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

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4194 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4194

To amend the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 to reauthorize the volunteer 
 services, community partnership, and refuge education programs of the 
        National Wildlife Refuge System, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 12, 2022

Mr. Carper (for himself and Mrs. Capito) introduced the following bill; 
 which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 
                              Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 to reauthorize the volunteer 
 services, community partnership, and refuge education programs of the 
        National Wildlife Refuge System, 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. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Keep America's Refuges Operational 
Act of 2022''.

SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM VOLUNTEER 
              SERVICES, COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP, AND REFUGE EDUCATION 
              PROGRAMS.

    Section 7(g) of the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 
742f(g)) is amended by striking ``2018 through 2022'' and inserting 
``2022 through 2026''.
                                 <all>
```
#### RALPH CARSWELL, By His Next Friend, W. A. CARSWELL, v. PHIFER WHISENANT, S. D. OLLIS, W. E. HEAVENER, and TOWN OF MORGANTON.

(Filed 14 December, 1932.)

Pleadings D b — Where there is a misjoinder of parties and causes of action a demurrer to the complaint will be sustained.

Where one of the defendants in a civil action demurs to the complaint and its demurrer is sustained, and on appeal it appears that there was a misjoinder of parties and causes of action as alleged in the complaint the judgment will be affirmed.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Sinclair, J.,*at September Term, 1932, of Btoke.

Affirmed.

This is an action to recover of the defendants, jointly and severally, on the causes of action alleged in the complaint.

The action was tried on the demurrer to the complaint filed by the defendant, town of Morganton. The demurrer was sustained.

From judgment dismissing the action as to the defendant, town of Morganton, the plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court.

*675
      *Avery & Biddle for plaintiff.*

*Mull £ Patton for defendant.*

Connor J.

Conceding without deciding that a cause of action is alleged in the complaint against the defendant, town of Morganton, for damages resulting from the failure of said defendant to discharge the duties imposed by law upon said defendant, while the plaintiff was confined in the county jail of Burke County, we are of opinion that nevertheless, the demurrer was properly sustained for the reason that there is a misjoinder in the complaint of both parties and causes of action. In such case, the decisions of this Court are to the effect that the demurrer should be sustained and the action dismissed. *Sasser v.*Bullard, 199 N. C., 562, 155 S. E., 248, and cases cited in the opinion in that case. The judgment is

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT
32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the annual report of Apria
Healthcare Group Inc. (the company or Apria) on Form 10-K/A for
the year ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the SEC on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Lawrence M. Higby, Chief Executive 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/ LAWRENCE M. HIGBY Lawrence M. Higby
Chief Executive OfficerMarch 23, 2006

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Apria and will be retained by Apria and furnished to the Securities and Exhange Commission
or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1998             JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-02-1997             FEB-02-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1998             JAN-31-1998
<CASH>                                           5,173                       0
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,671                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                     45,230                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                58,120                       0
<PP&E>                                         167,758                       0
<DEPRECIATION>                                  64,312                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 168,898                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           42,690                       0
<BONDS>                                         28,931                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                        78,735                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   168,898                       0
<SALES>                                         99,023                 391,373
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                99,023                 391,373
<CGS>                                           74,667                 294,368
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   74,667                 294,368
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 921                   4,430
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    891                   5,621
<INCOME-TAX>                                       216                   2,108
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                675                   3,513
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                       675                   3,513
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.08                    0.41
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.08                    0.40
        

</TABLE>
#### E. B. THOMASON et al. v. SIMEON SWENSON et al.

(Filed 1 January, 1935.)

Mortgages H lb — Where foreclosure, is enjoined for an accounting for usury, order that land be sold for debt as ascertained with legal interest is proper.

Where injunctive relief is asked against the foreclosure of a deed of trust on the ground of usury and for an ascertainment of the amount of the debt due after deducting penalties for the alleged usury, it is proper for the trial court to ascertain, with the aid of a jury, the amount of the debt with six per cent interest, and to order the land sold and the proceeds applied to the payment thereof.

Appeal by defendants from *Pless, J.,*at June Term, 1934, of BuN-COMBB.

Civil action to foreclose deed of trust, for the appointment of a receiver to take charge of the property, and for general relief.

The plaintiffs, on trial in the General County Court, abandoned any claim to a personal deficiency judgment against the defendants.

The defendants set up, by way of counterclaim, claim for usury, demanded penalties for its alleged exaction, and asked for injunctive relief against the threatened foreclosure.

The General County Court, with the aid of a jury, fixed the principal sum due the plaintiffs, with interest at 6 per cent per annum, and ordered that the property be sold and applied to the payment thereof. From this judgment the defendants appealed to the Superior Court, where the assignments of error were all overruled, and from these rulings the defendants again appeal.

*520*Harkins, Van Winkle & Walton and J ohn Izard for plaintiffs.*

*Bourne, Parker, Bernard <& DuBose for defendants.*

Stacy, C. J.

This is the same ease that was before us at the Spring Term, 1933, opinion filed 14 June, 1933, and reported in 204 N. C., 759, 169 S. E., 620.

The defendants have asked for injunctive relief; the trial court adjudged that they pay their debt with lawful interest, and no^ more; this accords with the decisions on the subject, and the defendants have no further grounds for complaint. *Waters v. Garris,*188 N. C., 305, 124 S. E., 334; *Miller v. Dunn,*188 N. C., 397, 124 S. E., 746; *Jonas v. Mortgage Co.,*205 N. C., 89, 170 S. E., 127. The record is free from reversible error, or at least none has been made to appear.

Affirmed.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

November 13, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2814

Eccotemp Systems, LLC:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that this particular product is available 

only from China.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF NEXIQ TECHNOLOGIES, INC. FOR THE TWELVE MONTHS ENDED
SEPTEMBER 24, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-24-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-24-2000
<CASH>                                         102,156
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,506,472
<ALLOWANCES>                                   300,000
<INVENTORY>                                    441,151
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,602,535
<PP&E>                                       1,763,635
<DEPRECIATION>                                 873,644
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              13,057,563
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       22,456,824
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        78,920
<OTHER-SE>                                 (21,545,325)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                13,057,563
<SALES>                                     13,351,876
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            13,351,876
<CGS>                                        5,431,631
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,431,631
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            12,448,419
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           3,351,370
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (8,977,606)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (8,977,606)
<DISCONTINUED>                              (5,150,000)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (14,127,606)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (2.25)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.25)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1



Section 1350 Certification



Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) (17 CER 240,13a-14(b)) or Rule 15d-14(b) (17 CER 240,15d-14(b)) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. 1350), each of the undersigned officers of Adams Golf, Inc., (the "Company"), does hereby certify , to such officer's knowledge,
The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 (the "Periodic Report") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ,as applicable, and the information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in the Periodic Report.



|                    |  |                                      
|------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|                    |  |                                      
|Date:  May 13, 2008 |  | By:/S/ OLIVER G. BREWER III          
|                    |  | Oliver G. Brewer, III                
|                    |  | Chief Executive Officer and President
|                    |  | (Principal Executive Officer)        
|                    |  |                                      
|Date:  May 13, 2008 |  | By:/S/ ERIC LOGAN                    
|                    |  | Eric Logan                           
|                    |  | Chief Financial Officer              
|                    |  | (Principal Financial Officer)        





The foregoing certification is furnished as an exhibit to the Periodic Report and will not be deemed "filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act or Exchange Act, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
UN PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23

- 1012

MIGUEL ADALBERTO PONCE

- ARBAIZA,

Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent

.

On Petition for Review of a n Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

.

Submitted : December 19, 2023 Decided: January 11, 2024

Before THACKER and QUATTLEBAUM , Circuit Judges , and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.

ON BRIEF: Robert J. Harris

, Woodbridge, V irginia, for Petitioner. Brian Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General , Anthony C. Payne, Assistant Director

, Kathleen Kelly Volkert, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-1012 Doc: 40 Filed: 01/11/2024 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM:

Miguel Adalberto Ponce

- Arbaiza , a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for

review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying h is motion to

reconsider. We have reviewed the administrative record and Ponce

- Arbaiza ’s claims and

find no abuse of discretion. See Williams v. Garland , 59 F.4th 620, 632 (4th Cir. 2023)

(stating standard of review) . Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. See In re

Ponce

- Arbaiza (B.I.A. Dec. 7 , 2022). We dispense with oral argument because th e facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED USCA4 Appeal: 23-1012 Doc: 40 Filed: 01/11/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 31.1
 Certification of Chief Executive Officer
Pursuant to Section 302 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Abaxis, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a 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, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and we have:
     5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
   Date:    June 12, 2009
    /s/ Clinton H. SeversonClinton H. SeversonPresident and Chief Executive Officer
Order filed, July 3, 2018.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-18-00537-CV

____________

WALLACE MCNARY, Appellant

V.

PINE VILLAGE NORTH ASSOCIATION, ATTORNEY WAYMAN L. 

PRINCE, Appellee

On Appeal from the 333rd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2016-47164

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due March 6, 2018. See Tex. R. App. 

P. 35.1. The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the record. 

The record has not been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record has not 

been filed timely, we issue the following order.

We order Michelle Ognanovich, the court reporter, to file the record in this 

appeal within 15 days of the date of this order. 

PER CURIAM
#### THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF JOHNSTON COUNTY et al. v. Z. L. LeMAY.

(Filed 29 September, 1926.)

Appeal by plaintiffs from judgment of *Sinclair, J.,*22 May, 1926, of Johnston. Affirmed.

*James D. Pa/rlcer for plaintiffs.*

*Abell & Shepard and Leon Q. Stevens for defendant.*

Per Curiam.

We have read with care the facts in the agreed case and the judgment of the court below. In law we can find no reversible error. The judgment of the court below is

Affirmed.
#### A. F. McINTOSH v. F. R. SNIPES.

(Filed 4 March, 1931.)

Appeal.by plaintiff from *D'min, J.,*and a jury, at November Term, 1930, of Lee.

No error.

This was an action for actionable negligence brought by plaintiff against defendant, alleging damages. The defendant denied that he was guilty of any negligence and set up the plea of contributory negligence, and in his answer, among other things, as a defense said: “That while the defendant was driving his automobile along and upon Mclver Street in a western direction, and after he had crossed and passed beyond the intersection of First Street and Jenkins Street, and while he was some distance west of said streets, at a low and lawful rate of speed and in a careful manner, the plaintiff stepped from behind a truck where he was concealed and not visible to the defendant into the street directly in front of the automobile driven by the defendant at such time and in such way and manner and in such close proximity to said automobile that it was impossible for the defendant to stop his automobile and prevent the collision with the plaintiff and the resulting injury to him.”

*800The issues submitted to tbe jury and tbeir answers thereto were as follows:

“1. "Was the plaintiff injured by the negligence of the defendant as alleged in the complaint? Answer: Yes.

2. Did plaintiff, by his negligence, contribute to his injury as alleged in the answer? Answer: Yes.

3. What damages is plaintiff entitled to recover therefor? (No answer.).”

Judgment was rendered for defendant on the verdict. Plaintiff made numerous excejotions and assignments of error and appealed to the Supreme Court.

*Williams & Williams and Hoyle & Hoyle for 'plaintiff.*

*A. A. F. Seawell and Gamin, Teague & Byerly for defendant.*

Per Curiam.

On or about 11 November, 1929, defendant, who was driving a Hudson sedan automobile in the town of Sanford, ran-into plaintiff, a pedestrian, when he- started across Mclver Street to his place of business in said town, and seriously injured him. The plaintiff in his brief set forth five questions presented, none of which we think can be sustained, as we see no prejudicial or reversible error on the record. The jury decided the disputed fact of contributory negligence for the defendant, and in law we find

No error.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

FORT WORTH 

NO. 02-15-00361-CR 

Anthony Barber 

v. 

The State of Texas 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

From the 297th District Court 

of Tarrant County (1407138R) 

March 23, 2017 

Opinion by Justice Kerr 

(nfp) 

JUDGMENT 

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of 

the trial court is affirmed. 

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By _/s/ Elizabeth Kerr__________________ 

 Justice Elizabeth Kerr