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

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1488 

To amend the definition of independent student for purposes of the need 

analysis in the Higher Education Act of 1965 to include older adopted 

students. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 24, 2007 

Mr. COLEMAN (for himself and Ms. LANDRIEU) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To amend the definition of independent student for purposes 

of the need analysis in the Higher Education Act of 

1965 to include older adopted students. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Fostering Adoption 

5 to Further Student Achievement Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO INDEPENDENT STUDENT. 

7 Section 480(d) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 

8 (20 U.S.C. 1087vv(d)) is amended— 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with BILLS
2 

•S 1488 IS

1 (1) in paragraph (6), by striking ‘‘or’’ after the 

2 semicolon; 

3 (2) in paragraph (7), by striking the period at 

4 the end and inserting ‘‘; or’’; and 

5 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

6 ‘‘(8) was adopted from the foster care system 

7 when the individual was 13 years of age or older.’’. 

Æ 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with BILLS
No. 72-951.

#### Salem Equipment, Inc., et al. *v.*Kockum Industries, Inc.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 99.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)



I, Brian F. Lavin, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

To the best of my knowledge and belief, the annual report on Form 10-K filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2003, by NTS-Properties IV and to which
this certification is appended (the "Periodic Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Periodic Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of NTS-
Properties IV.

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

|/s/ Brian F. Lavin                              
|------------------------------------------------
|                                                
|President of NTS Capital Corporation,           
|General Partner of NTS-Properties Associates IV,
|General Partner of NTS-Properties IV
**Exhibit
      31.2**





**CERTIFICATIONS**





I,
      Michael S. Shore, certify that:





1.
      I have
      reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of SMF Energy
      Corporation;





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 the period covered
      by
      this report based on such evaluation; and





(c)
      Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controls over
      financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s second fiscal quarter
      that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,
      the
      registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.





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 weakness 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; 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, 2007








/s/
      Michael S. Shore





Michael
      S. Shore


Chief
      Financial Officer and Senior Vice President






40
EXHIBIT 32.2

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 June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), I, Ramachandran Natesan, Chief Financial Officer 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/    RAMACHANDRAN NATESAN                 
|Ramachandran Natesan Chief Financial Officer

Date: August 1, 2008
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-40104

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE RAUL ALVAREZ-PAZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(M-00-CR-430)

 

October 17, 2001

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Alvarez-Paz appeals his sentence for possession with intent to

distribute marijuana. He argues that his sentence should not have

been enhanced for possession of a dangerous weapon because the

firearms found near him were not in plain view. He also claims that

he did not know that firearms were located nearby or that his codefendant possessed firearms.

Alvarez-Paz’s allegations at most establish that it is
1 U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 cmt. n.3.

possible that the firearms present at the time of his arrest were

not connected with the offense, not that it is clearly improbable

that the firearms were connected with the offense, as is required.1

The district court’s determination was not clearly erroneous.

AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Natrol, Inc.(the “Company”) for the period ended March 31, 2006, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), theundersigned, in the capacity and on the date listed below, hereby certifies,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

 

(1)           TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), asapplicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)           Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

This Certification is provided solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, and Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K promulgated under theSecurities Act of 1933, as amended, and shall not be deemed part of the Reportor “filed” for any purpose whatsoever, nor shall it be deemed incorporated byreference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934.

 

 
| Date: May 15, 2006 |                               |
|--------------------|------------------------------------|
|               | /s/ Wayne Bos                      |   |
|               | Wayne Bos                          |
|               | President, Chief Executive Officer |
|               | (Principal Executive Officer)      |

 

1

----
227 La. 198

#### STATE of Louisiana v. Joseph SCOTT and Calvin Scott.

No. 42141.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 14, 1955.

Rehearing Denied March 21, 1955.

John D. Nix, New Orleans, for appellants.

Fred S. LeBlanc, Atty. Gen., M. E. Cul-ligan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Melvin P. Barre, Dist. Atty., New Orleans, for appellee.

PONDER, Justice.

The defendants were convicted in the lower court of the crime of manslaughter and sentenced to serve 15 years in the state penitentiary. They have appealed.

It appears from the minutes of the lower court that the defendants were found guilty of manslaughter by a jury on December 18, 1953. A motion for a new trial was filed on January 18, 1954. On April 5, 1954, the motion for a new trial was submitted and denied by the court and the defendants were sentenced to serve 15 years in the penitentiary. Counsel for the defendants on that date moved for a sus-pensive appeal which was granted and made returnable to this Court on May 24, 1954. The return day was extended from time to time prior to the hearing of the appeal. During the early part of July, 1954, counsel for the defendants presented to the trial judge certain bills of exception, purported to have been taken during the trial of the case, for the judge’s signature, which the judge, on July 12, 1954, refused to sign on the grounds that he had been divested of jurisdiction when the appeal was granted on April 5, 1954.

Counsel for the defendants contends that the trial judge and the district attorney acquiesced in an extension of time in which to perfect the bills of exception. The record shows that the defendants’ attorney in the motion for a new trial asked for an extension of time on January 18, 1954 but this motion was not passed on until April 5, 1954 and the minutes show that the motion was denied on that date. It appears from the minutes that counsel waived all legal delays on that date and the defendants were thereupon sentenced. On the same date, counsel moved for and was granted a suspensive appeal to this Court.

It is now well settled in our jurisprudence that bills of exception must be presented to and signed by the judge before the appeal is taken because when the appeal is taken the lower court is divested of jurisdiction. Article 545 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, LSA-R.S. 15:545. State v. Barrett, 137 La. 535, 68 So. 945; State v. Snowden, 174 La. 156, 140 So. 9; State v. Carlson, 192 La. 501, 188 So. 155; State v. Calvin, 209 La. 257, 24 So.2d 467; State v. Brown, 214 La. 18, 36 So.2d 624; State v. Roy, 217 La. 1074, 47 So.2d 915; *833State v. Woods, 220 La. 162, 55 So.2d 902; State v. Dartez, 222 La. 9, 62 So.2d 83.

Since there • are no errors patent on the face of the record and no valid bills of exception, there is nothing presented for review. State v. Owens, 210 La. 808, 28 So.2d 337.

For the reasons assigned, the conviction and sentence are affirmed.
1 This minute order is issued pursuant to the express authority of the Honorable Robert E. 

Blackburn, United States District Judge for the District of Colorado.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge Robert E. Blackburn

Criminal Case No. 11-cr-00382-REB

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

GABRIEL E. SILVA,

Defendant.

MINUTE ORDER1

A Notice of Disposition was filed on January 4, 2013. A Joint Change of Plea

hearing is set for January 23, 2013, at 11:00 a.m., with Criminal Case Number 12-cr00457-REB, USA v. Ramirez-Martinez, at which counsel and the defendant shall

appear without further notice or order. Counsel for the parties shall deliver or e-mail

a courtesy copy of all plea documents separately to Judge Blackburn’s chambers

AND to the Probation Department not later than 48 hours before the change of

plea hearing date. See D.C.COLO.LCivR 11.1C. If the documents are not timely

submitted, the hearing will be vacated. There will be no exceptions to this policy. On

the date of the hearing, counsel shall then bring with them an original and one (1)

COPY of the plea agreement and the statement in advance. See

D.C.COLO.LCivR11.1F.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent necessary, the United States

Marshal for the District of Colorado shall assist the court in securing the defendant’s

appearance for this hearing.

Dated: January 4, 2013
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND THE RELATED CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND CASH FLOWS FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997
INCLUDED ELSEWHERE IN THIS FORM 10-KSB AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           2,190
<SECURITIES>                                     3,394
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,592
<ALLOWANCES>                                       196
<INVENTORY>                                      5,187
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                15,829
<PP&E>                                           5,015
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,913
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  41,627
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,571
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            2,756
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        35,659
<OTHER-SE>                                     (8,902)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    41,627
<SALES>                                         23,286
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                23,854
<CGS>                                           12,791
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   22,534
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 554
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    766
<INCOME-TAX>                                       559
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                207
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       207
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .02
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit
32




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350)




In
connection with the accompanying report of SportsNuts, Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 (the “Report”), I, John D. Thomas,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:




(1)
            To
      my knowledge, the report fully complies with the requirements of
      Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15
      U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and




(2)
            The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.




Dated:
August 14, 2008




/s/ John D. Thomas


John D. Thomas


Chief
Executive Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

LEWIS T. BABCOCK, JUDGE

Civil Case No. 11-cv-02487-LTB-KLM

NICOLE BAROS,

Plaintiff,

v.

SENTRY INSURANCE, a mutual company,

Defendant.

_______________________________________________________________________

ORDER

_______________________________________________________________________

THIS MATTER having come before the Court on the Stipulation for Dismissal With

Prejudice (Doc 30 - filed June 19, 2012), and the Court being fully advised in the premises,

it is therefore

ORDERED that this matter shall be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, each party to

pay their own fees and costs. 

BY THE COURT:

 s/Lewis T. Babcock 

LEWIS T. BABCOCK, JUDGE

DATED: June 20, 2012

Case 1:11-cv-02487-LTB-KLM Document 31 Filed 06/20/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
## NUMBER 13 - 18 - 00417 - C V COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN R E PLAINSCAPITAL BANK, YVONNE TREVINO,

AND JIM KRIEGER

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Benavides

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Valdez 1 Relators PlainsCapital Bank, Yvonne Trevino, and Jim Krieger filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the above cause seeking to compel the trial court to vacate a July 27, 2018 discovery order and to dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction, or alternatively, abate the case pending disposition of a related case pending in the Hidalgo County Probate Court, or alternatively, enter an amended order limiting discovery. The July 27,

1 See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 52.8(d) ( “ When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do so. ” ); id. R. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).2

2018 order at issue here allows specific, limited pre

- arbitration discovery and provides that relators’ motion to compel arbitration and alternative plea in abatement will be heard within fifteen days of the date that rela tors produce th e specified discovery. The Court request ed and received a response to the petition from the real party in interest, Jeff Richter as attorney

- in

- fact for Aleah Sue Richter

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P

. 52.2, 52.4, 52.8.
M andamus is an extraordinar y remedy. In re H.E.B. Grocery Co. , 492 S.W.3d 300, 302 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). Mandamus relief is proper to correct a clear abuse of discretion when there is no adequate remedy by appeal. In re Christus Santa Rosa Health Sys. , 492 S.W.3d 276, 279 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding). Relators bear the burden of proving both requirements. In re H.E.B. Grocery Co. , 492 S.W.3d at 302; Walker v. Packer

, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). An abuse of discretion occur s when a trial court ’ s ruling is arbitrary and unreasonable or is made without regard for guiding legal principles or supporting
evidence. In re Nationwide Ins. Co. of Am. , 494 S.W.3d 708, 712 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding); Ford Motor Co. v. Garcia , 363 S.W.3d 573, 578 (Tex. 2012). We determine the adequacy of an appellate remedy by balancing the benefits of mandamus review against the detriments. In re Essex Ins. Co ., 450 S.W.3d 524, 528 (Tex. 2014) (orig. proceeding); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. , 148 S.W.3d 124, 136 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus, the response, the reply, the record, and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relators
have not established thei r right to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we lift the stay previously imposed in this case. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 52.10(b) (“Unless vacated or3

modified, an order granting temporary relief is effective until the case is finally decided.”).
W e deny th e petit ion for writ of mandamus.
/s/ Rogelio Valdez ROGELIO VALDEZ Chief Justice

Delivered and filed the 30 th d ay of August , 2018.
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1453 

To extend the moratorium on taxes on Internet access and multiple and 

discriminatory taxes on electronic commerce imposed by the Internet 

Tax Freedom Act, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 23, 2007 

Mr. CARPER (for himself, Mr. ALEXANDER, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. VOINOVICH, 

and Mr. ENZI) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To extend the moratorium on taxes on Internet access and 

multiple and discriminatory taxes on electronic commerce 

imposed by the Internet Tax Freedom Act, and for other 

purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘ITFA Extension Act 

5 of 2007’’. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
2 

•S 1453 IS 

1 SEC. 2. FOUR-YEAR EXTENSION OF INTERNET TAX MORA2 TORIUM. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1101(a) of the Internet 

4 Tax Freedom Act (47 U.S.C. 151 note) is amended by 

5 striking ‘‘2007:’’ and inserting ‘‘2011:’’. 

6 (b) GRANDFATHERING OF STATES THAT TAX INTER7 NET ACCESS.—Section 1104(a)(2)(A) of such Act is 

8 amended by striking ‘‘2007.’’ and inserting ‘‘2011.’’. 

9 SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF INTERNET ACCESS. 

10 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1105(5) of the Internet 

11 Tax Freedom Act (47 U.S.C. 151 note) is amended to 

12 read as follows: 

13 ‘‘(5) INTERNET ACCESS.—The term ‘Internet 

14 access’— 

15 ‘‘(A) means a service that enables users to 

16 connect to the Internet to access content, infor17 mation, or other services offered over the Inter18 net; 

19 ‘‘(B) may include incidental services di20 rectly related to the provision of the service de21 scribed in subparagraph (A), such as electronic 

22 mail or instant messaging; and 

23 ‘‘(C) does not include— 

24 ‘‘(i) telecommunications services (as 

25 defined in section 3(46) of the Commu26 nications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
3 

•S 1453 IS 

1 153(46))), except to the extent such serv2 ices are purchased, used, or sold by a pro3 vider of Internet access to provide Internet 

4 access described in subparagraph (A) or 

5 (B); or 

6 ‘‘(ii) voice service or any other good or 

7 service utilizing Internet protocol or any 

8 successor protocol, except services de9 scribed in subparagraph (A) or (B).’’. 

10 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The Internet Tax 

11 Freedom Act (47 U.S.C. 151 note) is amended by striking 

12 section 1108 and redesignating section 1109 as section 

13 1108. 

Æ 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS