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

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 82 (Wednesday, May 17, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H5174]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] is recognized for 5 minutes.

  [Mr. BURTON of Indiana addressed the House. His remarks will appear 
hereafter in the Extensions of Remarks.]

                          ____________________
```
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

JAMES ADAMS

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 21

- 2629

[ February 24, 2022 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Ernest A. Kollra

, Judge; L.T. Case No. 07

- 002371CF10A

.

James Adams, Miami, pro se.

No appearance for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed

.

G ROSS

, D AMOORGIAN and F ORST , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-27-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-29-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-27-1998
<CASH>                                           3,317
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   81,781
<ALLOWANCES>                                       850
<INVENTORY>                                     24,069
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               138,106
<PP&E>                                         177,044
<DEPRECIATION>                                  58,843
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 328,396
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          141,680
<BONDS>                                        171,674
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      13,358
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   328,396
<SALES>                                        483,224
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               483,224
<CGS>                                          404,001
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  404,001
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              19,814
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (7,884)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (538)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (7,346)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,067)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 4.1



	 
	
1








	







 

	 
	
2








	





 

 

	 
	
3








	





 

 

	 
	
4








	







 

	 
	
5








	





 

 

	 
	
6








	





 

 

	 
	
7








	





 

 

	 
	
8








	





 

 

	 
	
9








	





 

10
#### NATIONAL METROPOLITAN BANK *v.*LINCOLN.

Appeal and Eeeoe.

Where judgment ig entered by the lower court upon the mandate of this court, without objection or exception by the losing party, and without any offer by him of evidence necessitating a new trial, there is nothing, presented for this court to review on an appeal by him from sueh¡ judgment, and the judgment will be *affirmed.*

No. 2270.

Submitted April 6, 1911.

Decided May 1, 1911.

Hearing on. an appeal by an intervening claimant from at judgment of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia dismissing its petition of intervention in an attachment proceeding, in accordance with a previous mandate of this court.

*Affirmed.*

The facts are stated in the opinion.

*Mr. Jackson H.*Ralston, *Mr. Frederick L.*Siddons, and *Mr.. William E. Richardson*for the appellant.

*Mr. Percival M. Brown, Mr. Charles W. Clagett,*and *Mr.. Walter R. Guy*for the appellee.

Mr. Justice Van Orsdel

delivered the opinion of the Court r

This case was here on a former appeal. 35 App. D. C, 363, 30 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1215. Eor a review of the facts, reference is^ made to the opinion filed therein. The present appeal is from a judgment entered in 'favor of the appellee upon motion of his counsel for the dismissal of appellant’s intervening petition, and for judgment upon the mandate of this court.

It does not appear from the record that appellant offered to *255produce additional evidence necessitating a new trial, or that any objection was interposed to the entry of judgment upon, the mandate, or exception taken to the action of the court in. granting the motion. In the absence of any exception properly appearing in the record, there is nothing presented for this, court to review. *Young*v. Martin, 8 Wall. 354, 19 L. ed. 418.

The judgment of the court below is affirmed, with costs, and. it is so ordered. *Affirmed.*
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed August 25, 2021. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D21-1021 Lower Tribunal No. F06-28538

________________ Quincy Watkins, Appellant, vs. The State of Florida, Appellee. An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Teresa Mary Pooler, Judge. Quincy Watkins, in proper person. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Sandra Lipman, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. Before LOGUE, SCALES and LOBREE, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANTHONY LEWIS,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

ROBASCOITTI; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 11-15288

D.C. No. 3:10-cv-00601-RCJRAM

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Robert Clive Jones, Chief Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 19, 2011** 

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

Anthony Lewis, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district

court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. §1983 action alleging various

constitutional violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We

review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Barren v. Harrington,

FILED

JAN 09 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 11-15288

152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Lewis’s action because Lewis failed to

allege facts showing that defendants deprived him of any constitutional right. See

Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006) (“To state a

claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege . . . that a right secured by the

Constitution or laws of the United States was violated[.]”); see also Farmer v.

Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994) (“[D]eliberate indifference” is evidenced only

when “the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or

safety[.]”); Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (setting forth

elements of a First Amendment retaliation claim); Oltarzewski v. Ruggiero, 830

F.2d 136, 139 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Verbal harassment or abuse . . . is not sufficient to

state a constitutional deprivation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” (citation, internal

quotation marks, and brackets omitted)).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying leave to amend

because it is clear from the face of the complaint that the deficiencies could not be

cured by amendment. See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir.

1995).

Lewis’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 82 (Wednesday, May 17, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H5190]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                               MEMORIALS

  Under clause 4 of rule XXII, memorials were presented and referred as 
follows:

       83. By the SPEAKER: Memorial of the House of 
     Representatives of the State of Hawaii, relative to an 
     integrated pest management control program to prevent the 
     spread of the Brown Tree Snake; to the Committee on 
     Agriculture.
       84. Also, memorial of the House of Representatives of the 
     State of Hawaii, relative to urging the U.S. Department of 
     Agriculture to consider the effect of and exclude the State 
     of Hawaii from Federal legislation that would have a 
     detrimental impact on Hawaii's environment; to the Committee 
     on Agriculture.
       85. Also, memorial of the House of Representatives of the 
     State of Hawaii, relative to urging the U.S. Department of 
     Agriculture to exclude Hawaii from any Federal legislation 
     that would create exceptions from the Honeybee Act of 1922, 
     as amended; to the Committee on Agriculture.
       86. Also, memorial of the House of Representatives of the 
     State of Hawaii, relative to memorializing the Congress of 
     the United States to propose and submit to the several States 
     an amendment to the Constitution of the United States that 
     would provide that no Federal tax shall be imposed for the 
     period before the date of the enactment of the retroactive 
     tax; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
     

                          ____________________
```
News United States Air Force
 Air Force elevates discharge authority for transgender-related Airmen separationsPublished June 4, 2015
                        
                        By Secretary of the Air Force Public Affairs
                **WASHINGTON (AFNS) --**
                Air Force leaders announced June 4 a change to the decision authority for involuntary separations for enlisted Airmen diagnosed with gender dysphoria or who identify themselves as transgender.
"Though the Air Force policy regarding involuntary separation of gender dysphoric Airmen has not changed, the elevation of decision authority to the director, Air Force Review Boards Agency, ensures the ability to consistently apply the existing policy," said Daniel Sitterly, the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Manpower and Reserve Affairs. 
This change follows a similar one instituted by the Army in March of this year.
Neither gender dysphoria nor self-identification as transgender is an automatic circumstance that generates involuntary separation. A recommendation for discharge because of gender dysphoria must be supported by a report of evaluation by a psychiatrist or Ph.D.-level clinical psychologist. In addition, after consultation with medical professionals, there must be a commander determination that the condition interferes with duty requirements -- including potential deployment -- or duty performance. Identification as transgender, absent a record of poor duty performance, misconduct, or a medically disqualifying condition, is not a basis for involuntary separation.
If command recommends involuntary separation of an enlisted Airman for gender dysphoria or for another reason and the enlisted Airman has self-identified as transgender, separation action will be reviewed by the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council for recommendation, and then to
the AFRBA director, for decision. 
Officer involuntary administrative separation decision authority remains with the AFRBA director.enlisted Airmen 



Air Force Review Boards Agency 



 



involuntary separations
##### 



Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Tamer Husseini, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
Report of Celeritek, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September
30, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such
Quarterly Report fairly presents in all material respects the financial
condition and results of operations of Celeritek, Inc.

| |                               
| | ------------------------------
| | By: /s/ TAMER HUSSEINI        
| |                               
| | Name: Tamer Husseini          
|
| | Title: Chief Executive Officer

I, Margaret E. Smith, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the
Quarterly Report of Celeritek, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in
such Quarterly Report fairly presents in all material respects the financial
condition and results of operations of Celeritek, Inc.

| |                               
| | ------------------------------
| | By: /s/ MARGARET E. SMITH     
| |                               
| | Name: Margaret E. Smith       
|
| | Title: Chief Financial Officer

35
<PAGE>

                         LA JOLLA COVE INVESTORS, INC.
                          1795 UNION STREET, 3rd FLOOR
                         SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94123
                            TELEPHONE: (415) 409-8703
                            FACSIMILE: (415) 409-8704
                            E-MAIL: LJCI@PACBELL.NET


LA JOLLA                      www.ljcinvestors.com                 SAN FRANCISCO
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                October ___, 2003


Mr. D. Ronald Allen
Integrated Performance Systems Inc.
17300 North Dallas Parkway, Suite 2040
Dallas, TX 75248


Re: Registration Statement Legal and Accounting Fees


Dear Ronald:

This letter will set forth our agreement for the payment of the  attorneys'  and
accounting  fees  necessary  for  the  filing  of a  registration  statement  by
Integrated Performance Systems Inc. ("Integrated") to cover, among other things,
the shares of Integrated common stock necessary for the 8% Convertible Debenture
and the warrants issued to La Jolla Cove Investors, Inc. ("LJCI").

Under  the  Securities  Purchase  Agreement,  LJCI  is to  advance  $250,000  to
Integrated  upon  closing.  It is agreed  that LJCI will  retain  $50,000 of the
initial  advance for the payment of legal and accounting  fees for the filing of
the Registration Statement for the Conversion Shares and the Warrant Shares. Any
amount not used for such  purposes  will be paid to  Integrated on the effective
date of the Registration Statement.

Integrated agrees that it is responsible for the payment of legal and accounting
fees, if any, over and above the $50,000 covered herein.

If this  letter  correctly  reflects  our  agreement  regarding  the  payment of
Integrated's  attorneys' and accounting  fees for the  preparation and filing of
the Registration Statement, please acknowledge your agreement by signing below.


Sincerely,


Travis W. Huff
Portfolio Manager


Integrated Performance Systems Inc.

By: __________________________

Title: ________________________
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

Exhibit 10.23    
    


 
 

CONFIRMATION OF LEASE TERM    
    


        THIS CONFIRMATION OF LEASE TERM is made this 17th day of November, 2000, between MASONS MILL PARTNERS, L.P. ("Landlord") and IMMUNICON CORPORATION
("Tenant") 


        Landlord
and Tenant have entered into a certain Second Amendment to Agreement of Lease (the "Second Amendment") dated September 19, 2000 demising certain Additional Space
consisting of 12,715 rentable square feet in Building #2, located in the Masons Mill Business Park, Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006. All of the capitalized terms herein shall have the same respective
definitions as set forth in the Lease. 


        Pursuant
to the provisions of Article 3 of the Second Amendment, Landlord and Tenant, intending to be legally bound hereby, acknowledge and agree that the Additional Space Rent
Commencement Date shall be the 1st day of December, 2000, and that the term of the Lease shall end on the 30th day
of November, 2006, at 11:59 p.m., unless sooner terminated or extended, as provided in the Lease. As supplemented hereby, the Lease shall continue in full force and
effect. 


        IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have duly executed this Confirmation of Lease Term as of the day and year first written above. 



	 	 	LANDLORD:

MASONS MILL PARTNERS, L.P.

A Pennsylvania limited partnership
	

 	
 	

By:	
 	

WOODMOUNT COMPANY, LLC, a Pennsylvania limited liability company, its sole General Partner
	

 	
 	

By:	
 	

/s/ DUNCAN B. PITCAIRN

	 	 	Name:	 	Duncan B. Pitcairn
	

 	
 	

TENANT:

IMMUNICON CORPORATION
	

 	
 	

By:	
 	

/s/ JAMES G. MURPHY

	 	 	Name:	 	James G. Murphy
	 	 	Title:	 	Chief Financial Officer

SR. Vice President











QuickLinks



Exhibit 10.23


CONFIRMATION OF LEASE TERM
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 4 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 4

  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
  abolish the electoral college and to provide for the direct popular 
   election of the President and Vice President of the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 4, 2007

  Mr. Gene Green of Texas introduced the following joint resolution; 
          which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
  abolish the electoral college and to provide for the direct popular 
   election of the President and Vice President of the United States.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled   (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein),

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This joint resolution may be cited as the ``Every Vote Counts 
Amendment''.

SEC. 2. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

    The following article is proposed as an amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents 
and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the 
legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years 
after the date of its submission for ratification:

                              ``Article --

    ``Section 1.  The President and Vice President shall be elected by 
the people of the several States and the district constituting the seat 
of government of the United States.
    ``Section 2.  The electors in each State shall have the 
qualifications requisite for electors of Senators and Representatives 
in Congress from that State, except that the legislature of any State 
may prescribe less restrictive qualifications with respect to residence 
and Congress may establish uniform residence and age qualifications.
    ``Section 3.  The persons having the greatest number of votes for 
President and Vice President shall be elected.
    ``Section 4.  Each elector shall cast a single vote jointly 
applicable to President and Vice President. Names of candidates may not 
be joined unless they shall have consented thereto and no candidate may 
consent to the candidate's name being joined with that of more than one 
other person.
    ``Section 5.  The Congress may by law provide for the case of the 
death of any candidate for President or Vice President before the day 
on which the President-elect or Vice President-elect has been chosen, 
and for the case of a tie in any election.
    ``Section 6.  This article shall apply with respect to any election 
for President and Vice President held after the expiration of the 1-
year period which begins on the date of the ratification of this 
article.''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 31.1

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

      I, George J. Carter, certify that:

1.    I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K of
      Franklin Street Properties Corp.; and

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.


Date: April 1, 2004                      /s/ George J. Carter
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                         George J. Carter
                                         President and Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 99.1



                                  CERTIFICATION


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and in connection with the filing by Aries Ventures
Inc. (the "Company") with the Securities and Exchange Commission of its
Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the Quarterly Period Ended June 30, 2000
(the "Report"), each of the undersigned does hereby certify that:

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

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




                                          /s/ MARK S. ZUCKER
Date:  December 23, 2002             By:  ___________________________
                                          Mark S. Zucker
                                          Chairman of the Board of
                                    Directors


                                          /s/ ROBERT N. WEINGARTEN
Date:  December 23, 2002             By:  ___________________________
                                          Robert N. Weingarten
                                          President and Chief
                                          Financial Officer