alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Union Calendar No. 444

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4083

[Report No. 104–814]

A BILL

To extend certain programs under the Energy Pol1997. icy and Conservation Act through September 30,

SEPTEMBER 20, 1996

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the

State of the Union and ordered to be printed
IB

Union Calendar No. 444

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4083

[Report No. 104–814]

To extend certain programs under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act

through September 30, 1997.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 17, 1996

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

Committee on Commerce

SEPTEMBER 20, 1996

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union

and ordered to be printed

A BILL

To extend certain programs under the Energy Policy and

Conservation Act through September 30, 1997.

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

3 SECTION 1. ENERGY POLICY AND CONSERVATION ACT

4 AMENDMENTS.

5 The Energy Policy and Conservation Act is amend6 ed—
2

•HR 4083 RH

1 (1) by amending section 166 (42 U.S.C. 6246)

2 to read as follows:

3 ‘‘AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

4 ‘‘SEC. 166. There are authorized to be appropriated

5 for fiscal year 1997 such sums as may be necessary to

6 implement this part.’’;

7 (2) in section 181 (42 U.S.C. 6251) by striking

8 ‘‘June 30, 1996’’ both places it appears and insert9 ing in lieu thereof ‘‘September 30, 1997’’;

10 (3) by adding at the end of section 256(h) (42

11 U.S.C. 6276(h)) ‘‘There are authorized to be appro12 priated for fiscal year 1997 such sums as may be

13 necessary to carry out this part.’’; and

14 (4) in section 281 (42 U.S.C. 6285) by striking

15 ‘‘June 30, 1996’’ both places it appears and insert16 ing in lieu thereof ‘‘September 30, 1997’’.
Exhibit 32.2

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

In connection with the Amended Quarterly Report of Printing Components Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB/A-1 for the period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, John Dow, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                                
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   
|(2) | The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated this 3rd day of October, 2007.

JOHN DOWJohn DowChief Financial Officer








































---
S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C3 ORDERS\09-12299.ZAJAC.Extend.wpd

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 09-CV-12299-DT

JOSEPH L. ZAJAC, 

Defendant.

 /

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO

RESPOND TO THE COMPLAINT

Before the court is a request filed by Defendant Joseph Zajac for an additional

thirty days to respond to the complaint. The court ordered the Government to file a

response to the request. On August 17, 2009, the Government filed a notice indicating

that it does not oppose the relief requested. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Joseph Zajac’s request for an additional thirty

days to respond to the complaint [Dkt. # 4] is GRANTED. Defendant shall file an

answer on or before September 25, 2009.

 S/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DIS-TRICT JUDGE

Dated: August 27, 2009

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record

on this date, August 27, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 S/Lisa Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522

2:09-cv-12299-RHC-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 08/27/09 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 12
#### Kathleen SHANNON, Respondent, v. Randall TETZNER, Appellant.

No. WD 51722.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Jan. 14, 1997.

Randall Tetzner, Riverside, Pro Se.

Nancy J. Melton, Independence, for respondent.

Before ULRICH, C.J., P.J., and SPINDEN and EDWIN H. SMITH, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Appeal of the issuance of a full order of protection. The case lacks precedential value, and a memorandum is provided to the *607parties discussing the court’s rationale for its decision.

Appeal dismissed as moot. Rule 84.16(b).
April 11, 2014


 


 


Mr. Lorenzo Lamadrid


 


		Re:	Extension of Consulting Agreement



 


Dear Lorenzo:


 


This letter relates
to your consulting agreement with us dated May 30, 2006, as amended on August 15, 2010. The term of the consulting agreement expired
on December 31, 2013. By execution of this letter, you acknowledge and agree that the term of the consulting agreement shall be
extended to December 31, 2014, and shall be automatically renewed for successive one year terms on each anniversary of such date,
unless written notice of nonrenewal is delivered by the Company to you at least 30 days before the end of the then current term.
This letter does not affect any other terms of your consulting agreement as previously amended. If you have any questions regarding
this matter, please let me know.


 


SYNTHESIS ENERGY SYSTEMS, INC.


 


 


___/s/ Robert Rigdon_________________


Robert Rigdon


President and Chief Executive Officer


 


ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED


as of April 11, 2014


 


 


___/s/ Lorenzo Lamadrid_______________


Lorenzo Lamadrid
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3910

To provide emergency drought relief to the city of Corpus Christi, Texas,

and the Canadian River Municipal Water Authority, Texas, and for

other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 26, 1996

Mr. ORTIZ (for himself and Mr. THORNBERRY) introduced the following bill;

which was referred to the Committee on Resources

A BILL

To provide emergency drought relief to the city of Corpus

Christi, Texas, and the Canadian River Municipal Water

Authority, Texas, and for other purposes.

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 ‘‘Emergency Drought

5 Relief Act of 1996’’.

6 SEC. 2. EMERGENCY DROUGHT RELIEF.

7 (a) CORPUS CHRISTI.—

8 (1) EMERGENCY DROUGHT RELIEF.—For the

9 purpose of providing emergency drought relief, the
2

•HR 3910 IH

1 Secretary of the Interior shall defer all principal and

2 interest payments without penalty or accrued inter3 est for a period of 5 years for the city of Corpus

4 Christi, Texas, and the Nueces River Authority

5 under contract No. 6–07–01–X0675 involving the

6 Nueces River Reclamation Project, Texas: Provided,

7 That the city of Corpus Christi shall commit to use

8 the funds thus made available exclusively for the ac9 quisition of or construction of facilities related to al10 ternative sources of water supply.

11 (2) ISSUANCE OF PERMITS.—If construction of

12 facilities related to alternative water supplies re13 ferred to in paragraph (1) requires a Federal permit

14 for use of Bureau of Reclamation lands or facilities,

15 the Secretary shall issue such permits within 90

16 days after the date of enactment of this Act, rec17 ognizing the environmental impact statement

18 FES74–54 and the environmental assessment dated

19 March 1991 (relating to the Lavaca-Navidad River

20 Authority Pipeline permit).

21 (b) CANADIAN RIVER MUNICIPAL WATER AUTHOR22 ITY.—

23 (1) RECOGNITION OF TRANSFER OF LANDS TO

24 THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE.—All obligations and

25 associated debt under contract No. 14–06–500–485
3

•HR 3910 IH

1 for land and related relocations transferred to the

2 National Park Service to form the Lake Meredith

3 National Recreation Area under Public Law 101–

4 628, in the amount of $4,000,000, shall be non5 reimbursable. The Secretary shall recalculate the re6 payment schedule of the Canadian River Municipal

7 Water Authority to reflect the determination of the

8 preceding sentence and to implement the revised re9 payment schedule within one year of the date of en10 actment of this Act.

11 (2) EMERGENCY DROUGHT RELIEF.—The Sec12 retary shall defer all principal and interest payments

13 without penalty or accrued interest for a period of

14 3 years for the Canadian River Municipal Water Au15 thority under contract No. 14–06–500–485 as emer16 gency drought relief to enable construction of addi17 tional water supply and conveyance facilities.

Æ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 09-20238

-vs- Hon: AVERN COHN

D-3, CLIDE MAYS,

Defendant.

/

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR DISCLOSURE [ETC] (DOC. 59)

AND 

MOTION TO DISMISS CONSPIRACY CHARGE (DOC. 60)

This is a criminal case. Defendant is charged along with two (2) others individuals

with a violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, Conspiracy to Possess With Intent to Distribute and to

Distribute Controlled Substances. Defendant has filed two motions styled

Motion for Disclosure of Government Bias for Charge of

Conspiracy to Deliver Crack Cocaine as to Defendant Mays

Based on Offer of Illusory Plea Bargain

and

Motion to Dismiss Conspiracy Charge.

Essentially, defendant is challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the

charges and expressing dissatisfaction with the plea bargain sentence proffered by the

government.

The motions are DENIED.

As explained on the record on April 15, 2010, on the hearing of a motion to dismiss
2

by co-defendant, Terrence Pritchett, it is the function of the jury to determine the quality and

quantity of the evidence.

The government’s Response in Opposition (Doc. 62) to Defendant’s Motion to

Dismiss Conspiracy Charge (Doc. 60) adequately informs defendant of the factual outline

of the government’s cases. It will be for the jury in the first instance to decide whether or

not the evidence is sufficient for a conviction. Should the jury decide the government has

made a case for conviction, the Court on a properly filed motion for a judgment of acquittal,

FED. R. CRIM. P. 29, will review the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction.

As to the plea bargain offered by the government, the Court has no role to play in

the negotiation of plea agreements. FED. R. CRIM. P. 11(c). 

SO ORDERED.

 S/Avern Cohn 

AVERN COHN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: May 14, 2010

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to the attorneys of record

on this date, May 14, 2010, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 S/Julie Owens 

Case Manager, (313) 234-5160
**EXHIBIT 31.1** **CERTIFICATION**     I, Ricardo Figueiredo Bomeny, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on    Form 10-K/A    of Brazil Fast Food Corp.;     2. Based on my knowledge, this Annual 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 annual    report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and    other financial information included in this Annual 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 Annual Report;     4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining    disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act    Rules 13a-15(E)    and    15d-15(E))    for the registrant and I have:     (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or    caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed    under our supervision, to ensure that material information    relating to the registrant, including its consolidated    subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those    entities, particularly during the period in which this annual    report is being prepared;     (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s    disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this annual    report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure    controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by    this report based on such evaluation; and     (c) disclosed in this annual report any change in the    registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that    occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal year    that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to    materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over    financial reporting; and     5. 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 function):     (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in    the design or operation of internal control over financial    reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the    registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and    report financial information; and     (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves    management or other employees who have a significant role in the    registrant’s internal controls over financial reporting. /s/  Ricardo    Figueiredo Bomeny    Ricardo Figueiredo Bomeny    Chief Executive Officer and Acting Chief Financial    Officer     Date: April 30, 2007
| **Overview and Nature of Business: Going Concern (Details)** | Sep. 30, 2018 USD ($) |
|--------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------|
| **Details**                                                  |                  |
| Cumulative Earnings (Deficit)                                | $ 15,308,717          |
| Working Capital Deficit                                      | $ 4,036,923           |

| X                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Definition
Represents the monetary amount of Working Capital Deficit, as of the indicated date.
+ References
No definition available.
+ Details**Name:**fil_WorkingCapital**Namespace Prefix:**fil_**Data Type:**xbrli:monetaryItemType**Balance Type:**credit**Period Type:**instant |
| X                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Definition
Amount of cumulative earnings (deficits) for relevant time periods.
+ References
No definition available.
+ Details**Name:**us-gaap_CumulativeEarningsDeficit**Namespace Prefix:**us-gaap_**Data Type:**xbrli:monetaryItemType**Balance Type:**credit**Period Type:**instant |
| X                                                                                                                                                                                           |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - References
No definition available.
+ Details**Name:**us-gaap_TextBlockAbstract**Namespace Prefix:**us-gaap_**Data Type:**xbrli:stringItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**duration |
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 409 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 409

 To repeal the increase in the tax on transportation fuels made by the 
                  Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1993.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 4, 1995

  Mr. Zimmer introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To repeal the increase in the tax on transportation fuels made by the 
                  Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1993.

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

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF TAX INCREASE ON TRANSPORTATION FUELS.

    Part IV of subchapter B of the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1993 
is hereby repealed, and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall be 
applied and administered as if such part (and the amendments made 
thereby) had not been enacted.

                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

Emily Harvey,

Plaintiff,

v.

Commissioner of Society Security,

Defendant.

 /

Case No. 08-15013

Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds

ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION [27]

This matter has come before the Court on the Magistrate Judge’s March 1, 2011

Report and Recommendation. (Dkt. 27.) The Court is fully advised in the premises and

has reviewed the record and pleadings. Neither party has filed objections. The Court

therefore ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation.

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED IN PART, Defendant’s motion for

summary judgment is DENIED, and the decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED.

Pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), this matter is hereby REMANDED to the

Commissioner of Social Security for further review and investigation consistent with the

Report and Recommendation.

SO ORDERED.

s/Nancy G. Edmunds 

Nancy G. Edmunds

United States District Judge

Dated: March 24, 2011

2:08-cv-15013-NGE-MJH Doc # 28 Filed 03/24/11 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 502
2

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record

on March 24, 2011, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Carol A. Hemeyer 

Case Manager

2:08-cv-15013-NGE-MJH Doc # 28 Filed 03/24/11 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 503
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ORDER ESTABLISHING TRIAL DOCKET FOR THE MONTH OF 

 APRIL, 2010, BEFORE THE HONORABLE PATRICK J. DUGGAN*

Listed below are the cases on this Court's trial docket for the month of April, 2010.

Counsel will be notified when their case reaches No. 5. After such notice, counsel should

be prepared to begin trial any time on 48 hours notice. It is counsel's responsibility in all

cases after they have been so notified to contact my clerk, Marilyn Orem, at 234-5147, to

ascertain the status of the trial docket. Unless otherwise notified, this Court commences

trial at 8:45 a.m. PLEASE BE PROMPT!

1. 09-11949 KAID V. LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE

2. 08-12960 FOR MOTOR CO. V. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

3. 09-10490 ALERIS ALUMINUM CANADA V. VALEO, INC.

4. 09-12106 WILLIAMS V. JP MORGAN MORTGAGE ACQUISITION, ET.AL

5. 09-11380 RIVIERA DISTRIBUTORS V. RDI OF MICHIGAN, LLC

6. 09-12003 TOOL-PLAS SYSTEMS V. CAMACO, LLC

7. 09-12782 HERRON V. WILSHIRE CREDIT CORP.

8. 09-11290 BRICKLAYERS PENSION TRUST V. EVERLAST MASONRY

9. 09-10860 TATANGELO V. MGM GRAND DETROIT, LLC

 

s/Patrick J. Duggan 

Patrick J. Duggan

United States District Judge

Dated: February 2, 2010

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record

on February 2, 2010, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Marilyn Orem 

Case Manager

*PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT TRIAL WILL NOT BEGIN BEFORE THE FINAL

PRETRIAL CONFERENCE DATE.

IF THERE IS A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PENDING, FINAL PRETRIAL

CONFERENCE WILL BE RESCHEDULED APPROXIMATELY 7 DAYS AFTER ANY

DECISION ON SUCH MOTION.

2:09-cv-12106-PJD-RSW Doc # 16 Filed 02/02/10 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 200
#### In re the MARRIAGE OF Penny Marie MILLER and Marshall Eugene Miller. Penny Marie MILLER, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Marshall Eugene MILLER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 20885.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, Division One.

March 13, 1997.

Gary L. Smith, Smith & Jackson, Lebanon, for defendanhappellant.

James Leslie Thomas, Waynesville, for plaintiff-respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals from a judgment dissolving the parties’ marriage. His point on appeal states:

> Trial court erroneously applied the law in its characterization of the parties^] *573property and trial court’s division of *marital*property was an abuse of discretion and erroneous application of the law and as a result did not equitably divide the property-

It is apparent that this point does not comply with Rule 84.04. A point relied on must contain a concise statement of the challenged ruling of the trial court, rule of law which the court should have applied, and evidentiary basis on which the asserted rule is applicable. *Sigan v. Sigan,*926 S.W.2d 187, 188 (Mo.App.1996). Ordinarily, this requirement contemplates a statement which will closely approximate what the Appellant believes should have been the trial court’s conclusion of law on the point being addressed. *Shellenberger v. Shellenberger,*931 S.W.2d 483, 484 (Mo.App.1996). After stating why the ruling was erroneous, the point should then explain wherein the testimony or evidence gives rise to the ruling for which the appellant contends. *Id.*The requirements of Rule 84.04(d) are mandatory and an insufficient point preserves nothing for this Court to review. *Id.*An abstract statement of law in a point preserves nothing for appellate review. *Id.*

Appellant expands upon his contentions and seems to add to them in the argument portion of the brief, but that does not cure the deficiency. The questions for decision on appeal are those stated in the points relied on and a question not there presented is abandoned. *In re Marriage of Flud,*926 S.W.2d 201, 206 (Mo.App.1996). Issues to which appellant alludes only in argument are not presented for appellate review. *Id.*An appellate court is obligated to determine only those questions stated in the points relied on and issues stated only in the argument portion of the brief are not preserved. *McMillan v. Wells,*924 S.W.2d 33, 37 (Mo.App.1996).

Nevertheless, we have gratuitously examined the record and find no error in the respects complained of in the point and argument portion of the brief. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in the respects complained of by Appellant.

The judgment is affirmed.