alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
H. R. 7120 

One Hundred Fifteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and eighteen 

An Act 

To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to extend through 2023 

the authority of the Federal Election Commission to impose civil money penalties 

on the basis of a schedule of penalties established and published by the Commission. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTY AUTHORITY 

OF FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION THROUGH 2023. 

(a) EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY.—Section 309(a)(4)(C)(v) of the 

Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (52 U.S.C. 30109(a)(4)(C)(v)) 

is amended by striking ‘‘December 31, 2018’’ and inserting 

‘‘December 31, 2023’’. 

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by subsection (a) 

shall take effect on the earlier of— 

(1) December 31, 2018; or 

(2) the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
Exhibit 31.4

CERTIFICATION

I, Gregory Weaver,
certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Eloxx
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and

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.

Date: April 19, 2018



|                                                                                     
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Gregory Weaver                                                                   
|Chief Financial Officer, Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer
#### J. C. Thompson et al. v. W. E. Graves.

(No. 3196.)

Appeal from Tarrant County.

Wallace Hendricks and Templeton & Kern, counsel for appellants.

W. E. McLura, counsel for appellee.

Opinion by

Willson, J.

*27§ 7. *Sequestration; property seized under writ of, unless replevied, should be held by officer until otherwise disposed .of by order of court, although the proceeding may have been quashed.*Thompson, as constable, seized certain property belonging to Graves, under and by virtue of a writ of sequestration issued in a suit wherein Alexander was plaintiff and said Graves was defendant. Said property was not replevied by either party to said suit, and remained in the possession of said constable. Said sequestration proceeding was quashed some time prior to a trial upon the merits of said cause, but the interlocutory order of the court quashing the sequestration did not dispose of the property seized; that is, did not direct the constable what to do with said property. Immediately upon the quashal of the sequestration, appellee demanded said property of said constable, who refused to deliver the same to him. Appellee then instituted this suit against said constable and the sureties on his official bond, to recover the value of said property, etc., and recovered judgment accordingly. Appellants insist that Thompson, the constable, was justified in holding the property, and in refusing to delivór the same to appellee; that it was his duty to hold said property until ordered by the court to deliver it to said Graves, or to otherwise dispose of it, and that under the facts of this case said constable was not guilty of a conversion of said property. We are of the opinion that appellants are correct in this position. A writ of sequestration commands the officer to keep the property seized subject to the future order of the judge, court or justice of the peace who issued the writ, unless the same is replevied according to law. [Sayles’ Civil St., art. 4494.] We think the constable was justified in holding the property until ordered by the court to disposé of it, or until a final disposition of the cause. He was not directed by the court to deliver the property to appellee, nor had there been a final disposition of the cause in favor of ap*28pellee. True, the sequestration, had been quashed, but this was interlocutory, and did not, we think, have the effect to at once discharge the property from the custody of the law. It might be that the court would thereafter set aside such interlocutory judgment, or that on appeal from a final judgment in the cause such interlocutory judgment would be reversed and set aside. We are of the opinion that appellee has no cause of action against appellants.

October 26, 1889.

Reversed and dismissed.
#### R.F., A Child, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 5D09-2230.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Oct. 15, 2010.

James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Anne Moorman Reeves, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Rebecca Rock McGuigan, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the order adjudicating Appellant delinquent. We remand this cause with instructions that the trial court clarify its order dated May 26, 2009, to make clear that the assessment for costs of representation authorized and imposed under section 985.033(1), Florida Statutes, is imposed as a lien against Appellant’s parents.

AFFIRMED AND REMANDED.

PALMER, TORPY and COHEN, JJ., concur.
FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T Dec ember

16, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 8- 12 20 5 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 5- 00 17 5- CV-WLS-1 W ILLIE FARMER, J R., Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us AIG LIFE INSURANCE COMP ANY, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Dece m be r 16 , 20 08 )
Befo re BI RCH, DUBINA an d B LACK, Circ ui t Jud ge s. PER CURI AM:W il li e Farm er, J r. ap pe al s the di stric t co urt’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t t o AIG Life I ns ur an ce Co . inhi s Em pl oyee Ret ire m en t In co m e Sec ur it y Act o f 19 74 (ERISA) act io n s eek in g l on g- te rm di sabi li ty ben efi ts . 29 U.S.C. §§ 10 01 et seq . Farm er as se rts (1) he was d en ie d aful l an d fa ir r ev ie w of t he admin is tra ti ve de ci si on de nyin g h is cla im ; (2 ) th e d is tri ctco urt was pre cl ud edfro m affi rm in g t he de ni al of b en efi ts on th e b as is of the “ 36 5 d ay ” ru le ; (3 ) th is co urt, u nd er d e n ov o rev ie w, sh ou ldres ol ve hi s co nt en ti on th athe is “ to ta ll y an d p erm an en tl y

di sabl ed ” as de fin edby the po li cy

at i ss ue ; an d (4 ) th e d is tri ctco urt erredinco nc lu di ng hi s cl ai m fordi sabi li ty ben efi ts was p recl ud edby the “ 36 5 d ay ” ru le . Afte r rev ie w of t he reco rd , andth e p art ie s’ bri efs , we con cl ud e Farm er’s co nt en ti on s o n app eal are wi th ou t m eri t. We fin d n o e rro r in th e d is tri ctco urt’s gr an t o f su m

m ary jud gm en t t o AIG. The jud gm en t i s, ac co rd in gl y , AFFIRMED.

2
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     ART. 5 FDS FOR 1ST QUARTER 10-Q
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
                                               


</TABLE>
627 A.2d 1130

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. GEORGE MARTINES.

January 28, 1993.

Petition for certification is granted, and that portion of the judgment of the Appellate Division that is before the Court on the petition for certification is summarily reversed and the matter is remanded to the Law Division for further proceedings in accordance with *State v. Shaw,*131 *N.J.*1, 618 A.2d 294 (1993).
----

| SOUTH      JERSEY GAS COMPANY                          |   |
|--------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Calculation      of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges |   |
| (IN      THOUSANDS)                                    |   |
|                                                   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
|                                                   |   | Fiscal      Year Ended December 31, |
|                                                   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
|                                                   |   | 2009 |   |   | 2008 |   |   | 2007 |   |   | 2006 |   |   | 2005 |   |
|                                                   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Net      Income                                        |   | $ | 39,195 |   |   | $ | 39,431 |   |   | $ | 38,025 |   |   | $ | 35,779 |   |   | $ | 34,547 |   |
|                                                   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Income      Taxes, Net                                 |   |   | 27,104 |   |   |   | 26,508 |   |   |   | 26,652 |   |   |   | 24,811 |   |   |   | 25,185 |   |
|                                                   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Fixed      Charges*                                    |   |   | 16,764 |   |   |   | 19,089 |   |   |   | 20,928 |   |   |   | 22,274 |   |   |   | 19,317 |   |
|                                                   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Capitalized      Interest                              |   |   | (322 | ) |   |   | (152 | ) |   |   | (151 | ) |   |   | (175 | ) |   |   | (1,161 | ) |
|                                                   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Total      Available for Coverage                      |   | $ | 82,741 |   |   | $ | 84,876 |   |   | $ | 85,454 |   |   | $ | 82,689 |   |   | $ | 77,888 |   |
|                                                   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Total      Available                                   |   |   | 4.9 | x |   |   | 4.4 | x |   |   | 4.1 | x |   |   | 3.7 | x |   |   | 4.0 | x |
| Fixed      Charges                                     |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |

----
|   | (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 this Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Company. |
|--------|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                      |                                                                                                                           |
|---------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Date:      April 30, 2010 | By:      /s/ Robert      DinningName:      Robert DinningTitle:      Chief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting  Officer |
#### Robert Kevin McCARTNEY, et al. v. George McCORMICK, et al.

No. 2011-CP-1276.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 23, 2011.

In re McCartney, Robert Kevin; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Rapides, 9th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 225,011; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 10-1225.

Denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF FVC.COM, INC. FOR THE QUARTER ENDED MARCH
31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           4,966
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,707
<ALLOWANCES>                                       204
<INVENTORY>                                     10,411
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                41,561
<PP&E>                                           4,853
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,339
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  47,411
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,393
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            17
<OTHER-SE>                                      36,813
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    47,411
<SALES>                                          8,380
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 8,380
<CGS>                                            4,726
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   11,844
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,118
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    36
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  22
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,238)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,238)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,238)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.20)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.20)
        

</TABLE>
#### Gwendolyn ROCHESTER v. SOUTHWEST DEVELOPMENTAL CENTER.

No. 2010-C-1571.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 8, 2011.

*683In re Rochester, Gwendolyn; —Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Lafayette, Office of Workers’ Compensation District 4, No. 06-04823; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 09-1342.

Denied.
#### Mary A. Newcomb v. H. C. Babb.

(No. 3298.)

Appeal from Clay County.

Opinion by

White, P. J.

§ 7 60. *Verdict; affidavits of jurors to impeach, not admissible; case stated.*Suit by appellant against appellee to recover four horses or their value. Both parties claimed title to the horses by purchase from one Ozee. Appellant proved that she owned a pasture; that Ozee owned two hundred head of horses; that she pastured Ozee’s horses under contract with him; that by the terms of said contract she was to have the four horses in controversy as pay for said pasturage; that said four horses were gotten up, branded and used for her, for nearly a year before they were taken from her possession by appellee; that Ozee had never paid her anything else for *666said pasturage. Ozee testified, in behalf of appellee, that he bad never sold the horses to appellant, but only loaned them to her to use in payment of pasturage of his stock. The trial resulted in a judgment for appellee. On motion for new trial, appellant proposed to prove, by several members of the jury who had tiled the case, that they had misunderstood her testimony, and that if they had understood it as she had in fact given it, their verdict would have been different. A similar question was raised in Little v. Birdwell 21 Tex. 598, where five of the jurors made affidavit in support of the motion for new trial, to the effect that a certain paper read in evidence and commented upon in argument, was, by mistake, withheld from the jury, and that if said paper had been before the jury their finding would have been different. It was held that affidavits of jurors ought not to be received to impeach their verdict, and that the course of decision has been decidedly to discountenance the practice, citing Kilgore v. Jordan, 17 Tex. 341; 1 Tex. 475, 726. [See, also, Ellis v. Ponton, 32 Tex. 439; Boetge v. Landa, 22 Tex. 105; W. & W. Con. Rep. § 1053.] It was not error to overrule this ground of the motion for new trial.

May 13, 1885.

§ 761. *Verdict and judgment against weight of evidence will he set aside.*Besides evidence hereinbefore recited, there, was other evidence establishing appellant’s title to the horses. It appears to us that the great weight of the evidence supports her claim to the property, and that the verdict and judgment are contrary to the evidence. The rule now obtaining with regard to verdicts and judgments is, that “when the evidence is so conflicting that the jury might well be justified in finding either way, the verdict or judgment will not be disturbed; but the appellate court will set aside the verdict or judgment when it is clearly wrong, as when it is without evidence, or manifestly against the weight of evidence. [Zapp v. Michaelis, 58 Tex. 270.]

Reversed and remanded.
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 Usurf America, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ronald
S. Bass, Principal Accounting 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 3(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.


                                    /s/ Ronald S. Bass
                                    ----------------------------
                                    Name: Ronald S. Bass
                                    Principal Accounting Officer
                                    April 6, 2005
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.4

                           WHG RESORTS & CASINOS INC.
                           6063 East Isla Verde Avenue
                           Carolina, Puerto Rico 00979


                                      April 21, 1997



Mr. Brian R. Gamache
7 Candida Street
Condado, Santurce
Puerto Rico  00907

Dear Mr. Gamache:

      Reference is made to your employment agreement dated October 27, 1996 with
Williams Hospitality Group Inc. ("WHGI"). As you are aware, our parent
corporation, WMS Industries Inc., has announced its intention to spin off its
hotel & casino business to the stockholders of WMS Industries Inc., a
transaction which we expect to occur on or about April 21, 1997 (the
"Distribution Date").

      This letter will confirm that it is our mutual intention that you will
serve as President and Chief Operating Officer of WHG Resorts & Casinos Inc.
(the "Company"), the new public company which results from the spin off
transaction, effective on the Distribution Date. In connection therewith, the
Company will pay you a salary at the rate of $50,000 per annum, payable in
accordance with the Company's customary payroll practices. You agree to devote
such time to the business of the Company that is reasonable to perform the
duties as its President and Chief Operating Officer. The term of your employment
by the Company pursuant to this letter shall coincide with the term of your
employment with WHGI under your existing employment agreement.

                                          Very truly yours,

                                          WHG RESORTS & CASINOS INC.


                                          By:  /s/ Louis J. Nicastro
                                              ____________________________
                                               Name:  Louis J. Nicastro
                                               Title: Chairman of the Board

ACCEPTED AND AGREED TO
this 21st day of April, 1997


/s/ Brian R. Gamache
______________________
BRIAN R. GAMACHE