alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>  THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED  FROM
THE CONDENSED STATEMENT OF CONSOLIDATED INCOME, BALANCE SHEET, AND CASH FLOWS
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
<CIK> 0000075527
<NAME> PACIFIC ENTERPRISES
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                        3,227
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                        108
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                             923
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                           528
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                     116
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   4,910
<COMMON>                                         1,079
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                            0
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                                334
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                   1,364
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         80
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                             1,205
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                  90
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                      149
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                   2,022
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                    4,910
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                          803
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                                40
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                           0
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                         687
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                            116
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                   9
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                       0
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            26
<NET-INCOME>                                        50
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          1
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                       49
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                            30
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                            0
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                             295
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .60
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .60


        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.2



Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2001.



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





In connection with the Annual  Report of High End Ventures, Inc. (the "Company") on Form  10-KSB for the  year  ended  September 30, 2006,  as filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Donald Thompson, Principal Accounting Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2001, that:



The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



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



Dated October 10, 2006



/s/ Nadir Walji

Nadir Walji, Principal Accounting Officer
#### Amin Rahman SHAKUR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Terry L. STEWART; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 02-17097.

D.C. No. CV-01-02470-PGR.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 10, 2003.*

Decided March 19, 2003.

Before CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

*

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Arizona state prisoner Amin Rahman Shakur appeals pro se the district court’s order denying his motion to recuse the district court judge from his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violation of the First Amendment. We lack jurisdiction over this interlocutory order. *See Arizona v. Ideal Basic Indust. (In re Cement Antitrust Litigation),*673 F.2d 1020, 1022-25 (9th Cir.1982).

DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
EXHIBIT 35.3
                  SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (ITEM 1123)
                           HOMECOMINGS FINANCIAL, LLC
              RFMSI SERIES 2006-S4 TRUST (THE "ISSUING ENTITY")

The undersigned,  a duly authorized  officer of Homecomings  Financial,  LLC, as
servicer (the "Servicer") pursuant to the applicable  servicing agreement,  does
hereby certify that:

1.   A review of the  Servicer's  activities  during the  period  covered by the
     Issuing  Entity's  report  on Form 10-K and of the  Servicer's  performance
     under  the   applicable   servicing   agreement  has  been  made  under  my
     supervision.

2.   To the  best of my  knowledge,  based  on such  review,  the  Servicer  has
     fulfilled all of its obligations under the applicable  servicing  agreement
     in all material respects throughout such period.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 26th
day of March 2007.

By:  /s/ Anthony N. Renzi
     -------------------------
    Name:  Anthony N. Renzi
    Title:    Managing Director
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6223 

To prohibit the use of Federal funds to require any officer or employee 

of U.S. Customs and Border Protection to receive a COVID–19 vaccination, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 9, 2021 

Mr. TONY GONZALES of Texas (for himself, Ms. STEFANIK, Mr. BABIN, Mr. 

KATKO, Mr. JACKSON, Mr. CLOUD, Mr. BURGESS, Mrs. BICE of Oklahoma, Mr. MCKINLEY, Mr. GIBBS, Mr. GIMENEZ, Mr. NORMAN, Mr. 

MAST, Mrs. MILLER-MEEKS, Mr. JACOBS of New York, Mr. GARBARINO, 

Mr. MOORE of Alabama, Mr. GUTHRIE, Mrs. HINSON, and Mr. 

FEENSTRA) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 

A BILL 

To prohibit the use of Federal funds to require any officer 

or employee of U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

to receive a COVID–19 vaccination, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; FINDING. 

4 (a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the 

5 ‘‘Border Agents Stay Employed Act’’ or the ‘‘BASE Act’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6223 IH

1 (b) FINDING.—Congress finds that allowing for alter2 natives to the COVID–19 vaccination, such as regular 

3 testing and the wearing of masks, would allow U.S. Cus4 toms and Border Protection to retain more of its critical 

5 workforce. 

6 SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON MANDATING CBP EMPLOYEES TO 

7 RECEIVE COVID–19 VACCINE. 

8 Notwithstanding any other law, rule, or regulation, 

9 including Executive Order 14043 (86 Fed. Reg. 50989; 

10 relating to requiring coronavirus disease 2019 vaccination 

11 for Federal employees), during fiscal year 2022 and each 

12 fiscal year thereafter, no Federal funds may be obligated 

13 or expended to require any officer or employee of U.S. 

14 Customs and Border Protection to receive a COVID–19 

15 vaccine. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
**C
      O N V E R T I B L E   P R O M I S S O R Y   N O T
      E**





$41,206.79


January
      1,
      2007


Denver,
      Colorado





FOR
      VALUE RECEIVED, PARK-PREMIER MINING
      COMPANY, a Utah corporation ("Maker"), hereby promises to pay to the order
      of
      the Estate of Bertie Dunlap or its assigns ("Holder"), at 32391 Horseshoe Drive,
      Evergreen, Colorado 80439 or at such other place Holder may from time to time
      designate in writing, in lawful money of the United States of America, the
      principal sum of Forty One Thousand Two Hundred Six and 29/100 US Dollars
      ($41,206.29), together with interest on the unpaid balance at the rate of Twelve
      Percent (12%) per annum, on demand of Holder; provided, however, if not sooner
      paid, the entire principal amount outstanding and accrued interest thereon,
      shall be due and payable on December 31, 2007.





This
      Note
      may be converted into shares of Maker's common stock at the conversion price
      of
      $.10 per share or such other conversion price as the board of directors of
      Maker
      may deem appropriate, not in excess of $.10 per share, until the due date
      hereof, at the Holder's option.





This
      Note
      is subject to prepayment in whole or in part, upon ten (10) days prior written
      notice to Holder, at the option of Maker without penalty but subject to exercise
      of Holder’s conversion rights.  Prepayments shall be applied first to
      interest accrued and then to principal due hereunder.





In
      case
      this Note shall not be paid in full whenever it shall become due, the Maker
      agrees to pay all costs and expenses of collection, including reasonable
      attorney's fees, not to exceed 15% of the unpaid balance.





All
      rights and obligations hereunder shall be governed by the laws of the State
      of
      Colorado, without application of its choice or conflict of law principles.
      If
      any part of the assets or capital stock of Maker is sold or transferred without
      Holder’s prior written consent, except sales and transfers in the ordinary
      course of business and except transfers by devise, descent or by operation
      of
      law upon the death of a joint tenant: (1) Holder may, at Holder’s option,
      declare all the sums due under this Note to be immediately due and payable,
      and
      (2) if the sale or transfer involves substantially all of the assets of Maker,
      the transferee shall be deemed to have assumed all of the obligations of Maker
      under this Note. This Note is unsecured.





IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF, the Maker has signed this Note effective as of the date first
      above written.





Description:  Cash
      Advances


PARK-PREMIER
      MINING COMPANY








By:/s/ Jeffrey L.
      Lee


Jeffrey
      L. Lee,
      Vice-President
#### Jose Alonzo CORPUS, Appellant, v. Tony BENNETT, sued as Jailer Tony Bennett; County of Le Sueur, Minnesota; Pat W. Smith, Sheriff, Appellees.

No. 02-1250.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 6, 2002.

Decided Nov. 15, 2002.

Before MCMILLIAN, BOWMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

[UNPUBLISHED]

PER CURIAM.

Jose Alonzo Corpus appeals from the final judgment entered in the District Court1 for the District of Minnesota granting summary judgment in favor of Le Sueur County, former Sheriff Pat W. Smith, and Jailer Tony Bennett in appellant’s civil suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law, arising out of Bennett’s alleged use of excessive force against Corpus while he was a detainee at the County jail. The district court concluded that appellant’s complaint asserted constitutional claims against the County only, and that his evidence did not support those claims. For reversal, Corpus argues that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to defendants. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the judgment of the district court, with the modification noted below.

Upon de novo review, we agree with the district court that the complaint faded to specify that either Bennett or Smith was being sued in his individual capacity for violations of Corpus’s constitutional rights. As such those claims were made against the County alone. *See Johnson v. Outboard Marine Corp.,*172 F.3d 531, 535 (8th Cir.1999) (holding that in § 1983 suit against public official, plaintiff must expressly and unambiguously state defendant is being sued in individual capacity to give proper notice). We also agree with the district court that the evidence would not allow a jury to conclude that the altercation between Corpus and Bennett resulted from an unconstitutional County custom or policy. *See Liebe v. Norton,*157 F.3d 574, 578-79 (8th Cir.1998) (holding county liable only where constitutional deprivation was result of county custom or policy).

Thus, we hold that the district court properly dismissed the § 1983 claims. Because it does not appear that the district court exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the pendent state law claims, we modify their dismissal to be without prejudice. *See Labickas v. Ark. State Univ.,*78 F.3d 333, 334-35 (8th Cir.) (per curiam), *cert, denied,*519 U.S. 968, 117 S.Ct. 395, 136 L.Ed.2d 310 (1996).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment as modified. We also deny Corpus’s motion to supplement the record, *see Barry v. Barry,*78 F.3d 375, 379 (8th Cir.1996), and we deny appellees’ motion to strike as moot.

A true copy.

sota.

1

. The Honorable Ann D. Montgomery, United States District Judge for the District of Minne-
#### Jim NETTLES v. Max FISHER et al.

No. 1307.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

May 8, 1934.

St. Clair Adams and St. Clair Adams, Jr., both of New Orleans, for appellants Clayton and Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. Co.

II. H. Richardson, of Bogalusa, for appel-lee.

ELLIOTT, Judge.

In this ease, for the reasons given in the case entitled Grant Penton v. Max Fisher et al., 155 So. 35, the judgment appealed from herein is affirmed. Defendants-appellants to pay the costs in both courts.
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 730

To amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to the extraterritorial

jurisdiction of the United States over nuclear terrorism.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 30, 1995

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

Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to

the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the United States over

nuclear terrorism.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Nuclear Terrorism Ju5 risdiction Extension and Control Act of 1995’’.

6 SEC. 2. NUCLEAR TERRORISM JURISDICTION.

7 (a) EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION.—Paragraph

8 (2) of section 831(c) of title 18, United States Code, is

9 amended to read as follows:
2

•HR 730 IH

1 ‘‘(2) one of the persons who committed, or is

2 charged with committing, the offense is a United

3 States person, or the offense is committed against a

4 governmental entity or a United States person;’’.

5 (b) DEFINITION OF UNITED STATES PERSON.—Sec6 tion 831(f) of title 18, United States Code. is amended—

7 (1) by striking the period at the end of para8 graph (3) and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and

9 (2) by adding at the end the following:

10 ‘‘(4) the term ‘United States person’ means—

11 ‘‘(A) a national of the United States (as

12 defined in section 101 of the Immigration and

13 Nationality Act); or

14 ‘‘(B) a corporation organized under the

15 laws of the United States, or of any State, dis16 trict, commonwealth, territory or possession of

17 the United States.’’.

18 (c) CLARIFICATION OF COVERED TYPES OF NU19 CLEAR MATERIAL.—Section 831(f)(2) of title 18, United

20 States Code, is amended—

21 (1) by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end of subparagraph

22 (C);

23 (2) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of subpara24 graph (D); and

25 (3) by adding at the end the following:
3

•HR 730 IH

1 ‘‘(E) byproduct material, source material, or

2 special nuclear material, as such terms are defined

3 in section 11 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954;

4 and’’.

Æ
exhibit41.htm


EXHIBIT 4.1








 


 


 


 


 


SATYA WORLDWIDE, INC.


 


A FLORIDA CORPORATION


 


TOTAL AUTHORIZED ISSUE


300,000 SHARES SERIES A CONVERTIBLE PREFERRED STOCK, $0.001 PAR VALUE












This certifies that _________________________________________________ is hereby issued ____________________________________________________ fully paid and non-assessable Shares of Series A Convertible Preferred Stock of Satya Worldwide, Inc., transferable on the books of the Corporation by the holder hereof, in person or by duly authorized Attorney upon surrender of this Certificate properly endorsed.







In Witness Whereof, Satya Worldwide, Inc. has caused this Certificate to be signed by its duly authorized officers and its Corporate Seal to be hereunto affixed as of this ___ day of ___________________ 20____.


 



 


 


 




 



	 	  	 
	
Chief Executive Officer

	
[SEAL]

	
Secretary
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6055 

To provide that chapter 1 of title 9 of the United States Code, relating 

to the enforcement of arbitration agreements, shall not apply to enrollment agreements made between students and certain institutions of higher education, and to prohibit limitations on the ability of students to 

pursue claims against certain institutions of higher education. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 18, 2021 

Ms. WATERS (for herself, Ms. BASS, Ms. TLAIB, Ms. MCCOLLUM, Mr. DANNY

K. DAVIS of Illinois, and Ms. GARCIA of Texas) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and Labor, and 

in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 

provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To provide that chapter 1 of title 9 of the United States 

Code, relating to the enforcement of arbitration agreements, shall not apply to enrollment agreements made 

between students and certain institutions of higher education, and to prohibit limitations on the ability of students to pursue claims against certain institutions of 

higher education. 

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


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6055 IH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Court Legal Access 

3 and Student Support Act of 2021’’ or the ‘‘CLASS Act 

4 of 2021’’. 

5 SEC. 2. INAPPLICABILITY OF CHAPTER 1 OF TITLE 9, 

6 UNITED STATES CODE, TO ENROLLMENT 

7 AGREEMENTS MADE BETWEEN STUDENTS 

8 AND CERTAIN INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER 

9 EDUCATION. 

10 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 1 of title 9 of the United 

11 States Code (relating to the enforcement of arbitration 

12 agreements) shall not apply to an enrollment agreement 

13 made between a student and an institution of higher edu14 cation. 

15 (b) DEFINITION.—In this section, the term ‘‘institu16 tion of higher education’’ has the meaning given such term 

17 in section 102 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 

18 U.S.C. 1002). 

19 SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON LIMITATIONS ON ABILITY OF STU20 DENTS TO PURSUE CLAIMS AGAINST CER21 TAIN INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION. 

22 Section 487(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 

23 (20 U.S.C. 1094(a)) is amended by adding at the end the 

24 following: 

25 ‘‘(30) The institution will not require any stu26 dent to agree to, and will not enforce, any limitation 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 6055 IH

1 or restriction (including a limitation or restriction on 

2 any available choice of applicable law, a jury trial, 

3 or venue) on the ability of a student to pursue a 

4 claim, individually or with others, against an institu5 tion in court.’’. 

6 SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

7 This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall 

8 take effect 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
#### Lloyd Stone v. State.

No. 24560.

January 11, 1950.

State’s Motion to Correct Record and For Rehearing Granted March 1, 1950.

*Dickson & Balch,*Seymour, for appellant.

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

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

The appeal is from a conviction for liquor law violation, with a fine of $1,000.

While the question was not raised by appellant in the court below nor presented on the appeal, we observe that the complaint filed in this case says that the party making it has “* * * a good reason to believe that Lloyd Stone, defendant, heretofore, on the 1st day of July, A.D. 1949 and before the making and filing of this complaint, did then and there in a dry area * * * * unlawfully transport intoxicating liquor, * * * The com*339plaint nowhere alleges that affiant *does believe*it. Such complaints have been uniformly held to be insufficient to charge the offense.

Because of such defect, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and the prosecution is ordered dismissed.

ON state's motion to correct record and for rehearing.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

It now appearing that the defect in the complaint upon which we based our original disposition of this case was the result of a typographical omission and that the complaint was, in truth and in fact, not subject to such defect, the state’s motion for rehearing is granted and the case is now considered on its merits.

The record in this case affirmatively reflects that the trial was had and judgment entered at a special term of the County Court of Baylor County.

The law makes no provision for the calling of special terms of the county court. Art. 5, Sec. 29, of the Constitution provides for the holding of four regular terms of county court annually and “such other terms each year as may be fixed by the Commissioners’ Court.”

The terms of court as designated under the aforesaid article of the Constitution or authorized by the order of the commissioners’ court, as provided therein, are regular terms of court as distinguished from special or called terms of court. See Ex Parte Cole, 51 Tex. Cr. R. 166, 101 S. W. 249; Ex Parte Collins, 79 Tex. Cr. R. 436, 185 S. W. 580; Ex Parte Reeves, 100 Tex. 617, 103 S. W. 478; Pinkston v. Ogden, Tex. Civ. App. 191 S. W. 2d 114.

It is apparent, therefore, that the instant judgment entered by a court not legally in session is void. Ex Parte Wade, 147 Tex. Cr. R. 175, 179 S. W. 2d 574; Ex Parte Jones, 133 Tex. Cr. R. 402, 111 S. W. 2d 267; Smith v. State, 147 Tex. Cr. R. 585, 183 S. W. 2d 175.

For the reasons stated, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

*340Opinion approved by the court.

Hawkins, Presiding Judge, absent.