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

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 81 (Tuesday, May 16, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H4967-H4968]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

        CONGRESS MUST AVOID RECKLESS BUDGET CUTS IN AGRICULTURE

  (Mr. NETHERCUTT asked and was given permission to address the House 
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  [[Page H4968]] Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, America is faced with a 
continuing dilemma: maintaining adequate food supply at reasonable 
prices for consumers while providing incentives for farmers to grow the 
crops needed in the country.
  In 1980, food became a weapon of foreign policy with the imposition 
of the infamous Russian grain embargo. That embargo created huge crop 
surpluses and the result was massive commodity price declines. By 1981 
farmers were looking to the Government for relief, because the 
Government-imposed embargo created the problem. Our Government then 
became the only market for farm products because foreign competitors 
filled the void created by restrictions on U.S. exports. Now, many of 
these countries have captured a great portion of former U.S. markets.
  American farmers continue to face unfair pricing practices from the 
Australian Wheat Board and the Canadian Wheat Board. European Union 
farmers receive approximately $40 billion in government subsidies. 
American farmers can compete with foreign farmers, but not with foreign 
governments. Reckless budget cuts to agriculture will leave us farther 
behind in the effort to develop a free market for American agriculture.

                          ____________________
```
#### Wm. Wunsch v. L. Boldt.

(No. 2770.)

Appeal from DeWitt County.

R. A. Pleasants and Rud. Kleberg, counsel for appellant.

No counsel appeared for appellee.

Opinion by

White, P. J.

§ 50. *Contract; acceptance of work done under; money paid not recoverable when; case stated.*Appellee, Boldt, brought this suit originally in justice’s court, to recover back from Wunsch a sum of money which he had paid Wuncsch upon a contract between the parties by which Wunsch was to bore a well for W. Boldt. The agreement between plaintiff and defendant was that, if plaintiff was satisfied with the supply of water found at a depth of one hundred and fifty feet, then defendant would not charge plaintiff for the additional forty feet which he had bored, but would stop boring, turn the *77well over to plaintiff, and receive pay for the one hundred and fifty feet only. They made the test, plaintiff expressed himself, as satisfied with the supply, received the well, and defendant left; and plaintiff several days afterwards met him again, and expressed himself as satisfied with the supply of water, and paid defendant the price agreed upon. He brought this suit to recover back the money thus paid, because the said well did not afford a sufficient supply of water, and on appeal to the county court the plaintiff recovered judgment against Wunsch for $122.50, with costs of suit, from which judgment Wunsch prosecutes this appeal. All the evidence in this case shows that there was a sufficient and ample supply of water when the test was made and the well accepted. And the contract between plaintiff and defendant contains no guaranty that this supply of water should never fail, or that the well should never get out of fix. The issue raised by the evidence, being whether or not plaintiff had accepted the well unconditionally, was an issue of fact, and should have been presented to the jury under proper instructions of the court.

January 25, 1890.

The court erred in not giving the jury the following instructions asked by the defendant, to wit: *“If*the jury believe from the evidence in this case that the plaintiff expressed himself as satisfied with the well dug by defendant, and accepted the same at the time the test was made of its capacity, they must find for defendant,” etc. Another principle of law well settled, and which should have been submitted under the facts of this cage, is that “if a party, with full knowledge of all the facts, pays in satisfaction of a demand made upon him, he cannot afterwards allege such payment to have been unjustly demanded, and recover back the money.” [7 Wait’s Act. & Def., pp. 402, 403; Broom, Leg. Max. (8th ed.), p. 271.]

Reversed and remanded.
**Exhibit 99.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, Joseph M. Limber, certify that: 

 

1.  I have reviewed this annualreport on Form 10-K of Deltagen, Inc.; 

 

2.  Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report; 

 

3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annualreport, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report; 

 

4.  The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have: 

 

a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared; 

 

b)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual report (the “Evaluation Date”); and 

 

c)  Presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date; 

 

5.  The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’sboard of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function): 

 

a)  All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialdata and have identified for the registrant’s auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and 

 

b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant rolein the registrant’s internal controls; and 

 

6.  The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have indicated in this annual report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internalcontrols subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.
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 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 officers 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 13, 2003                     
|-------------------------------------------
|                                           
|/s/  J.A. Cardwell, Sr.                    
|                                           
|(J.A. Cardwell, Sr.) President and
Director
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 17

- 882 V

Filed: March 23, 2018

UNPUBLISHED

DEANNE DOANE

,

Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent. Special Processing Unit (SPU) ;
Rul ing on Entitlement; Concession;
Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine; Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccin e Administration (SIRVA)

Michael G. McLaren, Black McLaren Jones Ryland & Griffee, P.C., Memphis, TN , for

petitioner.
Claudia Barnes Gangi , U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

Dorsey

, Chief Special Master:

On June 28, 2017

, petitioner filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa

- 10, et seq

. , 2 (the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered a shoulder injury relate to vaccine administration ( “ SIRVA ” ) following receipt of her September 19, 2016 influenza ( “ flu ” )

vaccination . Petit ion at 1 . The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On March 21, 2018

, respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes that petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report

at 1. Specifically, respondent “ believes that petitioner’s medical course is consistent

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the undersigned intends to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in accordance wi th

the E

- Government Act of 2002

. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, the undersigned agrees that the identified material fits within this definition, the undersigned will redact such material from public access.

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99

- 660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for

e ase of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2012 ).with SIRVA as defined on the Vaccine Injury Table. Specifically, petitioner had no recent history of pain, inflammation, or dysfunction of her left shoulder, pain occurred within 48 hours after receipt of an intramuscular vaccination, pain was limited to the shoulder where the vaccine was administered, and no other condition or abnormality, such as brachial neuritis, has been identified to explain petitioner’s shoulder pain. ” Id. at 4

. Respondent further agrees that that petitioner suffe red residual effects of her condition for more than six months and that all legal prerequisites to compensation under the

Vaccine Act have been satisfied

. Id.

In view of respondent’s position and the evidence of record, the undersigned find s that petitioner is entitle d to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Nora Beth Dorsey

Nora Beth Dorsey
Chief Special Master
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
Appendix A to item 601(c) of Regulation S-K
Commercial and Industrial Companies
Article 5 of Regulation S-X
(in thousands, except per share data)
</LEGEND>
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S.dollars


<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                                 APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1.00
<CASH>                                          16,101,956
<SECURITIES>                                     1,722,078
<RECEIVABLES>                                   18,175,532
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                19,229,834
<PP&E>                                             285,220
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  54,589,237
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           21,121,133
<BONDS>                                         35,022,277
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                         5,682,480
<OTHER-SE>                                               0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    54,589,237
<SALES>                                          2,329,555
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,157,152
<CGS>                                            1,685,357
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,810,908
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,005,309
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  (513,219)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (138,094)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (138,094)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (138,094)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (0.01)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32
 CERTIFICATION OF QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q
OF ADVOCAT INC.
FOR THE QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31, 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.This Certification is executed as of May 5, 2010.
 /s/William R. Council, IIIWilliam R. Council, IIIChief Executive Officer/s/L. Glynn Riddle, Jr.L. Glynn Riddle, Jr.Chief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 92 (Wednesday, June 7, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H5684]
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 New York [Mr. Owens] is recognized for 5 minutes.

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

                          ____________________
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           5,064
<SECURITIES>                                    19,370
<RECEIVABLES>                                   39,188
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                66,278
<PP&E>                                           6,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,738
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  70,651
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,971
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           157
<OTHER-SE>                                      58,265
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    70,651
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                57,758
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   38,348
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,623
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,849
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,774
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,774
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .18
        

</TABLE>
#### Glenn Loftain, Respondents, v Stephen Gabis, Appellant.

[774 NYS2d 368]

In an action for specific performance of a binder agreement for the purchase of real property, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from (1) so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Joseph, J.), dated December 2, 2002, as granted that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was for summary judgment and denied his cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and (2) stated portions of a judgment of the same court entered January 24, 2003, which, upon the order, inter alia, directed the defendant to convey to the plaintiffs title to the premises in accordance with the terms of the subject agreement. The notice of appeal from the order is deemed to also be a notice of appeal from the judgment *(see*CPLR 5501 [c]).

Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,

*397Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondents.

The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action (see *Matter ofAho,*39 NY2d 241, 248 [1976]). The issues raised on the appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on appeal from the judgment *(see*CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).

The Supreme Court properly directed the defendant to convey to the plaintiffs title to the subject premises in accordance with the terms of the binder agreement, as that agreement satisfied the statute of frauds, and therefor, was enforceable *(see*General Obligations Law § 5-703 [2]; *Sehati v Greenberg,*292 AD2d 587 [2002]; *Villano v G & C Homes,*46 AD2d 907 [1974]). Altman, J.P., S. Miller, Krausman and Cozier, JJ., concur.
News United States Air Force
 PACAF hosts Chinese officers for exchangePublished Oct. 21, 2016
                        
                        By Maj. Phil Ventura
                        
                        
                        Headquarters Pacific Air Forces Public Affairs
                **JOINT BASE PEARL HARBOR-HICKAM, Hawaii (AFNS) --**
                Officers from the U.S. Air Force hosted a dozen of their naval, army, and air force counterparts from China at Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam Oct. 18, to share perspectives and discuss mechanisms to maintain peace and stability throughout the Indo-Asia-Pacific region.
The mid-level officer exchange featured a command-level briefing, a tour of the Headquarters Pacific Air Forces Courtyard of Heroes and a facilitated, open dialogue between the two Pacific nations.
“Events like this are important opportunities for us to discuss issues of mutual importance and concern,” said Col. Art Primas, PACAF’s International Affairs division chief.
Topics raised included the culture of aviation safety and maritime law, rules of behavior implementation, and how to avoid miscalculations between militaries.
Beyond current topics, participants were reminded of the history shared between the air forces of the two countries stretching back to the formation of the famed “Flying Tigers” in 1941. Today, the contributions of the brave American and Chinese aviators are enshrined in museums in both Hawaii and Beijing.
The exchange, hosted by the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, also included visits to U.S. Pacific Command Headquarters. Following their Hawaii visit, the group is scheduled to travel to Washington, D.C. Beyond the most recent exchange, engagements between the U.S. and Chinese armed forces in 2016 have included: the U.S. Air Force Band of the Pacific tour of China in July; a military maritime consultative agreement working group meeting in May at Headquarters, U.S. Pacific Fleet; and a visit to PACAF from the People’s Liberation Army Air Force Command College in April.
“Today I am very pleased to come here with my colleagues,” said Senior Col. Hua Bo, the senior officer in charge of the Chinese delegation. “It is the first time here for nearly all of us and I’d like to express our gratitude.”Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam 



Hawaii 



PACAF 



China
OFFICIAL NOTICE FROM COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS

P.O. BOX 12308, CAPITOL STATION, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711

OmCIAL BUSINESS.^ ^ra,;»uMvj» J* %

STATE ©F TEXAS* cp<

PENALTY FOR./v-""*rf

PRIVATE USE

5? «^* ' ^Sas^nDfy^Bs^^B

A"** JO,

1/28/2015 '^•-^•-^-'J^ t||} TM

GONZALES, JOHN EDWARD^FTr/C^No;95962TOT

0 2 1M

0004279596 ^LEDFROM^PCg^^v-X;,

WTNEV BOWES

JAN 29 2015 -/i%

This is to advise that the Court has'denied without written order the application for

writ of habeas corpus on the findings: of the trial-court without a hearing. i-^5V>*

JOHN EDWARD GONZALES

kTDC #1241742

Abel Acosta, Clerk