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

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 680 Placed on Calendar Senate (PCS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 232
104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 680

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           November 14, 1995

            Received; read twice and placed on the calendar

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To extend the time for construction of certain FERC licensed hydro 
                               projects.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION.

    Notwithstanding the limitations of section 13 of the Federal Power 
Act, the Federal Energy Regulatory Com-
mission, upon the request of the licensee or licensees for FERC 
projects numbered 4244 and 10648 (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 each of such projects for up to a 
maximum of 3 consecutive 2-year periods. This section shall take effect 
for the projects upon the expiration of the extension (issued by the 
Commission under such section 13) of the period required for 
commencement of construction of each such project.

            Passed the House of Representatives November 13, 1995.

            Attest:

                                                ROBIN H. CARLE,

                                                                 Clerk.
                                     

                                                       Calendar No. 232

104th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 680

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

  To extend the time for construction of certain FERC licensed hydro 
                               projects.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           November 14, 1995

            Received; read twice and placed on the calendar
```
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 863

To amend the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949

to authorize the transfer to States of surplus personal property for

donation to nonprofit providers of necessaries to impoverished families

and individuals.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 8, 1995

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

Committee on Government Reform and Oversight

A BILL

To amend the Federal Property and Administrative Services

Act of 1949 to authorize the transfer to States of surplus

personal property for donation to nonprofit providers

of necessaries to impoverished families and individuals.

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

3 SECTION 1. TRANSFER OF SURPLUS PERSONAL PROPERTY

4 FOR DONATION TO PROVIDERS OF NEC5 ESSARIES TO IMPOVERISHED FAMILIES AND

6 INDIVIDUALS.

7 Section 203(j)(3)(B) of the Federal Property and Ad8 ministrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C.
2

•HR 863 IH

1 484(j)(3)(B)) is amended by inserting after ‘‘homeless in2 dividuals’’ the following: ‘‘, providers of assistance to fami3 lies or individuals whose annual incomes are below the

4 poverty line (as that term is defined in section 673 of the

5 Community Services Block Grant Act),’’.

Æ
V

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 812

For the relief of William P. Van Keymeulen.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 2, 1995

Mrs. VUCANOVICH introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

For the relief of William P. Van Keymeulen.

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

3 SECTION 1. WAIVER OF CERTAIN NATURALIZATION RE4 QUIREMENTS FOR WILLIAM P. VAN

5 KEYMEULEN.

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding the inability of

7 William P. Van Keymeulen to meet the requirements of

8 section 316 of the Immigration and Nationality Act that

9 relate to residence and physical presence in the United

10 States, he shall be deemed eligible for naturalization upon

11 the filing of the appropriate application if otherwise quali12 fied for naturalization under such Act.
2

•HR 812 IH

1 (b) DEADLINE FOR APPLICATION AND PAYMENT OF

2 FEES.—Subsection (a) shall apply only if the application

3 for naturalization is filed with appropriate fees within 2

4 years after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
Dismissed and Opinion Filed May 3, 2021

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-86-01220-CV

LONGORIA INDUSTRIES, INC., Appellant

V.

LEOPARD GARLAND, LTD., Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-86-5289-D

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Osborne, Pedersen, III, and Nowell

Opinion by Justice Osborne

We reinstate this appeal. This case was abated in 1987 due to bankruptcy. See 

TEX.R. APP. P. 8.2. The Court conducted an independent review of the federal Public 

Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system; however, nothing on that 

system indicated that a bankruptcy case was still pending.

We then notified the parties by letter, requesting they inform the Court of the 

status of the bankruptcy and of this appeal. We cautioned that the failure to respond 

would result in the appeal being dismissed for want of prosecution. See id. 

42.3(b),(c). To date, neither party has responded.
–2–

Because we gave the parties an opportunity to show why we should not 

dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution and no one responded, we dismiss the 

appeal. See id. 42.3(b),(c).

861220f.p05

/Leslie Osborne/

LESLIE OSBORNE

JUSTICE
–3–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

LONGORIA INDUSTRIES, INC., 

Appellant

No. 05-86-01220-CV V.

LEOPARD GARLAND, LTD., 

Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at 

Law No. 4, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-86-5289-

D.

Opinion delivered by Justice 

Osborne. Justices Pedersen, III and 

Nowell participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is 

DISMISSED.

Judgment entered this 3rd day of May, 2021.
<PAGE>

                                  Exhibit 24.2

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY

KNOWN ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENT, that the undersigned, Kenneth T. Friedman,
constitutes and appoints Yehoram Uziel and Robert E. Kassel, or either of them,
his true and lawful attorneys-in-fact and agents, each with full power of
substitution and resubstitution, for him and in his name, place and stead, in
any and all capacities, to sign the Form 10-KSB, Annual Report of Soligen
Technologies, Inc., a Wyoming Corporation, for the fiscal year ended March 31,
1998, and any amendments or supplements thereto, and to file this Power of
Attorney and the Form 10-KSB, with all exhibits thereto, and other documents in
connection therewith with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the
Superintendent of the British Columbia Securities Commission, the American Stock
Exchange and the Vancouver Stock Exchange, granting unto each of said
attorneys-in-fact and agents full power and authority to do and perform each and
every act and thing requisite and necessary to be done in and about the
premises, as fully to all intents and purposes as he might or could do in
person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that each of said attorneys-fact and
agents, or his substitutes, may do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

           Dated this       19th       day of June 1998
                       ---------------


Signature




/s/ Kenneth T. Friedman
-----------------------------------
Kenneth T. Friedman, Director
J

- S15025

- 19

____________________________________ * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. NON - PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.
LESLIE CRAIG ARNOLD, JR.

Appellant : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 1070 WDA 2018 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered June 20, 2018 In the Court of Common Pleas of Jefferson County Criminal Division at

No(s): CP

- 33

- CR

- 0000317

- 2009, CP

- 33

- CR

- 0000318

- 2009

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J.E., SHOGAN, J., and COLINS*, J. JUDGMENT ORDER BY SHOGAN, J.: FILED MAY 17, 2019 Leslie Craig Arnold, Jr. (“Appellant”) appeals from the judgment of sentence entered following the revocation of his probation. Additionally, appellate counsel has filed a petition for leave to withdraw his representation pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Commonwealth v. Santiago , 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009). Upon review, we quash the appeal and dismiss counsel’s petition

. Appellant violated Pa .R.A.P. 341 by filing a single notice of appeal on July 19, 2018 , that included two court docket numbers, CP

- 33

- CR

- 0000317

- 2009 and CP

- 3 3

- CR

- 0000318

- 20 09

. See Pa.R.A.P. 341, Note (“Where

. . . one or more orders resolve issues arising on more than one docket or relating to more than one judgment, separate notices of appeal must be filed.” ). We issued a rule to show cause why this appeal should not beJ

- S15025

- 19

- 2

-

quashe d. Rule to Show Cause, 8/14/18. Appellate counsel filed a response indicating that counsel’s error was due to his own inadvertence and not caused by Appellant’s conduct. Reply to Rule to Show Cause , 8/24/18, at ¶ 4

. Counsel averred that he had previously filed multiple appeals of lower court dockets through a single notice of appeal and that this Court allowed those appeal s to proceed as filed. Id. at ¶ 6

. Counsel requested permission to file nunc pro tunc notice s of appeal. Id. at 5 . We discharged the rule to show cause on August 27, 2018, and took no action on counsel’s request because it was not made through an application for re l ief pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 123. O ur Supreme Court held o n June 1, 2018, that pro spectively, “when a single order resolves issues arising on more than one lower court docket, separate notices of appeal must be filed. The failure to do so will result in quashal of the appeal.” Commonwealth v. Walker , 185 A.3d 969, 977 (Pa. 2018). Bec ause Appellant’s non

- compliant notice of appeal was filed after the date of the Walker decision, w e are constrained to quash the appeal. Accord Commonwealth v. Williams , ___ A.3d ___ 2019 PA Super 81 (Pa. Super. filed March 20, 2019) (quashing appeal wher e appellant filed a single notice of appeal containing multiple docket numbers on June 5, 2018, just four days after the Walker decision). We quash without prejudice to Appellant’s right to seek collateral relief. Appeal quashed. Petition for leave to withdraw dismissed. Jurisdiction relinquished.J

- S15025

- 19

- 3

-

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 5/17/2019
1998 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

4-22-1998

Hudson United Bank v. Litenda Mtg Corp

Precedential or Non-Precedential:

Docket 97-5074

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_1998

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 1998 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Hudson United Bank v. Litenda Mtg Corp" (1998). 1998 Decisions. Paper 85.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_1998/85
 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

 FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

 No. 97-5074 

 Hudson United Bank v. LiTenda Mortgage 

 The following modifications have been made to the Court's 

opinion issued on April 15, 1998 in the above-entitled appeal and 

will appear as part of the final version of the opinion: 

 

1) On page 6 of the slip opinion, the first full paragraph, third line: 

the ";" should be replaced 

with a ":", that is, the semi-colon should be a colon. 

2) Page 7, second full paragraph, 5th line at the end: "not under 

1447(d)" should be "not under 

 1447(c)", that is, the (d) should be a (c). 

3) On page 10, third line, "as tool" should be replaced with "as a tool". 

4) On page 10, end of the first paragaph, just before subsection B, remove 

the comma before "a 

nonreviewable one" so the last line reads: "inappropriate a nonreviewable 

one." 

5) Page 12, 1st full paragraph, 1st word, replace "By" with "In", so the 

line starts off, "In 

contrast". 

 /s/ P. Douglas Sisk, 

 Clerk 

April 22, 1998
Exhibit



Exhibit 4.5





VONAGE HOLDINGS CORP.
DESCRIPTION OF SECURITIES


DESCRIPTION OF COMMON STOCK
The common stock of Vonage Holdings Corp. (“Vonage”) is listed on the Nasdaq Global Select Market under the symbol “VG.” All outstanding shares of common stock are validly issued, fully paid, and non-assessable.


The following description of the terms of our common stock is not complete and is qualified in its entirety by reference to our Restated Certificate of Incorporation, as amended (the “Certificate of Incorporation”), and our Amended and Restated By-laws (the “Bylaws”), both of which are exhibits to our Annual Reports on Form 10-K and Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q.


Voting Rights


The holders of the Common Stock have voting rights at all meetings of stockholders, each such holder being entitled to one vote for each share thereof held by such holder, subject to the preferences applicable to any shares of preferred stock. There is no provision for cumulative voting. 


Dividend and Liquidation Rights


Subject to the preferences applicable to any shares of preferred stock outstanding at any time, holders of our common stock are entitled to receive dividends when, as, and if declared by our board of directors from funds legally available therefor.


Other Rights


The holders of our common stock have no preemptive rights and no rights to convert their common stock into any other securities, and our common stock is not subject to any redemption or sinking fund provisions.


Anti-Takeover Provisions of our Certificate of Incorporation, Bylaws, and Delaware Law


Various provisions contained in our Certificate of Incorporation, our Bylaws, and Delaware law could delay or discourage some transactions involving an actual or potential change in control of Vonage or its management. 


Certificate of Incorporation and Bylaws


Provisions in our Certificate of Incorporation and our Bylaws:


		
	•
	authorize our board of directors to establish one or more series of any class or classes of our stock, the terms of which can be determined by the board of directors at the time of issuance;


		
	•
	do not authorize cumulative voting;


		
	•
	establish a classified board structure until the annual meeting of stockholders in 2021;


		
	•
	allow our directors to fill any vacancies on our board of directors, including vacancies resulting from a board of directors resolution to increase the number of directors; and


		
	•
	require that stockholders wishing to nominate persons for election to our Board of Directors at an annual meeting or to propose any business to be considered by our stockholders at an annual meeting must comply with certain advance notice and other requirements set forth in our bylaws.
18405.

#### Alexander *et al. v.*Davis *et al.*

Submitted November 10, 1953

Decided January 12, 1954.

*Marson G. Dunaway, Jr.,*for plaintiffs in error.

*J. Milton Grubbs, Jr., Don B. Howe, Harold Murphy,*contra.

Hawkins, Justice.

The exception here is to the dismissal of the plaintiff’s suit on motion of counsel for the defendants, that the court was without jurisdiction since none of the defendants was a resident of Polk County when the suit was filed and there was no waiver of jurisdiction. The allegation of the petition was that two of the defendants were nonresidents, but that the third defendant was a resident of Polk County. A general demurrer and answer were filed, and the answer denied all the paragraphs of the petition. The evidence during the trial showed without contradiction that none of these defendants was a resident of Polk County at the time the suit was filed. *Held:*

The filing of the demurrer and answer here without questioning the jurisdiction is pleading to the merits within the rule that one pleading to the merits without excepting to the jurisdiction of the court waives any objection to jurisdiction of his person. Code § 81-503; *Berry*v. Watk*ins,*158 *Ga.*304 (123 S. E. 102); Waters v. *Waters,*167 *Ga.*389 (145 S. E. 460); *Hudgins Contracting Co.*v. *Redmond,*178 *Ga.*317 (173 S. E. 135); *Black*v. *Milner Hotels,*194 *Ga.*828 (22 S. E. 2d 780); *Gates*v. *Shaner,*208 *Ga.*454 (67 S. E. 2d 569). The defendants having thus waived jurisdiction, the court erred in dismissing the suit on the basis that there was no jurisdiction of the defendants and no waiver thereof.

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Duckworth, C. J., not participating.*
Exhibit 10.6
                                                                    ------------


                   CIT Commercial Services            T: 212 382-7000
                   1211 Avenue of the Americas
                   New York, NY 10036


CIT [GRAPHIC OMITTED]                                 May 13, 2003


Blumenthal/Lansing Company LLC
1 Palmer Terrace
Carlstadt, NJ 07072

Ladies and Gentlemen:

We refer to the Accounts Receivable Financing Agreement between us dated January
24, 2002, as amended and supplemented (the "Agreement"). Capitalized terms used
herein and not defined herein shall have the same meanings as set forth in the
Agreement.

This letter shall confirm that pursuant to mutual consent and understanding,
effective as of the even date herewith, the first sentence in Section 9.1 of the
Agreement shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:

"Upon acceptance by us, this Agreement shall become effective as of January 24,
2002 and shall continue in full force and effect until August 31, 2004 (the
"Initial Term"), and from year to year thereafter, unless sooner terminated as
herein provided."

To compensate us for the use of our in-house legal department and facilities in
documenting this amendment, you hereby agree to pay us a Documentation Fee equal
to $135.00. Said amount shall be due and payable upon the date hereof and may be
changed by us, at our option, to your account under the Agreement on the due
date thereof.

Except as herein specifically provided, the Agreement remains in full force and
effect in accordance with its terms and no other changes in the terms or
provisions of the Agreement is intended or implied. If you are in agreement with
the foregoing, please so indicate by signing and returning to us the enclosed
copy of this letter.

                                       Very truly yours,

                                       THE CIT GROUP/COMMERCIAL SERVICES, INC.

                                       By: /s/ ANTHONY MONTEMARANO
                                           -----------------------
                                       Name:   Anthony Montemarano
                                       Title:  Vice President
<PAGE>

Read and Agreed to:
BLUMENTHAL/LANSING COMPANY LLC

By: /s/ ROBERT A. LEVINSON
    ----------------------
Name:   Robert A. Levinson
Title:  Chairman



                                        2
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 19-0683

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

LYNDSEY MAE LALICKER,

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 July 29, 2020, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

June 22 2020

06/22/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0683
EXHIBIT 99.4


                            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 IGEN  International,  Inc.  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-K for the fiscal  year ended March 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  the
undersigned,  in the capacity and on the date indicated below,  hereby certifies
pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350,  as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his 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 operation of the Company.




Date:June 30, 2003
                                                     /s/ George V. Migausky
                                                     ---------------------
                                                     George V. Migausky
                                                     Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      948,814
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                      7,515
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         239,292
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                       140,748
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,336,369
<COMMON>                                        67,625
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                      126,295
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            189,315
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 383,235
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           401,466
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                 131,150
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                       33
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                       44,066
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 376,419
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                1,336,369
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      183,055
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                             7,205
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     155,237
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     162,442
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         20,613
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                  29
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  20,642
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         8,427
<NET-INCOME>                                    12,215
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        699
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   11,516
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                         8,720
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                        6,067
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         (6,166)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.85
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>