alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The State, ex rel. Christman et al., Board of Education of Center Township, Monroe County, Rural School Dist., *v.*Skinner, Dir. of Education.

(No. 23965

Decided June 14, 1933.)

*56
      *Mr. Charles W. Lynch,*prosecuting attorney, and *Messrs. Moore, Moore S Moore,*for relators.

*Mr. John W. Bricher,*attorney general, and *Mr. Chas. F. Ohl,*for respondent.

By the Court

(Weygandt, C. J.).

A study of the pleadings, the briefs and the oral arguments of counsel plainly requires not only an overruling of the motion but also a denial of the peremptory writ and a dismissal of the petition.

It is conceded that the respondent is charged with the statutory (Section 7595, General Code) duty of distributing the state educational equalization fund. It is also undisputed that the relators are in need of financial assistance in the operation of their schools. However, it likewise appears that 848 other school districts in various sections of the state of Ohio have filed with the respondent their applications for participation in the fund, and that the total amount of money requested is greatly in excess of that available. Furthermore it appears that two allotments have already been made to the relators.

Under Section 12283, General Code, mandamus is a writ issued in the name of the state to an inferior *57tribunal, a corporation, board or person, commanding the performance of an act which the law specially enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station. No citation of authority is required to the effect that the writ may not be used for the purpose of simply substituting the discretion of a judicial tribunal for that of an administrative officer in the exercise of his authority.

To assume jurisdiction under the circumstances of the instant case it would be necessary for this court to undertake a determination of the various needs of each one of the 849 school districts, and to then make a division of available funds. To attempt such a course of action would require nothing less than that this court should serve as director of education — manifestly an impossibility.

*Motion overruled and writ denied.*

Day, Allen, Stephenson, Jones and Matthias, JJ., concur.

Beyes, J., not participating.
| 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/      Mick J. Miller                    |   |
|   | Mick      J. Miller                        |   |
|   | President      and Chief Executive Officer |   |

----
IIA

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 19

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 1, 2001

Received

JOINT RESOLUTION

Providing for the appointment of Walter E. Massey as a

citizen regent of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That, in accordance with section 5581 of the Revised
2

HJ 19 RDS

1 Statutes of the United States (20 U.S.C. 43), the vacancy

2 on the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution,

3 in the class other than Members of Congress, occurring

4 by reason of the expiration of the term of Frank A.

5 Shrontz of Washington on May 4, 2000, is filled by the

6 appointment of Walter E. Massey of Georgia. The ap7 pointment is for a term of 6 years and shall take effect

8 on the date of the enactment of this joint resolution.

Passed the House of Representatives February 28,

2001.

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL,

Clerk.
107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 71

JOINT RESOLUTION

Amending title 36, United States Code, to designate

September 11 as Patriot Day.

Whereas on September 11, 2001, terrorists hijacked four civilian aircraft, crashing two of them into the towers of

the World Trade Center in New York City, and a third

into the Pentagon outside Washington, D.C.;
2

•HJ 71 EH

Whereas the fourth hijacked aircraft crashed in southwestern

Pennsylvania after passengers tried to take control of the

aircraft in order to prevent the hijackers from crashing

the aircraft into an important symbol of democracy and

freedom;

Whereas these attacks were by far the deadliest terrorist attacks ever launched against the United States, killing

thousands of innocent people; and

Whereas in the aftermath of the attacks the people of the

United States stood united in providing support for those

in need: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF SEPTEMBER 11 AS PATRIOT

4 DAY.

5 Chapter 1 of title 36, United States Code, is amended

6 by adding at the end the following new section:

7 ‘‘§ 144. Patriot Day

8 ‘‘(a) DESIGNATION.—September 11 is Patriot Day.

9 ‘‘(b) PROCLAMATION.—The President is requested to

10 issue each year a proclamation calling on—

11 ‘‘(1) State and local governments and the peo12 ple of the United States to observe Patriot Day with

13 appropriate programs and activities;

14 ‘‘(2) all departments, agencies, and instrumen15 talities of the United States and interested organiza16 tions and individuals to display the flag of the
3

•HJ 71 EH

1 United States at halfstaff on Patriot Day in honor

2 of the individuals who lost their lives as a result of

3 the terrorist attacks against the United States that

4 occurred on September 11, 2001; and

5 ‘‘(3) the people of the United States to observe

6 a moment of silence on Patriot Day in honor of the

7 individuals who lost their lives as a result of the ter8 rorist attacks against the United States that oc9 curred on September 11, 2001.’’.

10 SEC. 2. CONFORMING AMENDMENT.

11 The table of contents for chapter 1 of title 36, United

12 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol13 lowing new item:

‘‘144. Patriot Day.’’.

Passed the House of Representatives October 25,

2001.

Attest:

Clerk.

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 71

JOINT RESOLUTION

Amending title 36, United States Code, to

designate September 11 as Patriot Day.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of TETRAGENEX
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB/A (Amendment
No. 1) for the period ending December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Martin
F. Schacker, Co-Chief Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss.1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 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.



TETRAGENEX
          PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.By:
      /s/
          Martin F. SchackerMartin F. SchackerCo-Chief Executive OfficerAugust 8, 2008


---
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 14 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 14

    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
regarding regulations on the amounts of expenditures of personal funds 
           made by candidates for election for public office.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 8, 2001

Mr. Leach introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred 
                   to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
regarding regulations on the amounts of expenditures of personal funds 
           made by candidates for election for public office.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

                              ``Article --

    ``Section 1. Congress and the several States may enact laws 
regulating the amounts of expenditures a candidate for elective public 
office may make from personal funds of the candidate or members of the 
candidate's immediate family, including personal loans.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Davis et al. *v.*Warner et al.

(No. 24619

Decided March 7, 1934.)

*Mr. Patti Ashbattgh, Mr. D. B. Ulrey*and *Mr. T. B, Mateer,*for plaintiffs in error,

*598
      *Mr. W. P. Vaughan, Mr. Benjamin Olds, Mr. Walter Dressel*and *Mr. G. E. Wood,*for defendants in error.

It is ordered and adjudged that said petition in error be, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the reason no debatable constitutional question is involved in said cause.

*Petition in error dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Allen, Stephenson, Jones, Matthias, Bevis and Zimmerman, JJ., concur.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-20854

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DAVID JAMES FAUCHER,

also known as DAVID JAMES FANCHER,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-01-CR-95-1

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

August 21, 2002

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

David James Faucher challenges the district court’s order

that his federal sentence for his instant conviction of felon in

possession of a firearm run consecutively to his state sentence

for his revocation of parole with respect to his prior aggravated

robbery offense. Faucher acknowledges that his argument is

foreclosed by this court’s decision in United States v.

Alexander, 100 F.3d 24 (5th Cir. 1996), but seeks to raise it to
No. 01-20854

-2-

preserve the issue for further review. In light of Alexander,

the district court’s order that Faucher’s federal sentence for

his instant offense run consecutively to his state sentence for

his revoked parole was not error. 

AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 171 (Wednesday, September 3, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 51534]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-20423]



[[Page 51534]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

[Notice (08-057)]


Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive License

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

ACTION: Notice of intent to grant exclusive license.

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

SUMMARY: This notice is issued in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209(c)(1) 
and 37 CFR 404.7(a)(1)(i). NASA hereby gives notice of its intent to 
grant an exclusive license in the United States to practice the 
inventions described and claimed in U.S. Patent No. 5,447,730, and NASA 
Case No. ARC-11943-1 entitled ``Rehydration Beverage'' to David Belaga, 
having a principal place of business in Longmont, CO. The patent rights 
in this invention have been assigned to the United States of America as 
represented by the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration. The prospective exclusive license will comply with the 
terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.

DATES: The exclusive license may be granted unless within fifteen (15) 
days from the date of this published notice, NASA receives written 
objections including evidence and argument that establish that the 
grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 
35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. Competing applications completed and 
received by NASA within fifteen (15) days of the date of this published 
notice will also be treated as objections to the grant of the 
contemplated exclusive license.
    Objections submitted in response to this notice will not be made 
available to the public for inspection and, to the extent permitted by 
law, will not be released under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 
U.S.C. 552.

ADDRESSES: Objections relating to the prospective license may be 
submitted to Patent Counsel, Office of Chief Counsel, Ames Research 
Center, Mail Stop 202A-4, Moffett Field, CA 94035-1000. (650) 604-5104; 
Fax (650) 604-2767.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert M. Padilla, Chief Patent 
Counsel, Office of Chief Counsel, NASA Ames Research Center, Mail Stop 
202A-4, Moffett Field, CA 94035-1000. (650) 604-5104; Fax (650) 604-
2767. Information about other NASA inventions available for licensing 
can be found online at http://techtracs.nasa.gov/.

    Dated: August 27, 2008.
Michael C. Wholley,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. E8-20423 Filed 9-2-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7510-13-P
Order entered January 23, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-00512-CR

ANGELA LYNN SERNA, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 296th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 219-82217-2017

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s January 22, 2019 second motion for extension of time to 

file her brief. We GRANT the motion and ORDER appellant’s brief due on or before February 

20, 2019.

/s/ BILL PEDERSEN, III 

JUSTICE
**EXHIBIT32.1**

 

**THE PENN TRAFFIC COMPANY**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of The Penn Traffic Company (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the fiscal period ending August 2, 2008, as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Gregory J. Young, President & Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

# (1)                The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

#  

# (2)                The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

#  

 
| /s/ Gregory J. Young                  |   |
|---------------------------------------|--------|
| Gregory J. Young                      |   |
| President and Chief Executive Officer |   |
|                                  |   |
| September 10, 2008               |   |

 

----
|What's New · 
   What's Next · 
   Site Map · 
   A-Z Index ·
   Careers ·
   RSS ·
   All Videos ·
   Current FAQs ·
   Contact Us |  | Search  Advanced Search | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------- | 

Aboutthe Fed
    News& Events
    MonetaryPolicy
    BankingInformation& Regulation
    PaymentSystems
    EconomicResearch& Data
    Consumer Information
    CommunityDevelopment
    ReportingForms
    Publications


skip to content 
 Home Economic Research & Data Statistical Releases and Historical Data
 DDP Print
   Industrial Production and Capacity Utilization - G.17 Current Release
  Release Dates
  Monthly Supplement
  Annual Revision
  Data Download
  About
  Announcements
  Technical Q&As
 Annual Revision (458 KB PDF) (ASCII)  Table 5 [1]
 Item
Revised change(percent)
Difference betweenrevised and earlier changes(percentage points)2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015Total industry
.9
2.4
1.6
2.1
1.5
-.5
-.2
-.2
-1.1
-.3Manufacturing[2]
.2
1.9
1.1
.7
1.2
-.3
-.3
-.7
-1.4
-.5Manufacturing (NAICS)
.2
2.0
1.2
.9
1.3
-.4
-.4
-.7
-1.4
-.5Durable manufacturing
2.1
2.2
1.8
1.6
1.9
-.5
-1.7
-1.3
-1.6
-.9Nondurable manufacturing
-1.6
1.8
.6
.0
.8
-.2
1.2
-.1
-1.3
.0Other manufacturing (non-NAICS)
-.2
.0
-1.2
-2.3
-2.2
.0
1.2
.1
-1.4
-.7Mining
4.5
5.8
6.4
9.3
4.2
-1.5
1.0
2.4
.1
.9Utilities
1.9
1.2
.3
1.2
.8
.0
-.1
-.1
.1
.5Selected high-technology industries
24.5
13.7
-.5
.9
5.9
-1.4
-5.3
-5.2
-7.7
-2.3Manufacturing[2] ex. selectedhigh-technology industries
-.9
1.4
1.3
.7
.9
-.3
.0
-.4
-1.1
-.4Stage-of-process groupsCrude
4.0
6.3
4.4
7.0
3.3
-.6
2.8
1.3
-.4
.4Primary and semifinished
1.4
1.8
.7
.5
1.0
.3
-.2
.0
-1.4
-.5Finished
-.8
1.2
1.6
1.3
1.5
-1.3
-1.4
-1.3
-1.0
-.3    Return to table   Return to table    Return to top
   Home Economic research and data
 Accessibility Contact Us Disclaimer  Linking Policy FOIA
 PDF Reader
* Pursuant to Fifth Circuit Rule 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should

not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Rule 47.5.4. 

### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-60737 Summary Calendar SILVER SLIPPER CASINO VENTURE, LLC, et al., Counter Defendants-Appellants, v. ELI INVESTMENTS, LLC, Counter Claimant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. USDC No. 1:06-CV-00158 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, STEWART and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Plaintiffs-Appellants appeal the district court’s dismissal of their complaint for lack of admiralty jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1333(1). For the reasons articulated in our recent opinion, Silver Slipper Casino Venture, LLC, et al. v. Eli Investments, LLC, No. 07-60330, we affirm the district court’s ruling. AFFIRMED
. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D March 13, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk
PITTSBURGH & WEST VIRGINIA RAILROAD
                              FORM 10-Q
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
CHANGES IN FINANCIAL POSITION

(Dollars in Thousands)

                                                     Unaudited
                                                  Nine months ended
                                                    September 30   

                                                  1997      1996
<S>                                               <C>       <C>
Source of Cash:
     Net income                                   $622      $616

     Decrease in accounts payable                   (3)        - 

          Cash provided from operations           $619      $616


Use of Cash:

     Dividends paid                                604       619

     Increase (decrease) in cash                  $ 15      $ (5)

</TABLE>


Notes:

     (1)  The foregoing interim financial statements are unaudited but, 
          in the opinion of management, reflect all adjustments
          necessary for a fair presentation of the results of operations
          for the interim periods.

     (2)  Registrant has elected to be treated for tax purposes as a
          real estate investment trust. As such, the Trust is exempt
          from paying federal corporate income tax on any income that is
          distributed to shareholders. It has been Registrant's policy
          to distribute annually all of its ordinary taxable income.
          Consequently, no provision has been made for federal income
          tax.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ramon Rodriguez, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Boklan, J.), rendered August 11, 1987, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts) and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

*616Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s conviction is based on the People’s evidence that the defendant sold cocaine to a confidential paid police informant and an undercover police officer on two separate occasions.

Contrary to the defendant’s sole contention on appeal, we find that the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion by denying his request to call as defense witnesses the informant’s personal attorney and the Assistant District Attorney prosecuting the defendant’s case to testify regarding the informant’s cooperation agreement with the District Attorney’s office. The informant was extensively cross-examined concerning his understanding of the full scope of his cooperation agreement with the District Attorney’s office. Further, outside the presence of the jury, the controversy with respect to part of the cooperation agreement was clarified and resolved by an on-the-record agreement between the informant’s personal attorney and the Assistant District Attorney. Subsequently, the defense counsel was permitted to read to the jury that portion of the transcript relating to the conflict and its resolution. Thus, the jury was aware of the entire cooperation agreement, as well as the informant’s understanding of it. Thompson, J. P., Lawrence, Harwood and Balletta, JJ.