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

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1049 

To amend section 512 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 29, 2007 

Mr. INOUYE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To amend section 512 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936. 

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

3 SECTION 1. AMENDMENT OF MERCHANT MARINE ACT, 1936. 

4 Section 512(b) of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936 (46 

5 U.S.C. 53101 note) is amended to read as follows: 

6 ‘‘(b) The restrictions and requirements of section 506 

7 shall terminate upon the expiration of the 20-year period 

8 beginning on the date of the original delivery of the vessel 

9 from the shipyard for operation of a vessel in any domestic 

10 trade in which it has operated at any time since 1996.’’. 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
2 

•S 1049 IS 

1 SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

2 The amendment made by section 1 shall take effect 

3 on October 1, 2006. 

Æ 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                       3,463,160
<SECURITIES>                                 2,326,055
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,079,515
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (315,389)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            12,721,665
<PP&E>                                      11,825,504
<DEPRECIATION>                             (3,379,892)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              22,588,909
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        8,898,985
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        76,585
<OTHER-SE>                                  13,213,540
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                22,588,909
<SALES>                                      1,061,125
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            12,272,780
<CGS>                                        1,218,752
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,900,175
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             6,129,472
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             164,959
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (591,908)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (591,908)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (591,908)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.08)


</TABLE>
1

John T. Boyd, Chief Justice (Ret.), Seventh Court of Appeals, sitting by assignm ent. TEX. GOV’T

CODE ANN. §75.002(a)(1) (Vernon 1998). 

NO. 07-03-0148-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL E

MARCH 23, 2004

______________________________

TONY G. BAILEY, 

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

Appellee

_________________________________

FROM THE 364TH DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;

NO. 2002-439,301; HON. BRADLEY UNDERWOOD, PRESIDING

_______________________________

Before QUINN and REAVIS, JJ., and BOYD, S.J.1

Appellant, Tony G. Bailey, appeals his convictions for possessing, with intent to

deliver, a controlled substance (methamphetamine) and manufacturing a controlled

substance. His sole issue on appeal involves whether he voluntarily consented to a

second search of his house. As a result of that search, the contraband in question was

found. So too was it later admitted into evidence at trial prior to appellant attempting to

suppress its admission. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
2

The record illustrates that when the police arrived at appellant’s home they did so

with the intent to search for an individual named Roberts. Appellant invited the police in

and permitted them to look for Roberts. After discovering various items of contraband, the

police testified that they asked for and received additional consent to conduct an additional

search for drugs and drug-making paraphernalia. On appeal, appellant contends that the

contraband found should have been suppressed because the second purported instance

of consent was coerced. However, this reason for suppressing the evidence was never

mentioned below. Indeed, appellant denied, at trial, that he even consented to the second

search of his abode. Having denied that he even consented to a second search, he could

have hardly argued that his consent to the second search was coerced. So, because the

ground underlying his claim on appeal does not match that uttered at trial, it was not

preserved for review. See Johnson v. State, 651 S.W.2d 303, 311 (Tex. App.--San

Antonio 1983, no pet.) (holding that the appellant was precluded from seeking review of

the voluntariness of his girlfriend’s consent to search when his objection at trial was that

the police failed to obtain permission from him to search).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Brian Quinn 

 Justice 

Do not publish.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Todd M. Horstkotte

v. Civil No. 08-cv-285-JL

NH Department of Corrections, Commissioner et al

O R D E R

I herewith approve the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge

Muirhead dated January 16, 2009, no objection having been filed.

SO ORDERED.

February 10, 2009 _________________________________

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

cc: Todd M. Horstkotte, Pro se

Deborah B. Weissbard, Esq.

Case 1:08-cv-00285-JL Document 12 Filed 02/10/09 Page 1 of 1
D ISTRICT C OURT O F A PPEAL O F T HE S TATE O F F LORIDA F OURTH D ISTRICT

DOMINIQUE MORCE , Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee

.

No. 4D 2 2

- 827

[ October 2 0 , 2022 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Indian River County ; Dan L. Vaughn

, Judge; L.T. Case No. 312018 CF 000784 A

.
Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Alan T. Lipson

, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Dominique Morce

, O rlando

, appellant.

No appearance filed for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed.

W ARNER , G ERBER and A RTAU , JJ., concur

.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### Ex parte William Harry GOODMAN.

No. 46002.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 18, 1972.

*786Wardlaw, Cochran, Neal & Brady by John A. Brady, and A. L. Wardlaw, Fort Worth, for appellant.

Doug Crouch, Dist. Atty., William E. Burdock, and Roger W. Crampton, Asst. Dist. Attys., Fort Worth, Jim D. Vollers, State’s Atty., and Robert A. Huttash, Asst. State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION

DOUGLAS, Judge.

This is an appeal from an order entered in a habeas corpus proceeding remanding the appellant to custody for extradition to the State of Georgia. The only evidence offered at the hearing was the Executive Warrant of the Governor of Texas which recites that the appellant was charged by indictment with the crime of “abandonment of a minor child contrary to 74-9902, GPC.”

The appellant recognizes that when an executive warrant regular on its face is introduced, it is sufficient for extradition. No objection was made when the warrant was introduced. Appellant now contends for the first time on appeal that the executive warrant in the present case was not regular because it does not recite that relator’s extradition was accompanied by a copy of an indictment or that the indictment was not duly authenticated by the executive authority making demand under Section 3 of Article 51.13, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P. This Section does not provide that the Governor of Texas recite all the facts that must be made known to the governor of the demanding state. Section 7 of Article 51.13, supra, provides: “ . . . The warrant must substantially recite the facts necessary to the validity of its issuance.”

The record does not show that the appellant requested a copy of the supporting papers, and what they contained is not shown. We hold that an executive warrant of the Governor of Texas does not have to recite that the indictment was duly authenticated by the executive authority in Georgia or that the indictment substantially recited the facts necessary to the issuance of the demand or that such demand was in writing.

If the supporting papers were insufficient to support the issuance of the Executive Warrant, the appellant could have requested copies and introduced them into evidence. The Governor’s Warrant is regular on its face and the hearing court was authorized to conclude as he did and remand appellant for extradition.

The order remanding appellant to custody for extradition is affirmed.

No motion for rehearing will be filed or entertained by the Clerk except by leave of this Court after good cause has been shown.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

         We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement
         333-113519 on Form S-8 dated March 11, 2004, Registration Statement
         33-61977 on Form S-8 dated August 21, 1995, Registration Statement
         33-61979 on Form S-8 dated August 21, 1995, Registration Statement
         33-12571 on Form S-8 dated March 11, 1987 and Registration Statement
         33-593 on Form S-8 dated October 1, 1985, of our report dated March 11,
         2004, with respect to the consolidated balance sheet as of December 31,
         2003 and the consolidated statements of operations, stockholders'
         equity (deficit) and cash flows for the year then ended, and the
         financial statement schedule for 2003, of Integral Vision, Inc. and
         subsidiary included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended
         December 31, 2003.

         /S/ Rehmann Robson

         Troy, Michigan
         March 26, 2004
#### Linda Kelly et al., Appellants, v National Wholesale Liquidators, Inc., et al., Defendants, and Food Merchants RPG, Inc., Respondent.

[745 NYS2d 713]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Dunne, J.), dated February 1, 2002, which, inter alia, denied their motion for leave to enter a judgment against the defendant Food Merchants RPG, Inc., upon its default in appearing or answering.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion, inter *569alia, in denying the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to enter a judgment against the defendant Food Merchants RPG, Inc. (hereinafter Food Merchants), upon its default in appearing or answering. Although Food Merchants’ delay in serving its answer was due to law office failure, the delay was brief and the plaintiffs were not prejudiced thereby *(see Khanna v Premium Food & Sports Enter.,*279 AD2d 508; *Trent v Bedford Stuyvesant Restoration Ctr.,*277 AD2d 444; *Stone v County of Nassau,*272 AD2d 392). Furthermore, there is a potentially meritorious defense *(see Trent v Bedford Stuyvesant Restoration Ctr., supra; Stone v County of Nassau, supra).*Altman, J.P., Krausman, Schmidt and Crane, JJ., concur.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Commodity Futures Trading Commission

# Time and Date:

11 a.m., Friday, October 24, 2008. 

# Place:

1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission Conference Room. 

# Status:

Closed. 

# Matters to be Considered:

Surveillance Matters. 

# Contact Person for More Information:

Sauntia S. Warfield, 202-418-5084. 

Sauntia S. Warfield, 

Staff Assistant. 

 [FR Doc. E8-23419 Filed 9-30-08; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
**THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

**Post Office Box 12248**

**Austin, Texas 78711**

**(512) 463-1312**

August 31, 2007

Ms. Diana L. Faust

Cooper & Scully, P.C.

900 Jackson Street, Suite 100

Dallas, TX 75202

Mr. Mark A. Stinnett

Stinnett Thiebaud & Remington L.L.P.

1445 Ross Avenue, Ste. 2500

Dallas, TX 75202

Mr. David G. Cabrales

Locke Liddell & Sapp LLP

2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 2200

Dallas, TX 75201-6776

RE:Case Number:  05-0823

Court of Appeals Number:  12-04-00259-CV

Trial Court Number:  2003-42-CCL2

Style:PHC-MINDEN, L.P. D/B/A MINDEN MEDICAL CENTER

v.

KIMBERLY-CLARK CORPORATION

Dear Counsel:

Today the Supreme Court of Texas delivered the enclosed opinion and judgment in the above-referenced cause.  

Sincerely,

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

by Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk

Enclosures

**Case No. 05-0823Page 2**
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
financial statements and statistical disclosures referenced within item 
14(a)(1)(2) and item 1 of the Form 10-K and is qualified in its entirety
by reference to such financial statements and statistical disclosures.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                          182459
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           33222
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 76200
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     837910
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          385262
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            393835
<LOANS>                                        3365716
<ALLOWANCE>                                      44377
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 5074785
<DEPOSITS>                                     4061888
<SHORT-TERM>                                    279841
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              84543
<LONG-TERM>                                     167819
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         50512
<OTHER-SE>                                      430182
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 5074785
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 288122
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                65864
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                  9945
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                363931
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              145090
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              166579
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           197352
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                     7859
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                1317
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 150634
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  89180
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       61314
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     61314
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.59
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.59
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.77
<LOANS-NON>                                      16740
<LOANS-PAST>                                     14995
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   503
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                   2520
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 42440
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                     8758
<RECOVERIES>                                      1901
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                44377
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             44377
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32

PARADISE MUSIC & ENTERTAINMENT, INC.
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 Paradise Music &
Entertainment, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended
March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard P. Rifenburgh, the Chairman of
the Board (Principal Executive Officer, Principal Financial Officer,
Principal Accounting Officer), hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.
1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that to the best of my knowledge: (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 result of operations
of the Company.

       /s/ Richard P. Rifenburgh

       Richard P. Rifenburgh
       Chairman of the Board
     (Principal Executive Officer,
	Principal Financial Officer,
       Principal Accounting Officer)


Date: March 6, 2009
#### Joseph Gulotta et al., Appellants, v Eva Ippolito, Respondent.

[745 NYS2d 439]

In an action, inter alia, for specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property, the plaintiffs appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Gigante, J.), dated August 22, 2001, which denied their motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability and granted the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, as they failed to meet their burden of establishing prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law *(see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr.,*64 NY2d 851, 853). In addition, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Once the defendant established a prima facie case for summary judgment, the burden shifted to the plaintiffs, who failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant breached the contract in question by exercising her right to cancel *(see generally Fried v Picariello,*158 AD2d 511, 512-513). The plaintiffs failed to obtain a mortgage loan commitment within the time period specified in the contract. Therefore, the defendant rightfully exercised the option to cancel the contract. Accordingly, the defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law *(see Finkelman v Wood,*203 AD2d 236, 237). O’Brien, J.P., H. Miller, Schmidt and Cozier, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 191 (Wednesday, October 1, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57125-57126]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-23097]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; 
Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as

[[Page 57126]]

amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive 
and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; Sex Hormones in Women 
and Diabetes.
    Date: October 27, 2008.
    Time: 4 p.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Two Democracy Plaza, 6707 
Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference 
Call).
    Contact Person: Carol J. Goter-Robinson, PhD, Scientific Review 
Officer, Review Branch, DEA, NIDDK, National Institutes of Health, 
Room 748, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892-5452, (301) 
594-7791, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#23444c574651514c414a4d504c4d4063465b5751420d4d4a4747480d4d4a4b0d444c55"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="fc9b9388998e8e939e95928f93929fbc9984888e9dd29295989897d2929594d29b938a">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.847, 
Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolic Research; 93.848, Digestive 
Diseases and Nutrition Research; 93.849, Kidney Diseases, Urology 
and Hematology Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: September 24, 2008.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E8-23097 Filed 9-30-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>