alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. George Carvin, Defendant-Appellant.

Gen. No. 51,140. (Abstract of Decision.)

First District, Second Division.

October 25, 1966.

*43E. B. McGuinn, of Chicago, for appellant; Daniel P. Ward, State’s Attorney of Cook County, of Chicago (Elmer C. Kissane and Morton E. Friedman, Assistant State’s Attorneys, of counsel), for appellee.

Opinion by PRESIDING JUSTICE BRYANT. Not to be published in full.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 571 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 571

To amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to provide that no species 
 may be determined to be an endangered species or threatened species, 
     and no critical habitat may be designated, until that Act is 
                             reauthorized.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 19, 1995

Mr. Bonilla (for himself, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Pombo, Mr. Fields of Texas, 
Mr. Laughlin, Mr. Combest, Mr. Pete Geren of Texas, Mr. Smith of Texas, 
Mr. Brewster, Mr. Dickey, Mr. Montgomery, Mr. Rogers, Mr. Stenholm, Mr. 
  Royce, Mr. Parker, Mr. Thornberry, Mr. Everett, Mr. Sam Johnson of 
 Texas, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Calvert, Mr. Bono, Mr. Canady of Florida, 
    Mr. Shadegg, Mr. Cunningham, and Mr. Ballenger) introduced the 
    following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to provide that no species 
 may be determined to be an endangered species or threatened species, 
     and no critical habitat may be designated, until that Act is 
                             reauthorized.

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

SECTION 1. MORATORIUM ON DETERMINATION OF ENDANGERED SPECIES AND 
              THREATENED SPECIES AND DESIGNATION OF CRITICAL HABITAT.

    Section 4(a) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 
1533(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
            ``(4) Moratorium.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
        law, during the period beginning on the effective date of this 
        paragraph and ending on the first day thereafter that occurs in 
        a fiscal year for which amounts are specifically authorized by 
        this Act to be appropriated to carry out this Act, the 
        Secretary may not--
                    ``(A) determine that a species is an endangered 
                species or a threatened species for purposes of this 
                Act; or
                    ``(B) designate any critical habitat of a species 
                under this Act.''.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT
32











CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL


OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I,
Edwargo Setjadiningrat, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
Report of Velocity Oil & Gas, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended
June 30, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form
10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and
results of operations of Velocity Oil & Gas, Inc.





Date:
August 19, 2009





By:/s/
Edwargo Setjadiningrat


Edwargo
Setjadiningrat,


President
(Principal Executive Officer) and


Principal
Financial Officer
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 14

- 00661

- CR

Elias Gaitan a/k/a Elias Gaitan Jr.

v. The State Of Texas

On a ppeal from the 357th District Court of Cameron County , Texas Trial Cause No. 2014

- DCR

- 955

- E

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, havi ng considered this cause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. November 10, 2016.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 154 (Friday, August 8, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 46308]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-18243]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Mental Health; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
    Name of Committee: National Institute of Mental Health Special 
Emphasis Panel: SBIR Phase II--Topics 44, 53 and 55B.
    Date: August 21, 2008.
    Time: 1 p.m. to 3 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 
Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852, (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Aileen Schulte, PhD, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute of 
Mental Health, NIH, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Blvd, Room 
6140, MSC 9608, Bethesda, MD 20892-9608, 301-443-1225, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7a1b0919120f160e1f3a171b131654141312541d150c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="18796b7b706d746c7d587579717436767170367f776e">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.242, 
Mental Health Research Grants; 93.281, Scientist Development Award, 
Scientist Development Award for Clinicians, and Research Scientist 
Award; 93.282, Mental Health National Research Service Awards for 
Research Training, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: August 1, 2008.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E8-18243 Filed 8-7-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
##### 



Exhibit 31.2
 RULE 13a-14(a) CERTIFICATION
OF THE PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
      (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 report is being prepared;(b)
    
    [Intentionally omitted.];(c)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this 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(d)
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal
control over financial 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 has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrants internal control over financial
reporting; and
  (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 control over financial reporting.
  /s/ Michael LeslerExecutive Vice President andChief Financial Officer 32
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice 6306] 

# SUMMARY:

The Advisory Committee on International Communications and Information Policy (ACICIP) has been re-chartered for an additional two years. 

The Department of State announces the re-chartering of the Advisory Committee on International Communications and Information Policy (ACICIP), a continuing committee under the authority of 22 U.S.C. 2656 and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C., App. II, Secs. 1-5 (“FACA”). ACICIP members are private sector communications and information technology specialists from U.S. telecommunications companies, trade associations, policy institutions, and academia, who advise the Department on issues affecting international communications and information policy. 

The Committee is subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which requires advisory committees to renew their charters every two years. 

      ( print page 46963)    
Dated: August 4, 2008. 

Emily Yee, 

Designated Federal Officer, Department of State.

[FR Doc. E8-18600 Filed 8-11-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710-07-P
#### Charles A. Demand, as Administrator, etc., of Grover C. Demand, Deceased, Respondent, *v.*The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, Appellant, Impleaded with Vulcanite Paving Company and Westchester Contracting and Trucking Company.

*Negligence*— *railroad*— *contributory negligence of drives' of a horse*— *duty of engineer.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, entered in the New York county clerk’s office on the 4th day of May, 1908, on a verdict, and also from an order entered on the 24th day of April, 1908, denying a motion for a new trial.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.

No opinion. Present — Patterson, P. J., McLaughlin, Laughlin, Houghton and Scott, JJ. (McLaughlin and Laughlin, JJ., dissenting.)

McLaughlin, J. (dissenting):

Plaintiff’s intestate was in charge of a horse which furnished the motive power for a hoist between two tracks of the defendant railroad company. The space between the tracks was over twenty feet. The horse “ edged over ” toward one of the tracks, and in endeavoring to force the horse back nearer the center of the open space, the decedent was struck by a passing train and killed. He was between the horse and the track, and the train did not strike the horse. If this was not contributory negligence, at least I do not think any negligence was shown on the part of the defendant. As I read the evidence, when the train came in sight some 1,300 feet away, the decedent was not then in a position where he would have been struck and the horse was quiet and apparently under his control. The engineer was not negligent in making no effort to stop the train at that time, and the only evidence is that, as soon as the danger of an accident became apparent, he did make every effort to stop the train *876and prevent "the accident. “ Reasonable care in the management of trains which must make their time between stations, and have the right of way, does not require more.” *(Chrystal v. Troy & Boston R. R. Co., 105*N. Y. 164.) For these reasons I think the judgment and order should be reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event. Laughlin, J., concurred.
#### Anthony Lango, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Division Paint & Garden Supply Co., a Corporation, Goshen Churn & Ladder, Inc., a Corporation, and Milo Lang, Defendants-Appellees.

Gen. No. 49,440.

First District, Second Division.

October 11, 1966.

*385Philip H. Corboy and James P. Chapman, of Chicago, for appellant; Tom L. Yates, of Chicago (Carl E. Abrahamson, of counsel), for appellees.

Opinion by

JUSTICE BURKE.

Not to be published in full.
Exhibit 23.1




Consent of Independent Registered Public
Accounting Firm




We have issued our
reports dated March 8, 2010, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements, schedule and internal control over financial reporting included in
the Annual Report of Stratasys, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December
31, 2009. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said reports in
the Registration Statements of Stratasys, Inc. on Form S-3 (File No. 333-108816,
effective December 2, 2003) and on Forms S-8 (File No. 33-93362, effective June
9, 1995, File No. 333-32782, effective March 17, 2000, File No. 333-116210,
effective June 4, 2004, and File No. 333-162830, effective November 3,
2009).




/s/ GRANT THORNTON
      LLPMinneapolis, MinnesotaMarch 8,
2010


---
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 130 (Friday, July 5, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 35199]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17075]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. ER96-1471-000]


Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company; Notice of Filing

June 28, 1996.
    Take notice that on June 6, 1996, Cleveland Electric Illuminating 
Company tendered for filing an amendment to its June 1, 1996, filing in 
the above-referenced docket.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 18 CFR 385.214). All such 
motions or protests should be filed on or before July 10, 1996. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-17075 Filed 7-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### Scyril Aduddell v. State H. W. White v. State

Nos. 25557, 25558.

December 12, 1951.

Hon. Ben F. Thorpe, Judge Presiding.

*H. A. Leaverton,*Seminole, for appellants.

*George P. Blackburn,*State’s Attorney, Austin, for the state.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

Appellants, Aduddell and White, were jointly indicted and tried for the offense of passing a forged instrument. Each was assessed a penalty of two years in the penitentiary.

*496Separate records as to each appellant have been filed in this court and given separate docket numbers. The records are identical. We therefore consolidate the two cases and dispose of them together.

The instrument alleged in the indictment to be a forgery and passed by the appellants purported to be a bill of sale conveying certain pipe in Shackleford County to one L. C. Cox. The bill of sale as set forth in the indictment purports to have been signed by three parties, viz.: E. Krasner, H. E. White, and E • ÍD. Skipper. There is nothing to show that the names of E. Krasner and H. E. White were signed thereto as witnesses to the signature of E. D. Skipper. The bill of sale introduced upon the trial of the case showed that Krasner and White signed as witnesses.

The variance between the allegations of the indictment and the proof is apparent, and requires a reversal of the conviction.

In addition to the variance mentioned, we note that the indictment did not allege that appellant White was a principal to the commission of the offense by Aduddell, but attempted to allege facts which it is claimed are sufficient to show that White was, in fact, a principal with Aduddell. The facts stated go no further than to allege that White agreed with Aduddell to aid him in the commission of the offense and are so indefinite as to fail to charge White with any offense.

It is always the safer plan in charging one as a principal to the crime committed by another to charge such person directly with the commission of the crime, rather than to attempt to allege the facts which would constitute one a principal to the commission of a crime by another.

As to appellant Aduddell, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

As to appellant White, the judgment is reversed and the prosecution ordered dismissed.

Opinion approved by the court.
Exhibit
      32.2





Certification
      of Principal Accounting Officer


Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. 1350


(Section
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)







I,
      Susa
      Miller, Chief Accounting Officer of Princeton Security Technologies, Inc. (the
      "Registrant") do hereby certify, 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
      my knowledge, based upon a review of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for
      the
      period June 30, 2007 of the Registrant, as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"):





(1)
      The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





(2)
      The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Registrant.








/s/
                Susa MillerSusa
                Miller, Chief Accounting Officer





August
      10, 2007





*
      A
      signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
      provided to Princeton Security Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by
      Princeton Security Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities Exchange
      Commission or its staff upon request.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5.4. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-60066 Summary Calendar

DORA LUZ OCHOA-BARRIOS Petitioner

v. MICHAEL B MUKASEY, U S ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A00 109 691
Before GARWOOD, WIENER and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Dora Luz Ochoa-Barrios, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for reviewofa final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the denial ofher motion to reopen her removal proceedings. Ochoa-Barrios failed to appear for her removal hearing in January 2006 and was ordered removed in absentia. She filed a motion to reopen in July 2006. Ochoa-Barrios argues that her order of removal should be rescinded because she did not receive notice of the hearing. She acknowledges that she United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D March 13, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 07-60066

2 was served with and signed the Notice to Appear, but she contends that the pagesofthe Notice toAppear that she received did not include the pagewith the hearing date. She contends that she was not aware of a hearing date. OchoaBarrios argues that the Immigration Judge (IJ) did not address her contention, instead relying on copies ofthe Department ofHomeland Security (DHS) forms, not the forms that she actually received. The denial ofa motion to reopen is reviewed for abuse ofdiscretion, with factual findings reviewed for substantial evidence and determinations of law reviewed de novo. De Moralesv. INS, 116 F.3d 145, 147 (5th Cir. 1997). The IJ did not abuse his discretion by relying on the fact that Ochoa-Barrios acknowledged personal service with her signature, rather than on the unsworn allegation in the motion to reopen filed by her attorney that she did not actually receive the paperwork. See Maknojiya v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 588, 589 (5th Cir. 2005) (holding that when written notice is sent by regular, not certified, mail, the alien may prove that he did not receive the notice by his own statement in an affidavit). The unsworn and unsupported assertions in the motion to reopen
are not sufficient to overcome her signed certificate ofservice. SeeThompson v. I N S, 51 F.3d 1045, * 2 (5th Cir. 1995) (noting authorities holding that an attorney’s statements in a brief or motion do not constitute evidence). Because Ochoa-Barrios has not established that the denial of her motion to reopen was an abuse of discretion, the petition for review is DENIED.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 33-80147) pertaining to the 1993 Stock Option Plan, 1994 Directors'
Stock Option Plan and Directors' Warrants of SigmaTron International, Inc. of
our report dated June 25, 1999 with respect to the consolidated financial
statements and schedule of SigmaTron International, Inc. included in the Annual
Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended April 30, 1999.

                                                          /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Chicago, Illinois
July 20, 1999
----

----

|   | (1)The quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended September 30, 2010 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C 78m(a) or 78o(d); 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: | November 15, 2010 | /s/ Robert T. Strong                  |   |
|-------------|-------------------|---------------------------------------|--------|
|        |              | Robert T. Strong                      |   |
|        |              | President and Chief Executive Officer |   |

|  Date: | November 15, 2010 | /s/ John J. Augustine        |   |
|-------------|-------------------|------------------------------|--------|
|        |              | John J. Augustine            |   |
|        |              | Chief Financial Officer |   |