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

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 657 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                 Union Calendar No. 166
104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 657

                          [Report No. 104-315]

 To extend the deadline under the Federal Power Act applicable to the 
 construction of three hydroelectric projects in the State of Arkansas.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 24, 1995

 Mrs. Lincoln introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                         Committee on Commerce

                            November 7, 1995

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
                       and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To extend the deadline under the Federal Power Act applicable to the 
 construction of three hydroelectric projects in the State of Arkansas.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF DEADLINES.

    Notwithstanding the time limitations of section 13 of the Federal 
Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806) the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 
upon the request of the licensee for FERC Project No. 4204, 4660, and 
4659 (and after reasonable notice), is authorized, in accordance with 
the good faith, due diligence, and public interest requirements of such 
section 13 and the Commission's procedures under such section, to 
extend the time required for commencement of construction for the 
project for up to a maximum of 3 consecutive 2-year periods. This 
section shall take effect for the project upon the expiration of the 
extension (issued by the Commission under such section 13) of the 
period required for commencement of construction of such project.
                                     

                                                 Union Calendar No. 166

104th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 657

                          [Report No. 104-315]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 To extend the deadline under the Federal Power Act applicable to the 
 construction of three hydroelectric projects in the State of Arkansas.

_______________________________________________________________________

                            November 7, 1995

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
                       and ordered to be printed
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

TONIA SCOTT,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 57 MM 2023

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 5

th day of September, 2023, the Application for Extraordinary 

Jurisdiction and the Application to Expedite are DENIED.
Exhibit 32.2






CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002






In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010 (the “Report”) by China Sports Holding Company Limited (the “Company”), I, Wing Sang Tommy Lo, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as added by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge:




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 Company.





Date: May 17, 2010
By:
/s/ Wing Sang Tommy LoWing Sang Tommy LoChief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer




This certification accompanies each 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 §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished upon request.
EXHIBIT 32.2
                                                                    ------------


                      CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Levcor International,
Inc. (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2006 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Edward F. Cooke, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, 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 the Report fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of the Company.


Dated:  November 9, 2006
        ----------------


By: /s/ EDWARD F. COOKE
    ---------------------------
    Edward F. Cooke
    Chief Financial Officer


                                    Page 51
## COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 12

- 00607

- CR

Jason Brian Burress

v.

The State of Texas §

§

§

§

§ From County Criminal Court No. 4

o f Denton County ( CA

- 2012

- 00002

- CCA )

January 31, 2013

P er C uriam

(nfp)



### JUD GMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

the appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed for

want of jurisdiction.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

PER CURIAM2 

## COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 12

- 00607

- CR

JASON BRIAN BURRESS APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM COUNTY CRIMINAL COUR T NO. 4 OF DENTON COUNTY

----------


### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

----------
Appellan t Jason Brian Burress at tempts to appeal his conviction for

speeding

. Appellant appealed his conviction from the municipal court to the

county criminal court, which signed its order on October 23, 2012. No motion for

new trial was filed . Un der our rules , Appellant’ s notice of appeal was due on

November 26 , 2012. See Tex . R. App. P. 26.2(a)(1 ). Appellant did not file his

notice of appeal, however, until December 3 , 2012.

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.3

An appellate court may extend the time to file th e notice of appeal if, within

fift een days after the deadline for filing the notice of appeal, the party (a) files in

the t rial court the notice of appeal and (b) files in the appellate court a motion

complying with rule 10.5(b). Tex. R. App. P. 26.3. In this case, a motion to

extend tim e to file the notice of appeal was due on December 11 , 2012. Se e id.

Appellant filed a response to our jurisdiction letter, which we broadly construe as

a motion to extend time to file his notice of appeal

, on December 2 7 , 2012. It is,

therefore, untime ly.

A notice of appeal that complies with the requirements of rule 26 is

essential to vest this court with jurisdiction. Slaton v. State , 981 S.W.2d 208, 210

(Tex. Crim. App. 1998). The court of criminal appeals has held that, without a

timely filed noti ce of appeal or motion for extension of time, we cannot exercise

jurisdiction over an appeal. See Olivo v. State , 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim.

App. 1996); see also Slaton , 981 S.W.2d at 210.

Because Appellant’s notice of appeal and motion to extend tim e to file

notice of appeal were untimely, we have no jurisdiction over this appeal.

Accordingly, we deny the motion to extend time to file notice of appeal and

dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.3, 42.3(a),

43.2(f).

PER C URIAM PANEL: WALKER, MCCOY, and MEIER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App

. P. 47.2(b )4

DELIVERED: January 31, 201 3
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATIONS

|   | I, Mark P. Cattini, certify that                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K of MapInfo Corporation; and                                                                                                                                                                                                            
|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.





|Date: April 2, 2004 | /s/ Mark P. CattiniMark P. Cattini
President and Chief Executive Officer
|------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------
91. 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Bonorablo X. D. E~ll 

county Attomes, 0.f a& count7 

80s -10, Toxar 

Your lrtter of 

thir dopartmont on the qurrt 

tollou~r 

the opinion ot 

la l8, in part, a8 

Untf attoZn*~ i8 pamlttd to 

With rdorenor to your firrt Qurrtion, your attention 

18 dirrotod to our Opinion I(o. O-8384. Wador Seotioa 8 of ArtiOh sI%Ib, a 8 lEWdOd, th0 l OfSBi88iOaer8’ OOa+. i8 not reQUired t0 

fumirh rulteblo OffiO@8, iWIitUr8, 8tat:OnO~ and blank8 =0.8- 

rart la tha parrormnor of the dUti.8 of tin oount~ attomy, bUt 

ruoh mnttorr tire mt l ntlrolT w1 ththe ln airoretlo8 oi t& O-18- 

rlonar 8’ ooart . Therafon, ia an8WM t0 JOUX fir8t QWdiOlp, PU 
LfonOr~bls K. 0. Ball, &go P 913 

l r0 rerpocttoll~ l dTI80d that it 10 tho opInIon of thir dopsrtOUat tbnt the ~~8e~OaOr8' cOUrt Or htUgi0 coUh~ I8 1~8011~ 

mthorlud to pay 0tti00 x-eat tor the coprttr Attornof, it th0 

Coaai8rioarr81 Ihurt dr8iro8 to pal ruoh rent. fiowetor, a8 

horrtotorr #tatad, thi8 ratter 18 lOit ratlmly within the dirOrOtiOO Of tho ~~iO8iOOCr8’ OOWt. 

CO 83W l Otl8idW FOUr l OOOOd QUOOtioR. rh# OOUUtJ OffIOial8 of hfU&O County are oompmn8atod OD a t00 ba8i8. Uth 

rotrrenoo to l r-ottiolo oomp0nratIoo oi the County rttornol where 

tb &untr Attorney IO OOmpenOated 011 a to0 baoir, end tb oom90aoatIon and l xOo sa fO08 wbloh ti 1 0 lllowd to rataiD doer not 

teaoh the marlmm prorldrd for in ~rtiolr 5883 aad Artlair 5891, 

Voraon18 Annotated Civil Ststutcr, th0 OomaIooIonLer8~ Court my 

legally allOw CompOn#~itIOn for eX4fiOiO l 0mlc08 men, la their 

)udgment, auoh oompenoatIoa I8 n0ooosar~~ prorldod, 8uOh oonpenoatloa tor l x-0tti0i0 oarrloeo allowed do08 no4 lncroeoe th0 OOPIpenaatlon of oald County Attorney beyond the aaxIa\ua oomponsatloa 

ma d l x~oso tSC8 allowed to bo rot&nod br him under the tm above 

mentlonod rtatutea. Provided, the l X4tI0i0 Mmpea8atiOn a8 authorlrrd by hrtlole 3095, Vernon*0 hanotated Civil Statuter, rhall 

b allowed only after an opportunity for a pub110 hearing and only 

upon the attirmetirr rote ot at loart three aomberr ot the cOt611&8- 

8 ionerr* Court. ~poolrloall~ anowering your seoond queetlon, you 

a ro l drlord th r t it io our opinion that the Com.IooIooer8~ Court 

I8 1qgall.f euthorlrcd to 9~ an ex-offioio OOapsas~tlOD to tho 

County attornc~ ln aooordancr with thr 8tatUtO8 herototor'r mentloasd, and the County Irttorne~ 18 lo&ally psrmlttrd to retain 

hi8 t008 of ottlOe ~8 long am thr l X-OttiOIO 8a1fUy and th. fa08 

l uthorlrod by the foregoing otatute8 dO not exoord tbr maximum 

suoh County Attorney 18 permitted to rrtai.a under raid l ta tutel. 

Xn commotion with your 8eOOad qU08tlOn wo dlreot 

p o ur l ttantlon to our Oplnionr Eioo. o-1649 and O-h%. 609108 

of all th above mentioned o9lnlon8 are l nolosed hcrowith SOr 

your OoarenionOe. 

Tour8 very truly 

AWIXP 

UdOu w111iUE8 

ArOiOta!lt
|   | 1.     | Such      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending September      30, 2008, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for      the period ending September 30, 2008, fairly presents, in all      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of      China Advanced Construction Materials Group,  Inc. |

| Date:      January 23, 2009                                   |
|---------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                          |
| /s/Chin      Hsiao                                            |
| Chin      HsiaoPrincipal      Financial and AccountingOfficer |

----
#### John Wall, Plaintiff, v. The New York Edison Company, Appellant, Impleaded with Henry E. Coe, Respondent.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion. Woodward, Jenks, Hooker, Rich and Miller, JJ., concurred.
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350

I, Michael P. Scarpelli., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of
Data Domain, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2007, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Quarterly Report on Form
10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Data Domain, Inc.



|                       |  |     |  |                         
|---------------------- |  | --- |  | ------------------------
|Date: November 1, 2007 |  | By: |  | /s/ MICHAEL P. SCARPELLI
|                       |  |     |  | Michael P. Scarpelli    
|                       |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-6702

DONNIE SPELLER MOORE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District

Judge. (CA-00-237-5-BR)

Submitted: July 27, 2000 Decided: August 7, 2000

Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINS, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Donnie Speller Moore, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Donnie Speller Moore appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition. We have

reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

district court. See Moore v. United States, No. CA-00-237-5-BR

(E.D.N.C. Apr. 24, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED
#### Nolde’s Appeal.

An appeal from the action of the court discharging a rule to show cause why appellants’ bond, as trustees of The Seventh-Day Baptists of Ephrata, should not be approved, and making absolute a rule to show cause why the bond of appellees, as trustees of said society, and approving the bond of the appellants as trustees of this religious society, under the special Acts of Feb. 2i, 1814, and Feb. 10, 1865, was quashed.

May 15, 1888.

May 15, 1888.

Appeal, No. 74, Jan. 7, 1888, by Lorenz Nolde, William Madlem and David King, as trustees of the Seventh-Day Baptists of Ephrata, from the decree of O. C. Lancaster Co., discharging a rule to show cause why the bond of appellants, as such trustees, should not be approved; and at the same time approving the bonds and making absolute a rule to show cause why the bonds of A. F. Madlem, J. J. R. Zerfass and Timothy Konigmacher, appellees, as trustees of said society, should not be approved. Trunkey, J., absent.

After the election of Jan. 3, 1887, recited in the supplemental bill/ preceding case, these appellants took a rule to show cause why their bonds should not be approved. At the same time, the appellees took a similar rule for the approval of their bond. On Sept. 26, 1887, the court discharged appellants’ rule and made the rule of the appellees absolute.

*The assignments of error*specified the action of the court, 1, in discharging appellants’ rule; 2, in making absolute appellees’ rule, and in approving their bond; 3, in not decreeing appellants the duly elected trustees, and in not approving their bond.

The court did not hear argument, but counsel for appellees, in their paper-book, argued that no appeal would lie.

The Court,

Writ quashed.
#### Guiseppi Pecherella, Appellant, v. Oscar Bauer and John M. Dempsey, Copartners, Doing Business under the Firm Name and Style of Maxwell & Dempsey, Respondents.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Woodward, Hooker, Gaynor, Rich and Miller, JJ., concurred.
EXHIBIT 11.0


                                 STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS


                                                           Year Ended June 30,
                                                           ------------------
                                                           1999         1998
                                                           ----         ----
                                                          (In thousands, except
                                                             per share amount)

Net Income.............................................  $20,151     $18,729
                                                          ======      ======

Weighted average common shares outstanding.............    8,467       8,890

Basic earnings per common share........................    $2.38       $2.11
                                                            ====        ====

Weighted average common shares outstanding.............    8,467       8,890

Dilutive shares using average market value for
    the period when utilizing the treasury stock
    method regarding stock options.....................      447         535
                                                            ----        ----

Total shares for diluted earnings per share............    8,914       9,425
                                                           =====       =====

Diluted earnings per common and
    common share equivalents...........................    $2.26       $1.99
                                                            ====        ====


                                                              95
<PAGE>
#### Patrick H. McNulty and Thomas J. McNulty, Doing Business under the Firm Name and Style of McNulty Brothers, Respondents, v. Andrew J. Robinson Company and Security Mutual Life Insurance Company, Appellants.

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. 1 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________ No. 96-20611 Summary Calendar

_____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. LOUIS BERNARD DAVIS, Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

(CR H 95-235-4)

_________________________________________________________________ April 16, 1997 Before KING, JOLLY, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Louis Bernard Davis is a codefendant of Deon Tarral McDaniel, both having been charged with robbery and use of a firearm in a crime of violence. Davis also pleaded guilty and was sentenced with McDaniel. Davis appeals his guilty-plea conviction and sentence. The pertinent facts of both appeals are identical, and Davis raises essentially the same claims as2

McDaniel. We disposed of McDaniel’s claims in United States v. McDaniel , No. 96-20610, which was issued today, and for the reasons given in McDaniel , we AFFIRM Davis’s guilty-plea conviction and sentence.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Form 10-QSB
for the Quarterly Period Ended March 31, 1997 and is qualified in its entirety
by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                   JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                     MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                                22,319
<SECURITIES>                                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        145,194
<ALLOWANCES>                                               0
<INVENTORY>                                          788,322
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     958,469
<PP&E>                                               943,336
<DEPRECIATION>                                       860,815
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     1,040,990
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                742,941
<BONDS>                                            1,218,400
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                      0
<PREFERRED>                                                0
<COMMON>                                             969,994
<OTHER-SE>                                        (1,889,895)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       1,040,990
<SALES>                                              827,792
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     170,646
<CGS>                                                657,146
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        820,320
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                           0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    47,941
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                        7,472
<INCOME-TAX>                                               0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    7,472
<DISCONTINUED>                                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                            0
<CHANGES>                                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                                           7,472
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                              0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                              0
        


</TABLE>