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

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 758 

Commending the Water Replenishment District of Southern California for 

a job well done on the occasion of its 50th anniversary. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 21, 2009 

Ms. LINDA T. SA ́NCHEZ of California (for herself, Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD, Ms. 

HARMAN, Mr. ROHRABACHER, Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California, and 

Ms. RICHARDSON) submitted the following resolution; which was referred 

to the Committee on Natural Resources 

RESOLUTION 

Commending the Water Replenishment District of Southern 

California for a job well done on the occasion of its 

50th anniversary. 

Whereas the Water Replenishment District of Southern California was created by the voters on November 17, 1959; 

Whereas the election was the culmination of a 17-year effort 

by groundwater producers in the Central and West Coast 

Basins to devise a system to manage and finance the restoration of dangerously depleted basins, retard and reverse the intrusion of sea water, institute a program of 

annual replenishment, and to adjudicate and thus protect 

the rights of groundwater producers; 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 758 IH 

Whereas for five decades, the Water Replenishment District 

of Southern California has operated to fulfill its mission, 

thus assuring the continued beneficial use of the basins 

for groundwater production; 

Whereas programs and projects to fulfill its mission have included the pioneering use of recycled water and the expanded capture and use of storm water for replenishment, multiple groundwater contamination cleanup 

projects in the Central Basin, desalination of brackish 

water in the West Coast Basin, and the supply of water 

to the seawater barrier wells in both basins; 

Whereas the programs and projects of the Water Replenishment District of Southern California have resulted in the 

steady reduction of reliance on the expensive and uncertain supply of imported water and the steady increase in 

the use of locally-developed supply; and 

Whereas the goal of the Water Replenishment District of 

Southern California is to eliminate the use of imported 

water for replenishment by 2015 by implementing the 

programs and projects of the ‘‘Water Independence Now’’ 

objective: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) commends the Water Replenishment Dis3 trict of Southern California for a job well done on 

4 the occasion of its 50th anniversary, and 

5 (2) recognizes the crucial role the Water Re6 plenishment District plays in the daily lives of 

7 Southern California residents. 

Æ 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with BILLS
|   | (i) |   | the                accompanying Annual Report on                Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2006 (the                “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or                Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,                as amended; and |
|--------|-----|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

|     |  |                                                                                                         |  |  |
|-----|--|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|
| By: |  | /s/                Peter D. Thompson                                                                    |  |  |
|     |  |                                                                                                         |  |  |
|     |  | Name:                Peter D. Thompson                                                                  |  |  |
|     |  | Title:                Executive Vice President                                                          |  |  |
|     |  |                           and Chief Financial Officer |  |  |
#### Currie MOORE, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent.

No. 69535.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

July 16, 1996.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Aug. 28,1996.

Patrick T. Conroy, Clayton, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., John M. Morris, III, Breck K. Burgess, Asst. At-tys. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before DOWD, P.J., and REINHARD and GARY M. GAERTNER, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance, § 195.202, RSMo 1994, and distribution of a controlled substance near a school, § 195.214, RSMo 1994. Movant was sentenced to concurrent terms of seven and thirty years’ imprisonment, respectively. He was delivered to the custody of the Department of Corrections on June 6, 1993. On May 17, 1995, Movant filed a Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief, which was denied as untimely.

On appeal Movant contends the mandatory time limits of Rule 24.035 violate due process rights as well as rights contained in the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eight and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. We deny Movant’s appeal. The time constraints of Rule 24.035 are constitutionally valid and are mandatory by their terms. *Day v. State,*770 S.W.2d 692, 695 (Mo. banc 1989). The constraints do not violate the rights of due process or equal protection. *Dwyer v. State,*781 S.W.2d 574 (Mo.App.1989).

Judgment affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b)(2).
MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S MINUTES 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA – TUCSON 

U.S. Magistrate Judge: Jacqueline M. 

Rateau Date: May 7, 2019 

USA v. Robert Francis Krebs Case Number: CR-18-00263-001-TUC-JGZ (JR)

Assistant U.S. Attorney: Raquel Arellano

Attorney for Defendant: Jorge Leonardo Costales and Gregory Berger, Assistant Federal Public 

Defenders 

Interpreter: N/A 

Defendant: ☒ Present ☒ Custody 

 

STATUS HEARING re Competency: 

The Government calls their first witness Dr. Robert Cochrane. Dr. Cochrane appears telephonically 

with no objection from the parties as he in in North Carolina. Mr. Cochrane is sworn and 

examination begun. 

Government’s exhibits 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 are admitted without objection. 

Government’s exhibits 4 and 7 are admitted over the objection of the defense. 

This matter is continued to May 24, 2019 at 10:00 AM, at which time the witness states he is 

available. 

The Court will maintain the exhibits. 

Recorded By Courtsmart

Deputy Clerk Amanda Smith 

Status Hearing: 

2 hrs 5 min 

Start: 10:11 AM 

Stop: 12:07 PM 

Start: 12:20 PM 

Stop: 12:27 PM 

Case 4:18-cr-00263-JGZ-JR Document 55 Filed 05/07/19 Page 1 of 1
#### Maurice GRIFFIN, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Defendant/Respondent.

No. 66484.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

March 21, 1995.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied April 26, 1995.

David C. Hemingway, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Mary Moulton Bryan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before GRIMM, C.J., REINHARD, P.J., and CRAHAN, J.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals from the motion court’s denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly *672erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. Rule 84.16(b).
CERTIFICATION



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of
China Southern Airlines Company Limited (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2013 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Tan Wan Geng, President of the Company,
hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the
best of my knowledge, 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.



|Date: April 25, 2014 | By: | /s/Tan Wan Geng   
|-------------------- | --- | ------------------
|                     |     | Name: Tan Wan Geng
|                     |     |                   
|                     |     | Title: President  



* This certification accompanies the Report
pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.



* A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Case 2:18-cv-00605-DWL   Document 26-6   Filed 06/05/18   Page 1 of 5

Case 2:18-cv-00605-DWL   Document 26-6   Filed 06/05/18   Page 2 of 5

Case 2:18-cv-00605-DWL   Document 26-6   Filed 06/05/18   Page 3 of 5

Case 2:18-cv-00605-DWL   Document 26-6   Filed 06/05/18   Page 4 of 5

Case 2:18-cv-00605-DWL   Document 26-6   Filed 06/05/18   Page 5 of 5
EXHIBIT 32




<PAGE>



      In connection with the Quarterly Report of Springbank Resources, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending February 28, 2007 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), Clint R. Black, the Chief
Executive Officer and Philip F. Grey, the Principal Financial Officer of the
Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of her
knowledge:

     (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 the Company.



March 30, 2007                          /s/ Clint R. Black
                                       ---------------------------------
                                       Clint R. Black, President and Chief
                                       Executive Officer


March 30, 2007                          /s/ Philip F. Grey
                                       ---------------------------------
                                       Philip F. Grey, Principal Financial
                                     Officer
<PAGE>
 
                                                                Exhibit No. 99.2


                        Annual Statement of Compliance
                            Heller Financial, Inc.



The undersigned, a duly authorized representative of Heller Financial, Inc., as
Servicer pursuant to the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of September 1,
1997, among Heller Equipment Asset Receivables Trust 1997-1, as Issuer, Heller
Funding Corporation, as Trust Depositor, Heller Financial, Inc., as Servicer,
and Norwest Bank Minnesota, National Association, as Indenture Trustee, does
hereby certify that:

          1.   Capitalized terms used in this Annual Statement as to Compliance
               have their respective meanings set forth in the Sale and
               Servicing Agreement.
          2.   Heller Financial, Inc. is as of the date hereof the Servicer
               under the Sale and Servicing Agreement.
          3.   The undersigned is duly authorized pursuant to execute and
               deliver this Annual Statement of Compliance.
          4.   This Statement is delivered pursuant to Section 9.05 of the Sale
               and Servicing Agreement.
          5.   A review of the activities of the Servicer during the year ended
               December 31, 1998 and of its performance under the Sale and
               Servicing Agreement was made under the undersigned's supervision.
          6.   Based on such review, to the best of the undersigned's knowledge,
               the Servicer has performed or has caused to be performed in all
               material respects all of its obligations under the Sale and
               Servicing Agreement and no Servicer Default has occurred or is
               continuing.


In Witness Whereof, I have affixed my signature hereto this 27th day of January,
1999.


                         By: /s/ Julia S. Landes  
                             -------------------------- 
                                 Julia S. Landes
                         Title:  Vice President
NO. 12-09-00018-CR

NO. 12-09-00019-CR

NO. 12-09-00020-CR

NO. 12-09-00021-CR

NO. 12-09-00022-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

ERIC LAMAR ERSKINE, § APPEALS FROM THE 114TH

APPELLANT

V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE § SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Appellant pleaded guilty to five charges of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. On

December 12, 2008, the trial court sentenced Appellant to imprisonment for eighteen years on each

charge. We have received the trial court’s certifications showing that Appellant waived his right to

appeal in each case. See TEX.R. APP. P. 25.2(d). The certifications are signed by Appellant and his

counsel. We have also been furnished with a copy of the waiver in each case, also signed by

Appellant and his counsel. See Greenwell v. Thirteenth Court of Appeals, 159 S.W.3d 645, 649

(Tex. Crim. App. 2005); Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610, 614-15 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Opinion delivered January 21, 2009.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A

- SC

- 1785 | January 16, 2019 Page 1 of 3



### MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

A PPELLANT P RO S E James H. Higgason, Jr. Pendleton, Indiana A TTORNEY S FOR A PPELLEE Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Attorney General of Indiana Aaron T. Craft Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana



### I N T H E 

# COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

James H. Higgason, Jr. , Appellant

- Plaintiff ,

v. 

### Indiana Department of Correction , Appellee

- Defendant January 16, 2019 Court of Appeals Ca se No. 18A

- SC

- 1785 Appe al from the Miami Superior Court The Honorable J. David Grund, Judge Trial Co urt Cause No. 52D01

- 1605

- SC

- 317

Vaidik , Chief Judge
.

[1] In May 201 6 , James Higgason Jr. filed a pro se small

- claims action against the Indiana Department of Correction seeking $533.47 in damages. T he small

-Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A

- SC

- 1785 | January 16, 2019 Page 2 of 3

claims court entered judgment for Higgason in the amount of $8.50. Appellant’s App. Vol. II p. 16. Higgason then filed a “N otice of A ppeal ” in the trial court , not this Court

. Id. at 14 ; see Ind. Appellate Rule 9(A)

. More than thirty days after the small

- clai ms court ’s judgment, Higgason filed a “B elated
N otice of A ppeal ” in this Court , arguing that he diligently pursued his appellate rights because he timely filed a notice of appeal , just in the wrong court , and that as a pro se litigant he should be held to a lesser standard. W e denied Higgason ’s “B elated N otice of A ppeal ” and dismissed the case with prejudice. Higgason filed a transfer petition, which our Supreme Court denied.

[2] Undeterred, Higgason returned to the trial court and filed a “P etition for
P ermission to F ile a B elated N otice of A ppeal, ” which the trial court denied because “there is no available remedy herein.” Appellant’s App. Vol. II p. 20. Higgason now appeals the trial court’s denial of his petition.

[3] To the extent Higgason argues that this Court should exercise its discretion and allow him to file the notice of appeal even though it was late, see In re D.J. , 68 N.E.3d 574 (Ind. 2017); In re O.R. , 16 N.E.3d 965 (Ind. 2014), he has already
made th at argument to this Court and lost. And to the extent Higgason argu es that there is another path to this Court and that the trial court erred by not allow ing him to file a belated notice of appeal, the trial court was correct in finding that there is no such mechanism in civil cases

. That is, a lthough
Indiana Post

- Conviction Rule 2(1) allows a defendant “convicted after a trial or plea of guilty” to petition the trial court for permission to file a belated notice of appeal, there is no analog for civil cases. We therefore affirm the trial court

.Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A

- SC

- 1785 | January 16, 2019 Page 3 of 3

[4] Affirm ed

.

Mathias, J., and Crone, J., concur

.
Exhibit 32.2  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  In connection with the Quarterly Report of China Multimedia, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the fiscal period ended March 31, 2011 (the "Report"), I, Wilson Cheung, 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 requirement 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 Company's financial position and results of operations. /s/Wilson CheungWilson Cheung, Chief Financial Officer May 16, 2011
#### The State, ex rel. Skinner Engine Co., *v.*Connar, Supt. of Dept. of Public Works, et al.

(No. 23207

Decided December 16, 1931.)

*Messrs. Freiberg £ Simmonds,*for relator.

*Mr. Gilbert Bettman,*attorney general, *Mr. L. F. Laylin*and *Mr. Joseph V. Ralston,*for defendants.

By the Court

(Kinkade, J.).

The single question in dispute in this case is the correct interpretation of Section 2319, General Code.

The state superintendent of the department of public works, Albert T. Connar, one of the defendants, duly advertised for bids covering materials and labor for perfecting an improvement at Long-view State Hospital. The relator, the Skinner Engine Company, duly submitted a bid, with bond as required. This bid was found upon investigation to be the lowest and best bid, was accepted, and contract drawn and duly executed under and pursuant to Section 2319. This section provides for a thirty-day period after bids are opened, in which to investigate the bid and the bidder as well, before making final decision and awarding the contract. The section contains a further provision that the contract and bond must be approved by the Attorney General. The award was made and the contract was *405entered into in this case after the expiration of the thirty-day period. The Attorney General declined to approve, for the sole reason that the thirty-day period had expired, and for that reason the superintendent of public works had thereby lost jurisdiction to proceed further, and must reject all bids and readvertise for new bids.

The superintendent of public works, in view of the position taken by the Attorney General, declined to permit relator to go forward with the work, and thereupon the relator brought this action in mandamus. The Attorney General demurred to the petition.

The provisions of Section 2319 which need to be considered here are as follows:

“After investigation which shall be completed within thirty days, the contract shall be awarded by such owner to the lowest bidder, or bidders. * * * The contract and bond shall be submitted to the attorney general and his approval certified thereon.”

The attorney general contends that these provisions are mandatory, and require the award to be made within the thirty-day period, or at least the acceptance and award must be made within the thirty-day period. *We*are not able to appreciate any substantial merit in this claim. This court holds these provisions to be directory only. The superintendent of public works has thirty days for investigation. He may consume the whole period in his investigation, and when he shall have done so, and thereby fully satisfied his mind as to what is the best course to pursue for the benefit of the state, no sound reason can be assigned why the state should be denied the benefit of that investigation and de*406cisión. There is no propriety in reading into the statute a provision which the Legislature did not place there.

*Demurrer overruled- and writ allowed.*

Marshall, C. J., Jones, Matthias, Day, Allen and Robinson, JJ., concur.
**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1350**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906**

**OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of CX2 Technologies., Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Raimundo Dias , Chief Executive Officer, President, and Principal Executive, Financial and Accounting Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

         (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 at the end of and for the period covered by the Report.

Date:  September 30, 2010

|  

/s/ Raimundo Dias

 

Raimundo Dias, Chief Executive Officer, President, Principal

Executive, Financial and Accounting Officer

 

 

 

 

                 
              |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|