alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 94 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Whereas nearly 1,000,000,000 people around the world depend on fish as their primary source of dietary protein; 

Whereas the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization has found that 75 percent of the world’s fish populations are currently fully exploited, over exploited, significantly depleted, or recovering from overexploitation; 
2 

•HCON 94 EH 

Whereas scientists have estimated that a significant percentage of big predator fish such as tuna, marlin, and swordfish are gone from the world’s oceans as a result of overfishing by foreign fishing fleets; 

Whereas the global fishing fleet capacity is estimated to be 

up to 250 percent greater than is needed to catch what 

the ocean can sustainably produce; 

Whereas the Congress recognized the threat of overfishing to 

our oceans and economy and therefore included the requirement to end overfishing in the United States by 

2011 in the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Reauthorization Act of 2006 (Public Law 

109–479); 

Whereas the United States Commission on Ocean Policy and 

the Pew Oceans Commission identified overcapitalization 

of the global fishing fleets as a major contributor to the 

decline of economically important fish populations; 

Whereas harmful fishing subsidies encourage overcapitalization and overfishing; support destructive fishing practices 

such as high seas trawling that would not otherwise be 

economically viable; and amount to billions of dollars annually; 

Whereas such subsidies have also been documented to support illegal, unregulated, and unreported fishing, which 

impacts commercial fisheries in the United States and 

around the world both economically and ecologically; 

Whereas harmful fishing subsidies are concentrated in relatively few countries, putting other fishing countries, including the United States, at an economic disadvantage; 
3 

•HCON 94 EH 

Whereas the United States is a world leader in advancing 

policies to eliminate harmful fishing subsidies that support overcapacity and promote overfishing; and 

Whereas a wide range of countries are currently engaged in 

historic negotiations to end harmful fishing subsidies that 

contribute to overcapacity and overfishing: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That the United States should continue to 

3 promote the elimination of harmful fishing subsidies that 

4 lead to— 

5 (1) overcapitalization; 

6 (2) overfishing; and 

7 (3) illegal, unregulated, and unreported fishing. 

Passed the House of Representatives June 5, 2007. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 94 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Encouraging the elimination of harmful fishing 

the overfishing of global fish stocks. mercial fishing fleets worldwide and that lead to subsidies that contribute to overcapacity in com-
Exhibit 32
 CERTIFICATION OF QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q
OF ADVOCAT INC.
FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2010
  (a)
    
    fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(b)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.
  /s/ William R. Council, IIIWilliam R. Council, IIIChief Executive Officer/s/ L. Glynn Riddle, Jr.L. Glynn Riddle, Jr.Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 31.01



Certifications



I, J.A. Cardwell, Sr., certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Petro Stopping Centers, L.P.;



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



(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most
recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



5. The registrants other certifying officer(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 registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal 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: August 12, 2005



|                                    
|------------------------------------
|/s/ J.A. Cardwell, Sr.              
|(J.A. Cardwell, Sr.)                
|Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the

citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under

the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

Filed 5/29/96

TENTH CIRCUIT

 

ANDREW PEREZ, )

)

Petitioner-Appellant, )

)

vs. ) No. 95-2195

) (D.C. No. CIV 92-0101 MV/JHG)

JOHN THOMAS, Warden, ) (D. N.M.)

)

Respondent-Appellee. )

 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

 

Before TACHA, McWILLIAMS, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges.

 

Petitioner Andrew Perez appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus. We exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291 and affirm.

In 1989, a jury convicted Petitioner in New Mexico state court of criminal sexual

penetration, kidnaping, and bribery or intimidation of a witness. On direct appeal, the

New Mexico Court of Appeals affirmed Petitioner’s conviction, and the New Mexico

Supreme Court denied Petitioner’s petition for writ of certiorari. Petitioner
2

unsuccessfully sought habeas corpus relief in New Mexico state court. The New Mexico

Supreme Court declined certiorari review of the dismissal of Petitioner’s state habeas

corpus petition on December 16, 1991. 

On January 29, 1992 Petitioner filed the instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the district court. The district court dismissed the petition

with prejudice based on a magistrate judge’s recommended disposition. On appeal,

Petitioner argues the district court erred in dismissing his § 2254 petition for a writ of

habeas corpus. Specifically, Petitioner asserts: (1) the district court erred in holding he

was procedurally barred from claiming that his Sixth Amendment right to confront

witnesses was violated when the trial court excluded evidence of the victim’s prior sexual

activity with Petitioner; (2) his trial counsel rendered constitutionally ineffective

assistance of counsel by failing to preserve his Sixth Amendment confrontation claim;

(3) this court should excuse his procedural default of his claim regarding his prior sexual

relationship with the victim on the basis of cause and prejudice or a fundamental

miscarriage of justice; (4) his conviction was obtained in violation of his Sixth

Amendment confrontation rights when the trial court refused to allow Petitioner to cross

examine the victim about her prior sexual relationship with Petitioner and her prior sexual

activity with a third party; and (5) Petitioner’s convictions for kidnaping and criminal

sexual penetration constitute double jeopardy in violation of the Fifth Amendment. 

We have reviewed Petitioner’s brief, the parties’ oral arguments, the magistrate
3

judge’s recommended disposition, the district court’s order, and the entire record before

us. Based upon our review of the record, we have determined there is no reversible error

and AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal of Petitioner’s § 2254 petition.

AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court

Bobby R. Baldock
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**Certifications**

 

I, J.A. Cardwell, Sr., certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Petro Financial 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 tomake 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 financialcondition, 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 ActRules 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 consolidatedsubsidiaries, 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 theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent 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 overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting 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 controlover financial reporting. 

 

Date: November 4, 2004
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1226 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to expand eligibility for the basic 

educational assistance program of the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 28, 2007 

Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, and in addition to the Committee 

on Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 

Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within 

the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to expand eligibility 

for the basic educational assistance program of the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

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

3 SECTION 1. EXPANSION OF ELIGIBILITY FOR BASIC EDU4 CATIONAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM OF THE 

5 DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS. 

6 (a) EXPANSION OF ELIGIBILITY.—Section 

7 3011(c)(3) of title 38, United States Code, is amended 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1226 IH

1 by striking ‘‘December 31, 1976’’ and inserting ‘‘Decem2 ber 31, 1977’’. 

3 (b) TIME PERIOD FOR USE OF ENTITLEMENT.—Not4 withstanding section 3031 of such title, in the case of an 

5 individual who becomes entitled to educational assistance 

6 under chapter 30 of such title by reason of the amendment 

7 made by subsection (a), the time period during which that 

8 individual may use the individual’s entitlement expires at 

9 the end of the 10-year period beginning on the date of 

10 the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
#### W. W. Glasgow v. Hill County.

(No. 6068.)

Appeal from Hill County.

B. D. Taelton, counsel for appellant.

No counsel appeared for appellee.

Opinion by

White, P. *J.*

§ 467. *Condemnation of land for a public road; owner of land entitled to what damages; case stated.*This was a proceeding commenced in the commissioners’ court of Hill county by a petition for a new road of the third class, to be laid out through and across the inclosed land of appellant. He protested against said road, and claimed that it damaged his land $500. A jury of view assessed his damages at $50, and said commissioners’ court at a hearing of said report ordered the opening of said road, assessing appellant’s damage at $75. Appellant excepted to the judgment, and appealed to the county court in conformity with the statute. [R. S. art. 4372.] In the county court judgment was rendered against appellant that he take nothing upon his claim for damages, and that he pay costs. The facts of the case ax-e that, pending appellant’s appeal to the county court, the commissioners’ court ordered said new road opened, and the same was opened. The opening of said road exposed appellant’s growing crops to the depredation of stock, and to protect his crops he erected four gates, such as the law permits to be erected across third-class roads. These gates cost him $40. He either had to lose his crops, erect said gates, or make two lines of fence, two miles long, at a cost of $500. About two acres of his land was • actually taken and appropriated for the road, and said land was worth from $15 to $20 per acre. *Held:*The trial judge was of the opinion that, inasmuch as appellant had erected said gates across said road, he had thereby waived all claim against the county for damages, and could recover nothing. The trial judge seems to *568have entertained this view as being in accordance with article 4389 of the Revised Statutes. That article is inapplicable to this case. Appellant had not granted the right of way without costs; on the contrary, he was all the time protesting against the condemnation and claiming damages. Nor had his land been *condemned and paid for.*“No, person’s property shall be taken, damaged or destroyed for, or applied to, public use without adequate compensation being made, unless by consent of such person; and when taken, except for the use of the state, such compensation shall first be made or secured by a deposit of money,” etc. [Const, art. 1, sec. 1 A] Appellant certainly was entitled to recover some compensation under the facts of this case.

May 1, 1889.

Reversed and remanded.
|   | (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 result of operations of the Company. |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: May 16, 2011 | By:                                                                | /s/ Glenn D. Estrella |
|--------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------|
|               | Glenn D. Estrella                                                            |
|               | Chief Executive Officer, President and Director(Principal Executive Officer) |

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated statement of operations and consolidated balance sheet and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000919957
<NAME> COMCAST UK CABLE PARTNERS LTD
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U. K. POUNDS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                 1.6185
<CASH>                                          46,424
<SECURITIES>                                    15,661
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,509
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (2,067)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                70,216
<PP&E>                                         292,895
<DEPRECIATION>                                (27,958)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 459,217
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           28,920
<BONDS>                                        232,126
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           501
<OTHER-SE>                                     184,201
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   459,217
<SALES>                                         39,166
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                39,942
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 (58,528)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (22,845)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (18,706)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (54,330)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (54,330)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (54,330)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.08)
        

</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

JOANILEE MONTANEZ,

Petitioner

v.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF 

PHILADELPHIA COUNTY, 

PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 150 EM 2018

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 29th day of January, 2019, the Application for Leave to File 

Original Process is GRANTED, and the Petition for Writ of Mandamus and/or 

Extraordinary Relief is DENIED.
#### JACOM COMPUTER SERVICES, INC. d/b/a Jacom Leasing, Appellant, v. Carol Ann AARDEMA, Lynda Schnurr a/k/a Lynda Cecile Macaluso, Appellees.

No. 4D10-2424.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 18, 2011.

James J. Webb of Mitrani, Rynor, Adamsky & Toland, P.A., Weston, for appellant.

Mary Jean Navaretta and Stephen Na-varetta of Navaretta & Navaretta, Attorneys at Law, P.A., Port St. Lucie, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

*Affirmed. See*§ 55.10(1), Fla. Stat. (2004); *Hott Interiors, Inc. v. Fostock,*721 So.2d 1236 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).

GROSS, C.J., HAZOURI and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

                            McLEODUSA INCORPORATED

                      COMPUTATION OF LOSS PER COMMON SHARE
                  (AMOUNTS IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                            Three Months Ended
                                                                                                March 31,
                                                                                        ------------------------
                                                                                          1999            1998
                                                                                        --------        --------
<S>                                                                                     <C>             <C>
Computation of weighted average number of common shares outstanding:
Common shares, Class A, outstanding at the
  beginning of the period..........................................................      63,679          61,799
Common shares, Class B, outstanding at the
  beginning of the period (A)......................................................         ---             ---
Weighted average number of shares issued
  during the period................................................................       2,442             428
                                                                                       --------        --------
Weighted average number of common shares...........................................      66,121          62,227
                                                                                       ========        ========
Net loss...........................................................................    $(47,476)       $(30,267)
                                                                                       ========        ========
Loss per common share..............................................................    $  (0.72)       $  (0.49)
                                                                                       ========        ========
</TABLE>

 (A)  The Class B common stock, $.01 par value per share is convertible on a
      one-for-one basis at any time at the option of the holder into Class A
      common stock.