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

1ST SESSION H. R. 1425

AN ACT

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 4551 East 52nd Street in Odessa, Texas, 

as the ‘‘Staff Sergeant Marvin ‘Rex’ Young Post Office 

Building’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 1425 EH

1 SECTION 1. STAFF SERGEANT MARVIN ‘‘REX’’ YOUNG POST 

2 OFFICE BUILDING. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

4 Postal Service located at 4551 East 52nd Street in Odes5 sa, Texas, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Staff 

6 Sergeant Marvin ‘Rex’ Young Post Office Building’’. 

7 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg8 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

9 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

10 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Staff Sergeant Marvin 

11 ‘Rex’ Young Post Office Building’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives May 21, 2007. 

Attest:

Clerk. 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1425

AN ACT

To designate the facility of the United States Post-

‘Rex’ Young Post Office Building’’.Odessa, Texas, as the ‘‘Staff Sergeant Marvin al Service located at 4551 East 52nd Street in
EXHIBIT 13.2





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER 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 Annual Report on Form 20-F/A of Cresud S.A.C.I.F. y A (the “Company”) for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2015 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Matías Gaivironsky, as Chief Financial and Administrative Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





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





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





Cresud S.A.C.I.F. y AMarch 16, 2016.
By:
/s/ Matías GaivironskyMatías GaivironskyChief Financial and Administrative Officer





This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except as to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Interior

###### Bureau of Land Management

          - [WY-923-1310-FI; WYW146099]

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

Under the provisions of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) received a petition for reinstatement from U.S. Ore Corp. for the renewal of oil and gas lease WYW146099 for land in Fremont County, Wyoming. The petition was filed on time and was accompanied by all the rentals due since the date the lease terminated under the law.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Bureau of Land Management, Julie L. Weaver, Chief, Fluid Minerals Adjudication, at (307) 775-6176.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The lessee has agreed to the amended lease terms for rentals and royalties at rates of $5 per acre, or fraction thereof, per year and 16                    2/3                     percent, respectively. The lessee has paid the required $500 administrative fee and $163 to reimburse the Department for the cost of this                     **Federal Register**                     notice. The lessee has met all the requirements for reinstatement of the lease as set out in Sections 31(d) and (e) of the Mineral Lands Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 188), and the BLM is proposing to reinstate lease WYW146099 effective June 1, 2010, under the original terms and conditions of the lease and the increased rental and royalty rates cited above. The BLM has not issued a valid lease to any other interest affecting the lands.                

Julie L. Weaver,

Chief, Fluid Minerals Adjudication.

[FR Doc. 2010-24574 Filed 9-29-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-22-P
#### Z. W. Green v. B. Sass et al.

(No. 3494.)

Appeal from Bastrop County.

Opinion by

White, P. J.

§ 733. *Appeal bond to court of*appeals; *misdescription of judgment in; case stated.*Green sued Merritt & *643Merritt for rent, and sued out a distress warrant which was levied upon certain property. Sass intervened in the suit of Green v. Merritt & Merritt, and claimed that, prior to the levy of said distress warrant, he had sued out, and caused to be levied upon certain of the property seized under said distress warrant, a writ of attachment in a suit brought by him against said Merritt *&*Merritt, and that said portion of said property was *in custodia legis*under his attachment writ when the same was seized under said distress warrant. Upon a trial of the cause Green recovered judgment for his rent against Merritt & Merritt, and a foreclosure of his landlord’s lien on that portion of the property seized under his distress warrant which had not previously been levied upon under Sass’ writ of attachment. As to that portion of the property which had been previously levied upon under the writ of attachment the court refused to foreclose the landlord’s lien claimed by Green. From this portion of said judgment, refusing to foreclose the landlord’s lien upon said portion of said property, Green appealed to this court. Appellees move to dismiss the appeal upon the ground that the judgment appealed from is misdescribed in the appeal bond in so far as said judgment relates to appellee Sass. As to him the judgment in substance recites that his attachment had issued, and was levied upon the property named, which property is still in the hands of the sheriff, and subject to said attachment, and not subject to the distress warrant; and it then proceeds as follows: “It is ordered and decreed by ' the court, that the plaintiff Z. W. Green, do not have a foreclosure of any lien on said cotton, etc., held by said sheriff under said writ of attachment, and that the same be, and is hereby, held subject to said writ of attachment in favor of said intervenor,” etc. In appeal bond, in describing this part of judgment, it is stated that judgment was rendered “against the plaintiff in favor of the said B. Sass, foreclosing the attachment lien,” etc. *Held:*The judgment is misdescribed. It does not foreclose the *644attachment lien of Sass, as the bond recites, but only declares that the property was held under and was liable to the attachment, and not liable to the distress warrant. Because of such misdescription the bond is insufficient, and the motion to dismiss the appeal upon this ground is sustained. [W. & W. Con. Rep. §§ 383, 491, 525, 811; *ante,*§ 402.]

May 23, 1885.

Appeal dismissed.
#### STATE ex rel. Darryl ROBINSON v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2010-KH-0544.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 4, 2011.

In re Robinson, Darryl; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. I, No. 375,936; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-K-0034.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; *State ex rel. Glover v. State,*93-2330 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189; *State v. Parker,*98-0256 (La.5/8/98), 711 So.2d 694; La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.3; *State ex rel. Melinie v. State,*93-1380 (La.1/12/96), 665 So.2d 1172.
#### M. B. Morrison v. C. A. Few.

(No. 2920.)

Appeal from Red River County.

Sims & Wright, counsel for appellant.

Chambers & Doak and C. A. Worley, counsel for appellee.

Opinion by

Will-son, J.

*460§ 384. *Account not itemized may be proved, when and how; case stated.*Appellant sued appellee on an account for rents and advances, and sued out a distress warrant, which writ was levied, etc. Appellee pleaded a counter-claim, and also pleaded in reconvention for damages, both actual and exemplary, for the alleged illegal, unjust and malicious suing out of the distress warrant. A verdict and judgment were rendered for appellees- for $40.66. In the account sued upon were the following charges: “March 19, 1887. M’d’se, bill rendered, $12.50.” June 25, 1887. M’d’se, Barry & Love, $15.25.” On the trial appellant offered evidence to prove these charges, which evidence was objected to by appelleempon the ground that said charges were not itemized. The objection was sustained and the proposed evidence rejected. *Held*error. Appellee should have specially excepted to the account because it was not itemized. Not having done this, he could not take advantage of such defect by objections to evidence. Appellant proposed to prove said charges by the admissions of appellee that the account sued on was correct, which was competent evidence. . [2 App. C. C. § 491; *ante,*§ 190.]

§ 385. *Insufficient verdict.*Under the evidence appellee was not entitled to recover any damages upon his plea in reconvention. The verdict of the jury was a general one in his favor for $40.66, without specifying whether that .amount was awarded upon his counterclaim or upon his plea in reconvention. If any portion of said amount was awarded as damages, the vei’dict is wrong; and as it cannot be ascertained that no portion of said amount was awarded as damages, the verdict is uncertain and will not support the judgment. *[Ante,*§ 200.]

Reversed and remanded.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Shane Michael GATES.

No. 2010-KK-2243.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 5, 2011.

In re Gates, Shane Michael; —Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. G, Nos. *465423508, 423509; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010-KW-1122.

Denied.
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1586 

To repeal the Federal estate and gift taxes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 20, 2007 

Mr. THORNBERRY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To repeal the Federal estate and gift taxes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Death Tax Repeal Act 

5 of 2007’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF ESTATE AND GIFT TAXES. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subtitle B of the Internal Rev8 enue Code of 1986 (relating to estate, gift, and genera9 tion-skipping taxes) is hereby repealed. 

10 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The repeal made by sub11 section (a) shall apply to estates of decedents dying, gifts 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

2 

•HR 1586 IH

1 made, and generation-skipping transfers made after the 

2 date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
Exhibit 32.2

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 Annual Report of Fisher
Communications, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 10-K), I, Joseph L. Lovejoy, Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: March 12, 2010



/s/ Joseph L. LovejoyJoseph L. LovejoySenior Vice President andChief Financial Officer
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 23.1

               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8) of Vista Medical Technologies, Inc. of our report dated January 31,
1999, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Vista Medical
Technologies, Inc. included in its Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended
December 31, 1998, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Our audits also included the financial statement schedule of Vista Medical
Technologies, Inc. listed in Item 14(a). This schedule is the responsibility of
Vista Medical Technologies, Inc.'s management. Our responsibility is to express
an opinion based on our audits. In our opinion, the financial statements
schedule referred to above, when considered in relation to the basic financial
statements taken as a whole, presents fairly in all material respects the
information set forth therein.

                                                    /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

San Diego, California
March 25, 1999
Order filed, March 13, 2019.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-18-01074-CV

____________

HUBERT BASS, Appellant

V.

MICHAEL W. GILLASPIA JR. D/B/A TEXAS TRUCK SALES, Appellee

On Appeal from the 405th District Court

Galveston County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 18-CV-0709

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due March 12, 2019. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 35.1. The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the 

record. The record has not been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record 

has not been filed timely, we issue the following order.

We order Cylena Korkmas, the court reporter, to file the record in this 

appeal within 15 days of the date of this order. 

PER CURIAM
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

Pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, Pehong Chen, the ChiefExecutive Officer of BroadVision, Inc. (the “Company”) and William E.Meyer, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify that, to thebest of their knowledge:

 

**1.****            **TheCompany’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31,2005, and to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the “PeriodicReport”), fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or section 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and

 

**2.****            **Theinformation contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have set theirhands hereto as of the 10th day of May 2005.

 

 
|   | /s/  Pehong Chen         |   |
|--------|--------------------------|--------|
|   | Pehong  Chen             |
|   | Chief  Executive Officer |
|   |                     |
|   | /s/  William E. Meyer    |   |
|   | William  E. Meyer        |
|   | Chief  Financial Officer |

 

1

----
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.2


                         Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference of our report dated March 14, 2001
with respect to the financial statements of R4 Technical Center - North
Carolina, LLC for the period from April 28, 2000 (date of inception) to
December 31, 2000, included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Blue Rhino
Corporation for the year ended July 31, 2002, in the following:


     - Form S-8 (No. 333-80909) pertaining to the Company's Amended and Restated
       Stock Option Plan for Non-Employee Directors;

     - Form S-8 (No. 333-60366) pertaining to the Company's Amended and Restated
       Stock Option Plan for Non-Employee Directors, as amended;

     - Form S-8 (No. 333-80907) pertaining to the Company's 1994 Stock Incentive
       Plan;

     - Form S-8 (No. 333-83262) pertaining to the Company's 1998 Stock Incentive
       Plan;

     - Form S-8 (No. 333-80911) pertaining to the Company's 1998 Stock Incentive
       Plan;

     - Form S-8 (No. 333-60368) pertaining to the Company's 1998 Stock Incentive
       Plan, as amended; and

     - Form S-8 (No. 333-94039) pertaining to the Company's Employee Stock
       Purchase Plan.

     - Form S-3 (Nos. 333-96593, 333-86798, 333-69790, 333-46540 and 333-90897)




                                                        /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP


Greensboro, North Carolina
October 3, 2002
#### Rudolph MAXWELL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D11-368.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 28, 2011.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 19, 2011.

Rudolph Maxwell, in proper person.

*1123Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Richard L. Polin, Chief Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before SUAREZ and LAGOA, JJ., and SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge.

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

We grant the motion for rehearing filed by the State of Florida, vacate and withdraw the opinion issued in this case on July 20, 2011, and substitute the following opinion in its place:

We affirm the trial court’s order denying Rudolph Maxwell’s petition for habeas corpus. The Florida Supreme Court’s decision in *State v. Montgomery,*39 So.3d 252 (Fla.2010) was rendered well after Maxwell’s convictions and sentences were final,1 and it is not retroactively applicable. *See Witt v. State,*387 So.2d 922 (Fla.1980); *see, e.g., Harricharan v. State,*59 So.3d 1162 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011); *Rozzelle v. State,*29 So.3d 1141 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). There is no legal basis for reversing the trial court’s decision to deny Maxwell’s petition for habeas relief. *See Smith v. State,*598 So.2d 1063, 1066 (Fla.1992) (“[W]e hold that any decision of this Court announcing a new rule of law, or merely applying an established rule of law to a new or different factual situation, must be given retrospective application by the courts of this state in every case pending on direct review or not yet final.... To benefit from the change in law, the defendant must have timely objected at trial if an objection was required to preserve the issue for appellate review.”)

Affirmed.

1

. *Maxwell v. State,*896 So.2d 765 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005).
#### STATE ex rel. Richard F. SMITH v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2011-KH-0032.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 16, 2011.

In re Smith, Richard F.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Bossier, 26th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 169,018; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 46,241-KH.

Denied.
Exhibit 99.1

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

In connection  with the Annual Report of RTIN Holdings,  Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2003,  as filed with the  Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Curtis A. Swanson,
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,
that:

(1)      The Report fully  complies  with the  requirements  of section 13(a) or
         15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));
         and

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



 /s/ Curtis A. Swanson
-----------------------
Curtis A. Swanson
Chief Financial Officer
May 20, 2003
#### In re Tanner MAGEE.

No. 2010-OB-2812.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 5, 2011.

In re Magee, Tanner; —Plaintiff; Applying For Admission to the Bar.

Denied. See Supreme Court Rule XVII, Section 4(C).

WEIMER, J., would grant.
exhibit_10-5.htm


    EXHIBIT
10.5

    
       

       

      
        ANIMAL
HEALTH INTERNATIONAL, INC.

        2007
STOCK OPTION AND INCENTIVE PLAN

         

        AMENDMENT
TO

        DEFERRED
STOCK UNIT AWARD AGREEMENT

         

         

        This
Amendment to the Deferred Stock Unit Award Agreement (the “Amendment”) is made
effective as of _________, 2008, by and between Animal Health International,
Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and ____________________ (the
“Grantee”).

         

        W
I T N E S S E T H:

         

        WHEREAS,
the Company and the Grantee entered into a Deferred Stock Unit Award Agreement
(the “Agreement”) effective as of _______________, 200__, pursuant to the terms
of the Animal Health International, Inc. 2007 Stock Option and Incentive Plan
(the “Plan”); and

         

        WHEREAS,
the Company and the Grantee now desire to amend the Agreement for compliance
with Internal Revenue Code Section 409A and the Treasury Regulations
thereunder;

         

        NOW,
THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, the parties do hereby agree as
follows:

         

        1.           Paragraph
4 of the Agreement is hereby amended and restated in its entirety as
follows:

         

        4.           Timing
and Form of Payout.  The vested DSUs shall be paid out in full
in the form of shares of Stock within 90 days following the Grantee’s
“separation from service” (as determined in accordance with Treasury Regulation
Section 1.409A-1(h)).  Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event the
Company determines that the Grantee is a “specified employee” (as determined in
accordance with Treasury Regulation Section 1.409A-1(i)), any such payment due
under this Paragraph 4 shall not be made before the date that is six months
after the date of such separation from service (or, if earlier, the date of
death of the Grantee).

         

        2.           Paragraph
6 of the Agreement is hereby amended and restated in its entirety as
follows:

         

        6.           Sale
Event.  Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this
Agreement, in the event of a Sale Event, that constitutes a “change in control
event” (as determined in accordance with Treasury Regulation Section
1.409A-3(i)(5)), prior to the payout of the DSUs pursuant to Paragraph 4, all
DSUs shall be paid out in full in the form of shares of Stock within 90 days
following the Sale Event.

         

        3.           Except
as otherwise specifically set forth herein, all other terms and conditions of
the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

         

        IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be executed on
this the _____ day of December, 2008.

         

        ANIMAL
HEALTH INTERNATIONAL, INC.

         

                                        By:  ________________________________

                                        Its:  ________________________________

         

         

        GRANTEE

         

         

        ____________________________________