements of Rule

5(b) and that it does not view the granting of an extension as a mere formality. Byrer v.

Colvard, 372 Ark. 460, 277 S.W.3d 209 (2008). 

Rule 5 and our case law require that the circuit court consider and make findings that

the conditions listed in subdivision (b)(1)(A)-(E) of Rule 5 have been met. The order before

us recites the following:

On this 8th day of November, 2013, this matter comes before the Court, the Court

being well and sufficiently advised does find as follows:

1. That this Court grants an extension of 30 days.

Although we have the appellants’ motion to the circuit court before us, we do not

infer from its averments that Rule 5 has been complied with, and the circuit court’s order

must reflect that each condition has been met. Byrer, supra. Because the order of extension

in this case makes no reference to the consideration of the Rule 5 requirements, we remand

this matter to the circuit court for compliance with Rule 5(b)(1). Byrer, supra.

Remanded.

Medlock & Gramlich, LLP, by: Steven Estell, for appellants.

No response.

2
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. § 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of First Chester County Corporation (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending March 31, 2009 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, JohnA. Featherman, III, President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of theBoard of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date:  July 26, 2010 |                                   |
|---------------------------|----------------------------------------|
|                      | /s/  John A. Featherman, III           |
|                      | John  A. Featherman, III               |
|                      | President  and Chief Executive Officer |
|                      | Chairman  of the Board                 |

 

----
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**PRINCIPALEXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION**

**UnderRule 13a-14 (a) / 15d-14 (a)**

 

I, Jack R. Ingram,certify that:

 

1.     Ihave reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of XETA Technologies, Inc;

 

2.     Basedon my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement ofa material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements weremade, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterlyreport;

 

3.     Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant asof, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

 

4.     Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

 

a)     designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

 

b)    evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered bythis report based on such evaluation; and

 

c)     disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.     Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

a)     allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

 

b)    anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

 

Dated:  May 23, 2006

 

 
|  /s/ Jack R. Ingram      |   |
|-------------------------------|--------|
|  Jack R. Ingram          |
|  Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
#### Thomas Reynolds Porter, Jr., appellee, v. Teresa Melinda Huckins Perkins, appellant.

470 N.W.2d 580

Filed June 7, 1991.

No. 90-666.

Phillip G. Wright and Bonnie P. Harty for appellant.

Michael F. Pistillo and Mark A. Steele, of Steier, Rogers & Pistillo, P.C., for appellee.

Hastings, C.J., Boslaugh, White, Caporale, Shanahan, Grant, and Fahrnbruch, J J.

Hastings, C.J.

The original decree determining custody awarded the parties joint custody of the parties’ minor child, Thomas, with possession of the child placed with the mother, Teresa Melinda Huckins Perkins. On application of the father, Thomas Reynolds Porter, Jr., the decree was modified to provide the *354care, custody, and control of the minor child be awarded to the father, subject to reasonable rights of visitation by the mother, and the court further ordered the mother to pay child support and the father to pay to the mother the amount of child support in arrears.

When the custody of minor children is involved in a proceeding, the custody is determined by the fitness of each parent and the best interests of the children. See *Applegate v. Applegate,*236 Neb. 418, 461 N.W.2d 419 (1990). We review the judgment of the trial court de novo on the record, see *Codr v. Codr, ante*p. 48, 469 N.W.2d 124 (1991), and, finding no abuse of discretion, affirm the judgment.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           3,365
<SECURITIES>                                       562
<RECEIVABLES>                                  103,931
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,976
<INVENTORY>                                      7,009
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               114,777
<PP&E>                                          19,921
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,808
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 132,567
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           94,946
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             6
<OTHER-SE>                                      31,013
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   132,567
<SALES>                                        567,739
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               567,739
<CGS>                                          514,168
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  562,091
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (237)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   329
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,166
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,720
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,488
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,232
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,232
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .38
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .37
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7874
DAVID LESTER HERBERT, Petitioner - Appellant, versus WARDEN SMITH; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. M.J. Garbis, District Judge. (CA-95-3281- MJG) Submitted: January 11, 1996 Decided: January 25, 1996 Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Lester Herbert, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988) petition. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversibleerror. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Herbert v. Smith , No. CA-95-3281-MJG (D. Md. Nov. 7, 1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 32

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 report of Beverly National Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter-ended March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), we, Donat A. Fournier, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Michael O. Gilles, 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:



| | (1) | The report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|    |  |                        
|--- |  | -----------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Donat A. Fournier  
|    |  | Donat A. Fournier      
|    |  | Chief Executive Officer
|    | 
|    |  | May 11, 2006           
|    | 
|By: |  | /s/ Michael O. Gilles  
|    |  | Michael O. Gilles      
|    |  | Chief Financial Officer
|    | 
|    |  | May 11, 2006           

The foregoing certificate is furnished solely for purposes of complying with Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and for no other purpose whatsoever. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary set forth herein or in any of the Companys previous filings under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended, that might incorporate the Companys future filings, including this Report on Form 10-Q, in whole or in part, this Certificate shall not be incorporated by reference into any such filings.
### **Exhibit 31.2**

###  

**PRINCIPALFINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Robert B. Wagner,certify that:

 

1.               I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Qof XETA Technologies, Inc.;

 

2.               Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this quarterly report;

 

3.               Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, andother financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly presentin all material respects the financial condition, results of operations andcash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisquarterly report;

 

4.               The registrant’s other certifying officer and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and we have:

 

a)              designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly reportis being prepared;

 

b)    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this quarterly report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

(c)          disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

 

5.               The registrant’s other certifying officer and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunction):

 

a)              all significant deficiencies and material weaknessesin the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting whichare reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

b)             any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.

 

Dated:  June 3, 2008

 
| /s/ Robert B. Wagner    |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| Robert B. Wagner        |   |
| Chief Financial Officer |   |

 

----