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

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 931 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 931

Expressing support for designation of February 17, 2008, as ``Race Day 
   in America'' and highlighting the 50th running of the Daytona 500.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 17, 2008

 Mr. Feeney (for himself, Mr. Mica, Mr. Keller of Florida, Mr. Lincoln 
 Diaz-Balart of Florida, Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart of Florida, Ms. Corrine 
Brown of Florida, Mr. Boyd of Florida, Mr. Mahoney of Florida, Mr. Meek 
   of Florida, Mr. Weldon of Florida, and Mr. Stearns) submitted the 
following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight 
                         and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Expressing support for designation of February 17, 2008, as ``Race Day 
   in America'' and highlighting the 50th running of the Daytona 500.

Whereas the Daytona 500 is the most prestigious stock car race in the United 
        States;
Whereas the Daytona 500 annually kicks off the National Association for Stock 
        Car Auto Racing (``NASCAR'') Sprint Cup Series, NASCAR's top racing 
        series;
Whereas millions of racing fans have spent the third Sunday of each February 
        since 1959 watching, listening to, or attending the Daytona 500;
Whereas the purse for the Daytona 500 is typically the largest in motor sports;
Whereas winning the prestigious Harley J. Earl Trophy is stock car racing's 
        greatest prize and privilege;
Whereas nearly 1,000,000 men and women in the Armed Forces in nearly 180 
        countries worldwide listen to the race on the radio via the American 
        Forces Network;
Whereas Daytona International Speedway is the home of ``The Great American 
        Race'', the Daytona 500;
Whereas fans from all 50 States and many foreign nations converge at the ``World 
        Center of Racing'' each year to see the motor sports spectacle;
Whereas Daytona International Speedway becomes one of the largest cities in the 
        State of Florida by population on race day, with more than 200,000 fans 
        in attendance;
Whereas well-known politicians, celebrities, and athletes take part in the 
        festivities surrounding the Daytona 500; and
Whereas February 17, 2008, would be an appropriate day to designate as ``Race 
        Day in America'' because the Daytona 500 celebrates its historic 50th 
        running on this day: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the United States House of Representatives--
            (1) recognizes the 50th running of the Daytona 500, ``The 
        Great American Race''; and
            (2) supports designation of a ``Race Day in America'' in 
        honor of the Daytona 500.
                                 <all>
```
201 La. 876

#### MADDOX et al. v. BUTCHEE et al.

No. 36805.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 4, 1942.

Emmet Alpha, of New Orleans, for appellants.

Percy C. Smith, of Oakdale, for appel-lees.

FOURNET, Justice.

The defendants-appellees, alleging that J. C. Nance, trustee, and David Tilley, who is representing his minor daughter Johnny Tilley, do not appear as principals in the bond which was furnished by the plaintiffs-appellants when the appeal in this case was perfected, moved to have the appeal dismissed as to these parties.

The judgment appealed from was signed on the 12th day of May, 1942. On the same day the “plaintiffs” (Wesley W. Maddox; David Tilley, in behalf of his minor daughter Johnny Tilley; and J. C. Nance, trustee) were granted both a suspensive and a devolutive appeal, returnable to this court on June 20, 1942, conditioned upon their furnishing bond in the sum of $500. In the only appeal bond which has been furnished, it is declared that the principals are Wesley W. Maddox and J. C. Nance, and the condition of the obligation is “that the * * * bound Wesley W. Maddox and J. C. Nance shall prosecute their sus-pensive appeal, and shall satisfy whatever, judgment may be rendered against them * ****.” The only signatures to this bond are those of Maddox and the surety, Joe S. Mowad.

This court has repeatedly held that since the appellant is primarily bound for the debt involved, it is not necessary for him to sign the appeal bond as principal. Sandel v. Douglas, 25 La.Ann. 564; Frankel v. Morse Timber Co., 140 La. 448, 73 So. 263; Fontini v. Pine Grove Land Co., 167 La. 137, 118 So. 865. Consequently, Nance’s failure to sign the bond as a principal can have no effect on its validity, and, since counsel for the appellants concedes in his brief that the minor Johnny Tilley “makes no pretense of being a co-appellant,” the only question that is presented for our determination is whether or not the appeal should be dismissed as to J. C. Nance, trustee, because the word “trustee” has been omitted following Nance’s name in the appeal bond.

*688In its Act No. 112 of 1916, the legislature of Louisiana declared that “no appeal shall be dismissed * * * on account of any error in the amount of the bond, or for any inaccuracy or *omission in the bond,,** * * until the party furnishing such bond shall have failed to correct the error, inaccuracy or omission * * Section 9. (Italics ours.) The procedure to be followed by the person contesting an appeal bond is then outlined and we find included therein the specific provision that “should any bond be declared invalid for any reason whatsoever, the party furnishing such bond shall have the right, within four judicial days thereafter, to furnish a new bond * * Section 3 of Act No. 112 of 1916, as amended by Act No. 284 of 1928. See, also, Succession of Uthoff, 196 La. 892, 200 So. 290, and the cases therein cited.

According to the facts of this case, the authorities relied on by the movers are inapposite.

For the reasons assigned, the motion to dismiss is overruled.

ROGERS, J., absent.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

CherLZill

v. Civil No. 08-cv-457-JD

Audubon Society of Rhode Island

ORDE R

On November 5, 2008, the above-captioned case was transferred to this District from the

District of Maryland pursuant to the Court Order dated November 3, 2008 .

On November 21, 2008, an Amended Order was issued by United States District Judge J.

Frederick Motz, District of Maryland, transferring the case to the District of Rhode Island .

It is therefore ordered, that any outstanding deadlines in this case are herewith terminated and

this case is closed in this district.

SO ORDERED.

November 25, 2008 /s/JosephA. DiClerico, Jr.

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

cc: David Love, Esq. William C. Parler, Jr., Esq.

Case 1:08-cv-00457-JD Document 13 Filed 11/25/08 Page 1 of 1
#### Adams, Appellant, *v.*Hubbard.

*Appeals*— Equity—Rehearing—Review.

Where on an appeal from a decree in equity dismissing a petition for a rehearing and a modification of a prior decree, the Supreme Court finds no question raised by the assignments of error that had not been decided, or that could not have been raised for decision in the original proceeding and a former appeal therein, the action of the lower court in dismissing the petition will be sustained.

Argued Jan. 17, 1910.

Appeal, No. 298,

Jan. T., 1909, by plaintiff, from decree of C. P. No. 4, Phila. Co.., June T., 1896, No. 543, dismissing petition for rehearing in case of John Quincy Adams v. George L. Hubbard et al., surviving partners of the firm now or late trading as George K. Hubbard and Company, and Dilworth P. Hibberd Esq., Administrator d. b. n. of the Estate of George K. Hubbard, deceased, substituted in place of George L. Hubbard, removed as administrator.

Before Fell, C. J., Brown, Mestrezat, Potter, Elkin and Moschzisker, JJ.

Affirmed.

Petition for rehearing.

*Error assigned*was decree dismissing the petition.

*J. Barton Rettew,*for appellant.

*Samuel P. Tull,*for appellee.

*305Per Curiam,

February 21, 1910:

This appeal is from an order dismissing á petition for the opening and correction of a decree entered in the common pleas and affirmed by this court on appeal. A clear and concise history of the case will be found in the opinion of our Brother Potter in Adams v. Hubbard, 221 Pa. 511. We do not find any question raised by the assignments of error that has not been decided or that could not have been raised for decision in the original proceeding. The former adjudication therefore must be considered final. '

The appeal is dismissed.
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 906


OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned certifies that this periodic report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and that information contained in this periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Pernix Therapeutics Holdings, Inc. for the periods covered by this periodic report.





Date: May 14, 2010

/s/ Cooper C. CollinsCooper C. CollinsChief Executive Officer and PresidentDate: May 14, 2010

/s/ Tracy S. CliffordTracy S. CliffordChief Financial Officer and Secretary
EXHIBIT 2.8
                                                                     -----------


                                    AGREEMENT

THIS AGREEMENT made this 21st day of February 2004 by and between Sunshine 511
Holdings located at 101 North Clematis St., Ste. 511, West Palm Beach, Florida,
Tax id # 05-0601712 and ZAP located at 501 4th Street, Santa Rosa, California.

In consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, it is agreed by and
between the parties as follows:

1a. ZAP shall pay Sunshine 511 Holdings a sum of 2,000,000 B-2 Restricted
Warrants and 1,000,000 K-2 Restricted Warrants for any services provided,
including, but not limited to, stock promotion and investor relation services
for a period of 1 (one) year from the date of this agreement. The value of
services will total around $2,000,000.

1b. It is understood that the underlying stock is restricted under Rule 144
guidelines.

The actions to be taken by the parties hereto to close the transaction as
provided shall take place on or before April 21, 2004 at the office of ZAP at
501 Fourth Street, Santa Rosa, CA 95401 hereinafter referred to as the ("Closing
Date").

This Agreement shall be governed in all respects by the laws of the State of
California.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands and seals, the date
and place first above written.

Dated: April 21, 2004

/s/ Evan Rapoport                                 /s/ Renay Cude
----------------------                            -----------------------
Evan Rapoport for                                 Renay Cude for ZAP
Sunshine 511 Holdings
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee, v. David W. HYSONG, Captain, U.S. Air Force, Appellant.

No. 96-0889.

Crim.App. No. 31567.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.

Argued May 15, 1997.

Decided Sept. 15, 1997.

For Appellant: *Captain Tishlyn Taylor*(argued); *Lieutenant Colonel Kim L. Sheffield*and *Captain W. Craig Mullen*(on brief).

For Appellee: *Major LeEllen Coaeher*(argued); *Colonel Theodore J. Fink*and *Lieutenant Colonel Michael J. Breslin*(on brief).

PER CURIAM:

At his general court-martial convened at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, appellant was convicted, pursuant to his pleas, of wrongful appropriation of more than $2000, forgery of a check for that amount, and conduct unbecoming an officer by soliciting a cadet to obstruct justice, in violation of Articles 121, 123, and 133, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC §§ 921, 923, and 933, respectively. The convening authority approved the sentence of dismissal and confinement for 30 days. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed in an unpublished opinion.

The issue before us is whether the military judge erred to the material prejudice of the substantial rights of appellant by allowing the prosecutor, over defense objection, to question whether appellant himself felt he deserved to be dismissed for his offenses. For the reasons stated below, we affirm.

During appellant’s sentencing hearing, assistant trial counsel cross-examined a character witness and elicited hearsay testimony concerning appellant’s own belief that “he should suffer some consequences and that would naturally — probably entail leaving the Air Force.” The Court of Criminal Appeals held that the military judge erred by overruling defense counsel’s objection, since the testimony in question was inadmissible as “neither relevant to any issue in sentencing nor proper rebuttal,” citing RCM 1001(b)(5) and Mil.R.Evid. 401, Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (1995 ed.). The Court of Criminal Appeals then tested for prejudice under Article 59(a), UCMJ, 10 USC § 859(a). Finding no prejudice to appellant’s rights given the context of the entire sentencing hearing, the court affirmed on grounds of harmless error.

Whether the challenged testimony was or was not relevant sentencing evidence, we are *127convinced that its admission did not harm appellant. In view of the seriousness of appellant’s crimes, which included soliciting a cadet under his direct command to assist in a cover-up, it is not likely that admission of the statement that appellant anticipated “leaving the Air Force” had a significant impact on the sentencing proceeding,

The decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

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 on Form 10-Q/A of BPZResources, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended March 31, 2008as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Manuel Pablo Zuniga-Pflucker, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to and solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, tothe best of my knowledge and belief, that:

 

(1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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/ Manuel Pablo Zúñiga-Pflücker* | * * |
|---------------------------------------------------|----------|
| Manuel Pablo Zúñiga-Pflücker       |
| President and Chief Executive Officer             |
| August 29, 2008                                   |

 

----
Case 1:11-cv-02371-CMA-MJW Document 42 Filed 03/08/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 8
Case 1:11-cv-02371-CMA-MJW Document 42 Filed 03/08/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 8
Case 1:11-cv-02371-CMA-MJW Document 42 Filed 03/08/12 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 8
Case 1:11-cv-02371-CMA-MJW Document 42 Filed 03/08/12 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 8
Case 1:11-cv-02371-CMA-MJW Document 42 Filed 03/08/12 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 8
Case 1:11-cv-02371-CMA-MJW Document 42 Filed 03/08/12 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 8
Case 1:11-cv-02371-CMA-MJW Document 42 Filed 03/08/12 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 8
Case 1:11-cv-02371-CMA-MJW Document 42 Filed 03/08/12 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 8
EXHIBIT
32.1





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 GULF ONSHORE, INC. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), each of the undersigned, in the
capacities and on the dates 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:





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.








Dated:  November
14, 2008





/s/ Earl
Moore





Name:
Earl Moore


Title:  Chief
Executive Officer











Dated:  November
14, 2008





/s/ Mark
Smith





Name:
Mark Smith


Title:  Chief
Financial Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 22
- 0212 JAMES JOSEPH MAIN, JR.,

Petitioner and Appellant, v. STATE OF MONTANA,

Respondent 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 January 18, 2023 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

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

December 12 2022

12/12/2022

Case Number: DA 22-0305
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

I, Steven Strasser, Chief Executive Officer of Power EfficiencyCorporation, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

 

1.               the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company forthe quarter ended March 31, 2005 (the “Report”) fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934(U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

 

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

 

Date:  May 16, 2005

 
|   | BY:    | /s/ Steven Strasser     |
|--------|--------|-------------------------|
|   |   | Steven Strasser         |
|   |   | Chief Executive Officer |

 

Theforegoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350,chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of aseparate disclosure document.

** **

----
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports:Boston |New York |Philadelphia |Cleveland |Richmond |AtlantaChicago |St. Louis |Minneapolis |Kansas City |Dallas |San FranciscoDistrict: 9Federal Reserve Bank of: MinneapolisFilings received during the week ending November 14, 2020FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodFARMERS & MERCHANTS AGENCY, INC.                                                                                        CICTodd J. Zaun, Sartell, Minnesota, individually and as trustee of the Todd J. Zaun Grantor Trust, as modified (TJZ Grantor Trust), and the Todd Zaun Revocable Trust, each of Sartell, Minnesota; and Steven M. Zaun, Pacific Palisades, California, individually and as trustee of the Steven M. Zaun Grantor Trust, as modified (SMZ Grantor Trust), and the SMZ Trust, each of Pacific Palisades, California; to retain or acquire 25 percent or more of the voting shares of Farmers & Merchants Agency, Inc., (Company) and thereby indirectly retain or acquire shares of Farmers & Merchants State Bank of Pierz (Bank), both of Pierz, Minnesota.  Additionally, the TJZ Grantor Trust and SMZ Grantor Trust to acquire voting shares and thereby join the Zaun Family Group, a group acting in concert that owns voting shares of Company and thereby indirectly owns voting shares of Bank. Newspaper: Not availableFederal Register: 11/23/2020SECURITY BANCSHARES CO.                                                                                                 * 3A3Security Bancshares Company, Glencoe, Minnesota, to acquire up to 15.27% of Flagship Financial Group, Inc., Eden Prairie, Minnesota, and thereby indirectly acquiring, Flagship Bank Minnesota, Wayzata, Minnesota.Newspaper: Not availableFederal Register: 12/04/2020
#### Robert D. Horton, Plaintiff, *v.*County Federal Savings and Loan Association, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff. Alice M. Horton, Third-Party Defendant.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Nassau County,

March 7, 1957.

*894*Ralph M. Verni*for plaintiff.

*McDermott & Latham*for third-party defendant.

*Daniel McNamara*for defendant and third-party plaintiff.

Marcus G. Christ, J.

This is a motion by plaintiff to strike out four counterclaims by third-party defendant as not properly interposable in the action.

The plaintiff husband abandoned his wife, the third-party defendant, in New York and procured a Florida divorce. The wife does not know the husband’s whereabouts. After his ■ departure the wife withdrew from their joint savings account in the defendant’s savings and loan association approximately $16,000. Plaintiff claims he had instructed the association to pay only on both signatures and sues it to recover one half of the original account. The counterclaims of the wife set up claims which she has against her husband. The objection is based on subdivision 3 of section 193-a of the Civil Practice Act which permits a counterclaim by the third-party defendant, only after the plaintiff amends his complaint to assert a claim directly against the third-party defendant. The counterclaims as such are invalid since no affirmative judgment may be had against the husband plaintiff. However, the matters set forth constitute good affirmative defenses and offsets *(Psaty & Fuhrman*v. *Continental Cas. Co.,*278 App. Div. 159; *Marrone*v. *Johnson & Sons,*283 App. Div. 1114).

Under rule 54 of the Buies of Civil Practice the wife is required to answer not only the association but the husband as well. This she has done. Section 264 of the Civil Practice Act gives broad powers to determine controversies between parties but since section 193-a is specific it would control to bar the counterclaims.

The defendant association joins with the wife in opposing the motion. Plaintiff’s unilateral attempt to change the legal effect of a joint account would appear ineffectual. In any event, it does not follow that plaintiff automatically is entitled to one half of the account. If he succeeds in going behind the face of the account, a full exploration of the title to the money is unavoidable.

Lastly, this attack on a third-party defendant’s counterclaim is no different than an attack on a defendant’s counterclaim. Under subdivision 4 of rule 1101 this motion made more than 20 days after service of the answer is untimely. However, in view of the fact that the wife, third-party defendant, may not make *895a counterclaim against the plaintiff who makes no claim against her, the lateness of the motion should he disregarded and the prayer for relief in the counterclaim corrected so as to eliminate the demand for an affirmative judgment against the husband. Motion granted to the extent herein indicated.

Settle order.
Case 1:11-cv-02252-CMA-MJW Document 7 Filed 10/03/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 4
Case 1:11-cv-02252-CMA-MJW Document 7 Filed 10/03/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 4
Case 1:11-cv-02252-CMA-MJW Document 7 Filed 10/03/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 4
Case 1:11-cv-02252-CMA-MJW Document 7 Filed 10/03/11 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 4
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports:Boston |New York |Philadelphia |Cleveland |Richmond |AtlantaChicago |St. Louis |Minneapolis |Kansas City |Dallas |San FranciscoDistrict: 5Federal Reserve Bank of: RichmondFilings received during the week ending December 29, 2018FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodAMERICAN NATIONAL BANKSHARES INC.                                                                                       * 3A5American National Bankshares, Inc., Danville, Virginia, to acquire 100% of the voting securities of HomeTown Bankshares Corporation, Roanoke, Virginia, and thereby indirectly acquire HomeTown Bank, Roanoke, Virginia.Newspaper: Not availableFederal Register: Not available