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

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1906 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.1906

                      One Hundred Seventh Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

         Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
          the twenty-third day of January, two thousand and two

                                 An Act

 
  To amend the Act that established the Pu`uhonua O Honaunau National 
         Historical Park to expand the boundaries of that park.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Pu`uhonua o Honaunau National 
Historical Park Addition Act of 2002''.

SEC. 2. ADDITIONS TO PU`UHONUA O HONAUNAU NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK.

    The first section of the Act of July 26, 1955 (69 Stat. 376, ch. 
385; 16 U.S.C. 397), is amended--
        (1) by striking ``That, when'' and inserting the following:
    ``Section 1. (a) When''; and
        (2) by adding at the end thereof the following new subsections:
    ``(b) The boundaries of Pu`uhonua o Honaunau National Historical 
Park are hereby modified to include approximately 238 acres of lands 
and interests therein within the area identified as `Parcel A' on the 
map entitled `Pu`uhonua o Honaunau National Historical Park Proposed 
Boundary Additions, Ki`ilae Village', numbered PUHO-P 415/82,013 and 
dated May, 2001.
    ``(c) The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to acquire 
approximately 159 acres of lands and interests therein within the area 
identified as `Parcel B' on the map referenced in subsection (b). Upon 
the acquisition of such lands or interests therein, the Secretary shall 
modify the boundaries of Pu`uhonua o Honaunau National Historical Park 
to include such lands or interests therein.''.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATIONS OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be 
necessary to carry out this Act.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 31.2

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION

I, Charles Smith, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of National Healthcare
Technology, Inc.

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer 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 we 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 quarterly 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; and

c) 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 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 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 controls over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

b) 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: February 16, 2004

                  /s/ Charles Smith
                  Charles Smith
                  Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          27,103
<SECURITIES>                                    67,904
<RECEIVABLES>                                   77,941
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,878
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               208,357
<PP&E>                                          31,208
<DEPRECIATION>                                  11,477
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 311,511
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           72,474
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           511
<OTHER-SE>                                     198,636
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   311,511
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                85,551
<CGS>                                           56,020
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   87,778
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 728
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,328)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,731)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,597)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 (1,421)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,018)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.08)


</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-01954-LTB

CORNELIUS MOORE,

Plaintiff,

v.

ADAMS COUNTY DETENTION FACILITY,

MS. DIANE, Medical Supervisor,

JANE DOE, SUZANNE, Acting Lieutenant,

ADAMS COUNTY DETENTION FACILITY,

JOHN DOE, Adams County Sheriff,

ROBYN, NURSE, 

JOHN DOE, Doctor,

MR. JIM, Nurse Practitioner, 

JANE DOE, Doctor, and

JOHN DOE, Doctor,

Defendants.

MINUTE ORDER

ORDER ENTERED BY SENIOR JUDGE LEWIS T. BABCOCK

On July 19, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Reopen Civil Rights Action, ECF No.

12, and a Prisoner’s Motion and Affidavit for Leave to Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915, ECF No. 13. The Motion to Reopen, ECF No. 12, is DENIED. The action was

dismissed without prejudice on September 13, 2011, for failure to cure deficiencies. If

Plaintiff desires to pursue his claims he must do so by initiating a new action. The

§ 1915 Motion, ECF No. 13, is DENIED as moot. 

Dated: July 23, 2012,

Case 1:11-cv-01954-LTB Document 15 Filed 07/23/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 99.1
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Obie Media Corporation (the Company )
on Form 10Q for the quarterly period ended February 28, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report ), I, Gary F.
Livesay, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 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 results of operations of the Company.


By: /s/GARY F. LIVESAY
    Vice President
    Chief Financial Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO 

Chief Judge Wiley Y. Daniel

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02418-WYD-KMT 

VANESSA DAVIS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

BUDGET CONTROL SERVICES, INC., 

Defendant. 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE 

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Stipulation of Dismissal With 

Prejudice (ECF No. 27), filed July 17, 2012. After carefully reviewing the 

above-captioned case, I find that the stipulation should be approved and that this case 

should be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. 41(a). Accordingly, it is 

ORDERED that the Stipulation of Dismissal With Prejudice (ECF No. 27) is 

APPROVED. In accordance therewith, this matter is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, 

each party to bear its own attorney fees and costs. 

Dated: July 17, 2012 

BY THE COURT: 

s/ Wiley Y. Daniel 

WILEY Y. DANIEL, 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-02418-WYD-KMT Document 28 Filed 07/17/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
----

----

| Period        | Base Rent Per Square Foot Per Month/NNN | Monthly Base Rent for the Premises |
|---------------|-----------------------------------------|------------------------------------|
| 1 – 3   | $0.00                                   | $0.00                              |   |
| 4 – 15  | $1.00                                   | $47,397.00                         |
| 16 – 27 | $1.04                                   | $49,292.88                         |   |
| 28 – 39 | $1.08                                   | $51,188.76                         |   |
| 40 – 51 | $1.12                                   | $53,084.64                         |   |
| 52 – 63 | $1.16                                   | $54,980.52                         |   |
| 64 – 75 | $1.20                                   | $56,876.40                         |   |
| 76 – 81 | $1.24                                   | $58,772.28                         |   |

----

|  LANDLORD:  |  VIF/ZKS NORRIS TECH CENTER, LLC,     |
|-----------------------|--------------------------------------------|
|                  |  a Delaware limited liability company |
|                  |                                       |   |
|                  |  By:                                  |  Stephens RE San Ramon I, LLC, |
|                  |                                       |  a California limited liability company, |
|                  |                                       |  its Member |
|                  |                                       |   |
|                  |                                       |  By:  /s/ Jonathan Winslow |
|                  |                                       |  Name:  Jonathan Winslow |
|                  |                                       |  Its: Manager |

|  TENANT:  |  GIGA-TRONICS INCORPORATED, |
|---------------------|----------------------------------|
|                |  a California corporation   |
|                |                             |  By: /s/ John R. Regazzi                                                                              |
|                |                             |  Name:  John R. Regazzi       |
|                |                             |  Its:  CEO                                                                                  |
|                |                             |   |

----

----
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 iGATE Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Phaneesh Murthy, Chief Executive Officer and Director of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

(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/    PHANEESH MURTHY                              
|Phaneesh Murthy Chief Executive Officer and Director

Date: November 6, 2008
<PAGE>

                              SPECTRAN CORPORATION

                                                                  Exhibit 10.107



                              SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT



1.   Background.  Corning  Incorporated  ("Corning")  and  SpecTran  Corporation
     ("SpecTran")  are parties to a Three Year  Mutimode  Optical  Fiber  Supply
     Contract,  dated  as of  January  1,  1996  ("Supply  Contract"),  and both
     SpecTran  and  Corning  wish to revise and amend their  understandings  and
     agreements  under  the  Supply  Contract  as  provided  in this  Settlement
     Agreement.


2.   Supply  Agreement.  The  parties  that (i)  Corning  will  have no  further
     obligation  to  purchase  optical  fiber  from  SpecTran  under the  Supply
     Contract,  (ii) SpecTran will have no further  claims of any nature against
     Corning  under  the  Supply  Contract  and  fully  releases  Corning,   its
     successors  and  assigns  from all  claims of any  nature  under the Supply
     Contract and (iii) Corning fully  releases  SpecTran,  its  successors  and
     assigns from all claims of any nature under the Supply Contract.


3.   Payment to SpecTran.  Corning  will pay SpecTran the sum of $4.056  million
     (Four Million Fifty Six Thousand U.S. Dollars and no cents) as follows:

              Payment Due No Later Than                       Payment Amount
              Within 5 Business Days of
              the Date of this Agreement                      $1,014,000

              May 15, 1998                                    $1,014,000

              August 14, 1998                                 $1,014,000

              November 13, 1998                               $1,014,000
                                                              ----------

              Total                                           $4,056,000







4.   Public  Announcement;  Confidentiality.  Neither Corning nor SpecTran shall
     make any press release or other public statement  concerning this Agreement
     except in a form agreed to in writing by both parties,  provided,  however,
     that neither party shall be precluded from making any disclosure concerning
     this Agreement which is required to comply with law.



Corning Incorporated                                        SpecTran Corporation




By:                                   By:
Printed Name:  Wendell P. Weeks       Printed Name:  Dr. Raymond E. Jaeger
Title:  Sr. Vice President            Title:  Chairman & Chief Executive Officer
         Optoelectronics
NO. 07-10-00045-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AMARILLO
PANEL D APRIL 13, 2010

IN RE TURPEN INSURANC E AGENCY, INC., RELATOR

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ.

ON MOTION TO DISMISS Relator Turpen Insurance Agency, Inc., has filed a motion to dismiss its petition for writ of mandamus currently pending before us. Accordi ng to the motion, the parties to the underlying litigation hav e reached a settlement. Attac hed to the motion is a copy of an order signed by the trial court, dismissi ng the underlying litigation. Because the motion does not contain a certificate of conf erence, we withheld its determination for ten days. Tex. R. App. P. 10.1(a)(5) & 10.3( a). During this period, no party filed a
response. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is granted and the origin al proceeding is dismissed. Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1). Relator’s pendi ng motion for leave to file privileged documents under s eal is dismissed as moot. Co sts of the original proceeding are taxed against relator. Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(d). Having di smissed the original proceeding at relator’s request, we will not entertain a motion for rehearing.

James T. Campbell Justice
#### WILLIAMS v. LOCICERO.

No. 14260.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

June 27, 1932.

MeCloskey & Benedict, of New Orleans, for appellant.

Johnston Armstrong, of New Orleans, for appellee.

JANVIER, J.

This is an action ex delicto against a property owner for personal injuries caused by the falling of a window shutter attached to a building belonging to defendant. Plaintiff was a passerby, and we find no serious defense on the question of liability.

However, the transcript, except for the records of the Charity Hospital, which were introduced in evidence, contains practically no testimony as to the extent of the injuries.

When the offer of the Charity Hospital records was made, it was objected to by counsel for defendant on the ground that the records constitute hearsay and are not admissible in evidence. The objection was overruled by the district judge, and the records were admitted. When the matter came up for argument in this court, counsel for appellee conceded that the ruling of the district judge, in permitting the records to be introduced, was erroneous and, he also conceded that, if those records are excluded, the transcript is fatally deficient in so far as proof as to the quantum is concerned, and, in a motion filed before us. he asks that we remand the case for further evidence.

That the Charity Hospital records should not have been permitted to be introduced we have held on two occasions. Dolan v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 11 La. App. 276, 123 So. 379; Mrs. Louise Ayo, Wife of Ragland v. Steve Holzenthal (La. App.) 141 So. 92.

Since the exclusion of those records will make it impossible for us to determine the extent of plaintiff’s injuries^ and since there can be no doubt that there is liability, we believe that in the interests of justice the matter should be remanded for the introduction of proper evidehce as to the extent of plaintiff’s injuries.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the judgment appealed from be annulled, avoided, and reversed, and that the matter be remanded to the district court for further evidence according to law and not inconsistent with the views herein expressed ; appellee to pay the costs of this appeaL Reversed and remanded.

WESTERFIELD, J., absent, takes no part.
#### Daniel A. TEMPLE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. S. Frank THOMPSON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 01-35277.

D.C. No. CV-98-00247-ALA.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 10, 2003.*

Decided March 17, 2003.

Before CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN and T. G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). We deny appellant’s request for oral argument.

MEMORANDUM**

Oregon state prisoner Daniel A. Temple appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U. S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291*731and 2253(a). Reviewing de novo, *Manning v. Foster,*224 F.3d 1129, 1132 (9th Cir.2000), we affirm.1

We have recently rejected Temple’s contention that, regardless of the contents of the petition for review, the Oregon Supreme Court considers all issues raised in briefs filed in the Oregon Court of Appeals. *See Peterson v. Lampert,*319 F.3d 1153, 1157-58 (9th Cir.2003) (en banc).

We also reject Temple’s contention that his petition for review in fact raised his self-representation claim. In that petition he discussed only one claim, concerning the court’s failure to grant a mistrial, and in context his references to the arguments he made in the court of appeals relate only to that claim. There is no indication in the petition that Temple intended to raise his self-representation claim. *Cf. Wells v. Maass,*28 F.3d 1005, 1008-09 (9th Cir. 1994) (concluding that two claims were exhausted because it was “apparent on the face of the petition for review that Wells intended to incorporate by reference both of the assignments of error raised in the Court of Appeals”).

Because Temple’s self-representation claim is not exhausted and cannot now be exhausted, the district court properly determined that the claim is procedurally defaulted. *See Peterson,*319 F.3d at 1161.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

1

. All pending motions are denied.
H. Res. 931 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

February 6, 2008. 

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; 
2 

•HRES 931 EH 

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. 

Attest: 

Clerk.