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

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 92 (Wednesday, June 7, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S7801]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

               RECOGNITION OF THE ACTING MAJORITY LEADER

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The acting majority leader is recognized.

                                SCHEDULE

  Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Presiding Officer and President pro tempore.
  Mr. President, the leader's time has been reserved this morning, and 
there will be a period for morning business until the hour of 9:45 a.m.
  Following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of 
S. 735, the antiterrorism bill, with Senator Biden to offer a habeas 
corpus amendment No. 1217. That amendment is limited to 30 minutes of 
debate. Therefore, Senators should be on notice that a rollcall vote is 
expected at approximately 10:15 this morning.
  Following disposition of the Biden amendment, only six amendments 
remain in order to the antiterrorism bill. It is, therefore, the 
expressed hope of the majority leader to complete action on the bill 
early this afternoon and then begin consideration of S. 652, the 
telecommunications bill.

                          ____________________
```
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 43 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

  1st Session
H. J. RES. 43

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 21, 2007

      Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
           Increasing the statutory limit on the public debt.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled,  That subsection (b) of 
section 3101 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by striking 
out the dollar limita-

tion contained in such subsection and inserting in lieu thereof 
$9,815,000,000,000.

            Passed the House of Representatives May 17, 2007.

            Attest:

                                            LORRAINE C. MILLER,

                                                                 Clerk.

                               By Deborah M. Spriggs,

                                                          Deputy Clerk.
```
#### J. R. Harrington v. M. D. Harrington.

(No. 6438.)

Appeal from Eastland County.

R. B. Einley, counsel for appellant.

De Berry & Wheeler, counsel for appellee.

Opinion by

Willson, J.

*120April 19, 1890.

§ 80. *Citation; service of; after return day thereof, a nullity.*Judgment by default was rendered in favor of defendant in error against plaintiff in error in the county court, upon a promissory note for $307.15 and interest thereon and costs. Said judgment is erroneous because the defendant in the suit was not cited to appear and answer in thq suit in the manner provided by law. A citation was issued March ,29, 1S88, returnable on the first Monday in April, 1888, and this, citation was served upon the defendant June 25, 1888, and the judgment by default was rendered July 6, 1888. Service of a citation after the return day thereof is a nullity, and will not authorize a judgment by default. [E. S., art. 1228; 3 Civil Cas. Ot. App., § 314.]

Eeversed and remanded.
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports.

Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum

opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain

computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of

Appeals and does not include the filing date. 

1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 FAIRY PURIFOY,

3 Plaintiff-Appellee,

4 v. No. 32,319

5 LEE STONE,

6 Defendant-Appellant.

7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF QUAY COUNTY

8 David P. Reeb, Jr., District Judge

9 John R. Hakanson

10 Alamogordo, NM

11 for Appellee

12 Lee Stone

13 San Jon, NM

14 Pro Se Appellant

15 MEMORANDUM OPINION

16 SUTIN, Judge.

17 In this Court’s second notice of proposed summary disposition, we proposed

18 to reverse the district court’s decision and remand to the district court to vacate the
2

1 protective order only insofar as it pertains to Defendant. See Classen v. Classen, 119

2 N.M. 582, 584-85, 893 P.2d 478, 480-81 (Ct. App. 1995) (explaining that a court has

3 no discretion in ruling on a motion under Rule 1-060(B)(4) NMRA because if a

4 judgment is void, it must be set aside). The proposed disposition was based on the

5 fact that: (1) actual service on Defendant of the motion and subsequent pleadings was

6 required, (2) Defendant’s current address was easily ascertainable to Plaintiff’s

7 counsel from the record, (3) Plaintiff’s counsel did not serve Defendant with any

8 pleadings or notices relating to the protective order, and (4) this was not a situation

9 where Defendant was difficult to locate. See McLam v. McLam, 81 N.M. 37, 39, 462

10 P.2d 622, 624 (1969) (“As a general rule, constructive service is insufficient where

11 the object of the action is to determine the personal rights and obligations of the

12 defendant.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); see also Clark v.

13 LeBlanc, 92 N.M. 672, 673, 593 P.2d 1075, 1076 (1979) (“It is clear that due process

14 prohibits the use of constructive service where it is feasible to give notice to the

15 defendant in some manner more likely to bring the action to his attention.”).

16 Defendant filed a memorandum in opposition to the proposed disposition that was in

17 his favor. Plaintiff did not file a memorandum in opposition, and the time for doing

18 so has expired. See Rule 12-210(D)(3) NMRA.
3

1 Defendant’s memorandum in opposition raises numerous contentions that are

2 not essential to our proposed disposition and relate to issues outside the scope of the

3 limited issue on appeal. Therefore, we reverse the district court’s decision, and

4 remand for the district court to vacate the protective order only insofar as it pertains

5 to Defendant. 

6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

7 __________________________________

8 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge

9 WE CONCUR:

10 _______________________________

11 CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge

12 _______________________________

13 M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge
Exhibit 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                       18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
                         PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2202

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Globetel Communications Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the six months ended June 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we,
Timothy Huff, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Thomas Y. Jimenez,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to our knowledge:

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

2. the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
   respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.


Timothy Huff
Chief Executive Officer


November 19, 2003
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

OLEN PROPERTIES CORP.,

Appellant,

v.

REBECCA CANCEL,

Appellee.

No. 4D14-1180

[ October 7, 2015 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Carol Lisa-Phillips, Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE 05-

011951 (25).

Robert Rivas of Sachs Sax Caplan, P.L., Tallahassee, for appellant.

Julie H. Littky-Rubin of Clark, Fountain, La Vista, Prather, Keen & 

Littky-Rubin, LLP, West Palm Beach, and Marlowe J. Blake of Marlowe J. 

Blake, P.A., Boca Raton, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

In this sex discrimination and retaliation case, we reverse the $700,000

award of non-economic damages as excessive. See City of Hollywood v. 

Hogan, 986 So. 2d 634 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008); see also § 768.74(5), Fla. Stat. 

(2013). We remand for the trial court to determine a remittitur amount, 

or to order a new trial on non-economic damages if the party adversely 

affected by the remittitur does not agree to the remitted amount. See § 

768.74(4), Fla. Stat. (2013).

We affirm on all other issues raised in this appeal.

Affirmed in part, Reversed in part, and Remanded for further 

proceedings.

GROSS and TAYLOR, JJ, and SHEPHERD, CAROLINE, Associate Judge, concur.

* * *
2

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### J. S. Williams v. C. E. Hilburn.

(No. 5277.)

Appeal from. Lamar County.

Burkett & Conner and J. M. Long, counsel for appellant.

Hodges & Allen, counsel for appellee.

Opinion, by

Hurt, J.

§ 287. *Appeal bond from justice's court; filing and approval of held to be in time.*Hilburn recovered a judgment by default against Williams in justice’s court. Williams, who lived at a distance from the justice, mailed to said justice an appeal bond in the case. This appeal bond was taken from the postoffice by the justice’s son and placed on the justice’s docket, within ten days after the rendition of the judgment. Twenty-three days after the rendition of said judgment the justice discovered the bond, and marked it approved and filed as of date the day on which it was received from the post-office. These facts appearing upon appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal, the court sustained said motion and dismissed said appeal. *Held*error. It is insisted by appellee that “no paper is filed unless the officer has knowledge of its being filed, and that the justice could *352not approve the bond without knowing of its existence.” This proposition is, by analogy, decided against appellee in Jones v. Wells, *ante,*§§ 94, 95.]

May 4, 1887.

Reversed and remanded.
Promissory Note dated June 4,1996-Ling



 EXHIBIT 10.45 
  
 GROCERS CAPITAL COMPANY PROMISSORY NOTE 
  

	$35,000.00	 	Commerce, California	 	June 4, 1996

  
 Robert M. Ling, Borrower, promises to
pay in lawful money of the United States of America, to the order of the GROCERS CAPITAL COMPANY (“GCC”) at its office located at 5200 Sheila Street, Commerce, California 90040, the principal sum of thirty five thousand and 00/100
($35,000.00) with interest thereon from June 4, 1996 at the rate of seven percent (7.00%) per annum. Borrower shall pay quarterly interest payments due the 25th of the last month of each calendar quarter. The whole sum of principal then unpaid, together with accrued interest thereon, is due and payable at the option of the holder of this note. 
  
 The advance represented by this Note has been made to facilitate the
Borrower’s relocation. This Note is not, however, and should not be construed as an employment contract between the Borrower and Unified Western Grocers, Inc. If the Borrower shall resign or be terminated for cause from employment at Unified
Western Grocers, this Note shall be due and payable sixty (60) days after such resignation or termination. 
  
 Should default be made in payment of interest, and the undersigned fail to cure such default within twenty (20) days after written notice of such default,
then the whole sum of principal and interest shall, at the option of the holder of this note, become immediately due and payable in lawful money of the United States. 
  
 Each maker will be jointly and severally liable and consents to renewals, replacements, and extensions of time for payment
hereof before, at or after maturity, and waives presentment, demand and protest and the right to assert any statute of limitations. A married person who signs this note agrees that recourse may be had against his/her separate property for any
obligation contained herein. If any action be instituted on this note, the undersigned promise(s) to pay such sum as the Court may fix as attorney’s fees. 
  

			
	 /s/    ROBERT M. LING, JR.
	 	 	 	 
	
	 	 	

	 Robert M. Ling, Jr.
 Borrower
Exhibit 11 - Computation of Earnings Per Share

                           GAME FINANCIAL CORPORATION
                                   FORM 10-QSB
                                  JUNE 30, 1997

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                             3 MONTHS ENDED               6 MONTHS ENDED
                                                 JUNE 30,                    JUNE 30,
Primary:                                   1997          1996          1997          1996
                                       ------------------------    ------------------------
<S>                                    <C>           <C>           <C>           <C>      
Weighted average shares outstanding     4,520,655     4,501,408     4,520,639     4,426,840
Net effect of dilutive stock
   options - based on the
   treasury stock method using
   average market price                   189,939       213,596       169,905       242,840
                                       ------------------------    ------------------------
Totals                                  4,710,594     4,715,004     4,690,544     4,669,680

Net Income                             $  573,955    $  358,793    $1,013,328    $  642,674
                                       ------------------------    ------------------------
Net Income Per Share                   $     0.12    $     0.08    $     0.22    $     0.14
                                       ========================    ========================


Fully Diluted:
Weighted average shares outstanding     4,520,655     4,501,408     4,520,639     4,426,840
Net effect of dilutive stock
   options - based on the
   treasury stock method using
   the higher of the average
   or the closing price                   207,177       229,693       176,758       255,202
                                       ------------------------    ------------------------
Totals                                  4,727,832     4,731,101     4,697,397     4,682,042

Net Income                             $  573,955    $  358,793    $1,013,328    $  642,674
                                       ------------------------    ------------------------
Net Income Per Share                   $     0.12    $     0.08    $     0.22    $     0.14
                                       ========================    ========================

</TABLE>

All shares outstanding have been restated to give effect to the 5-for-4 stock
splits declared during September 1995 and June 1996.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1077 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1077

To amend the Internet Tax Freedom Act to make permanent the moratorium 
 on certain taxes relating to the Internet and to electronic commerce.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 15, 2007

   Mr. Campbell of California (for himself, Mr. Daniel E. Lungren of 
 California, Mr. Cantor, Mr. Feeney, Mr. Goode, Mr. Gohmert, Mr. Price 
 of Georgia, Mr. Doolittle, Mr. Lamborn, Mr. Sali, Mr. Goodlatte, Ms. 
Zoe Lofgren of California, Mr. Miller of Florida, Mr. Mack, Mr. Garrett 
  of New Jersey, Mr. Gary G. Miller of California, Mr. Sessions, Mr. 
McCarthy of California, Mr. Rohrabacher, Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. Fossella, 
  Mr. Dreier, Mr. Pence, Mr. Kline of Minnesota, Mr. Wilson of South 
 Carolina, and Mr. Barrett of South Carolina) introduced the following 
       bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internet Tax Freedom Act to make permanent the moratorium 
 on certain taxes relating to the Internet and to electronic commerce.

    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 ``Internet Consumer Protection Act of 
2007''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO THE INTERNET TAX FREEDOM ACT.

    The Internet Tax Freedom Act (47 U.S.C. 151 note) is amended--
            (1) in section 1101(a) by striking ``during the period 
        beginning November 1, 2003, and ending November 1, 2007'', and
            (2) by striking section 1104.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 12.1****CERTIFICATION**I, Peter M. Zotto, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of IONA Technologies PLC;     2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this annual report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annualreport;     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:     (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report isbeing prepared;     (b) [Paragraph omitted in accordance with SEC transition instructions contained in SECReleases 34-47986 and 34-52492];     (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this annual report based on such evaluation;and     (d) Disclosed in this annual report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):     (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and     (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: April 18, 2006     By: /s/ Peter M. Zotto         Peter M. Zotto    Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 3.2

 
                        CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT OF THE
                          ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION OF
                               NOTIFY CORPORATION


     Paul F. DePond and Gerald W. Rice hereby certify that:

     ONE:  They are the duly elected and acting President and Secretary,
respectively, of Notify Corporation, a California corporation (the "Corporation"
or the "Company").

     TWO:  That Article I of the Company's Amended and Restated Articles of
Incorporation is amended to read in its entirety as follows:

                                       "I

     The name of the Corporation is Notify Technology Corporation."

     THREE:  The foregoing amendment of the articles of incorporation has been
duly approved by the Board of Directors of this Company.

     FOUR:  The foregoing amendment of the articles of incorporation has been
duly approved by the required vote of shareholders in accordance with Section
902 and 903 of the California Corporations Code.  The total number of
outstanding shares entitled to vote with respect to the foregoing amendment was
3,547,237 shares of Common Stock.  The number of shares voting in favor of the
amendment equaled or exceeded the vote required.  The percentage vote required
was a majority of the outstanding shares of Common Stock.

     We further declare under penalty of perjury that the matters set forth in
the foregoing certificate are true and correct of our own knowledge.

     Executed at San Jose, California, on February 26, 1998.


                              /s/ Paul F. DePond
                              ------------------
                              Paul F. DePond, President


                              /s/ Gerald W. Rice
                              ------------------
                              Gerald W. Rice, Secretary
#### M., K. & T. R’y Co. v. W. W. Moore.

(No. 3013.)

Appeal from Dallas County.

*{Transferred from Austin.)*

Alexander & Clare and Sam. A. Leak, counsel for appellant.

No counsel appeared for appellee.

Opinion by

White, P. J.

*324February 14, 1891.

§ 214. *Railroad crossing; injury to team, etc., at; contributory negligence; evidence; case stated.*This was a suit against the railroad company for $590 damages to a wagon, harness and two mules, occasioned by a collision with a train of cars on a public road crossing. Defendant company pleaded general demurrer, general denial arid contributory negligence. At the trial there were verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $280 and costs. The two first errors assigned are based upon exceptions of the court in refusirig to permit defendant company to prove any facts tending to show contributory negligence on the part of plaintiff, the court remarking that “ the only question before the court is whether or not the railway company has been guilty of negligence. If they fail to blow the whistle or ring the bell continuously for four hundred yards before crossing the road, then it is by law guilty of negligence, and is liable in damages to this defendant.” In Railway Co. v. Kutac, 72 Tex. 643, our supreme court held that “ one who knows he is approaching a railroad crossing, and whose view of the track is unobstructed, so that he can see an approaching train in time to avoid injury from it, cannot, as matter of law, recover damages for injuries inflicted by the train in his effort to cross the track, even though the railway company may neglect to give the signals required by the statute in crossing the road. One approaching a railway track must look up and down the track, and a failure to do so is ordinarily negligence.” [See, also, Railway Co. v. Bracken, 59 Tex. 71, and 3 Civil Cas. Ct. App., § 237.] The court also erred in refusing to allow defendant to introduce the testimony of the witness Macomb, and two maps and a photograph, made by said witness, showing condition and surroundings at the place of accident, tending to show the distance at and from which an approaching train might and could be seen by a person intending to cross the track. [Devine v. Keller, 73 Tex. 364.]

Reversed and remanded.