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

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5080 

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to extend the period of 

time for which a conditional permit to land temporarily may be granted 

to an alien crewman. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 11, 2014 

Mr. FARENTHOLD introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to extend 

the period of time for which a conditional permit to 

land temporarily may be granted to an alien crewman. 

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 ‘‘Landing Pass Exten5 sion Act of 2014’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PERIOD OF TIME FOR A CONDITIONAL PERMIT TO 

7 LAND TEMPORARILY EXTENDED. 

8 Section 252(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality 

9 Act (8 U.S.C. 1282(a)(1)) is amended by striking ‘‘(not 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5080 IH

1 exceeding twenty-nine days)’’ and inserting ‘‘(not exceed2 ing 90 days)’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
[No. 24534.

Department Two.

June 7, 1933.]

#### Sarah Burg, *Respondent,*v. Philip Burg, Appellant.1

*Cole & Dolby*and *Dykeman, Monheimer <§> Griffin,*for appellant.

*Eimon L. Wienir*and *Donald L. Gaines,*for respondent.

1

Reported in 22 P. (2d) 664.

Blake, J.

This is an appeal by the defendant from an interlocutory decree of divorce granted to plaintiff in the superior court for King county. No statement of facts has been brought up, so the sole question is whether the findings of fact support the judgment.

The appellant challenges the sufficiency of the findings in two particulars: (1) That there is no finding that respondent was a resident of the state for more than one year immediately preceding the commencement of the action; (2) that the finding of cruelty (upon which ground the divorce was granted) is insufficient to support the decree.

*274The finding of residence reads as follows: “That the plaintiff has been a resident of Seattle, King county, Washington, for more than one year last past.” The cause was tried in November, 1932. Taken literally, the finding establishes the residence of respondent in this state only for one year preceding’ the trial. It is the contention of appellant that the finding fails, therefore, to show jurisdiction, in that the action was commenced by the filing of the complaint September 8, 1931. This, we think, is altogether too narrow a conception of the function of findings.

While the finding is technically incorrect, in that the recital of residence relates to the date of the findings rather than to the date of the commencement of the action, nevertheless it should be read and construed in the light of the allegations of the complaint. This contained a sufficient allegation of respondent’s residence.' The general rule is that findings speak as of the date of the complaint. 2 Bancroft Code Practices and Remedies, § 1699; *O’Reilly v. Campbell,*116 U. S. 418; *Williamson v. Strong,*136 Cal. 20, 68 Pac. 486. Construed by that rule, the finding of residence is sufficient.

The court found the fact of cruelty in terms of the statute, and then set forth various ways in which appellant had perpetrated indignities upon respondent which rendered her life burdensome. Under a number of decisions of this court, the finding is sufficient to support the decree. *Spute v. Spute,*74 Wash. 665, 134 Pac. 175; *Hilleware v. Hilleware,*92 Wash. 99, 158 Pac. 999; *Kreplin v. Kreplin,*110 Wash. 135, 188 Pac. 14; *Heiser v. Heiser,*127 Wash. 186, 220 Pac. 761.

The judgment is affirmed.

Beads, C. J., Main, and Steoteet, JJ., concur.

Todmau, J.

(dissenting) — While I take no particular exception to the holding that the findings spoke as of *275the date the complaint was filed, yet I am of the opinion that the so-called findings as to cruelty, stripped of conclusions of law, are wholly inadequate to establish cruelty, and for that reason I dissent.
EXHIBIT 32

                                  CERTIFICATION

                         Pursuant to Section 906 of the
             Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of
               Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States
                                      Code)

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and
(b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the
undersigned officers of Great-West Life & Annuity Insurance Company, a Colorado
corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge,
that:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2005 (the
"Form 10-Q") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained
in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.


Dated: November 10, 2005    /s/William T. McCallum
                            -----------------------------------------------
                            William T. McCallum
                            President and Chief Executive Officer


Dated: November 10, 2005    /s/Mitchell T.G. Graye
                            -----------------------------------------------
                            Mitchell T.G. Graye
                            Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter
63 of title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form
10-Q or as a separate disclosure document.
EX-4.1



 Exhibit 4.1 
  






 
 Incorporated Under the laws

of the state of Delaware 
NUMBER 
SHARES 
Par Value $.001 
Abacus Innovations Corporation 
This Certifies that is the owner of fully paid and
non-assessable Shares of the above Corporation transferable only on the books of the Corporation by the holder hereof in person or by duly authorized Attorney upon surrender of this Certificate properly endorsed. 
In Witness Whereof, the said Corporation has caused this Certificate to be signed by its duly authorized officers and to be sealed with the Seal of the Corporation. 
Dated 
President/Vice President 
Secretary/Assistant Secretary
*Exhibit 32(b)***Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350**     I, Michael A. Weisbarth, Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of LESCO, Inc.(the “Company”), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that: (1) The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended June 30,2006, which this certification accompanies fully complies with the requirements ofsection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2) The information contained in such Quarterly Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.   /s/ Michael A. Weisbarth     Michael A. Weisbarth  Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer   Date: August 8, 2006  
38
<TABLE> <S> <C>
                               
<ARTICLE>                                   5
<LEGEND>                         
     This schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted from the
Partnership's  unaudited  financial  statements  for the quarter ended March 31,
1999 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>                        
<MULTIPLIER>                            1,000
                                     
<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                 Sep-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                      Mar-31-1999
<CASH>                                  4,463
<SECURITIES>                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                               0
<ALLOWANCES>                                0
<INVENTORY>                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        4,463
<PP&E>                                      0
<DEPRECIATION>                              0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          4,477
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      55
<BONDS>                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<COMMON>                                    0
<OTHER-SE>                              4,422
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            4,477
<SALES>                                     0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                       10,265
<CGS>                                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             215
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        10,050
<INCOME-TAX>                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                    10,050
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                           10,050
<EPS-PRIMARY>                          165.83
<EPS-DILUTED>                          165.83
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>




<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE    CONTAINS    SUMMARY   FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE  COMPANY'S  FORM  10-Q FOR THE PERIOD ENDED  SEPTEMBER 30,  1999,
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS  ENTIRETY BY  REFERENCE  TO  SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

</LEGEND>


<S>                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                             9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                        SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                   10,955
<SECURITIES>                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                            11,210
<ALLOWANCES>                                  0
<INVENTORY>                                 622
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                         28,744
<PP&E>                                   99,462
<DEPRECIATION>                           39,408
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          101,298
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                    21,041
<BONDS>                                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                   0
<COMMON>                                  4,400
<OTHER-SE>                               53,033
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            101,298
<SALES>                                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        103,524
<CGS>                                         0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                            97,611
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          (708)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          663
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           5,958
<INCOME-TAX>                              2,338
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       3,620
<DISCONTINUED>                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                              3,620
<EPS-BASIC>                              1.49
<EPS-DILUTED>                              1.49





</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Wells Real Estate Fund I for the period ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), the undersigned,
Leo F. Wells, III, Chief Executive Officer of the corporate General Partner of the Registrant, and Douglas P. Williams, Chief Financial Officer of the corporate General Partner of the Registrant, hereby certify, pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), that, to the best of our knowledge and belief:



| | (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 Registrant.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |                        
| |  | -----------------------
| |  | /s/ LEO F. WELLS, III  
| |  | Leo F. Wells, III      
| |  | Chief Executive Officer
| |  | May 12, 2008           



| |  |                        
| |  | -----------------------
| |  | /s/ DOUGLAS P. WILLIAMS
| |  | Douglas P. Williams    
| |  | Chief Financial Officer
| |  | May 12, 2008
Opinion issued April 11, 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 1 8
- 00 0 2 5
- CV

——————————— ANA MARIA LARA , Appellant

V. JOSE SANCHEZ , Appellee

On Appeal from the 61st District Court Harris County , Texas Trial Court Ca se No. 20 1 6
- 19246

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Ana Maria Lara, has failed to timely file a brief. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.6(a) (governing time to file brief), 38.8(a) (governing failure of appellant to file brief). After being notified that this appeal was subject to dismissal, appellant2

did not adequately respond. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 42.3(b) (allowing involuntary dismissal of case). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.8(a), 42.3(b). We dismiss any pending motions as moot. PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Lloyd, Kelly, and Hightower

.
#### THE FIRST CAROLINA’S JOINT-STOCK LAND BANK, Incorporated, of COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA, v. SARAH C. STEWART et al.

(Filed 10 April, 1935.)

Mortgages H k: H p — Foreclosure sale cannot be collaterally attacked in mortgagee’s action for deficiency after foreclosure.

In an action to recover tlie balance due on mortgage notes after foreclosure, confirmation of tlie sale by the clerk, C. S., 2591, and application of the proceeds of sale to the notes, equitable matters in defense relevant only upon the motion to confirm the sale are properly stricken from the answer upon motion, C. S., 537, since plaintiff seeks a legal remedy only and invokes no equitable jurisdiction of the court, and the foreclosure sale cannot be collaterally attacked in plaintiff’s action to recover the deficiency after foreclosure.

Appeal by defendants from *Hill, Special Judge,*at November Term, 1934, of CravbN.

Affirmed.

This is an action to recover the balance due on a note executed by tbe defendants on 2 January, 1925, and secured by a deed of trust which was duly recorded in the office of. the register of deeds of Beaufort County, North Carolina.

Upon default in the payment of the note, according to its terms, the deed of trust was foreclosed by the sale of the land conveyed thereby, under the power of sale contained in the deed of trust. The sale was made on 5 March, 1931, and was duly confirmed by the clerk of the Superior Court of Beaufort County. The proceeds of the sale were applied as a payment on the note, leaving a balance due as alleged in the complaint. This action was begun in the Superior Court of Craven County' on 12 September, 1931.

The action was heard at November Term, 1934, of said court on plaintiff’s motion that certain allegations in the further answer of the defendants be stricken out, on the ground that the matters contained therein do not constitute a defense to this action, and are for that reason immaterial and irrelevant.

From an order allowing plaintiff’s motion, in part, the defendants appealed to the Supreme Court.

*Ward & Ward and Warren & Warren for plaintiff.*

*L. I. Moore and William Dunn for defendants.*

CoNnoe, J.

The matters contained in the allegations in the further answer of the defendants, which were stricken out, on the motion of the plaintiff, do not constitute a defense to the cause of action alleged in the complaint. They are, therefore, immaterial and irrelevant, and were *140properly stricken from tbe answer. C. S., 537. They were material and relevant only on the motion to confirm the sale of the land conveyed by the deed of trust, which was duly reported to the clerk of the Superior Court of Beaufort County, and confirmed by him. O. S., 2591. This sale is not subject to collateral attack in this action.

It would seem from the allegations in their answer that the defendants were dealt with harshly by the plaintiff, but the Court is without power to give them relief in this action. The plaintiff does not in this action invoke the equitable powers of the Court. It is content to have only its legal remedy. The order must be

Affirmed.
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**WAMU ASSET ACCEPTANCE CORP.**

** **

**RESTATED OFFICER’S CERTIFICATE**

 

I, Thomas G. Lehmann, certify that:

 

1.         I have reviewed this report on Form 10–K and all reports on Form 10–D required to be filed in respect of theperiod covered by this report on Form 10–K of WaMu Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-AR18 Trust (the ‘‘Exchange Act periodic reports’’);

 

2.         Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement ofa  material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.         Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form10–D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

 

4.         Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB,and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreement(s) in all material respects; and

 

5.         All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their relatedattestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a–18 and 15d–18 have been included as anexhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report.  Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10–K. 

 

 

Date:  As of March 15,2007

|   |   | /s/ Thomas G. Lehmann                                                                        |
|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   | Name:  ThomasG. Lehmann                                                                 |
|   |   | Title:   President and Senior Officer in Charge of Securitization of the Depositor |
#### George Buttschardt and Another, Plaintiffs, v. Mary Brautigam, Individually and as Executrix, etc., Defendant.

Motion for stay granted, exeept as to that part of the order which provides for the payment of the referee’s fees, without costs.

Present — Jenks, P. J., Thomas, Carr, Woodward and Rich, JJ.
<PAGE>


                   EXHIBIT 11.1 - COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                                     (Unaudited)
                       (In thousands, except per share amounts)
                                           

                                                           Three Months Ended  
                                                                July 31,       
                                                          -------------------- 
                                                           1997         1996   
                                                          -------      ------- 
Primary:
  Earnings:
    Net loss                                              $ (252)      $ (627)

  Shares:
    Weighted average shares outstanding                    5,036        5,036 

  Per share amounts:
    Net loss                                              $ (.05)      $ (.12)
                                                          ------       ------ 
                                                          ------       ------ 


Fully diluted (A):
  Earnings:
    Net loss                                              $ (252)      $ (627)

  Shares:
    Weighted average shares outstanding                    5,036        5,036 
    Net shares issuable on exercise of certain
     stock options                                            --          108 
                                                          ------       ------ 
    Weighted average shares outstanding, as adjusted       5,036        5,144 

  Per share amounts:
    Net loss                                              $ (.05)      $ (.12)
                                                          ------       ------ 
                                                          ------       ------ 



Note A:  This calculation is submitted in accordance with Regulation S-K item 
         601(b)(11) although it is contrary to paragraph 40 of APB Opinion No.
         15 because it produces an anti-dilutive result.







                                     13
#### LUCY R. OUTLAW v. J. W. COOPER, Sheriff of Bertie County.

(Filed 28 September, 1927.)

See *Sunt v. Cooper, ante,*265.

Appeal by plaintiff from a judgment of *Grady, J.,*dissolving a restraining order and dismissing the action.

Affirmed.

*Craig & Pritchett for plaintiff.*

*Gillam & Spruill and Winston, Matthews & Kenney for defendant.*

Adams, *J.*

The controversy in this case is practically identical with that in *Hunt v. Cooper, ante,*265, and the decision in the latter case is controlling in this.

Affirmed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

PALMAS C. ROBERTS,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 412 EAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 29th day of January, 2019

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5245 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

314 Lennon Drive in Wilmington, North Carolina, as the ‘‘Meadowlark 

Lemon Post Office’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 29, 2014 

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

on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 314 Lennon Drive in Wilmington, North Carolina, as the ‘‘Meadowlark Lemon Post Office’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. MEADOWLARK LEMON POST OFFICE. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 314 Lennon Drive in Wil6 mington, North Carolina, shall be known and designated 

7 as the ‘‘Meadowlark Lemon Post Office’’. 

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 


jbell on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5245 IH

1 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

2 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Meadowlark Lemon 

3 Post Office’’. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS