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

Calendar No. 37

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 220

[Report No. 108–22] 

To reinstate and extend the deadline for commencement of construction of 

a hydroelectric project in the State of Illinois. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 28, 2003

Mr. FITZGERALD introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

MARCH 19, 2003

Reported by Mr. DOMENICI, without amendment 

A BILL

To reinstate and extend the deadline for commencement of 

construction of a hydroelectric project in the State of Illinois.

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

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF TIME FOR FEDERAL ENERGY 

4 REGULATORY COMMISSION PROJECT. 

5 Notwithstanding the time period specified in section 

6 13 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806) that would 
2

S 220 RS 

1 otherwise apply to the Federal Energy Regulatory Com2 mission project numbered 11214, the Commission may, at 

3 the request of the licensee for the project, and after rea4 sonable notice, in accordance with the good faith, due dili5 gence, and public interest requirements of that section and 

6 the Commission’s procedures under that section—

7 (1) reinstate the license for the construction of 

8 the project as of the effective date of the surrender 

9 of the license; and 

10 (2) extend the time period during which the li11 censee is required to commence the construction of 

12 the project for 3 consecutive 2-year periods beyond 

13 the date that is 4 years after the date of issuance 

14 of the license. 

Calendar No. 37

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 220

[Report No. 108–22] 

A BILL

To reinstate and extend the deadline for commencement of construction of a hydroelectric project in 

the State of Illinois. 

MARCH 19, 2003

Reported without amendment
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-6252
GREGORY A. KISSINGER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GEORGE M. MCMILLAN, Sheriff, Defendant - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CA-98-60-R) Submitted: May 14, 1998 Decided: June 2, 1998 Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gregory A. Kissinger, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Kissinger v. McM illan , No. CA-98-60-R (W.D. Va. Feb. 12, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JACK D. CLOTHIER.

May 2, 1978.

Petition for certification denied.
Exhibit
32.2











CERTIFICATON
OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER





Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to


§
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





In
connection with the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the
Quarterly Report of Hemagen Diagnostics, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the period ending
December 31, 2008, the (“Report”), I, Catherine M. Davidson, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 906 1350, that:





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





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














/s/Catherine M.
Davidson


Catherine
M. Davidson


Financial
Officer


(Principal
Financial Officer)








February
13, 2009




















A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Hemagen Diagnostics, Inc. and will be retained by Hemagen Diagnostics, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

ABDULA L. JACKSON,

Petitioner,

v.

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE,

Respondent.

______________________ 

2012-3198

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. DC0752120075-I-1.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

JOSEPH M. HANNON, JR., Hannon Law Group, of 

Washington, DC, argued for petitioner. With him on the 

brief was DANIEL S. CROWLEY. 

JOSHUA E. KURLAND, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department 

of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for respondent. 

With him on the brief were STUART F. DELERY, Acting 

Assistant Attorney General, JEANNE E. DAVIDSON, Director, and DEBORAH A. BYNUM, Assistant Director. 

______________________ 
 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (REYNA, MAYER, and TARANTO, Circuit 

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

October 10, 2013 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole 

 Date Daniel E. O’Toole 

 Clerk
**Exhibit 31.2**
I, Robert Selvi, certify that:
 1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of SonicWALL, Inc.;  2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;  4.  The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining 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 andprocedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed underour supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant,including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b)  designed such internal control over financialreporting, or caused such internal controlover financial reporting to be designed underour supervision, to provide reasonableassurance regarding the reliability offinancial reporting and the preparation offinancial statements for external purposes inaccordance with generally accepted accountingprinciples;  c)  evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  d)  disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in thecase of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and
 5.  The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):
 a)  all significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b)  any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.   Date:May 16, 2005 /s/ Robert Selvi   **Robert Selvi** **Chief Financial Officer**
**Exhibit
      32.1**





CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF


THE
      SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I,
      Ronald
      W. Pickett, Chief Executive Officer of Telkonet, Inc. (the “Company”), certify
      that:





(1)  The
      Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the period ended December 31,
      2005
      which this certification accompanies fully complies with the requirements of
      section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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







/s/
      Ronald W. Pickett


Ronald
      W.
      Pickett


Chief
      Executive Officer


March
      16,
      2006
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S

N O

. P D

- 1 6 7 8

- 1 0

D E R R I C K R O S S , A p p e l l a n t

v .

T H E S T A T E O F T E X A S

O N R E H E A R I N G O F A P P E L L A N T ’ S
P E T I T I O N F O R D I S C R E T I O N A R Y R E V I E W F R O M T H E T W E L F T H C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

A N D E R S O N C O U N T Y

P e r c u r i a m .

O P I N I O N

A p p e l l a n t w a s c o n v i c t e d o f p o s s e s s i o n o f a p r o h i b i t e d i t e m w h i l e i n c a r c e r a t e d i n a

c o r r e c t i o n a l f

a c i l i t y a n d s e n t e n c e d t o c o n f i n e m e n t f

o r s i x t y y e a r s

. T h e C o u r t o f A p p e a l s

a f f i r m e d A p p e l l a n t ’ s c o n v i c t i o n

. R o s s v

. S t a t e , ( T e x

. A p p

. — T y l e r , N o

. 1 2

- 0 9

- 0 0 2 4 9

-

C R
, d e l i v e r e d O c t o b e r 2 7
, 2 0 1 0 )

. A p p e l l a n t ’ s p e t i t i o n f o r d i s c r e t i o n a r y r e v i e w w a s

d i s m i s s e d a s u n t i m e l y f i l e d o n A p r i l 2 0
, 2 0 1 1

. A p p e l l a n t h a s f i l e d a m o t i o n f

o r r e h e a r i n gRoss - 2

r e q u e s t i n g r e i n s t a t e m e n t o f h i s p e t i t i o n s o t h a t i t w i l l b e c o n s i d e r e d b y t h i s C o u r t

.

A p p e l l a n t ’ s m o t i o n f

o r r e h e a r i n g i s g r a n t e d

. H i s p e t i t i o n i s r e i n s t a t e d a s o f M a y 2 5
, 2 0 1 1

a n d w i l l b e c o n s i d e r e d i n a c c o r d w i t h T e x

. R

. A p p

. P

. 6 8

.

D e l i v e r e d M a y 2 5
, 2 0 1 1
D o n o t p u b l i s h
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-16-00113- CV

P ete r E. P ratt , Jr., Appellant

v. The State of Texas, et al., Appellees

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F TRAVIS CO UNTY, 126 TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. D-1 -GV-0 8-0 0174 8, H ONO RAB LE GISELA D. TRI ANA, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Peter E. Pratt, J r., claiming to be acting in the capa city of a court-a ppointed rec eiver in a post-judgme nt equitable rec eiver ship, filed a notice of appea l challeng in g a trial court order 1 g ranting an acc ounting. The appellate rec ord must include the cle rk’s re cord f rom the trial court. 2 The c lerk’s r ecor d in this cause was due in this Court on Marc h 3, 2016, but no rec ord was filed. 3 W e rec eived notice from the Travis County district cler k’s office on Marc h 7, 2016, t h at P ra t t has neither paid nor made arr ang ement for pay ment of the rec ord. I f the cler k’s rec ord is not filed 4 beca use the a ppellant fa iled to pay , this Court m ay dismiss the appe al for w ant of prose cution. 5
The re cord be fore us does not e laborate further reg arding the subject of the r ece ivership. 1 See Tex. R. App. P . 34.1, 34.5(a)
. 2 See id. R. 35.1(b). 3 Nor has Pratt prese rved any claim that he is entitled to proce ed without pay ment of costs. 4 See id. R. 20.1(2), 37.3(b)
. See id. R. 37.3(b). 5On Marc h 9, 2016, we sent notice to Pratt that the cler k’s rec ord was overdue and that the appea l may be dismiss ed for want of prosec ution if Pratt did not make arr ang emen t s fo r the cler k’s rec ord or submit a status repor t to this Court on or befor e Marc h 21, 2016. To date, Pratt has not responde d in any wa y , and the cler k’s record has not been filed. Acc ording ly , we dism iss the appea l for wa

nt of prosec ution. 6

__________________________________________ Bob Pembe rton, J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice Rose, Jus tices Pemberton a nd Bour land Dismissed for Want of Prosecution Filed: May

26, 2016

See id. R. 37.3(b), 42.3(b) , (c)
. 6 2
#### Gloria Chandler Ramsey, Respondent, v New York University Hospital Center et al., Appellants.

[789 NYS2d 104]

Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Marilyn Shafer, J.), entered on or about February 13, 2004 and June 9, 2004, *350which, in an action for employment discrimination based on disability and age, granted plaintiffs motions for protective orders quashing defendants’ subpoena to take the deposition of plaintiffs treating psychiatrist, and directed that defendants’ psychiatrist perform his psychiatric evaluation of plaintiff in the presence of her attorney, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants seek the deposition of plaintiffs treating psychiatrist, who has not yet been designated an expert witness, in order to clarify the meaning of certain handwritten notes he made of conversations he had with plaintiffs supervisor, a defendant herein, before plaintiff’s termination. Apparently, the notes were included among medical records that were delivered to defendants in the course of disclosure. A protective order against this deposition was properly granted since plaintiffs psychiatrist’s testimony is not the only means of discovering the tenor of the conversations constituting the subject matter of the notes. It is not the norm to seek the deposition of a treating physician, and it should not generally be directed unless necessary to prove a fact unrelated to diagnosis and treatment *(cf. Schroder v Consolidated Edison Co.,*249 AD2d 69 [1998]; *Moore v Columbia-Presbyterian Med. Ctr.,*NYLJ, Sept. 2, 1999, at 27, col 1). Concerning defendants’ psychiatric evaluation of plaintiff, a party to a civil action is generally entitled to have his or her attorney present during a physical examination conducted at its opponent’s demand by its physician, provided that the attorney does not unduly interfere with the examination *(see Jakubowski v Lengen,*86 AD2d 398 [1982]). We see no reason why the same rule should not apply to a psychiatric evaluation *(cf. Matter of Alexander L.,*60 NY2d 329 [1983]). Concur—Marlow, J.P., Williams, Gonzalez, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1763 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 573
108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 1763

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 21, 2003

  Mr. Schumer (for himself and Mrs. Clinton) introduced the following 
      bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                          Governmental Affairs

                              June 7, 2004

               Reported by Ms. Collins, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 14 Chestnut Street, in Liberty, New York, as the ``Ben R. Gerow Post 
                           Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. BEN R. GEROW POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 14 Chestnut Street, in Liberty, New York, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Ben R. Gerow Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the Ben R. Gerow 
Post Office Building.

                                                       Calendar No. 573

108th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 1763

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 14 Chestnut Street, in Liberty, New York, as the ``Ben R. Gerow Post 
                           Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                              June 7, 2004

                       Reported without amendment
```
Exhibit 10.11
**FIRST AMENDMENT TO SUBLEASE**
     THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO SUBLEASE (the “Amendment”) is dated as ofNovember 24, 2003, by and between E.PIPHANY, INC., a Delaware corporation(“Sublandlord”) and SINA.COM ONLINE, a California corporation (“Subtenant”).
RECITALS
     WHEREAS, Sublandlord and Subtenant are parties to that certain Subleasedated as of January 11, 2002, for premises consisting of 5,238 square feet ofspace in the building commonly known as and numbered 2988 Campus Drive, Suite100, San Mateo, California (the “Sublease”);
     WHEREAS, Sublandlord and Subtenant wish to amend the Sublease on the termsand conditions set forth below.
AGREEMENT
     NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt andsufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged and agreed, Sublandlord andSubtenant hereby agree as follows:
     1. Subtenant. As of November 1, 2003 (the “Effective Date”), theintroductory paragraph of the Sublease is hereby amended by deleting the nameof Subtenant “SINA.com, a California corporation” and substituting the name“Sina.com Online, a California corporation” therefor.
     2. Term. As of the Effective Date, the end date of the Sublease Term setforth in Section II of the Sublease is hereby amended by deleting the date“February 29, 2004” and substituting the date “September 30, 2005” therefor.
     3. Option Term. Section III of the Sublease is deleted in its entirety.
     4. Base Rent. Section VI of the Sublease is hereby amended by deletingthe first and second sentences and substituting the following therefor:“Subtenant shall pay to Sublandlord, in advance, in monthly installments,without withholding, offset or reduction, Basic Rent at the rate of SixThousand and 00/100 Dollars ($6,000.00) per month for the period throughSeptember 30, 2005.”
     5. Brokers. Sublandlord and Subtenant each warrant to the other that ithas not dealt with any broker in connection with this Amendment other than TheStaubach Company and BT Commercial, for Sublandlord, and BT Commercial, forSubtenant, and each party agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless theother from and against any breach of this warranty. Sublandlord shall beresponsible for any broker’s commission to be paid per a separate agreement.
     6. Miscellaneous; Ratification; Counterparts. Capitalized terms usedherein but not defined shall have the meanings ascribed to them in theSublease. Except as amended hereby, the
 

 

Sublease shall continue unmodified and in full force and effect and ishereby ratified and confirmed. This Amendment may be executed in counterpartoriginals which, taken together, shall constitute a single original.
     EXECUTED as an instrument under seal as of the date first above written.       SUBLANDLORD:       E.PIPHANY, INC., a Delaware corporation      By: /s/
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. PD-1678-10

DERRICK ROSS, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

ON REHEARING OF APPELLANT’S

PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

FROM THE TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

ANDERSON COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Appellant was convicted of possession of a prohibited item while incarcerated in a

correctional facility and sentenced to confinement for sixty years. The Court of Appeals

affirmed Appellant’s conviction. Ross v. State, (Tex. App. — Tyler, No. 12-09-00249-

CR, delivered October 27, 2010). Appellant’s petition for discretionary review was

dismissed as untimely filed on April 20, 2011. Appellant has filed a motion for rehearing
Ross - 2

requesting reinstatement of his petition so that it will be considered by this Court.

Appellant’s motion for rehearing is granted. His petition is reinstated as of May 25,2011

and will be considered in accord with Tex.R.App.P. 68.

Delivered May 25, 2011

Do not publish
#### SHELL OIL COMPANY v. DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF TAXATION.

June 12, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. ALBERT DICKENS, JR.

September 24, 1984.

Cross-petition for certification denied. (See 192 *N.J.Super.*290)
Compass 

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

March 20, 2015

No. 04-14-00874-CV

Juan Alberto CASTILLO and Ana L. Perez,

Appellants

v.

COMPASS BANK,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No 2, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014-CVD-000024-L2

Honorable Jesus Garza, Judge Presiding

ORDER

On September 23, 2014, appellants Juan Alberto Castillo and Ana L. Perez filed separate 

notices of appeal from the trial court’s August 27, 2014 judgment. On December 15, 2014, 

appellants filed separate affidavits of indigency in this court. By order dated January 20, 2015, 

we construed the affidavits as motions for extension of time to file the affidavits in the trial court

and granted the motions. See Higgins v. Randall County Sheriff’s Office, 257 S.W.3d 684 (Tex. 

2008). In that same order, we ordered the clerk of this court to send copies of the affidavits and 

our order to the district clerk, the court reporter, and all parties. See TEX. R. APP. P. 20.1(d)(2). 

We further ordered that anyone who desired to file a contest to the affidavits to file such contests 

in this court on or before January 30, 2015. 

No contests were filed. Because no contests were filed, appellants are considered 

indigent for purposes of this appeal. Both the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record have been 

filed in this court. Accordingly, we ordered appellants to file their appellants’ briefs in this court 

on or before January 13, 2015. Neither appellant has filed a brief. 

Accordingly, we ORDER appellant Juan Alberto Castillo and appellant Ana L. Perez to

file his and her briefs and written responses reasonably explaining their failures to timely file 

their briefs in this court on or before March 30, 2015. If appellant Juan Alberto Castillo fails to 

file a brief and the written response by the date ordered, we will dismiss his appeal for want of 

prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a). Likewise, if appellant Ana L. Perez fails to file a brief 

and the written response by the date ordered, we will dismiss her appeal for want of prosecution. 

See id.
We order the clerk of this court to serve copies of this order on both appellants and all 

counsel. 

_________________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 20th day of March, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court