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

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1800 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to require emergency contraception 

to be available at all military health care treatment facilities. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 17, 2007 

Mrs. CLINTON (for herself, Mr. BAYH, Mr. SCHUMER, Mrs. BOXER, Mr. HARKIN, Mr. LAUTENBERG, and Mr. LIEBERMAN) introduced the following 

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to require emergency 

contraception to be available at all military health care 

treatment facilities. 

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 ‘‘Compassionate Care 

5 for Servicewomen Act’’. 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•S 1800 IS

1 SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT TO MAKE AVAILABLE EMERGENCY 

2 CONTRACEPTION AT ALL MILITARY HEALTH 

3 CARE TREATMENT FACILITIES. 

4 Section 1074g(a) of title 10, United States Code, is 

5 amended by adding at the end the following new para6 graph: 

7 ‘‘(9)(A) Emergency contraception shall be included 

8 on the basic core formulary of the uniform formulary, not9 withstanding any provision of law or regulation requiring 

10 that only drugs ordered or prescribed by a physician (or 

11 other authorized provider) may be included in the uniform 

12 formulary. 

13 ‘‘(B) Nothing in subparagraph (A) may be construed 

14 to require emergency contraception to be covered under 

15 the pharmacy benefits program. 

16 ‘‘(C) Notwithstanding paragraph (4), prior author17 ization shall not be required for emergency contraception. 

18 Nothing in the preceding sentence may be construed as 

19 waiving any provision of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cos20 metic Act (21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.) or any other provision 

21 of law administered by the Food and Drug Administra22 tion, including rules and orders of such Administration in 

23 effect at any time under such Act or other provisions of 

24 law. 

25 ‘‘(D) In this paragraph, the term ‘emergency contra26 ception’ means a drug, drug regimen, or device that is— 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
3 

•S 1800 IS

1 ‘‘(i) approved by the Food and Drug Adminis2 tration to prevent pregnancy; and 

3 ‘‘(ii) used postcoitally.’’. 

Æ 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
Exhibit 23.3

LOGO

1 HOUSTON CENTER

1221 MCKINNEY, SUITE 3700

HOUSTON, TEXAS 77010





PHONE
(713) 209-1100        FAX (713) 752-0828

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM
CONSULTANTS

Huddleston & Co., Inc. does hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-4 (No.
333-124544) of Dorchester Minerals, L.P. of our estimates of reserves, included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, and to all references to our firm included in this Annual Report.



HUDDLESTON & CO., INC./s/ Gregory S. Floyd, P.E.By:

Gregory S. Floyd, P.E.Vice President


Houston, Texas

February 10, 2009
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 13.1

            Certification by Chief Executive Officer of Annual Report

                         CERTIFICATION OF ANNUAL REPORT

I, Donald W. Smith, Chief Executive Officer of Mitel Networks Corporation
("Mitel"), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Mitel, for the fiscal year ended April 24,
2005, and for the six day transition period ended April 30, 2005, filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (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 Mitel.

Dated: October 20, 2005

                                      /s/ Donald W. Smith
                                      ---------------------------------
                                      Name: Donald W. Smith
                                      Title: Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the accompanying Annual Report of Dorchester Minerals, L.P., (the Partnership) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2010 (the Report), each of the
undersigned officers of Dorchester Minerals Management GP LLC, General Partner of Dorchester Minerals Management LP, General Partner of the Partnership, hereby certifies that:



| | (1) | 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 Partnership.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |  |  |                            
|----------------------- |  |  |  | ---------------------------
|                        |  | 
|                        |  |  |  | /s/ William Casey McManemin
|                        |  |  |  | William Casey McManemin    
|Date: February 24, 2011 |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer    
|                        |  | 
|Date: February 24, 2011 |  |  |  | /s/ H.C. Allen, Jr.        
|                        |  |  |  | H.C. Allen, Jr.            
|                        |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer
ASSIGNMENT OF MEMBERSHIP INTEREST


 


 


THIS ASSIGNMENT OF MEMBERSHIP INTEREST (this
"Assignment"), made as of February 11, 2014 (the "Effective Date"), by NET ELEMENT, INC., a
Delaware corporation ("Assignor"), in favor of TlT Group, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company
("Assignee").


 


Assignor owns ten percent (10%)
of the membership interest in T1T LAB, LLC, a Florida limited liability company (the "Assigned Interests").


 


Oleg Firer
is the "Executive" (as such term is defined in that certain Operating Agreement) of TlT LAB, LLC entered into as effective
of September 25, 2013 (the "Operating Agreement") appointed by Assignor (i.e., "NETE Member," as such
term is defined in the Operating Agreement) to the Executive Committee of T1T LAB, LLC.


 


Assignor
has agreed to transfer to Assignee all of the Assigned Interests in consideration for Assignor being released from its obligations
to T1T LAB, LLC (including the obligations to make capital contributions to T1T LAB, LLC).


 


Oleg Firer
has agreed to resign, effective immediately, as the "Executive" of T1T LAB, LLC.


 


In consideration
of the release of Assignor from any and all payment and other obligations to Assignee (including, but not limited to, the obligations
to make capital contributions to Assignee) and for other valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby
acknowledged, Assignor does hereby assign, transfer and convey to Assignee all of Assignor's right, title and interest in and to
the Assigned Interests, free and clear of any and all claims, pledges, assignments, liens, charges, mortgages, security interests,
limitations, restrictions, agreements, rights or other encumbrance (collectively, "Claims") and all duties and
obligations of Assignor to Assignee.


 


The Assignee
shall have the right to exercise all of the rights and privileges that the Assignor has heretofore had as the owner of and with
respect to the Interest.


 


Assignor
and Assignee hereby acknowledge that the assignment, transfer and conveyance hereunder is a "Permitted Transfer" (as
such term is defined in the Operating Agreement), and therefore a consent of the "Manager" (as such term is defined in
the Operating Agreement) is not required.


 


[Signatures are on next page.]


 






    	 



    	 



    




 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Assignor hereby executes this Assignment
as of the Effective Date.


 


	 	Assignor:
	 	 
	 	/s/ Oleg Firer
	 	NET ELEMENT, INC., a Delaware corporation
	 	 
	 	 
	 	 
	 	/s/ Oleg Firer
	 	Name: Oleg Firer
	 	Title: Chief Executive Officer
	 	 


 


 


 


 


 


Resignation of "Executive"
Appointed by Assignor:


 


Oleg
Firer hereby resigns, effective immediately, as the "Executive" appointed Assignor to the Executive
Committee of T1T LAB, LLC.


 


	 	/s/ Oleg Firer


 


 


 


 


 


Agreed and Acknowledged:


 


 


T1T
GROUP, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company


 


	By	/s/ Mike Zoi                       


Name: Mike Zoi


Title: Manager
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge Christine M. Arguello

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02537-CMA-BNB

JEFFREY A. FINGERT,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE WESTERN SUGAR COOPERATIVE, and

INDER MATHUR, CEO, Corporate Officer of The Western Sugar Cooperative,

Defendants.

ORDER AFFIRMING JUNE 21, 2012 RECOMMENDATION

OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This matter is before the Court on the June 21, 2012 Recommendation by

United States Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland that Defendant The Western Sugar

Cooperative’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Title VII Complaint (Doc. # 5) and Defendant

Inder Mathur’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Title VII Complaint (Doc. # 8) be granted. 

(Doc. # 16.) The Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). 

The Recommendation advised the parties that specific written objections were

due within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of the Recommendation. 

(Doc. # 16 at 4 n.5.) Despite this advisement, no objections to Magistrate Judge

Boland’s Recommendation were filed by either party. “In the absence of timely

objection, the district court may review a magistrate [judge’s] report under any standard

it deems appropriate.” Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991) (citing

Case 1:11-cv-02537-CMA-BNB Document 17 Filed 07/12/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (stating that “[i]t does not appear that

Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate’s factual or legal

conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those

findings.”). 

The Court has reviewed all the relevant pleadings concerning Defendant Western

Sugar Cooperative and Defendant Mathur’s motions to dismiss, as well as Magistrate

Judge Boland’s Recommendation. Based on this review, the Court concludes that

Magistrate Judge Boland’s analyses and recommendations are correct and that “there

is no clear error on the face of the record.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s

note. Therefore, the Court ADOPTS the Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Boland

as the findings and conclusions of this Court.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Recommendation of the United States

Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 16) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. 

 It is FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant The Western Sugar Cooperative’s

Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Title VII Complaint (Doc. # 5) and Defendant Inder Mathur’s

Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Title VII Complaint (Doc. # 8) are GRANTED. 

This case is now DISMISSED in its entirety. 

DATED: July 12 , 2012

BY THE COURT:

_______________________________

CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO

United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02537-CMA-BNB Document 17 Filed 07/12/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>                                                           Exhibit 32.2

  Certification of Principal Financial Officer
  Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



  I, Glen R. Charles, Chief Financial Officer of CVD Equipment Corporation,
  hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge, the
  quarterly report on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2007 of
  CVD Equipment Corporation (the ?Form 10-QSB") fully complies with the
  requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange 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 CVD
  Equipment Corporation.


  Dated: November 14, 2007      /s/   Glen R. Charles
                                  Glen R. Charles
                                  Chief Financial Officer
                                  (Principal Financial Officer)



                                  23
```

                                                                    Exhibit 18.1

                   LETTER FROM DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP REGARDING
                        CHANGE IN ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES

November 5, 2002

Datatec Systems, Inc.
23 Madison Road
Fairfield, NJ  07004

Dear Sirs/Madams:

At your request, we have read the description  included in your Quarterly Report
on Form 10-Q to the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  for the quarter ended
July 31,  2002,  of the facts  relating  to the  change in method of  estimating
progress   toward   completion   of  a   contract   accounted   for   under  the
percentage-of-completion  method of accounting.  Under the previous method,  the
percentage of direct labor incurred to date to total estimated  direct labor was
used to  determine a  contract's  percentage  of  completion  (efforts  expended
method),  while under the new method,  the percentage of total costs incurred to
date to total  estimated  costs is used to determine a contract's  percentage of
completion  (cost-to-cost  method). We believe, on the basis of the facts so set
forth and other  information  furnished  to us by  appropriate  officials of the
Company,  that  the  accounting  change  described  in your  Form  10-Q is to an
alternative accounting principle that is preferable under the circumstances.

We have not audited any  consolidated  financial  statements of Datatec Systems,
Inc.  and  its  consolidated  subsidiaries  as of any  date  or for  any  period
subsequent to April 30, 2002. Therefore, we are unable to express, and we do not
express, an opinion on the facts set forth in the above-mentioned  Form 10-Q, on
the related  information  furnished to us by officials of the Company, or on the
financial  position,  results of operations,  or cash flows of Datatec  Systems,
Inc.  and  its  consolidated  subsidiaries  as of any  date  or for  any  period
subsequent to April 30, 2002.

Yours truly,
\\Deloitte & Touche LLP\\
```
#### Manuel NAVARRETTE et al., Appellants, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 46481.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 7, 1973.

*149Joseph (Sib) Abraham, Jr. and Anthony C. Aguilar, El Paso, for appellants.

Steve W. Simmons, Dist. Atty., Gary B. Weiser, Asst. Dist. Atty., El Paso, Jim D. Vollers, State’s Atty., Robert A. Huttash, Asst. State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION

MORRISON, Judge.

This is a bond forfeiture proceeding.

The sole ground of error is that “there was a material variance between the offense alleged in the bail bond and the judgment nisi inasmuch as there is no offense under State statutes entitled: ‘destruction — over fifty’.”

The bail bond recites appellant to be charged with the felony of “destruction— over fifty” and the judgment nisi recites the offense charged as “willful destruction of property of the value of fifty dollars and over belonging to another”.

In Pharis et al. v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 362 S.W.2d 857, this Court said:

> “We hold that the recitation made in the bail bond, . . . that the defendant-principal was charged with a ‘felony’ is a sufficient legal description of the offense.” 1

Finding no reversible error, the judgment is affirmed.

1

. See Article 17.08, Section 3, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02342-BNB

FRANKIE L. MCCONNELL,

Plaintiff,

v.

ANDREA CIRBO, 

DEBRA REILLY, and 

K. O’BRIEN,

Defendants.

ORDER DRAWING CASE

Following review pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 8.2C, the court has determined

that this case does not appear to be appropriate for summary dismissal. Therefore, the

case will be drawn to a district judge and to a magistrate judge. See D.C.COLO.LCivR

8.2D. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that this case shall be drawn to a district judge and to a magistrate

judge.

DATED November 21, 2011, at Denver, Colorado.

BY THE COURT:

 s/ Boyd N. Boland 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02342-WJM Document 11 Filed 11/21/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 12.1



I, Kevin Hanson, Chief Executive Officer, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 20-F of

Brockton Capital Corp.;



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

Annual 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 company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4. The company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)) and internal control over

financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d

-15(f)) for the company 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 company, 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 company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 companys internal control

over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the

annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to

materially affect, the companys internal control over financial

reporting; and



5. The companys other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on

our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to

the companys auditors and the audit committee of the company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 company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 companys internal control

over financial reporting.



Date: October 13, 2005



Kevin Hanson

Chief Executive Officer



1
#### Roger WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 50212.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 18, 1975.

Lonnie W. Duke, San Antonio, for appellant.

Ted Butler, Dist. Atty., Fred Rodriguez, C. Michael Schill and Susan D. Reed, Asst. Dist. Attys., San Antonio, Jim D. Vollers, State’s Atty., and David S. McAngus, Asst. State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION

DALLY, Commissioner.

This is an appeal from a conviction for aggravated robbery; the punishment, enhanced under the provisions of V.T.C.A., Penal Code, Section 12.42, is imprisonment for thirty years.

In the interest of justice under the provisions of Article 40.09, Section 13, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P., we find that the indictment is fundamentally defective because it fails to allege an element of the offense. It fails to allege, as it must, that the appellant either (1) caused bodily injury to another, or (2) threatened or placed another in fear of imminent bodily injury or death. One or the other of these allegations is necessary,

V.T.C.A., Penal Code, Section 29.03, provides :

> “(a) A person commits an offense if he commits robbery as defined in Section 29.02 of this code, and he:

> “(1) causes serious bodily injury to another; or

> “(2) uses or exhibits a deadly weapon.

> “(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the first degree.”

*74V.T.C.A., Penal Code, Section 29.02, provides :

> “(a) A person commits an offense if, in the course of committing theft as defined in Chapter 31 of this code and with intent to obtain or maintain control of the property, he:

> “(1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes bodily injury to another; or

> “(2) intentionally or knowingly threatens or places another in fear of imminent bodily injury or death.

> “(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the second degree.”

The indictment in this case in pertinent part alleges:

> *. .*on or about the STH day of JANUARY, A.D., 1974, ROGER WILLIAMS, hereinafter called defendant, did then and there intentionally and knowingly use and exhibit a deadly weapon namely: A PISTOL, to DALE STEVENSON, hereinafter called complainant, while the said defendant was in the act of committing theft of property, namely: A WALLET, from said complainant, the owner of said property, without the effective consent of the said complainant, and said acts were committed by the said defendant with the intent then and there to obtain and maintain control of the said property; . . .”

Compare the above allegations with the forms in Morrison and Blackwell, New Penal Code Forms, Sec. 29.03B, p. 33, and Texas Ann.Penal Statutes With Forms (Branch’s 3rd Ed.), Vol. 2, p. 320.

The judgment is reversed and it is ordered the indictment be dismissed.

Opinion approved by the Court.