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

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 392 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 392

 Congratulating and commending Free Comic Book Day as an enjoyable and 
   creative approach to promoting literacy and celebrating a unique 
                           American art form.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 30, 2009

    Mr. Ruppersberger submitted the following resolution; which was 
      referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Congratulating and commending Free Comic Book Day as an enjoyable and 
   creative approach to promoting literacy and celebrating a unique 
                           American art form.

Whereas Free Comic Book Day promotes literacy by distributing free reading 
        material on the first Saturday of May;
Whereas Free Comic Book Day is dedicated to increasing awareness of and an 
        interest in comics through an innovative marketing campaign;
Whereas comics have proven to be a wonderful educational tool to help reluctant 
        readers to take an interest in, and develop a life-long love of, 
        reading;
Whereas comic books are a fun and exciting way to introduce kids to reading and 
        help children comprehend storylines;
Whereas a growing number of schools are using comics to teach kids narration, 
        dialogue, and visual design;
Whereas the fastest growing section of public libraries is the comic book 
        ``graphic novel'' section; and
Whereas comics and graphic novels are increasingly being recognized as serious 
        literature: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives congratulates and 
commends Free Comic Book Day as an enjoyable and creative approach to 
promoting literacy and celebrating a unique American art form.
                                 <all>
```
#### Melva McKINNEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 70013.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.

Dec. 17, 1996.

Tyrone A. Tabom, City Counselor, Edward J. Hanlon, Deputy City Counselor, Patricia A. Hageman, Assistant City Counselor, St. Louis, Defendant-Appellant.

Uthoff, Graeber, Bobinette & O’Keefe, Charles W. Bobinette, St. Louis, for Plaintiff-Respondent.

Before CRAHAN, P.J., and GRIMM and HOFF, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

The City of St. Louis Civil Service Commission (Commission) appeals from a judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis reversing the Commission’s order and granting Melva McKinney’s petition for administrative review under § 536.140.6 RSMo 1994. The trial court found that the hearing before the Commission was tainted by improper procedure and remanded the case for a new hearing.

No error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no precedential or jurisprudential value. Judgment affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b) and the cause is remanded for rehearing by the Commission.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Alton Thomas Davis, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

November 22, 2010 

p1115 

Order 

 

November 22, 2010 

141544-5 

HILLS AND DALES GENERAL HOSPITAL, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 141544-5 

 COA: 297227; 297533 

Tuscola CC: 09-025524-CK 

AVELINA M. OXHOLM-DABABNEH, D.O., 

and HURON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, d/b/a 

HURON MEDICAL CENTER, 

Defendants, 

and 

LIBERATA J. PANTIG, M.D., 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 29, 2010 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the question presented should now be reviewed by this Court.
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 97 (Friday, May 17, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24963-24964]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12397]



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


NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Special Emphasis Panel in Human Resource Development; Notice of 
Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Foundation announces the following 
meeting.

    Name and Committee Code: Special Emphasis Panel in Human 
Resource Development (#1199).
    Date and Time: May 30-31, 1996, 8:00 a.m. to. 5:00 p.m.
    Place: National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 
370, Arlington, VA 22230.
    Type of Meeting: Closed.
    Contact Person: Dr. Bobby Wilson, Program Director, Human 
Resource Development Division, Room 815, National Science 
Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230 Telephone: 
(703) 306-1634.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations 
concerning proposals submitted to NSF for Continuation of financial 
support.
    Agenda: Review for the Minority Research Centers for Excellence 
Reverse Site Visit.
    Reason for Closing: The proposals being reviewed include 
information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including 
technical information; financial data, such as salaries; and 
personal information concerning individuals associated with the 
proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and 
(6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.


[[Page 24964]]


    Dated: May 13, 1996.
M. Rebecca Winkler,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 96-12397 Filed 5-16-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.


# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________
LINDA S. SHENWICK, Petitioner

v.

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, Respondent

______________________

2015

- 3047

______________________
Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in No. NY

- 1221

- 12

- 0096 -W- 2.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

J AMES F. P ETERSON , Judicial Watch, Washington, DC, argued for petitioner.

A MELIA L ISTER -S OBOTKIN , Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for respondent. Also represented by A LLISON K IDD -M ILLER
, R OBERT E. K IRSCHMAN
, J R
., B ENJAMIN C. M IZER ; F. A LLEN P HAUP II

, General Services Administration, Washington, DC.

______________________T HIS C AUSE having been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (D YK
, T ARANTO
, and H UGHES
, Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED

. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

September 11, 2015 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole Date Daniel E. O’Toole Clerk of Court
#### Ruth A. FANK n/k/a Siragusa, Petitioner/Respondent, v. Joseph S. FANK, Jr., Respondent/Appellant.

No. 67692.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

March 26, 1996.

David V. Collignon, Clayton, for appellant.

Mary E. Davidson, Schwartz, Herman & Davidson, St. Louis, for respondent.

Before REINHARD, P.J., and KAROHL and GRIMM, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Father appeals the trial court’s order modifying his child support obligations. We affirm. The judgment of the trial court is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence; no error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
#### Eloise MERRITT, Claimant/Appellant, v. SHONEY’S, INC., Employer/Insurer/Respondent, and Treasurer of the State of Missouri as Custodian of the Second Injury Fund, Additional Party.

No. 69494.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

July 16, 1996.

James C. Robinson, St. Louis, for appellant.

Betsy J. Levitt, Evans & Dixon, St. Louis, for respondent.

REINHARD, Presiding Judge.

Claimant appeals from the dismissal by the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission *495(Commission) of her application for review of the denial of her claim for workers’ compensation benefits by the administrative law judge (ALJ). We dismiss.

The record reveals that claimant, a cook for employer, slipped and fell in employer’s kitchen. Claimant filed a workers’ compensation claim against employer for past medical benefits and permanent partial disability as well as a claim against the Second Injury Fund (Fund). Following a hearing, the ALJ issued findings of fact and rulings of law on October 19, 1995, denying claimant’s claim against employer and dismissing her claim against the Fund. The ALJ found that claimant sustained no permanent partial disability as a result of the accident and further stated:

> The employer and insurer has provided to claimant all of the medical treatment that is reasonably required to cure and relieve her of the effects of the accident of October 27, 1990 at Shoney’s, Inc., and claimant’s claim for past medical benefits in the amount of $1,085.00 is denied.

On November 11,1995, claimant submitted an application for review to the Commission. The Commission dismissed the application as untimely under § 287.480, RSMo 1994, which requires the application for review to be filed “within twenty days from the date of the award.... ”

On appeal, claimant raises two points of error relating to the findings and rulings of the ALJ denying compensation to claimant. Employer asks us to dismiss claimant’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

The timely filing of an application for review of an ALJ’s award in a workers’ compensation ease is jurisdictional and requires strict compliance. *Knuckles v. Apex Industries, Inc.,*762 S.W.2d 542, 543 (Mo.App.1988). Failure to comply with the statutory time for appeal results in a lapse of jurisdiction and of the right of appeal. *Id.*The procedures outlined for appeal by the statute are mandatory. *Id.*

Here, the ALJ’s decision was issued on Thursday, October 19, 1995, and claimant filed her application on Saturday, November 11, 1995, twenty-three days after the ALJ’s award. Section 287.480 does not provide for late filing and does not carve out an exception for filing out of time either for good cause or for ignorance of the law. *See id.*Because claimant’s application for review was not timely filed, the Commission never acquired jurisdiction to review the ALJ’s award. Thus, we lack jurisdiction to review claimant’s appeal.

Appeal dismissed.

KAROHL and GRIMM, JJ., concur.
##### 



BY-LAWS
OF
READY-MIX, INC.,
a Nevada Corporation
 ARTICLE 1
REGISTERED OFFICE AND RESIDENT AGENT
  ARTICLE 2
MEETINGS OF SHAREHOLDERS
 Annual Meetings
 Special Meetings
 Place of Meetings
 Notice of Meetings
 1




---



##### 



Additional Information for Notice of Special Meetings
 Statement of Purpose of Meeting
 Where Mailed
 Notice to Non-record Shareholders; Adjourned Meetings
 Waivers of Notice
 2




---



##### 



List of Shareholders
 Inspectors
 Quorum
 3




---



##### 



Withdrawal of Shareholder During Meeting
 Action Without Quorum
 Voting
 Votes
 Proxies Allowed
 Conduct of Meetings; Organization; Director Nominations and Other Shareholder
Proposals
 4




---



##### 



Conduct of Meetings; Organization
 Director Nominations
 5




---



##### 



Other Shareholder Proposals
 Notice Procedure
 Notice of Nomination 6
        Notice of Business
 Failure to Appear
 ARTICLE 3
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
 Number, Election and Term of Office
 Number
 7




---



##### 



Election
 Term of Office
 Duties and Powers
 Regular Meetings; Notice
 Regular Meetings
 Notice
 Special Meetings; Notice
 Special Meetings
 8




---



##### 



Notice of Special Meetings
 Waiver of Notice and Attendance by Director without Notice
 Presiding Officer
 Telephone or Video Conference Meetings
 Quorum and Adjournments
 Quorum
 9




---



##### 



Adjournment
 Manner of Acting
 Action Without Meeting
 Vacancies
 Newly Created Directorships and Loss of Board of Directors of Director Seats
 Resignation
 Removal
 10




---



##### 



Compensation
 Contracts with Interested Directors and Conflcits of Interest
 Contracts With Interested Directors
 Conflicts of Interest
 Committees
 11




---



##### 



ARTICLE 4
OFFICERS
 Number, Qualifications, Election and Term of Office
 Officers
 Election
 Term of Office
 Resignation
 Removal
 Vacancies
 Duties of Officers
 12




---



##### 



Sureties and Bond
 Shares of Other Corporations
 ARTICLE 5
SHARES OF STOCK
 Certificates of Stock
 Transfer and Registry Agents
 Fractional Share Transactions
 13




---



##### 



Lost or Destroyed Certificates
 Form of Records
 Corporation duties Regarding Holders of Record
 Record Date
 14




---



##### 



ARTICLE 6
 FISCAL YEAR
  ARTICLE 7
AMENDMENTS
  15




---



##### 



, Secretary
 16
<PAGE>














                                   EXHIBIT 4.2


                         TRANSFER RESTRICTION AGREEMENT

                               DATED MARCH 8, 2000

<PAGE>











                         TRANSFER RESTRICTION AGREEMENT


         HomeLife, Inc. has provided to Horwitz & Beam, Inc. 250,000 shares of
its common stock in exchange for the processing of a Form 10 under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Shares"). These shares are subject to the
following trading restrictions:

         1.       Immediately upon the Securities Exchange Commission indicating
                  that it has no further comments regarding the Form 10 (the
                  "Effective Date"), HomeLife shall register the shares
                  utilizing Form S-8. Horwitz & Beam shall prepare this
                  registration statement at no additional cost to HomeLife.

         2.       The Shares shall be subject to the following trading
                  restrictions:


                  (a)      During the 90 day period of time following the
                           Effective Date, the shares may not be traded, sold or
                           encumbered (the "Lock-Up Period"). HomeLife shall
                           have the option during the Lock-Up Period of
                           acquiring all of the shares for the price of $150,000
                           in cash.

                  (b)      Upon expiration of the Lock-Up Period, 10% of the
                           shares may be sold during each 30 days thereafter
                           (the "Limited Sales Period"); provided, however, no
                           such shares may be sold at less than $0.50 per share
                           during the Limited Sales Period (the Limited Sales
                           Period shall be 300 days in total). During the
                           Lock-Up Period and the Limited Sales Period the
                           shares shall not be sold at a price less than $0.75
                           per share.

                  (c)      Upon expiration of the Limited Sales Period the
                           shares may be sold without limitation.

         3.       HomeLife has been advised that Horwitz & Beam has a conflict
                  of interest in executing this Agreement and that it has the
                  right to seek the advice of independent counsel in connection
                  with its decision to execute this Agreement. This Agreement
                  shall constitute an amendment to the existing Retainer
                  Agreement between the parties hereto.


HORWITZ & BEAM, INC.                                 HOMELIFE, INC.


By:      /s/ Lawrence W. Horwitz                  By:      /s/ Andrew Cimerman
   -----------------------------------               --------------------------
         Lawrence W. Horwitz                               Andrew Cimerman
Its:     Vice President                           Its:     President
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6022 DEAN WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v.WARDEN M. PETTIFORD; LIEUTENANT SHAWNCE, Lieutenant SIS at FCIBennettsville; LIEUTENANT MILLER, Lieutenant at FCIBennettsville; DOCTOR RINCE, Doctor and Head Psychologist at FCI-Bennettsville; D. BOWENS, Captain at FCI-Bennettsville; DOCTOR BARROUS, Medical Director and FCI-Bennettsville, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (9:07-cv-00946-RBH) Submitted: March 25, 2008 Decided: April 4, 2008 Before MOTZ, KING and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.- 2 - Dean Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Beth Drake, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 3 - PER CURIAM: Dean Williams appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant Williams’ motion to withdraw his requests for injunctive relief and restraining orders, and af firm for the reasons stated by the district court. Williams v. Pettiford , No. 9:07-cv-00946-RBH (D.S.C. Oct. 23, 2007). 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. AFFIRMED
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF

THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

 

Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, in his capacity as an officer of Omega Flex, Inc. (the “Company”), that, to his knowledge: 

 

 (a)     the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

 

 (b)     the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

 

Dated: September 30, 2008

 

/s/  Kevin R. Hoben______________________

 

Kevin R. Hoben

Chief Executive Officer 

 

/s/  Paul J. Kane_________________________

 

Paul J. Kane

Chief Financial Officer 

 

 

This certification is not deemed to be “filed” for purposes of section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section.  This certification is not deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or Securities Exchange Act of 1934, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.

 

 

|   | Page 1 |
|--------|--------|
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Carl MOSES, Defendant/Appellant. Carl MOSES, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.

Nos. 64067, 65602.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Five.

Dec. 27, 1994.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Jan. 31, 1995.

Raymund J. Capelovitch, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Millie Aulbur, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before GRIMM, P.J., and CARL R. GAERTNER and CRANE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant was charged with first degree assault, § 565.050; * three counts of first degree robbery, § 569.020; two counts of attempted first degree robbery, § 564.011; attempted rape, § 566.030; third degree assault, § 565.070; and seven counts of armed criminal action, § 571.015. A jury convicted him on all counts.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

*528The judgments are affirmed in accordance with Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).

*

All statutory references are to RSMo 1986.
**EXHIBIT 31.2****CERTIFICATIONS**  I, John A. Schissel, certify that: 1) I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2006of Columbia Equity Trust, Inc.; 2) Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report; 3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded 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 periodspresented in this report; 4) The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b) [Omitted in reliance on SEC Release No. 33-8238; 34-47986, Section III.E.];  c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter(the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5) The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming equivalent functions): c) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and  d) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.Date: May 15, 2006         /s/  John A. Schissel     John A. Schissel     Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer