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

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6457 

To prohibit the provision of Federal funds to a local educational agency 

unless in-person instruction is available to all students at the schools 

served by the agency. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 20, 2022 

Mrs. MILLER of Illinois (for herself and Mr. GOOD of Virginia) introduced the 

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

A BILL 

To prohibit the provision of Federal funds to a local educational agency unless in-person instruction is available 

to all students at the schools served by the agency. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON FEDERAL FUNDS FOR CER4 TAIN LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—No Federal funds shall be pro6 vided to a local educational agency unless in-person in7 struction is available to all students at each public elemen8 tary school and secondary school under the jurisdiction of 

9 the local educational agency. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6457 IH

1 (b) DEFINITIONS.—In this Act, the terms ‘‘elemen2 tary school’’, ‘‘local educational agency’’, and ‘‘secondary 

3 school’’ have the meanings given such terms in section 

4 8101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 

5 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801). 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED OCTOBER 26, 2016

NO. 03-14-00637-CR

Christopher Roberts, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 403RD DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, GOODWIN, AND BOURLAND

MODIFIED AND, AS MODIFIED, AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction entered by the trial court. Having reviewed 

the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no error in the court’s

judgment requiring reversal. However, there was error in the judgment that requires correction. 

Therefore, the Court modifies the trial court’s judgment to state that the “Statute for Offense” is 

“19.02(b)(1), (c) Penal Code.” The judgment, as modified, is affirmed. Because appellant is 

indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
#### Christina R. BECKSTROM, Plaintiff — Appellant, v. POTLATCH CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant — Appellee.

No. 01-35686.

D.C. No. CV-99-00256-WFN.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Nov. 8, 2002.

Decided Nov. 15, 2002.

Before TROTT, T.G. NELSON, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

This court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal. Therefore, it is

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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
212 La. 971

#### FLETCHER v. FLETCHER.

No. 37583.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 12, 1948.

Martin E. Kranz, of New Orleans, for defendant and appellant.

Alcide J. Weysham, of New Orleans, for plaintiff and appellee.

FOURNET, Justice.

Ferdinand J. Fletcher instituted this suit against his wife, Emma P. Fletcher, to secure a divorce on the ground that they had been living separate and apart for more than two years. In her answer the defendant admitted the separation had occurred more than two years previous but, averring it was precipitated by the plaintiff’s neglect, abuse, and cruel treatment, she asked for alimony in an amount to be fixed by the court and for attorney fees of $150. There was judgment in the lower court granting the divorce but denying the wife’s claim to alimony. She is appealing from such judgment.

The parties having lived separate and apart for more than two years, the plaintiff was entitled to a divorce, Act No. *44269 of 1916, as amended by Act No. 430 of 1938; White v. Broussard, 206 La. 25, 18 So.2d 641, thus leaving; -for our consideration the question of whether the wife, by a preponderance of the evidence, established her right to alimony under Article 160 of the Revised Civil Code, as amended, wherein it is provided that where “the husband has obtained a divorce upon the ground of such living separate and apart, and *the wife has not been at*fault, then the court may allow the wife in its discretion, out of the property and earnings of her husband, alimony which shall not exceed one-third of his income.” (Italics ours.)

 This question was resolved against the wife by the trial judge and his findings in this respect will not be disturbed unless they are manifestly erroneous. Abbott v. Abbott, 199 La. 65, 5 So.2d 504; Jones v. Jones, 200 La. 911, 9 So.2d 227; Gerstner v. Stringer, 205 La. 791, 18 So.2d 195; Matheny v. Matheny, 205 La. 869, 18 So.2d 324. From our appreciation of the facts in this case as found in the very meager note of evidence that is in the record, it is our opinion that the trial judge’s conclusion in this respect is correct.

Counsel for the appellant calls our attention to the fact that the trial judge in his judgment failed to allow the wife’s claim for attorney fees and he asks that we fix such fees in accordance with her demand.

A reference to the record shows that the trial judge not only did not adjudicate upon this particular claim, but that the reason for his failure in this respect is not evident and it is not even clear that he gave the matter any consideration. In view of this fact and the condition in which we find the record, we do not feel justified in giving this matter the consideration requested, particularly since the defendant has failed to cite any authorities in support of her right to attorney fees in a case of this kind. Such right as she may have, if any, is reserved to her and her claim in this respect is, therefore, non-suited.

For the reasons assigned, the judgment of the lower court is amended by non-suiting the defendant’s claim to attorney fees and as thus amended it is affirmed.
Exhibit 4.34

 

SPOUSAL CONSENT

 

I, Jonathan Gentile Anderson, am the lawful spouse of Huang Hui. I hereby consent unconditionally that a certain percentage of the equity interest in Guangzhou Qianjun Technology Co., Ltd. that is held by and registered in the name of my spouse will be disposed of pursuant to the arrangements under the Amended and Restated Loan Agreement, the Amended and Restated Equity Option Agreement and the Amended and Restated Equity Interest Pledge Agreement, which were executed by my spouse on December 4, 2013.

 

I further undertake not to take any action with the intent to interfere with the above arrangements, including making any claim that such equity interest constitutes property or community property between myself and my spouse. I hereby waive unconditionally and irrevocably any rights or entitlements whatsoever to such equity interest that may be granted to me according to any applicable laws.

 

 

	
 
    	
Jonathan Gentile Anderson
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
/s/ Jonathan Gentile   Anderson
    
	
 
    	
Date: December 4, 2013
    


 











 

SPOUSAL CONSENT

 

I, Chen Yan, am the lawful spouse of Liu Jian. I hereby consent unconditionally that a certain percentage of the equity interest in Guangzhou Qianjun Technology Co., Ltd. that is held by and registered in the name of my spouse will be disposed of pursuant to the arrangements under the Amended and Restated Loan Agreement, the Amended and Restated Equity Option Agreement and the Amended and Restated Equity Interest Pledge Agreement, which were executed by my spouse on December 4, 2013.

 

I further undertake not to take any action with the intent to interfere with the above arrangements, including making any claim that such equity interest constitutes property or community property between myself and my spouse. I hereby waive unconditionally and irrevocably any rights or entitlements whatsoever to such equity interest that may be granted to me according to any applicable laws.

 

 

	
 
    	
Chen Yan
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
/s/ Chen Yan
    
	
 
    	
Date: December 4, 2013
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. PD-0213-21

SCOTT HUDDLESTON, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

ON STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

FROM THE ELEVENTH COURT OF APPEALS

JONES COUNTY

Per Curiam.

O R D E R

The State has filed a petition for discretionary review in this case. Today, we grant

the State’s petition and we determine that this case shall proceed on an expedited briefing

schedule. Accordingly, the State’s brief shall be filed on or before ten days from the date

of this order. Appellant’s brief shall be filed on or before ten days after the State’s brief.

No extensions will be granted.

Delivered May 19, 2021

Publish
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         220,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  154,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     65,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               471,000
<PP&E>                                       2,196,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,185,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          286,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       848,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,528,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,185,000
<SALES>                                        632,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               705,000
<CGS>                                          355,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  355,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                15,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 48,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    48,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .01
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 23.1
 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in this Registration Statement on Form S-8, Amendment No. 4, (No. 333-01861) of our report dated March 27, 2007 relating to the financial statements and financial statement schedule which appears in Chyron Corporation's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006.  

/s/ BDO Seidman, LLP

BDO Seidman, LLP

Melville, New York

October 17, 2007
-28-
<TABLE>
                                                                  Exhibit (11)

             OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLAS CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

                       COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

                                       Quarter Ended   For the Nine Months
                                       September 30,   ended September 30,
                                      1995      1994      1995      1994
                                      ----      ----      ----      ----
                                        (In millions of dollars, except
                                          share data and where noted)
<S>                               <C>       <C>       <C>       <C>     
Primary:
--------
Net Income                         $    69   $    53   $   165   $   116
                                   =======   =======   =======   =======
Weighted average number of shares 
  outstanding (thousands)           50,745    43,799    48,582    43,474
Weighted average common equivalent 
  shares (thousands):
    Deferred awards                     16        19        15        22
    Stock options using average
      market price                     622       709       463       638
                                   -------   -------   -------   -------
Primary weighted average number of 
  common shares outstanding and 
  common equivalent shares 
  (thousands)                       51,383    44,527    49,060    44,134
                                   =======   =======   =======   =======

Primary per share amount           $  1.35   $  1.19   $  3.36   $  2.63
                                   =======   =======   =======   =======
Fully Diluted:
--------------
Net Income                         $    71   $    55   $   170   $   122
                                   =======   =======   =======   =======
Weighted average number of shares 
  outstanding (thousands)           50,745    43,799    48,582    43,474
Weighted average common equivalent 
  shares (thousands):
    Deferred awards                     16        19        15        22
    Stock options using the higher
      of average market price or
      market price at end of period    632       729       484       652
Shares from assumed conversion 
  of debt                                -     5,798     2,031     5,798
Shares from assumed conversion 
  of preferred securities            4,566         -     2,283         -
                                   -------   -------   -------   -------
Fully diluted weighted average 
  number of common shares 
  outstanding and common 
  equivalent shares (thousands)     55,959    50,345    53,395    49,946
                                   =======   =======   =======   =======
Fully diluted per share amount     $  1.28   $  1.09   $  3.18   $  2.45
                                   =======   =======   =======   =======
</TABLE>
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS





  We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the
  Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-50927) of Chyron
  Corporation of our report dated June 18, 1999 relating to the
  financial statements of Chyron Corporation Employees' 401(k)
  Plan, which appears in this Form 11-K.




  /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
  PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

  New York, New York
  June 25, 1999
EX-35 (c)
(logo) WELLS FARGO

Corporate Trust Services
MAC N2702-011
9062 Old Annapolis Road
Columbia, MD 21045
410 884-2000
410 715-2380 Fax

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.


October 25, 2007

Wells Fargo Bank, NA
9062 Old Annapolis Road
Columbia, MD 21045

RE: Annual Statement As To Compliance for Fremont Home Loan Trust 2006-2

Per Section 3.20 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated as of 4/1/2006,
the undersigned Officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., (Trust Administrator), hereby
certifies the following for the 2006 calendar year:


(a)     A review of such party's activities during the reporting period and of
        such party's performance under this Agreement has been made under such
        officer's supervision.

(b)     To the best of such officer's knowledge, based on such review, such
        party has fulfilled all its obligations under this Agreement in all
        material respects throughout such reporting period , or, if there has
        been a failure to  fulfill any such obligation in any material respect,
        specifying each such failure known to such officer and the nature and
        status thereof.

(c)     Notwithstanding anything herein to contrary (and noting that, to the
        extent of any inconsistency, any and all other statements,
        certifications or assertions herein are subject to the following):
        instances of noncompliance related to the subject transaction for the
        applicable reporting period are identified on Schedule A hereto.


Certified By:
/s/ Elisabeth A. Brewster
Elisabeth A. Brewster, Vice President

Certified By:
/s/ Gordon Johnson
Gordon Johnson, Assistant Secretary


(page)


Schedule A


Reporting Errors

During the reporting period, one or more of the monthly investor reports
contained certain types of errors in regard to the calculation and or the
reporting of delinquencies for the pool assets. To the best of the signing
officer's knowledge, each such error, which may or may not have been material,
has been identified and remedied and any related corrective action has been
disclosed in a report previously filed with the SEC in respect of the reporting
period.
#### KOERKEL v. COBURN.

No. 17723.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

Feb. 16, 1942.

Clay & Kohlman and Abe B. Kupper-man, both of New Orleans, for appellant.

Gordon B. Hyde, of New Orleans, for appellee.

WESTERFIELD, Judge.

This is a suit by a landlord against a former tenant for $122, of which $5 is for rent and the remainder for damages to the leased premises. The defendant admitted that he owed the rent claimed, but denied that he owed any further sum.

There was judgment below maintaining the position of the defendant and awarding the plaintiff the sum of $5. Plaintiff has appealed.

The lease contains a provision requiring the lessee to restore the premises to the lessor in th'e same good order and condition in which it was received, but without such a clause the tenant’s obligation in that respect would be no less.

The alleged damages to the leased premises consisted of a chipped and broken place on the enamel of the bathtub about the size of a silver dollar and scars and cuts on several window sills. In regard to the window sills the defendant admits that some damage was done (though he claims it to be negligible), in attempting to open the windows which had become stuck by reason of their being freshly painted. We recognize the difficulty which a tenant would experience in opening windows under the circumstances, but we do not believe that he is justified in using a chisel or some other lever, which was evidently done in this case. Before resorting to such force the landlord should have been called upon to open the windows. The sum necessary to repair the window sills, which is shown in the record to be $30, should have been allowed.

As to the bathtub, Otto Koerkel, the owner of the apartment, Victor T. Paxes and Mrs. Wilmer Orlando declared that it was undamaged prior to Coburn assuming possession of the premises and Co-burn and his wife that the scar was there when they moved in, but it had' been covered with paint somewhat similar in color to the white enamel of the bathtub. The trial court accepted the statement of Co-burn and his wife and we see no reason to disagree with him. It is possible that the tub had been injured when installed, just before Coburn moved in, by some workman dropping one of his tools. The spot could have been covered with paint which might have deceived the landlord and his witnesses when they inspected the premises. At any rate this item of damage is not proven to our satisfaction. It is highly improbable that a tenant should have broken the enamel of a bathtub intentionally and very unusual if accidental.

For the reasons assigned the judgment appealed from is amended by increasing the amount awarded plaintiff from $5 to $35, and as thus amended it is affirmed.

Amended and affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7958

KENNETH FRANKLIN BELL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

LIEUTENANT MCCULLION; MEDICAL STAFF, Cumberland County Jail; OFFICIALS, Cumberland County

Jail,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, District

Judge. (CA-95-150-CT-BR)

Submitted: April 15, 1996 Decided: April 30, 1996

Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kenneth Franklin Bell, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we deny Appellant's motion for appointment of

counsel and affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Bell v.

McCullion, No. CA-95-150-CT-BR (E.D.N.C. Nov. 16, 1995). 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>  THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION 
EXTRACTED FROM THE 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>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                        3,005
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                         96
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                             621
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                           392
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                     379
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   4,493
<COMMON>                                         1,045
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                            0
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                                302
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                   1,347
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         80
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                             1,189
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                  49
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                        1
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                   1,827
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                    4,493
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                        1,250
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                                54
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                       1,122
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                       1,176
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                             74
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                  13
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                      87
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            35
<NET-INCOME>                                        52
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          2
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                       50
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                            97
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                            0
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                             553
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0

        


</TABLE>