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

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 480 Introduced in House (IH)]

                                    

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 480

  To amend the Clean Air Act to repeal the mandatory requirement for 
   State motor vehicle inspection and maintenance programs for ozone 
                          nonattainment areas.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 11, 1995

  Mr. DeLay introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                         Committee on Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Clean Air Act to repeal the mandatory requirement for 
   State motor vehicle inspection and maintenance programs for ozone 
                          nonattainment areas.

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

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF MANDATORY STATE MOTOR VEHICLE INSPECTION AND 
              MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENT.

    The Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.7401 and following) is amended as 
follows:
            (1) Section 182(a)(2)(B) is amended to read as follows:
                    ``(B) For any Marginal Area, the State may, but 
                shall not be required to, include in the applicable 
                implementation plan provisions for a vehicle inspection 
                and maintenance program.''.
            (2) Section 182(b)(4) is repealed.
            (3) Section 182(c)(3) is repealed.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.1






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 September 30, 2010 (the “Report”) by China Sports Holding Company Limited (the “Company”), I, Mendoza Anding Lin, the Chief Executive 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.




CHINA SPORTS HOLDING COMPANY LIMITEDDate: November 15, 2010
By:
/s/ Mendoza Anding LinMendoza Anding LinPresident, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman




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.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 514 Introduced in House (IH)]

  1st Session
                                H. R. 514

      To repeal the restrictions on foreign ownership of licensed 
                     telecommunications facilities.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 13, 1995

 Mr. Oxley (for himself, Mr. Boucher, Mr. Fields of Texas, Mr. Tauzin, 
 and Mr. Hastert) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                       the Committee on Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To repeal the restrictions on foreign ownership of licensed 
                     telecommunications facilities.

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

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF FOREIGN OWNERSHIP RESTRICTIONS.

    (a) Repeal.--Subsection (b) of section 310 of the Communications 
Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 310(b)) is repealed.
    (b) Conforming Amendments.--
            (1) Section 309(c)(2) of such Act (47 U.S.C. 309(c)(2)) is 
        amended--
                    (A) by striking subparagraph (B); and
                    (B) by redesignating subparagraphs (C) through (H) 
                as subparagraphs (B) through (G), respectively.
            (2) Section 309(j)(6) of such Act (47 U.S.C. 309(j)(6)) is 
        amended by striking ``sections 308(b) and 310'' and inserting 
        ``section 308(b)''.
            (3) Section 332(c) of such Act (47 U.S.C. 332(c)) is 
        amended by striking paragraph (6).
                                 <all>
```
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 27, 2021

No. 04-20-00569-CV

CITY OF SAN ANTONIO BY AND THROUGH THE SAN ANTONIO WATER 

SYSTEM,

Appellant

v.

CAMPBELLTON ROAD, LTD.,

Appellee

From the 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2020-CI-13949

Honorable John D. Gabriel, Jr., Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant’s second motion for an extension of time to file its brief is GRANTED. 

Appellant’s brief is due on or before February 10, 2021.

_________________________________

Irene Rios, Justice

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

court on this 27th day of January, 2021.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court

FILE COPY
**Exhibit
      3.15**





**CERTIFICATE
      OF AMENDMENT**


**OF**


**CERTIFICATE
      OF INCORPORATION**


**OF**


**ORBIT
      BRANDS CORPORATION**





ORBIT
      BRANDS CORPORATION, a corporation organized and existing under the General
      Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (the “Corporation”), hereby certifies
      as follows:




(a)
      That
      the Corporation duly convened a meeting of shareholders holding greater than
      51%
      of the issued and outstanding shares of the Corporation’s common stock under
      Delaware General Law 228, which provides for written notice in lieu of an annual
      shareholders meeting, to consider and authorize an increase in the number of
      shares of the Corporation’s common stock and an increase in the number of shares
      of the Corporation’s Series A super majority voting preferred
      stock.





(b)
      That
      the Corporation’s Board of Directors at a meeting duly convened and held,
      thereupon adopted the following resolution:





**RESOLVED,** that
      the
      Corporation’s shareholders and Board of Directors hereby declare it advisable
      and in the best interests of the Corporation that the Corporation’s Certificate
      of Incorporation be amended to read as follows:





*The
      first sentence of Article IV of the Corporation’s Certificate of Incorporation,
      as amended, would be deleted in its entirety, and the following sentence
      substituted in lieu thereof, all other provisions of Article IV to remain
      unchanged* :





ARTICLE
      IV





**CAPITAL
      STOCK**





The
      total
      number of shares of stock that this Corporation shall have the authority to
      issue is (i) Five Billion (5,000,000,000) shares of Common Stock, $.001 par
      value per share (“Common Stock”), and (ii) Ten Million (10,000,000) shares of
      Preferred Stock, $.001 par value per share (“Preferred Stock”).









(c)
      That
      the aforesaid amendment has been consented to and authorized by the holders
      of a
      majority of the issued and outstanding stock entitled to vote pursuant to
      Section 228 of the General Corporation Law of the State of
      Delaware.





(d)
      That
      the aforesaid amendment was duly adopted pursuant to the applicable provisions
      of Sections 222 and 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State of
      Delaware.




**IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF,** the
      Corporation has caused this Certificate of Amendment to be executed by Joseph
      R.
      Cellura, this 6 th day of
      December, 2004.




Joseph
                R. CelluraChairman
                and Chief Executive Officer
                Authorized
                  Officer
                  Series
                    A Super Majority Voting Preferred
                    Shareholder
EXHIBIT 23.1
------------






                          CONSENT OF KPMG LLP





The Board of Trustees
AMLI Residential Properties Trust:


We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements
(Nos. 333-74300 and 333-70076) on Form S-3 of AMLI Residential Properties
Trust of our report dated February 4, 2002, relating to the consolidated
balance sheets of AMLI Residential Properties Trust as of December 31, 2001
and 2000, and the related consolidated statements of operations,
shareholders' equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year
period ended December 31, 2001, and the related schedule, which report
appears in the December 31, 2001 annual report on Form 10-K of AMLI
Residential Properties Trust.

The audit report covering the December 31, 2001 consolidated financial
statements contains an explanatory paragraph that states that the Company
has restated its previously issued Consolidated Balance Sheet and
Consolidated Statements of Shareholders' Equity to reflect its Series B
Preferred shares outside of its permanent equity for all prior periods
presented.








                              KPMG LLP



Chicago, Illinois
March 22, 2002
March 25, 1975

The Honorable Preston Stevens Wheeler County Attorney P. 0. Box 571 Shamrock. Texas 79079 Opinion No. H- 564 Re: The authority of a county to redistrict justice of the peace precincts Dear Mr. Stevens: You have asked whether the commissioners court may create a new justice of the peace precinct out of a portion of an existing precinct and appoint a person to fill the new office thus created. It is well established thata county commissioners.court inay divide justice ofthe peace precincts “from time to time, for the convenience of the people. ” Tex. Const., art. 5, sec. 18; Williams v. Castleman, 247 S.W. 263 (Tex.Sup. 1922); State ex rel Dowlen v. Ripsby, 43 S.W. 271 (Tex. Civ.App. 1897), writ denied, “correctly de~cided,” 42~s. W. 1101 (Tex. Sup. 1897); Attorney Genera1 Opinion ML1176 (1972). The office ofjustice pf the peace,in a newly created precinct’is vacant when it comes into being, Article 5, section 18of ‘the Texas Constitution authorizes the commissioners court to fill vacancies in the office ofjustice of the peace. This constitutional authority has been recognized as applicable to filling the office ofjustice of the peaces in a newly created precinct. Williams v, Castleman, BUP~B;State ex rel Dowlen v. Rigsby. supra; Attorney General Opinion M-1176 (1972). We answer your question in the affirmative,’ provided thatthe proposed change is notintended to affect the incumbent justice of the peace except by changing the boundaries of his precinct. We have held.thatjustices ofthe peace who have been elected to a full term are entitled to serve thatterm andthat a redistricting of their precincts ,bythe commissioners court resulting in ajustice notliving inhis precinct does’not vacate his’office. Attorney General Opinion H-220 (1974). See also Childress County v. Sachse. 310 S. W. 2d 414 (Tex. Civ. APP. -- Amarillo 1958); holding approved per curiam 312 S.W. 2d 380 (Tex. Sup. 1958); McGuire v. Hughes, 452 S.W. 2d 29 (Tex. Civ. App. --Dallas 1970, nowrit); Harris County Commissioners Court v. Moore; 43 U.S. L. W. 4222 (U.S. Feb. 18, 1975). reversing and remanding, 378 F. Supp. 1006 (S. D. Tex. 1974) (,3judge ct. ). ~~2534The Honorable Preston Stevens, page 2 U-I- 564)

SUMMARY The commissioners court may create an entirely newjustice of the peace precinct from an existing precinct andmay fill by appointment the vacancy in ‘~ the office created, provided that the incumbent’s term of office is not affected. Very truly yours,

Attorney General of Texas APPROVED:

DAVID M. KENDALL, First Assistant

C. ROBERT HEATH, Chairman Opinion Committee

p. 2535
180 La. 108

#### BACHER v. ALBERT et al.

No. 31979.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

July 2, 1934.

Walter G. Wedig, of New Orleans, for appellant.

Sidney Herold, of Shreveport, and Terri-berry, Young, Rault & Carroll, Edward Right- or, St. Clair Adams, Harry F. McCall, Charles J. Rivet, Legier, McEnerny & Waguespaek, George Dreyfous, Montgomery & Montgomery, Harry F. Stiles, Jr., Racivitch & Hickerson, Philip Gidiere,- Merrick, Schwarz, Guste, Barnett & Redmann, Morris LeCompte, Dart & Dart, Borah & Bloch, Harvey Peltier, Guión & Upton, and Henry & Cooper, all of New Orleans, for appellees.

LAND, Justice.

This is a suit by plaintiff against the directors, officers, and members of the executive committee of the board of directors of the Mortgage & Securities Company, a Louisiana corporation, to recover the sum of $3,017.50, with interest at the rate of 5 per cent, per an-num from July 31, 1929, until paid, and for all costs of suit.

Plaintiff seeks recovery against the directors of the corporation dealing in securities to recover loss on his part of money deposited for the purchase of bonds by reason of the corporation’s insolvency.

An exception of no cause of action filed by defendants was sustained in the court below, and plaintiff has appealed.

Appellant’s case is identical with the case of Wirth v. Albert, decided by this court in 174 La. 373, 141 So. 1. He was buying the same security as Wirth bought, and he received the same type of interim certificate. A comparison of the allegations of his petition with the petition in the Wirth Case will show that the cause of action is the same. In the Wirth Case we held that a corporate creditor has no right of action against the corporation’s agents for negligence or maladministration of corporate affairs, but that corporate officers guilty of misfeasance or nonfeasance are responsible only to the corporation itself.

Judgment affirmed.
Exhibit 31.2

Certification of Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, James E. Woys, certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Health Net, Inc. (Amendment No. 1);
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Based on my knowledge, this Amendment No. 1 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 Amendment No. 1.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                    |  |                                                                                       
|------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 2, 2015 |  | /s/ James E. Woys                                                                     
|                    |  | James E. Woys                                                                         
|                    |  | Executive Vice President, Chief Financial and Operating Officer, and Interim Treasurer
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 532

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide an inflation adjustment for the amount of the maximum benefit under the special estate

tax valuation rules for certain farm, etc., real property.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 17, 1995

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

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide

an inflation adjustment for the amount of the maximum

benefit under the special estate tax valuation rules for

certain farm, etc., real property.

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

3 SECTION 1. INFLATION ADJUSTMENT OF MAXIMUM BENE4 FIT UNDER SPECIAL ESTATE TAX VALUATION

5 RULES FOR CERTAIN FARM, ETC., REAL

6 PROPERTY.

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (2) of section

8 2032A(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating
2

•HR 532 IH

1 to limitation on aggregate reduction in fair market value)

2 is amended to read as follows:

3 ‘‘(2) LIMITATION ON AGGREGATE REDUCTION

4 IN FAIR MARKET VALUE.—

5 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The aggregate de6 crease in the value of qualified real property

7 taken into account for purposes of this chapter

8 which results from the application of paragraph

9 (1) with respect to any decedent shall not ex10 ceed $750,000.

11 ‘‘(B) INFLATION ADJUSTMENT.—In the

12 case of estates of decedents dying in a calendar

13 year after 1994, the $750,000 amount set forth

14 in subparagraph (A) shall be increased by an

15 amount equal to—

16 ‘‘(i) $750,000, multiplied by

17 ‘‘(ii) the cost-of-living adjustment de18 termined under section 1(f)(3) for such

19 calendar year.

20 Any increase determined under the preceding sen21 tence shall be rounded to the nearest multiple of

22 $1,000.’’
3

•HR 532 IH

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

2 subsection (a) shall apply to estates of decedents dying

3 after December 31, 1994.

Æ
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

               CERTIFICATION BY THE PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF
                          SIGMATRON INTERNATIONAL, INC.
              PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14(B) UNDER THE EXCHANGE ACT AND
         SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

          I, Gary R. Fairhead, am President and Chief Executive Officer of
SigmaTron International, Inc. (the "Company").

          This certification is being furnished pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act") and 18
U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, in connection with the filing of the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K
for the year ended April 30, 2006 (the "Report").

          I hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge:

          (a) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
          or 15(d) of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78 m(a) or 78o(d)); and

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

Date: July 27, 2006


                                        /s/ Gary R. Fairhead
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Gary R. Fairhead
                                        President and Chief Executive Officer of
                                        SigmaTron International, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-10838

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Joe Lewis Finley, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:03-CR-18-1

Before Smith, Stewart, and Graves, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Joe Lewis Finley, federal prisoner # 30231-177, appeals the district 

court’s denial of his motion for a reduction in sentence under Section 404 of 

the First Step Act of 2018 (First Step Act). The district court concluded that 

Finley was eligible for a reduction but exercised its discretion and denied the 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit 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 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 4, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-10838 Document: 00515964925 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/04/2021
No. 20-10838

2

motion “after considering the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, 

including [his] criminal history, public safety issues, offense conduct or 

relevant conduct, and the post-sentencing conduct.”

Finley argues that the district court committed a procedural error by 

failing to adequately explain its reasons for denying him the sentence 

reduction available to him under the First Step Act. He asserts that the 

district court’s brief explanation did not provide a record to which we could 

apply meaningful appellate review. However, as Finley concedes, his claim 

is foreclosed by our caselaw. See United States v. Batiste, 980 F.3d 466, 479 

(5th Cir. 2020). 

The Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary 

affirmance and, in the alternative, requests an extension of time to file its 

brief. Because Finley concedes that the issue asserted on appeal is

foreclosed, summary affirmance is proper. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. 

Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969).

Thus, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is 

GRANTED, the Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time 

to file a brief is DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 20-10838 Document: 00515964925 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/04/2021