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

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 86 (Tuesday, May 23, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H5386]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

            OUTSIDE COUNSEL NEEDED IN SPEAKER'S ETHICS CASE

  (Mr. STUPAK asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute.)
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I am deeply disappointed that the House 
Ethics Committee has refused to hire an outside counsel to investigate 
the five ethics charges against the Speaker. Without an outside 
counsel, the ethics charges will have to be investigated by House 
Members. That means we will have politicians investigating politicians.
  Being a former law enforcement officer, I believe, and I have always 
voted, that professional law enforcement officials should do 
investigations of other Members of this House, not politicians. Five 
dark clouds of doubt hang over this Chamber. Let us have a special 
outside counsel to investigate the ethics charges hanging over the 
Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, we need an outside counsel to do a professional 
investigation, not politicians. Let us remove the five dark clouds of 
doubt and appoint a special outside counsel now.

                          ____________________
```
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. RICHARD B. BALSLEY.

February 16, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
583 A.2d 322

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. EMORY M. GHANA, A/K/A EMORY JOHNSON.

February 14, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
<PAGE>

                                   EXHIBIT 4.7


                                 AMENDMENT NO. 1
                                       TO

                          CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT

     THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO CONSULTING SERVICES  AGREEMENT,  dated November 25,
2003  (the  "First  Amendment"),   is  by  and  among  Armando  Rosa,  Jr.  (the
"Consultant"),  and Reality Wireless  Networks,  Inc., a Nevada corporation (the
"Client").


                                    RECITALS

         A. The Consultant and the Client entered into a Consulting Services
Agreement dated September 25, 2003, a copy of which is attached hereto as
Exhibit A (the "Agreement"), pursuant to which the Consultant agreed to provide
certain consulting services to the Client.

         B. Client and Consultant wish to amend Sections 2 and 6(a) of the
Agreement to extend the duration of the Agreement and provide for additional
consideration in exchange for additional consulting services.

                                    AGREEMENT

         NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, and the mutual
agreements, representations, warranties and covenants contained herein, and for
other good and valuable consideration the receipt of which is hereby
acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:

A.   Section 2 of the Agreement  shall be deleted in its entirety and shall read
     as follows:

2.      Consideration.

         Client agrees to pay Consultant, as his fee and as consideration for
services provided, 700,000 shares of common stock of the Client. By amendment
dated November 25, 2003, Client agrees to pay Consultant an additional 2,500,000
shares of common stock of the Client."


B. Section 6(a) of the Agreement shall be deleted in its entirety and shall read
as follows:


(a) Term.

This Agreement shall become effective on the date appearing next to the
signatures below and terminate twelve (12) months thereafter. Unless otherwise
agreed upon in writing by Consultant and Client, this Agreement shall not
automatically be renewed beyond its Term."


EXECUTED on the date first set forth above.
                                       17
<PAGE>

                                            CLIENT:

                                            REALITY WIRELESS NETWORKS, INC.




                                            By : _________________________
                                            Victor Romero - President




                                            CONSULTANT:



                                            By:
                                                -------------------------------
                                            Name: Armando Rosa, Jr.





                                       18
<PAGE>
#### J. W. Gulick v. B. F. Fortson.

(No. 2754, Op. Book No. 4, p. —.)

Appeal from Navarro County.

Opinion by

Willson, J.

§ 425. *Open account; statute of limitations.*Suit was brought upon a physician’s account for medical services. All the items of the account were barred by limitation except two, one for *$1.50*and the other for $250. This last item, is stated in the account thus: *“*January 1st, 1881. . Special treatment of self from 10th of June, 1876, to date, January 1st, 1881 — $250.” Appellee excepted specially to this charge, because the services rendered were not itemized, and excepted specially to plaintiff’s petition and account, because the cause of action appeared upon the face thereof to be barred by limitation. He also pleaded the statute of limitation of two years. Appellee’s exception to the item of $250 was sustained upon the ground that it was not itemized, and was stricken out. This item being stricken out, and all the remaining items appearing from the face of the account to -be barred by limitation, except the one for $1.50, an amount not within the jurisdiction of the court, the court rendered judgment dismissing the suit at appellant’s costs. The action being one not upon a contract, but an open account, the times and dates of the services should have been itemized. [Rev. Stats, art. 3204.]

*189May 30, 1883.

§ 426. *Physicians’ accounts.*Physicians, in respect to their charges for services, are on the same footing with attorneys, factors, pilots and other persons undertaking to perform services which require skill for reward. [Graham v. Gautier, 21 Tex. 112.] In the absence of any stipulation to the contrary, the rule is believed to be, that when the service is rendered or performed, the right to demand payment accrues, and the statute then commences to run. This rule applies to every kind of service. [Jones v. Lewis, 11 Tex. 360.] It was not error to dismiss the suit under the facts shown.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 99.2








CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002








In connection with the Quarterly Report of World Wireless
Communications, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K/A for the period ending December 31, 2001 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert W. Hathaway, the Vice President of
Finance and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, following due inquiry, that I believe 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 result of operations of the Company.








Dated: October 11,
2002





WORLD WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS, INC.By:

/S/    ROBERT W.
HATHAWAYRobert W. Hathaway Vice
President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer
IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 6 

Expressing the sense of Congress that the Supreme Court misinterpreted 

the First Amendment to the Constitution in the case of Buckley v. Valeo. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 4, 2007 

Ms. KAPTUR submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of Congress that the Supreme Court 

misinterpreted the First Amendment to the Constitution 

in the case of Buckley v. Valeo. 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that the Su3 preme Court misinterpreted the First Amendment to the 

4 Constitution in its decision in the 1976 case of Buckley 

5 v. Valeo because— 

6 (1) the decision failed to recognize that the un7 limited spending of large amounts of money on elec8 tions has a corrosive effect on the electoral process 

9 not simply because of direct transactions between 

10 those who give large amounts of money and canVerDate Aug 31 2005 06:24 Jan 06, 2007 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\HC6.IH HC6

ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•HCON 6 IH 

1 didates and elected officials but because the presence 

2 of unlimited amounts of money corrupts the process 

3 on a more fundamental level; and 

4 (2) the decision failed to recognize other legiti5 mate state interests which justify limiting money in 

6 campaigns, including the need to preserve the integ7 rity of our republican form of government, restore 

8 public confidence in government, and ensure all citi9 zens a more equal opportunity to participate in the 

10 political process. 

Æ 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM APPLICABLE
1997 INTERIM FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS  OF CORECOMM  INCORPORATED.  THE  SCHEDULE IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                   JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                     MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                            53,521,000
<SECURITIES>                                      34,516,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                     24,692,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (3,889,000)
<INVENTORY>                                        4,185,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   2,411,000
<PP&E>                                           142,108,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (41,575,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   385,508,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             26,727,000
<BONDS>                                          200,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                      0
<PREFERRED>                                                0
<COMMON>                                             135,000
<OTHER-SE>                                       158,646,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     385,508,000
<SALES>                                            3,919,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  37,271,000
<CGS>                                              4,779,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      8,669,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  18,049,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 3,984,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    1,732,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (1,328,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  404,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   (3,830,000)
<CHANGES>                                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (3,426,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          (0.26)<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          (0.26)<F1>

<FN>
<F1>RESTATED TO REFLECT THE ADOPTION OF STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING
    STANDARDS NO.128, "EARNINGS PER SHARE"
</FN>

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 85 (Monday, May 22, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H5369]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                              THE JOURNAL

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair has examined the Journal of the 
last day's proceedings and announces to the House his approval thereof.
  Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, the Journal stands approved.

                          ____________________
```
**Exhibit 31.1**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Jay S. Amato, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of ViewpointCorporation; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under whichsuch statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations andcash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented inthis report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internalcontrol over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made knownto us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared;
(b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, orcaused such internal control over financial reporting to bedesigned under our supervision, to provide reasonable assuranceregarding the reliability of financial reporting and thepreparation of financial statements for external purposes inaccordance with generally accepted accounting principles;
(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and
(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors:
(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and
(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.        Dated: August 13, 2004 By:  /s/ JAY S. AMATO    Jay S. Amato    President and Chief Executive Officer
#### In re Courtney TATE.

No. 2005-OB-2518.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 4, 2011.

ORDER

Considering the “Termination of Conditional Admission” filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel,

IT IS ORDERED that the probationary period imposed by this court in *In re: Tate,*05-2518 (La.1/9/06), 918 So.2d 452, be and hereby is terminated, as the court finds petitioner has successfully complied with all terms of probation.

FOR THE COURT:

/s/ Bernette J. Johnson Justice, Supreme Court of Louisiana
<PAGE>
                                  EXHIBIT 12.1
                     CKE RESTAURANTS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                             (Dollars in thousands)



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                         Forty Weeks Ended
                                                         -----------------
                                                     November 5,    November 6,
                                                        2001           2000
                                                     ----------     ----------
<S>                                                  <C>            <C>
   Earnings before fixed charges:
      Loss before income taxes                        $(73,443)      $(76,303)

   Fixed charges                                        70,296         80,203
                                                      --------       --------
                                                      $ (3,147)      $  3,900
                                                      ========       ========

   Fixed charges:
      Interest expense                                $ 46,783       $ 53,510
      Interest component of rent expense(1)             23,513         26,693
                                                      --------       --------
                                                      $ 70,296       $ 80,203
                                                      ========       ========

   Deficiency of earnings to cover fixed charges      $(73,443)      $(76,303)
                                                      ========       ========
</TABLE>



----------
(1) Calculated as one-third of total rent expense







                                                                              24
#### A. LESCHEN & SONS ROPE COMPANY *v.*AMERICAN STEEL & WIRE COMPANY OF NEW JERSEY.

A. *LescJien*c6 *Sons Rope Company*v. *Broderielc*A *Basoom Rope Company, ante,*p. 451, applied and followed.

No. 693.

Patent Appeals.

Submitted January 16, 1911.

Decided February 6, 1911.

Hearing on an appeal from a decision of the Commissioner of Patents, dismissing an opposition to an application for the registration of a trademark.

*Reversed.*

*Mr. James A. Carr*and *Mr. Melville Church*for the appellant.

*457*Messrs. Linthicum, Belt, & Fuller*and *Mr. Charles McVeagh*for the appellee.

Mr. Justice Robb

delivered the opinion of the Court:

This is another trademark opposition case, in which appellant seeks a reversal of a decision of the Commissioner of Patents, awarding registration to appellee as a trademark for wire rope, a strand of the rope colored blue.

Eor the reasons stated in the preceding opinion, the judgment will he reversed. The clerk will certify this opinion as by law required. *Reversed.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 (UNAUDITED) AND THE
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30,
1999 (UNAUDITED) AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           1,466
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   18,200
<ALLOWANCES>                                       721
<INVENTORY>                                     35,503
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                54,727
<PP&E>                                          29,259
<DEPRECIATION>                                (14,749)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  71,625
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           30,607
<BONDS>                                         17,256
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            59
<OTHER-SE>                                      20,929
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    71,625
<SALES>                                         99,026
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               114,083
<CGS>                                           65,617
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   84,236
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0<F1>
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,197
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,955
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,955
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,955
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .53
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .52
<FN>
<F1>PROVISION FOR DOUBTFUL ACCOUNTS AND INVENTORY PROVISION INCLUDED IN TOTAL
    COSTS.
</FN>


</TABLE>
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04

- 21

- 00137

- CV
IN RE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF AMERICA , Relator Original Proceeding 1

PER CURIAM Sitting: Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Irene Rios , Justice Lori I. Valenzuela , Justice
Delivered and Filed: April 28, 2021
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED
Relator has filed a petition for writ of mandamus and motion for temporary relief . We may issue writs of mandamus when “agreeable to the principles of law regulating those writs.” T EX

. G OV ’ T C ODE § 22.221(b). For mandamus, a relator has the burden to file a petition and recor d
show ing “ the trial court abused its discretion and that no adequate appellate remedy exists .” In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., L.P. , 492 S.W.3d 300, 302 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). Having reviewed the petition and documents included in the appe ndix, we conclude relator has not satisfied this burden. Accordingly, we deny the petition and motion for temporary relief

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.8(a).
PER CURIAM

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2019CI23861 , styled Alpi za r v. Travelers Indem nity Insurance Company of America , pending in the 166th Judicial District Court , Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable David A. Canales presiding.
583 A.2d 346

#### MILES M. STUCHIN, ETC. v. JACOB KASIRER.

March 26, 1990.

Petition for certification denied. (See 237 *N.J.Super.*604, 568 A.2d 907)