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

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1920 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1920

    To amend the provision of title 5, United States Code, commonly 
   referred to as the ``Monroney amendment'', to read as it last did 
               before the enactment of Public Law 99-145.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 21, 2001

Mr. Chambliss (for himself, Mr. Riley, Mr. Jones of North Carolina, Mr. 
  Rodriguez, and Mr. Bishop) introduced the following bill; which was 
             referred to the Committee on Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend the provision of title 5, United States Code, commonly 
   referred to as the ``Monroney amendment'', to read as it last did 
               before the enactment of Public Law 99-145.

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

SECTION 1. ``MONRONEY AMENDMENT'' RESTORED TO ITS PRIOR FORM.

    Paragraph (2) of section 5343(d) of title 5, United States Code, is 
amended to read as such paragraph last read before the enactment of 
section 1242 of the Department of Defense Authorization Act, 1986 
(Public Law 99-145; 99 Stat. 735).
                                 <all>
```
##### 



Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
Pursuant to section 3.22 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this amendment to Annual Report on Form 10-K of Pizza Inn,
Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made,
in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading
with respect to the period covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and
for, the periods presented in this report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a.
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused
such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,
to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;b.
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andc.
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
(the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying
officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants
board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
 a.
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; andb.
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management
or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting.
 Date: November  29, 2006
    By:
    /s/  Timothy P. TaftPresident and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
Director
Exhibit 11.1



INTEGRAL SYSTEMS INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE



|                                                                                                    |  |                                   |            |      |   |            |  |   |          
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | --------------------------------- | ---------- | ---- | - | ---------- |  | - | ---------
|                                                                                                    |  | Twelve Months Ended September 30,
|                                                                                                    |  | 2005                              |            | 2004 |   | 2003      
|Numerator:                                                                                          |  |                                   |            |      |   |            |  |   |          
|Net Income                                                                                          |  | $                                 | 6,300,920  |      | $ | 6,760,998  |  | $ | 5,018,600
|Denominator:                                                                                        |  |                                   |            |      |   |            |  |   |          
|Denominator for basic earnings per share-weighted-average shares                                    |  |                                   | 10,282,420 |      |   | 9,895,357  |  |   | 9,713,321
|Effect of dilutive securities:                                                                      |  |                                   |            |      |   |            |  |   |          
|Employee stock options                                                                              |  |                                   | 80,171     |      |   | 24,642     |  |   | 41,380   
|Contingently issuable shares                                                                        |  |                                   | 171,396    |      |   | 230,349    |  |   | 104,856  
|Denominator for diluted earnings per share adjusted weighted-average shares and assumed conversions |  |                                   | 10,533,987 |      |   | 10,150,348 |  |   | 9,859,557
|Basic earnings per share                                                                            |  | $                                 | 0.61       |      | $ | 0.68       |  | $ | 0.52     
|Diluted earnings per share                                                                          |  | $                                 | 0.60       |      | $ | 0.67       |  | $ | 0.51
#### Martha Melohn et al., Respondents-Appellants, v R&M Combustion Co., Inc., Respondent; and Amerada Hess Corporation, Appellant-Respondent, et al., Defendant.

[744 NYS2d 321]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Kibbie Payne, J.), entered June 29, 2001, which, upon a jury verdict, awarded plaintiffs the total sum of $1,645,675.81, and order, same court and Justice, entered March 5, 2002, denying portions of defendant Amerada Hess’s motion pursuant to CPLR 5525 (c) (1), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this action arising out of an oil spill that occurred at *324plaintiffs’ apartment building, plaintiffs presented ample, uncontradicted evidence demonstrating the permanent nature of the resulting oil contamination and the consequent loss in the value of their property. In view of this evidence, it cannot be said that the trial proof so preponderated in favor of defendants that the jury’s verdict could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence, and, accordingly, the verdict may not be set aside as against the weight of the evidence (see, *Lolik v Big V Supermarkets,*86 NY2d 744, 746). This is particularly so since it is clear from the trial evidence that, in addition to having the value of their property substantially decline as a direct result of the oil spill, plaintiffs incurred considerable costs in connection with the cleanup of the premises. Indeed, while defendant-appellant contends that plaintiffs’ damages should have been limited to the lesser of either the diminution in value of the premises or the cost of remediation, in a case such as this where it is established that despite efforts at remediation the premises cannot be restored to their pre-accident condition, the proper measure of damages is the total of amount of the diminution in value plus the cost of repairs *(see, Johnson v Scholz,*276 App Div 163, 164). Nor is there merit to defendant Amerada Hess’s contention in reliance upon the unsettled transcript that the jury was charged, without objection, to the effect that the measure of any damages to be awarded would be the lesser of either the amount by which the premises had diminished in value or the cost of remediation. The trial court, which is “the final arbiter of the record” as to what took place during the trial *(People v Alomar,*93 NY2d 239, 247; *see also,*CPLR 5525 [c]; *People v Santorelli,*95 NY2d 412, 424; *People v Carney,*73 AD2d 9, 12-13) properly determined, based on its notes of the proceeding and copy of the charge, that it had not charged the jury in the manner contended by defendant and that the portion of the transcript relied upon by defendant was in error.

We have considered the parties’ remaining arguments for affirmative relief, including those of plaintiffs on their cross appeal, in which they urge that the trial court erred in computing the amount of prejudgment interest to which they were entitled, and find them unavailing. Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Andrias, Friedman, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.
Exhibit 10.28 






	
	 
	 
	January 27, 2004 
	 
	Mr.  Robert
      C. Bowen
	c/o Scientific Learning
      Corporation
	300 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza,
      Suite 600 
	Oakland, CA 94612 


	 
	Dear Bob: 
	 
	This letter confirms
      the agreement that the Company and you have reached concerning the payment
      to you of performance bonuses. 
	 
	As you know, your Executive
      Employment Agreement with the Company, dated as of May 31, 2002 provides,
      in Section 2.2, that you may be paid annual performance bonuses, based on
      factors specified in that Section. 
	 
	The Company and you
      have agreed that for the year 2003 and future years during your employment
      with the Company, Section 2.2 shall not apply, and instead you shall be
      eligible for a performance bonus in accordance with the Company’s Management
      Incentive Plan for the applicable year. 
	 
	Please sign below to
      confirm our agreement. 
	 
	SCIENTIFIC LEARNING
      CORPORATION 


	 	 
	 	 
	By	 /s/
      Rodman W. Moorhead
	 	——————————————————
	 	 	Rodman W. Moorhead
	 	 	Chairman of the Compensation
      Committee
	 	 	        of
      the Board of Directors
	 	 
	AGREED:
      


	 	 
	 	 
	/s/ Robert
      C. Bowen
	———————————————————
    
	 	Robert C. Bowen 
	 	 
	Date:______________________________
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                       1,103,332
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             3,670,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                  7,063,155
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                     28,151,618
<ALLOWANCE>                                    479,882
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              42,109,400
<DEPOSITS>                                  34,978,850
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            252,805
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     3,792,290
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,085,455
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              42,109,400
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                610,220
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               85,415
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                45,157
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               740,792
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             326,207
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             326,207
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          414,585
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   46,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                354,099
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 70,020
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      70,020
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    70,020
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.09
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.60
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               434,000
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              480,000
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           480,000
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32

ISONICS CORPORATION

Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350
Principal Executive Officer

To my knowledge: the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended October 31, 2003, containing financial statements for the
period then ended, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Act of 1934; and the information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Isonics Corporation for the periods presented.

December 12,
2003

|/s/JAMES E. ALEXANDERJames E. Alexander, Chief Executive Officer | 
|---------------------------------------------------------------- | 

Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350
Principal Financial Officer

To my knowledge: the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended October 31, 2003, containing financial statements for the
period then ended, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Act of 1934; and the information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Isonics Corporation for the periods presented.

December 12,
2003

|/s/JOHN SAKYSJohn Sakys, Chief Financial Officer | 
|------------------------------------------------ | 

---

QuickLinks
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kawon Taylor, Appellant.

[745 NYS2d 477]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ruchelsman, J.), rendered November 10, 1999, convicting him of attempted robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, and a new trial is ordered.

The trial court erred in allowing the prosecution to repeatedly cross-examine the defendant regarding information contained in his notice of alibi, since that notice did not contain any statements made by the defendant and was merely a document prepared by defense counsel pursuant to statute *(see*CPL 250.20; *People v Nelu,*157 AD2d 864).

While many of the defendant’s objections regarding comments made by the prosecution during summation were not properly preserved for appellate review, under the circumstances of this case we will nonetheless review the subject claims in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]).

Here, the challenged remarks made by the prosecution during summation constituted reversible error, as the remarks exceeded the “broad bounds of rhetorical comment permissible in closing argument” *(People v Galloway,*54 NY2d 396, 399) to the extent that the prosecution distorted the facts in evidence and made comments which were either inflammatory, speculative, or concerned matters not in evidence *(see People v Ashwal,*39 NY2d 105).

The prosecution consistently disregarded the Supreme Court’s sustained objections by continuing its line of improper questioning during cross-examination *(see People v Stewart,*92 AD2d 226). Accordingly, a new trial is ordered.

In light of our determination, we need not address the defendant’s remaining contention. S. Miller, J.P., Krausman, Goldstein and Cozier, JJ., concur. *[See,*182 Misc 2d 662.]
IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 959 

Supporting the Adopt-a-Platoon program, which encourages support to deployed soldiers through letters, care packages, pen pal campaigns, and 

monetary donations. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 6, 2008 

Mrs. MUSGRAVE (for herself and Mr. MURTHA) submitted the following 

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

RESOLUTION 

Supporting the Adopt-a-Platoon program, which encourages 

support to deployed soldiers through letters, care packages, pen pal campaigns, and monetary donations. 

Whereas in 1998 the Adopt-a-Platoon Soldier Support Effort 

(‘‘AAP’’) was founded as a nonprofit 501(c)(3); 

Whereas the AAP is managed nationwide by volunteer mothers and fathers; 

Whereas the AAP works to ensure that deployed United 

States Service members in all branches of the military 

are not forgotten by providing needed mail support; 

Whereas the AAP works to ensure that the deployed United 

States Service members in all branches of the military 

are provided a better deployment quality of life; 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 959 IH 

Whereas the AAP works to lift the morale of all deployed 

United States Service members in all branches of the 

military; 

Whereas the AAP works to assist military families; 

Whereas the AAP works to promote patriotism in our schools 

and communities; and 

Whereas the AAP effort is bipartisan and takes no stand on 

any conflict the United States may be in: Now, therefore, 

be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives honors 

2 the contributions of the Adopt-a-Platoon Solider Support 

3 Effort for supporting deployed United States Service 

4 members in all branches of the military. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
#### The STATE of Florida et al., Appellants, v. COUNTY OF ST. JOHNS, Florida, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Florida. Division A.

Feb. 4, 1955.

*768Murray Sams, De Land, for appellants.

Frank D. Upchurch, St. Augustine, for appellee.

ROBERTS, Justice.

The bond issue validated in the proceedings in the court below is for the same purpose and is in most respects identical with those with which we were concerned in State of Florida v. County of Flagler, Fla., 77 So.2d 765, and State v. County of Brevard, Fla., 77 So.2d 767. As in the other two cases, the amount estimated to be available in the fund primarily obligated to pay the bonds, that is, the 80 per cent, surplus gas tax fund allocated to St. Johns County, appears ample to carry the debt service requirements, and the ratio of the assessed valuation of the taxable property in the County to the amount of the bond issue for which the County is contingently liable is more favorable than in the Flagler County case.

The decree is, accordingly, affirmed under the authority of State of Florida v. County of Flagler.

MATHEWS, C. J., and TERRELL and SEBRING, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit32.1**

 

CertificatePursuant to

18U.S.C. Section 1350

asAdopted Pursuant to

Section906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

Inconnection with the Report of Access Anytime Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”) onForm 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Norman R. Corzine, Chief Executive Officer andChairman of the Board, 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) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

 
| Date:  April 29, 2005 |     | /s/  Norman R. Corzine                    |
|-----------------------|----------|-------------------------------------------|
|                  |     | Norman R. Corzine, Chairman of the Board, |
|                  |     | Chief Executive Officer                   |
| * *              | * * | *(Principal  Executive Officer)*          |

 

 

----
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Beede Site Group,

Plaintiff

v. Civil No. 08-cv-319

Leo P. LaRochelle and

Robert J. LaRochelle,

Defendants

ORDER OF RECUSAL

Due to my having a financial interest in one of the

companies listed on plaintiff’s disclosure statement, recusal is

mandatory. See 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(4).

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

June 5, 2009

cc: Robert R. Lucic,Esq.

Thomas K. MacMillan, Esq.

Stephen H. Roberts, Esq.

Case 1:08-cv-00319-WES Document 18 Filed 06/05/09 Page 1 of 1
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 Annual Report of Community Bancorp. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2010, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of the Company 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 operations of the Company as of and for the periods covered in the Report.





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Community Bancorp. and will be retained by Community Bancorp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.








/s/ Stephen P. Marsh


Stephen P. Marsh, President & Chief Executive Officer





March 28, 2011