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

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4269

To relieve the Puerto Rico Housing Bank and Finance Agency and its

assignees of liability for certain loans subject to the Truth-in-Lending Act.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 27, 1996

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́ introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Banking and Financial Services

A BILL

To relieve the Puerto Rico Housing Bank and Finance Agency and its assignees of liability for certain loans subject

to the Truth-in-Lending Act.

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

3 SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS AND RULES OF CONSIDERATION.

4 (a) Unless otherwise provided, the terms used in this

5 Act have the same meaning and are subject to the same

6 rules of construction as those set forth in the Truth-in7 Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1601–1667) and its implementing

8 regulation.

9 (b) The term ‘‘Housing Bank’’ refers to the Puerto

10 Rico Housing Bank and Finance Agency, created pursu-
2

HR 4269 IH

1 ant to Act No. 146 of June 30, 1961, P.R. LAWS ANN.

2 tit. 7, sec 901 et seq. (1961).

3 SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON LIABILITY.

4 (a) For any credit transaction subject to the Truth5 in-Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1601–1667) in which the

6 Housing Bank was a creditor, and which was con7 summated before the date of enactment of this Act, nei8 ther the Housing Bank nor any of its assignees shall have

9 any civil, criminal, or administrative liability under the

10 Truth-in-Lending Act for any failure of the Housing Bank

11 to comply with the provisions of that Act or any regula12 tions promulgated pursuant to it.

13 (b) No consumer who consummated a credit trans14 action subject to the Truth-in-Lending Act (15 U.S.C.

15 1601–1667) in which the Housing Bank was a creditor,

16 and which was consummated before the date of enactment

17 of this Act, shall have any rescission right under section

18 125 of the Truth-in-Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1635)

19 against an assignee for the failure by the Housing Bank

20 to deliver any disclosures required thereunder.

Æ
**Exhibit 31.2**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Thomas
W. Stenoien, certify that:

1.I have
reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Stratasys, Inc. (the
“registrant”);

2.Based on my knowledge,
this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to
state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect
to the period covered by this report;

3.Based on
my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included
in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of and for the periods
presented in this report;

4.The
registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) [language intentionally omitted pursuant to SEC
exemptive order in SEC Release No. 34-50754] for the registrant and
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 report is being prepared;

(b)[language
intentionally omitted pursuant to Sec exemptive order in SEC Release No.
34-50754];

(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

5.The
registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,, to the
registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(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.

****Date:
      March 14, 2005
    By:
    /s/ Thomas
      W. StenoienThomas
      W. Stenoien
      Chief
      Financial Officer
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








In connection with the Quarterly Report of Omni Bio Pharmaceutical, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2010 (the “Report”), I, Charles A. Dinarello, Acting Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge:





(1)             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 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 for the period covered by this report.








Date:  July 30, 2010
/s/ Charles A. DinarelloCharles A. DinarelloActing Chief Executive Officer
2:09-cv-12467-PDB-MJH Doc # 9 Filed 03/26/12 Pg 1 of 10 Pg ID 480
2:09-cv-12467-PDB-MJH Doc # 9 Filed 03/26/12 Pg 2 of 10 Pg ID 481
2:09-cv-12467-PDB-MJH Doc # 9 Filed 03/26/12 Pg 3 of 10 Pg ID 482
2:09-cv-12467-PDB-MJH Doc # 9 Filed 03/26/12 Pg 4 of 10 Pg ID 483
2:09-cv-12467-PDB-MJH Doc # 9 Filed 03/26/12 Pg 5 of 10 Pg ID 484
2:09-cv-12467-PDB-MJH Doc # 9 Filed 03/26/12 Pg 6 of 10 Pg ID 485
2:09-cv-12467-PDB-MJH Doc # 9 Filed 03/26/12 Pg 7 of 10 Pg ID 486
2:09-cv-12467-PDB-MJH Doc # 9 Filed 03/26/12 Pg 8 of 10 Pg ID 487
2:09-cv-12467-PDB-MJH Doc # 9 Filed 03/26/12 Pg 9 of 10 Pg ID 488
2:09-cv-12467-PDB-MJH Doc # 9 Filed 03/26/12 Pg 10 of 10 Pg ID 489
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Hon. John B. Shook 

Criminal District Attorney 

San Antonio, Texas 

Dear Sir: 

June 6, 1940 

of Senate Bl 

of the Constitution of the State of Term. 

RO:AW 

moLosuRB 

Tours very truly 

ATTORRBT GESKSAL bF TRUS 

APPBDW! 

@erald C. Mann 1.1 

Boer Carltan 

Awl&ant 

ATTORNBY GRNEBAL O? TEXAS AITROTRD 

Opinion Oar 

d.ttrb 

By ~w 

Ohalrnn
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , 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.

July 29, 2014

d0721 

# Order

Clerk July 29, 2014

148993

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 148993

COA: 320025

Berrien CC: 2013

- 003272

- FH

TAYATA ALLEN DAVIS,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 21, 2014

order of the Court of Appeals is considered and, it appearin g to this Court that the case of

People v Lockridge (Docket No. 149073) is pending on appeal before this Court and that

the decision in that case may resolve an issue raised in the present application for leave to

appeal, we ORDER that the application be h eld in ABEYANCE pending the decision in

that case.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-2154

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

PATTY JEAN CYRUS,

Claimant - Appellant,

and

CLARENCE EDWARD CYRUS, a/k/a Red, a/k/a CC,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Florence. Cameron McGowan Currie, District

Judge. (CR-99-221)

Submitted: June 23, 2004 Decided: July 14, 2004

Before WIDENER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Isaac Diggs, DIGGS, DIGGS & AXELROD, Myrtle Beach, South

Carolina, for Appellant. J. Strom Thurmond, Jr., United States

Attorney, Mark C. Moore, Chief, Narcotics Unit, Beth Drake,
- 2 -

Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
*The court also ordered the forfeiture of $690,000 plus

interest; however, it is only the forfeiture of the real property

that Patty Cyrus contests.

- 3 -

PER CURIAM:

Patty Jean Cyrus appeals the district court’s order

directing the forfeiture to the United States of certain real

property in Florence, South Carolina.*

 The district court found

that the property was purchased with drug proceeds and that Cyrus

was not, as she claimed, the bona fide purchaser of the property.

Evidence before the court demonstrated that the property was

instead purchased by Cyrus’ brother, Clarence Cyrus, with proceeds

obtained from his distribution of cocaine and crack.

The sole issue raised on appeal is whether the district

court should have recused itself pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455(a)

(2000). The district court presided at the trial and sentencing of

Clarence Cyrus. At sentencing, the court commented that it

believed that Cyrus and her uncle, Robert Singletary, had lied

under oath when they testified that Patty Cyrus purchased the

property. Cyrus claims that the court’s comment disclosed that the

judge had a pre-existing bias that reasonably placed in question

the court’s impartiality at the ancillary forfeiture proceeding.

Under § 455(a), any alleged bias ordinarily must stem

from an extrajudicial source and result in an opinion on the merits

that is based on something other than what the judge learned from

participating in the case. Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540,
- 4 -

555 (1994). Our review of the record discloses that the court’s

opinion was not based on any extrajudicial source and that there

existed no “deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make

fair judgment impossible.” See id. Accordingly, we conclude that

the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the

motion for recusal, and we affirm.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not significantly aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ADIL SHAFI,

Counter-Plaintiff/Third Party Plaintiff,

vs Case No: 09-10454

Honorable Victoria A. Roberts

FREDERICK WEIDINGER and

BRAINTECH, INC.,

Third Party Defendant/Counter-Defendant.

_________________________________________________________________/

AND

ROBOTIC VISION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, and

FREDERICK WEIDINGER,

Plaintiff

vs Case No: 11-12909

Honorable Victoria A. Roberts

ADIL SHAFI,

Defendant.

_________________________________________________________________/

ORDER

On October 11, 2011, the Court held a Status Conference. Attending were

Sheryl Laughren and David Foy representing Adil Shafi; Anne Widlak and Susan Koval

representing Braintech; and Tom McNeill representing Frederick Weidinger and Robotic

Vision Technologies.

The parties pointed out that in July, 2011, a related case, Robotics Vision

Technologies LLC, et al v Adil Shafi, case no: 11-12909 was transferred from the

Eastern District of Virginia and is pending here under case number 11-12909. It was

2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Doc # 118 Filed 10/14/11 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 2938
2

transferred with a motion to dismiss pending, fully briefed albeit under Fourth Circuit

law. 

Based on the discussion held, the Court orders:

1. The motion to dismiss in case no: 11-12909 will be resubmitted relying on

Sixth Circuit Law. 

This is the briefing schedule:

Motion Due: November 4, 2011

Response: November 14, 2011

Reply: November 21, 2011

Motion Hearing: December 20, 2011 at 2:00 pm

Discovery is stayed pending resolution of this motion.

2. A motion in limine is pending in 09-10454. 

This is the briefing schedule:

Response Due: November 4, 2011

Reply: November 14, 2011

If the Court denies the motion to dismiss, it will consider whether these two cases

should be consolidated for purposes of trial. 

IT IS ORDERED.

 /s/ Victoria A. Roberts 

Victoria A. Roberts

United States District Judge

Dated: October 14, 2011

2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Doc # 118 Filed 10/14/11 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 2939
3

The undersigned certifies that a copy of this

document was served on the attorneys of

record by electronic means or U.S. Mail on

October 14, 2011.

s/Linda Vertriest 

Deputy Clerk

2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Doc # 118 Filed 10/14/11 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 2940
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

MATTHEW MEADOR, ) DOC #S40560, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D16-5252 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed October 5, 2018. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Sarasota County; Charles E. Roberts, Judge. Chris M. Pratt of Chris M. Pratt, P.A., Palmetto, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Chelsea S. Alper, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

LaROSE, C.J., and KHOUZAM and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3874 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3874

 To reauthorize the United States Commission on Civil Rights, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 23, 1996

Mr. Canady of Florida introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                   to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To reauthorize the United States Commission on Civil Rights, and for 
                            other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Civil Rights Commission Act of 
1996''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION AND AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    (a) Extension.--Section 6 of the Civil Rights Commission Act of 
1986 (42 U.S.C. 1975d) is amended by striking ``1996'' and inserting 
``1997''.
    (b) Authorization.--(1) The first sentence of section 5 of the 
Civil Rights Commission Act of 1983 (42 U.S.C. 1975c) is amended to 
read ``There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this Act 
$8,750,000 for fiscal year 1997.''.
    (2) The second sentence of section 5 of the Civil Rights Commission 
Act of 1983 (42 U.S.C. 1975c) is amended by striking ``1995'' and 
inserting ``1997''.

SEC. 3. SUBPOENAS.

    Section 3(e)(2) of the Civil Rights Act of 1983 (42 U.S.C. 1975a) 
is amended by inserting ``, by a majority vote of those present and 
voting'' before ``issue subpoenas''.

SEC. 4. STAFF DIRECTOR.

    Section 4(a) of the Civil Rights Commission Act of 1983 (42 U.S.C. 
1975b(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
            ``(3) Removal of staff director.--The Commission may, by a 
        majority vote of the Commission, remove the staff director from 
        office.''.

SEC. 5. APPLICATION OF FREEDOM OF INFORMATION, PRIVACY, AND SUNSHINE 
              ACTS.

    Section 4 of the Civil Rights Commission Act of 1983 (42 U.S.C. 
1975b) is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(f) Application of Certain Provisions of Law.--The Commission 
shall be included in the term ``agency'' as such term is defined for 
the purposes of sections 552, 552a, and 552b of title 5, United States 
Code.''.
                                 <all>
```
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 12, 2023

No. 04-22-00675-CV

BEXAR APPRAISAL DISTRICT,

Appellant/Cross-Appellee

v.

ABASTO PROPERTIES LLC, ET AL.,

Appellee/Cross-Appellant

From the 407th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018-CI-12685

Honorable Cynthia Marie Chapa, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

On January 10, 2023, appellant filed an Unopposed Motion to File a Copy of a Reporter’s 

Record. After consideration, we GRANT the motion.

_________________________________

Beth Watkins, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 12th day of January, 2023.

_________________________________

Michael A. Cruz, 

Clerk of Court
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sam IOVINO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 6434.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Dec. 13, 1937.

Joseph Lustfield and Henry L. Balaban, both of Chicago, Ill., for appellant.

M. L. Igoe, of Chicago, Ill., for appellee.

*1021Before EVANS and SPARKS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Now this day come the parties by their counsel and present and file a stipulation to dismiss this appeal, which said stipulation is in the words and figures following, to wit:

“It is hereby stipulated and agreed, by and between the parties hereto, by their respective attorneys of record, that the above entitled cause may be dismissed pursuant to rule No. 18 of the Rules of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

“December 10th 1937.”

On consideration whereof, it is now here ordered and adjudged by this court that this appeal be, and the same is hereby, dismissed pursuant to the foregoing stipulation.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

MARK J. AMEER,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 118 MM 2022

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 15th day of March, 2023, the Petition for Leave to File Petition for 

Allowance of Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc is DENIED.
Airport Property
Management Supplemental Agreement


 


This agreement was entered into by the following parties on
31 December 2013 in Guangzhou:


 


Party A: China Southern Airlines Company Limited


Domicile: 278 Ji Chang Road, Guangzhou


Legal representative: Si Xian Min


 


Party B:    Guangzhou China Southern Airlines
Property Management Company Limited


Domicile:    2/F, Southern Airline Building
No 4, Bai Yun Airport, Bai Yun District, Guangzhou


Legal representative: Guo Binghua


 


Party A and Party B unanimously agreed under the principles
of fairness and mutual benefit to enter into this supplementary agreement on the basis of the “Airport Property Management
Agreement” (hereinafter, the “Original Agreement” below) signed on 10 January 2013, the specific terms were
as follows:


 


		1.	The contents of Article 4 of the Original Agreement (“Transaction
                                         Limit”) should be changed to “Both Party A and Party B unanimously agree
                                         that the transaction amount of the businesses under this agreement shall not exceed the
                                         maximum limit of RMB27.3 million per year.”



		2.	This supplementary agreement should be deemed as the supplement
                                         to the Original Agreement, if there are conflicts between the related terms of the Original
                                         Agreement and those of this agreement, this supplementary agreement shall prevail.



		3.	This supplementary agreement shall take effect on the day both
                                         parties have signed with seals affixed after it is considered and approved by the Board
                                         of Directors of Party A.



		4.	This
                                         agreement is prepared in quadruplicate, each of both parties retains two copies which
                                         are equally legally binding.



(No main text below)


 




    	1



    	 



    

 


(This page is the signature page of the “Airport Property
Management Supplemental Agreement”)


 


Party A: China Southern Airlines Company Limited


Authorized representative:


	[signature] [seal]


 


Party B: Guangzhou China Southern Airlines Property Management
Company Limited Authorized representative:


	[signature] [seal]


 




    	2
II

Calendar No. 174

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 535

[Report No. 104–130]

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 8 (legislative day, JUNE 5), 1995

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and

Public Works

AUGUST 7 (legislative day, JULY 10), 1995

Reported by Mr. CHAFEE, without amendment

AN ACT

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey the Corning

National Fish Hatchery to the State of Arkansas.

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 ‘‘Corning National Fish

5 Hatchery Conveyance Act’’.
2

HR 535 RS

1 SEC. 2. CONVEYANCE OF CORNING NATIONAL FISH HATCH2 ERY TO THE STATE OF ARKANSAS.

3 (a) CONVEYANCE REQUIREMENT.—Within 180 days

4 after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary

5 of the Interior shall convey to the State of Arkansas with6 out reimbursement all right, title, and interest of the

7 United States in and to the property described in sub8 section (b), for use by the Arkansas Game and Fish Com9 mission as part of the State of Arkansas fish culture pro10 gram.

11 (b) PROPERTY DESCRIBED.—The property referred

12 to in subsection (a) is the property known as the Corning

13 National Fish Hatchery (popularly known as the William

14 H. Donham State Fish Hatchery), located one mile west

15 of Corning, Arkansas, on Arkansas State Highway 67 in

16 Clay County, Arkansas, consisting of 137.34 acres (more

17 or less), and all improvements and related personal prop18 erty under the control of the Secretary that is located on

19 that property, including buildings, structures, and equip20 ment.

21 (c) USE AND REVERSIONARY INTEREST.—The prop22 erty conveyed to the State of Arkansas pursuant to this

23 section shall be used by the State for purposes of fishery

24 resources management, and if it is used for any other pur25 pose all right, title, and interest in and to all property

26 conveyed pursuant to this section shall revert to the
3

HR 535 RS

1 United States. The State of Arkansas shall ensure that

2 the property reverting to the United States is in substan3 tially the same or better condition as at the time of trans4 fer.

Passed the House of Representatives June 7, 1995.

Attest: ROBIN H. CARLE,

Clerk.
Calendar No. 174

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 535

[Report No. 104–130]

AN ACT

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey

of Arkansas.the Corning National Fish Hatchery to the State

AUGUST 7 (legislative day, JULY 10), 1995

Reported without amendment