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

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1485 

For the relief of Esther Karinge. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 12, 2007 

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

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

For the relief of Esther Karinge. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR ESTHER 

4 KARINGE. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding subsections (a) 

6 and (b) of section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality 

7 Act, Esther Karinge shall be eligible for issuance of an 

8 immigrant visa or for adjustment of status to that of an 

9 alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence upon fil10 ing an application for issuance of an immigrant visa under 

11 section 204 of such Act or for adjustment of status to 

12 lawful permanent resident. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

2 

•HR 1485 IH

1 (b) ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.—If Esther Karinge 

2 enters the United States before the filing deadline speci3 fied in subsection (c), she shall be considered to have en4 tered and remained lawfully and shall, if otherwise eligible, 

5 be eligible for adjustment of status under section 245 of 

6 the Immigration and Nationality Act as of the date of the 

7 enactment of this Act. 

8 (c) DEADLINE FOR APPLICATION AND PAYMENT OF

9 FEES.—Subsections (a) and (b) shall apply only if the ap10 plication for issuance of an immigrant visa or the applica11 tion for adjustment of status is filed with appropriate fees 

12 within 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

13 (d) REDUCTION OF IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBER.— 

14 Upon the granting of an immigrant visa or permanent res15 idence to Esther Karinge, the Secretary of State shall in16 struct the proper officer to reduce by 1, during the current 

17 or next following fiscal year, the total number of immi18 grant visas that are made available to natives of the coun19 try of the alien’s birth under section 203(a) of the Immi20 gration and Nationality Act or, if applicable, the total 

21 number of immigrant visas that are made available to na22 tives of the country of the alien’s birth under section 

23 202(e) of such Act. 

24 (e) DENIAL OF PREFERENTIAL IMMIGRATION

25 TREATMENT FOR CERTAIN RELATIVES.—The natural 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

3 

•HR 1485 IH

1 parents, brothers, and sisters of Esther Karinge shall not, 

2 by virtue of such relationship, be accorded any right, privi3 lege, or status under the Immigration and Nationality Act. 

Æ 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1586 Introduced in House (IH)]

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.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Death Tax Repeal Act of 2007''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF ESTATE AND GIFT TAXES.

    (a) In General.--Subtitle B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
(relating to estate, gift, and generation-skipping taxes) is hereby 
repealed.
    (b) Effective Date.--The repeal made by subsection (a) shall apply 
to estates of decedents dying, gifts made, and generation-skipping 
transfers made after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### Kansas & Gulp Short Line R. R. Co. v. The Patrons’ Co-operative Association, P. of H., etc.

(No. 1766.)

December 10, 1884.

Appeal from Cherokee County.

Opinion by

Hurt, J.

§ 502. *jRes adjudicata; judgment on demurrer is, when.*Appellee sued appellant in the county court at the January term, 1884, for precisely the same cause of action as that stated in the petition in this suit. In that suit a general demurrer was sustained to the petition, and appellee gave notice of appeal from said judgment, but subsequently withdrew the same, and the judgment upon the demurrer remained in full force. To the present action, appellant pleaded the said judgment on demurrer as *res adjudicata,*and introduced in evidence the pleadings and judgment in said former suit, and requested the court to charge the jury in relation thereto, in substance, that if they found the facts stated in the plea to be true, they would find for the defendant. The court refused the charge, and the jury found for the plaintiff. *Held,*the plea presented a bar to this action, and the requested charge should have been given. [Dixon v. Zadek, 59 Tex. 531; Hale v. McComas, 59 Tex. 484; Nichols v. Dibrell, 60 Tex. 539; Graham v. Vining, 1 Tex. 669.]

Eeversed and remanded.
#### Dwain W. HIGGINBOTHAM, Appellant, v. Elsa HIGGINBOTHAM, Appellee.

No. 3D10-2310.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 5, 2011.

*807Cynthia J. Dienstag, Miami, for appellant.

Peter H. Kircher, Miami, for appellee.

Before GERSTEN and SUAREZ, JJ„ and SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge.

SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge.

Although we agree that the wife was not limited to the $5,000 cap on attorneys’ fees provided by the parties’ ante-nuptial agreement, even though the agreement as a whole was upheld below, see *Belcher v. Belcher,*271 So.2d 7 (Fla.1972); *Johnson v. Johnson,*946 So.2d 1132 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); *Mulhern v. Mulhern,*446 So.2d 1124 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); *Blanton v. Blanton,*413 So.2d 453 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); *Young v. Young,*322 So.2d 594 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975), we find the $305,640.00 in “temporary” fees granted her, essentially for litigating the validity of the prenup, excessive under the pertinent circumstances. See *Rosen v. Rosen,*696 So.2d 697 (Fla.1997).1 This is the case particularly in light of (a) the “results obtained,” Id. at 698; and the rules (b) that such fees should not be awarded for time and services in excess of those required for the representation in question, see *Miller v. First American Bank and Trust,*607 So.2d 483 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); and (c) that the purpose of such awards in domestic cases is to accord the respective parties an approximately equal ability and opportunity to retain counsel. See *Cummings v. Cummings,*330 So.2d 134 (Fla.1976); *Bagley v. Bagley,*720 So.2d 582 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); *Bullard v. Bullard,*380 So.2d 1090 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). (In this regard, we note that the fees paid to the husband’s lawyer for (successfully) representing him as to the same issues were $138,442.00). Accordingly, the order on appeal is reversed and the case is remanded for substantial reduction of the fee award under review.2

Reversed and remanded.

1

. As to the primary factor in such a determination, Rosen, 696 So.2d at 700, there is no doubt that there is a vast disparity in the financial resources of the parties. The wife has obvious needs and the husband, an eminent ability to pay.

2

. We do not disturb the $18,963.16 granted for costs.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                            6650
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     9859
<ALLOWANCES>                                       123
<INVENTORY>                                       2993
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 21592
<PP&E>                                           21907
<DEPRECIATION>                                    8309
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   42833
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            10287
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             9045
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            35
<OTHER-SE>                                       16044
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     42833
<SALES>                                           4998
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  4998
<CGS>                                             1189
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     1189
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  6101
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  28
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (2125)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (2125)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (2191)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.64)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.64)


</TABLE>
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Winston Hotels, Inc.
(the Company) for the period ending September 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert
W. Winston, III, Chief Executive 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 Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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/ Robert W. Winston IIIName:
    
    Robert W. Winston, IIITitle:
    
    Chief Executive OfficerDate:
    
    November 8, 2004
#### STATE ex rel. Richard LAY v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2010-KH-2028.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 16, 2011.

In re Lay, Richard; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. F, Nos. 130364,131275; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KW 0795.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.3; *State ex rel. Melinie v. State,*93-1380 (La.1/12/96), 665 So.2d 1172.

WEIMER, J., recused.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Roque Garcia, Appellant.

[775 NYS2d 131]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Sudolnik, J.), rendered March 8, 2002, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of attempted robbery in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of five years probation, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490 [1987]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s determinations concerning identification and credibility. The *313People presented reliable identification testimony from the victim and an eyewitness, along with corroborating testimony from a second eyewitness.

The court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress identification testimony. Even were we to find that the victim’s precinct-house identification was improper, we would find that the lineup held months later was attenuated from any taint *(see e.g. People v Greenwood,*156 AD2d 159 [1989], *lv denied*75 NY2d 868 [1990]). Defendant and the other lineup participants were reasonably similar in appearance, and any difference was not sufficient to create a substantial likelihood that the victim would single out defendant and misidentify him.

Defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Williams, Friedman, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.
Exhibit 32.1





Certification of Periodic Financial Report


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350





Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of RC2 Corporation (the "Company") certifies that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in that Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








Dated:  March 2, 2011


/s/ Curtis W. Stoelting


Curtis W. Stoelting


Chief Executive Officer











Dated:  March 2, 2011


/s/ Peter A. Nicholson


Peter A. Nicholson


Chief Financial Officer





This certification is made solely for purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, subject to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other purpose.
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 on
Form 10-K of Senesco Technologies, Inc. for the year ended June 30, 2010 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, the
undersigned, Joel Brooks, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:


(1)           The Annual 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 Annual
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of Senesco Technologies, Inc.




Dated: September 28,
      2010
              /s/ Joel Brooks*Joel
  BrooksChief Financial Officer and
      Treasurer(principal financial and
      accounting officer)





*  A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to us and will be retained by us and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**EXHIBIT 31.2**
CERTIFICATION
I, Joseph V. Green, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q for thequarter ended March 31, 2004 of Winston Hotels, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect tothe period covered 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 Company’s other certifying officer and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theCompany and have:
(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theCompany, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the periodin which this report is being prepared;
(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Company’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures,as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and
(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the Company’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the Company’smost recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and
5. The Company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the Company’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the Company’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent functions):
(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Company’sability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and
(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the Company’sinternal control over financial reporting.   Date: May 10, 2004      /s/ Joseph V. Green  Joseph V. Green Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000921066            
<NAME>                        Restaurant Teams International
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     US Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         787,610
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  75,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    60,601
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               848,211
<PP&E>                                         8,812,868
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (539,893)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 9,255,136
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          403,531
<BONDS>                                        2,126,874
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       65,154
<OTHER-SE>                                     6,538,377
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   9,255,136
<SALES>                                        2,816,946
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               3,119,120
<CGS>                                          776,985
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1,604,664
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             133,611
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                603,861
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            603,861
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   603,861
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .093
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .074
        


</TABLE>
STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION
                           OF NET INCOME PER SHARE

                                                 Three months ended June 30,  
                                                    1997             1996    
                                                 -----------      -----------
Net income as reported. . . . . . . . . . .      $   786,000      $   585,000
                                                 ===========      ===========


Primary:

Common and common equivalent shares
  outstanding:
    Weighted average number of common shares 
      outstanding . . . . . . . . . . . . .        3,190,198        3,101,808
    Common stock equivalents from options
      computed on the treasury-stock method
      using the average fair market value of
      common stock during the period. . . .          149,977          141,197
                                                 -----------      -----------
    Shares used in the computation. . . . .        3,340,175        3,243,005
                                                 ===========      ===========

Primary net income per share. . . . . . . .      $      0.24      $      0.18
                                                 ===========      ===========



Fully Diluted:

Common and common equivalent shares
  outstanding:
    Weighted average number of common shares 
      outstanding . . . . . . . . . . . . .        3,190,198        3,101,808
    Common stock equivalents from options
      computed on the treasury-stock method
      using the higher of the average fair
      market value of common stock during the
      period or at the end of the period. .          154,975          141,197
                                                 -----------      -----------
    Shares used in the computation. . . . .        3,345,173        3,243,005
                                                 ===========      ===========

Fully diluted net income per share. . . . .      $      0.23      $      0.18
                                                 ===========      ===========
IIB 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 1734 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 4, 2008 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 630 Northeast Killingsworth Avenue in Portland, Oregon, as the ‘‘Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Post 

Office’’. 

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


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

HR 1734 RFS

1 SECTION 1. DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. POST OFFICE. 

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

3 Postal Service located at 630 Northeast Killingsworth Av4 enue in Portland, Oregon, shall be known and designated 

5 as the ‘‘Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Post Office’’. 

6 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg7 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

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

9 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Dr. Martin Luther 

10 King, Jr. Post Office’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives June 3, 2008. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
#### STATE in the Interest of L.L.

No. 2010-CK-2735.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 29, 2011.

In re State of Louisiana; —Other; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Juvenile Court Orleans Parish, No. 2010-126-04-DQ-B; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-C-1030.

Denied.