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

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4317

Relating to disposal of contaminated dredged materials in the Port of New

York-New Jersey.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 28, 1996

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

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

A BILL

Relating to disposal of contaminated dredged materials in

the Port of New York-New Jersey.

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

3 SECTION 1. CONSTRUCTION OF SUBAQUEOUS BORROW

4 PITS.

5 The Secretary of the Army shall construct subaque6 ous borrow pits in Newark Bay, Port of New York-New

7 Jersey, for the purpose of disposing of dredged materials

8 from the Port that are not eligible for open water disposal.
2

•HR 4317 IH

1 SEC. 2. SELECTION OF SEDIMENT DECONTAMINATION

2 METHOD.

3 The Secretary of the Army shall expedite the selec4 tion of a method for sediment decontamination for pur5 poses of long-term disposal of sediments dredged from the

6 Port of New York-New Jersey.

7 SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN

8 SEDIMENT CONTAINMENT ISLANDS.

9 The Secretary of the Army may not construct sedi10 ment containment islands in the Port of New York-New

11 Jersey if such construction would result in the loss of

12 shellfish or other fisheries habitat.

13 SEC. 4. LIMITATION ON DESIGNATION OF UPLAND DIS14 POSAL SITES.

15 If the Secretary of the Army determines that upland

16 disposal of dredged material is necessary in the Port of

17 New York-New Jersey, the site of such disposal shall be

18 designated within close proximity of the actual dredging

19 site.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           8,458
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                18,458
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  18,458
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,214,742
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       434,384
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,630,668)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    18,458
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  456,644
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (10,566)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (446,078)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       900
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (446,978)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (446,978)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.11)


</TABLE>
**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 1st Home
        Buy &
Sell Ltd. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31,
        2007 as
        filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
        "Report"), I, Daniel L. Baxter, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
        as
        adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my
        knowledge:
 
 (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.
  /s/ 
                  Daniel L. BaxterDaniel
                  L. Baxter
                Principal
                  Executive Officer
                August
                  29, 2007
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 157 (Wednesday, August 13, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 47250]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-18827]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 6318]


Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Martin Kippenberger: The Problem Perspective''

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236 
of October 19, 1999, as amended, and Delegation of Authority No. 257 of 
April 15, 2003 [68 FR 19875], I hereby determine that the objects to be 
included in the exhibition ``Martin Kippenberger: The Problem 
Perspective,'' imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the 
United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported 
pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I 
also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at 
the Museum of Contemporary Art, Los Angeles, CA, from on or about 
September 21, 2008, until on or about January 5, 2009; at the Museum of 
Modern Art, New York, NY, from on or about March 1, 2009, until on or 
about May 11, 2009; and at possible additional exhibitions or venues 
yet to be determined, is in the national interest. Public Notice of 
these Determinations is ordered to be published in the Federal 
Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the exhibit objects, contact Carol B. Epstein, Attorney-
Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State 
(telephone: 202/453-8048). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-
44, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001.

    Dated: August 8, 2008.
C. Miller Crouch,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural 
Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. E8-18827 Filed 8-12-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
#### Robert Welch v. State

No. 25667.

January 23, 1952.

Hon. Walter S. Pope, Judge Presiding.

No attorney for appellant of record on appeal.

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

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant was convicted for the sale of four cans of beer under a complaint alleging it to be an alcoholic beverage containing alcohol in excess of one-half of one per cent by volume. He was fined $500.00.

*612An inspector for the Texas Liquor Control Board appeared at appellant’s place and was present when officers came to raid it. He went away and returned later and asked appellant if he still had any beer. Apparently he had not identified himself as an officer when he first called. Appellant told him he had none just then but he would have in a few minutes. The witness waited until a brother of appellant appeared with a supply of beer to replenish the stock that had been confiscated by the officers.

Appellant testified in his own behalf and presented his brother as a witness who said that he was present when the state’s witness came to the place but both declared that no sale was made to him of any beer. The jury found in favor of the state, against the appellant.

Contention is made that the evidence was insufficient to show that the beer contained the alcoholic content it is alleged to have had. The evidence, as we find it, sufficiently supports the allegation — even if the law were as contended by appellant. It is not necessary to discuss the contention because it is without support and further discussion would add nothing to' the jurisprudence of the state.

We find no reversible error in the trial of the case and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
#### CHAMBERS v. HENRY.

No. 14244.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

May 30, 1932.

A. G. Williams, of New Orleans, for appellant.

Borris Burk and W. J. & H. W. Wagues-pack, all of New Orleans, for appellee.

JANVIER, J.

Appellee suggests that this appeal should be dismissed because of the absence from the transcript, or record of appeal, of all .the evi- ■ dence adduced on the trial below.

We have no means of knowing what evidence was introduced in the district court, but we assume that there must have been evidence of some kind, and an examination of the record filed in this court discloses none.

However, it does not follow that the appeal must be dismissed, since article 898 of the Code of Practice provides that, even “at the time of argument,” appellant may, if he “perceives that the copy of the record is incomplete,” obtain “a reasonable time to correct such errors or omissions, during which time judgment on the appeal shall be suspended.”

The article contains the proviso that such permission shall be granted only if the omission or irregularity is not chargeable to “any act of the appellant,” and we are not unmindful of the difficulty of exonerating from fault in this regard an appella'nt Who has filed in the appellate court a record from which the entire evidence is absent. Still it is well settled that such omission is not chargeable to appellant, unless the transcript was compiled under the supervision of his counsel (Torres v. Falgoust, 35 La. Ann. 819; Hoover’s Heirs v. York, 33 La. Ann. 653; Morrison v. Lynch, 36 La. Ann. 611), or unless the missing evidence was omitted under order of appellant’s counsel (Smith v. Orleans R. Co. et al., 35 La. Ann. 559; Clarke & Co. v. Gormley, 16 La. Ann. 40; Harris v. Hays, 8 La. Ann. 433; City of Baton Rouge v. Cremonini, 35 La. Ann. 367; Charbonnet v. Dupasseur et al., 27 La. Ann. 105; Hall v. Beggs et al., 17 La. Ann. 130).

In a large number of cases it has been held that motions to dismiss on the ground here urged should not be sustained, even where the omission is apparent on even a superficial examination.

Por instance, in Harvey v. Harvey, 44 La. Ann. 80, 10 So. 410, the transcript did not contain “many of the most important documents filed in and used by the lower court. • * 3⁄8» Appellant was permitted to -supply by certiorari the omissions. Furthermore, it has been held that the article of the Code affords to the appellee, who complains that the transcript is deficient, the right by cer-tiorari to himself complete the transcript.

This same right is given by Act No. 229 of 1910, as amended by Act No. 265 of 1918, which acts provide that the transcript may be made up in a particular way. So that, whether this appeal was taken and the transcript prepared in accordance with the Codal provisions, or in accordance with the statutes to which we have referred, appellee could himself have completed the transcript.

In any event, the motion' to dismiss on this ground cannot be sustained at this time.

The motion to dismiss the appeal is denied.

Motion to dismiss denied.
#### Lacie Cohron v. State.

No. 25333.

October 10, 1951.

*332Hon. D. D. Williams, Judge Presiding.

No attorney for appellant of record on appeal.

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

WOODLEY, Judge.

The conviction is for adultery. The punishment, a fine of $500.

The female named in the indictment was placed on the stand by the state and denied that the offense had been committed. The state then introduced a statement made by her to the grand jury wherein she swore to an adulterous relationship with appellant.

The statement made to the grand jury was hearsay and was not competent evidence to establish the facts therein stated. See Branch’s Crim. Law, Sec. 866, p. 548; Rice v. State, 135 Tex. Cr. R. 390, 120 S.W. (2d) 588.

The state’s proof consists solely of the confession of appellant and is therefore insufficient to sustain the conviction. See Watson v. State, 154 Tex. Cr. R. 438, 227 S.W. (2d) 559.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Opinion approved by the court.
#### McBride v. Succession of McBride.

No. 5147.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

March 2, 1936.

Cas Moss, of Winnfield, for appellant.

W. E. McBride, of Ruston, for appellee.

*149TALIAFERRO, Judge.

The appeal in this case was taken by George Cleveland McBride from an adverse judgment rendered on trial of his and other oppositions to the final account of A. E. McBride, administrator of the succession of Mrs. Sarah A. McBride, deceased. When the case was reached for argument, counsel for appellant announced to the court that since this appeal had been perfected, appellant had died. He requested that the appeal be dismissed, and counsel of appellee consenting thereto, it is so ordered.

Appeal dismissed.
#### BRIGHT & COMPANY, et al. v. Henry R. HAMMAN, et al.

No. 96-0736.

Supreme Court of Texas.

Feb. 13, 1997.

Prior report: Tex.App., 924 S.W.2d 168.

The motion to remand in aid of settlement is granted. The applications for writ of error are granted without reference to the merits and the judgment of the courts below are vacated without reference to the merits. The cause is remanded to the trial court for entry of judgment in accordance with the settlement agreement of the parties.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 22
- 0326 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. ROBERT EARL SNYDER,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including August 15, 2023 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 19 2023

07/19/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0326
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,

J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk March 23, 2009

0316 

# Order

March 23, 2009

138035

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 138035 COA: 288078 Saginaw CC: 05-026815-FC CHRISTOPHER BEAU STEUDLE, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the November 13, 2008 order of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6432

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

LORRAINE BLACKWELL LEWIS, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, 

District Judge. (1:12-cr-00316-TDS-1) 

Submitted: July 15, 2013 Decided: July 24, 2013

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Lorraine Blackwell Lewis, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2

PER CURIAM: 

Lorraine Blackwell Lewis seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying her self-styled “Writ of Habeus [sic] 

Corpus for Evidenciary [sic] Hearing” for lack of jurisdiction. 

We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the 

notice of appeal was not timely filed. 

Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of 

the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, 

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends 

the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the 

appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely 

filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional 

requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). 

The district court’s order was entered on the docket 

on November 1, 2012. The notice of appeal was filed on 

March 19, 2013. Because Lewis failed to file a timely notice of 

appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal 

period, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

in the materials before this court and argument would not aid 

the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
----

----

|   | 1. | I      have reviewed this report on Form 10-QSB/A of Oldwebsites.com,      Inc. |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 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 small      business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this      report; |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 4. | The      small business issuer’s other certifying officers 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)) for the small      business issuer and have: |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

| March      10, 2008 | /s/      Richard Ivanovick      |
|---------------------|----------------------------------------------------------|
|                | Richard      Ivanovick                                   |
|                | Chief      Financial Officer                             |

----
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

April 13, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

129573 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

DANA CORPORATION, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 129573 

 COA: 255984 

Ct of Claims: 04-000035-MT 

DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY,

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 18, 2005 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

CAVANAGH, J., would grant leave to appeal. 

l0406 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

April 13, 2006 

Clerk
Exhibit 32.1




CERTIFICATION




In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Stratasys, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, S. Scott Crump, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, 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.




Date: March 8, 2011
/s/ S. SCOTT CRUMPS. Scott CrumpChief Executive Officer


---