alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Tahira S. Allen","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/tsallen2\/","title":"Ocean Worlds Planetary Scientist Dr. Lynnae Quick","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"dtFlbYAZZ4\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-article\/ocean-worlds-planetary-scientist-dr-lynnae-quick\/\">Ocean Worlds Planetary Scientist Dr. Lynnae Quick<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-article\/ocean-worlds-planetary-scientist-dr-lynnae-quick\/embed\/#?secret=dtFlbYAZZ4\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Ocean Worlds Planetary Scientist Dr. Lynnae Quick” — NASA\" data-secret=\"dtFlbYAZZ4\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/nhq202402070010.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":400}
CERTIFICATION



I, Baldwin Yung, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of IWI Holding Limited:



2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report:



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



4. The companys other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the company and have:



(a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure control and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material information relating to thecompany, including its consolidated subsidiaries,  is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b)  Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;

(c)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the companys disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(d)  Disclosed in this report any change in the companys internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has  materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the companys internal control over financial reporting; and



5. The companys other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the companys auditors and the audit committee of the companys board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions);

(a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which  are reasonably likely to adversely affect the companys ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information, and

(b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the companys  internal control over financial reporting.





Date: October 7, 2009

By: /s/ Baldwin Yung

Chief Executive and Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 740 Introduced in House (IH)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 740

 To designate the national cemetery established at the former site of 
    the Joliet Arsenal, Illinois, as the ``Abraham Lincoln National 
                              Cemetery''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 12, 1997

   Mr. Weller (for himself, Mr. Davis of Illinois, and Mr. Shimkus) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                           Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the national cemetery established at the former site of 
    the Joliet Arsenal, Illinois, as the ``Abraham Lincoln National 
                              Cemetery''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF NATIONAL CEMETERY.

    (a) Designation.--The national cemetery established at the former 
site of the Joliet Arsenal, Illinois, shall be known and designated as 
the ``Abraham Lincoln National Cemetery''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, paper, or 
other record of the United States to the national cemetery referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Abraham 
Lincoln National Cemetery''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                        5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE COMBINED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF U.S. TIMBERLANDS KLAMATH FALLS, L.L.C. AND U.S.
TIMBERLANDS FINANCE CORP. FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1998 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                     1,000
       
<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                  JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                    JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                                3,334
<SECURITIES>                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                         5,977
<ALLOWANCES>                                            100
<INVENTORY>                                               0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      9,294
<PP&E>                                                1,476
<DEPRECIATION>                                          249
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      366,169
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                11,256
<BONDS>                                             225,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                                  0
<OTHER-SE>                                          129,913
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        366,169
<SALES>                                              29,571
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     29,571
<CGS>                                                 6,899
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        26,139
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                        227
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   11,098
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      (7,624)
<INCOME-TAX>                                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  (7,624)
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                         (7,624)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                             0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                             0
        


</TABLE>
#### TARA NOLAN AND PAULINE NOLAN, ET AL. v. LUISITA S. LEE HO, M.D.

September 6, 1989.

Petition for certification granted.
Administrative Office of the United States Courts FOR COURT USE ONLY

TRANSCRIPT ORDER

DUE DATE:

OAO 435

AZ Form (Rev. 1/2015)

1. NAME 2. PHONE NUMBER 3. DATE

4. FIRM NAME

5. MAILING ADDRESS 6. CITY 7. STATE 8. ZIP CODE

9. CASE NUMBER 10. JUDGE DATES OF PROCEEDINGS

11. 12. 

13. CASE NAME LOCATION OF PROCEEDINGS

14. 15. STATE

16. ORDER FOR

9 APPEAL 9 CRIMINAL

9 NON-APPEAL 9 CIVIL

9 CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT

9 

IN FORMA PAUPERIS

BANKRUPTCY

OTHER (Specify)

17. TRANSCRIPT REQUESTED (Specify portion(s) and date(s) of proceeding(s) for which transcript is requested.)

PORTIONS DATE(S) PORTION(S) DATE(S)

9TESTIMONY (Specify)

9PRE-TRIAL PROCEEDING

9OTHER (Specify)

9VOIR DIRE

9OPENING STATEMENT (Plaintiff)

9OPENING STATEMENT (Defendant)

9CLOSING ARGUMENT (Plaintiff)

9CLOSING ARGUMENT (Defendant)

9OPINION OF COURT

9JURY INSTRUCTIONS

9SENTENCING

9BAIL HEARING

18. ORDER

CATEGORY

ORIGINAL + 1

(original to Court,

copy to ordering party)

FIRST

COPY

# OF

ADDITIONAL

COPIES

DELIVERY INSTRUCTIONS

(Check all that apply.)

ESTIMATED COSTS

30 DAYS 9 9 PAPER COPY

PDF (e-mail)

ASCII (e-mail)

14 DAYS 9 9

7 DAYS 9 9

DAILY 9 9

HOURLY 9 9

REALTIME 9 9

CERTIFICATION (19. & 20.)

By signing below, I certify that I will pay all charges

(deposit plus additional).

E-MAIL ADDRESS

NOTE: IF ORDERING MORE THAN ONE FORMAT, 

THERE WILL BE AN ADDITIONAL CHARGE.

19. SIGNATURE

20. DATE

TRANSCRIPT TO BE PREPARED BY

ESTIMATE TOTAL

PROCESSED BY PHONE NUMBER

ORDER RECEIVED DATE BY

DEPOSIT PAID DEPOSIT PAID

TRANSCRIPT ORDERED TOTAL CHARGES

TRANSCRIPT RECEIVED LESS DEPOSIT

ORDERING PARTY NOTIFIED

TO PICK UP TRANSCRIPT

TOTAL REFUNDED

PARTY RECEIVED TRANSCRIPT TOTAL DUE

DISTRIBUTION: COURT COPY TRANSCRIPTION COPY ORDER RECEIPT ORDER COPY

Case 2:15-cv-01845-JAT Document 331 Filed 05/14/18 Page 1 of 1
Opinion issued June 14, 2018

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-17-00974-CR

———————————

DERRICK MURPHY, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 262nd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 1557838

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Derrick Murphy pleaded guilty to the misdemeanor offense of 

DWI, second offense. See TEX. PENAL CODE §§ 49.04, 49.09. In accordance with the 

terms of a plea bargain agreement, the trial court signed a judgment of conviction 
2

imposing a sentence of one year in the Harris County jail, probated for two years. 

Murphy filed a timely notice of appeal.

In a plea bargain case, a defendant may appeal only matters raised by a written 

motion that was filed and ruled upon before trial, or after obtaining the trial court’s 

permission to appeal. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 44.02; TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). 

An appeal must be dismissed if a certification showing that the defendant has the 

right of appeal has not been made part of the record. TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d).

Here, the trial court’s certification is included in the record on appeal. See id. 

The trial court’s certification states that this is a plea bargain case and that the 

defendant has no right of appeal. See TEX.R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). The record supports 

the trial court’s certification. See Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610, 615 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2005). Because appellant has no right of appeal, we must dismiss this appeal. 

See Chavez v. State, 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (“A court of 

appeals, while having jurisdiction to ascertain whether an appellant who pleabargained is permitted to appeal by Rule 25.2(a)(2), must dismiss a prohibited appeal 

without further action, regardless of the basis for the appeal.”). 

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. We dismiss any 

pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM
3

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Bland, and Massengale.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
#### Smock *v.*Graham.

Assumpsit. Pleas, non-assumpsit and no consideration. *Held,*that a record showing the pendency of a prior suit for the same cause of action, is inadmissible as evidence under these pleas. The defendant should have pleaded in abatement.

*Held,*also, that a former judgment wholly reversed in error, is no defence to a subsequent suit for the same cause of action.

APPEAL from the *Marion*Circuit Court.

Holman, J.

Assumpsit on a promissory note. Pleas, nonassumpsit and no consideration. On the trial, the defendant introduced a record to show the pendency of another action for the same cause. The record introduced, contains the proceedings in an action in the *Marion*Circuit Court, by the same plaintiff against the same defendant, on a note similar to this; and *315shows the rendition of final judgment in the Circuit Court in fa-* vour of the plaintiff, and that said judgment was wholly reversed and set aside in this Court. This record was admitted by the Court to he read to the jury. And the Court instructed the jury, that if they believed there was another suit pending in that Court, founded upon the same note and cause of action, the plaintiff could not recover; that if the cause of action and note? set forth in said record, was the same as that upon which this action is founded, there was another suit pending for the same cause of action, and the plaintiff could not recover; and that the said record furnished good evidence of the pendency of another action, the record of reversal notwithstanding.

Sweetser, for the appellant.

*Jfelson,*for the appellee.

To this evidence and instruction, the plaintiff filed a bill of exceptions. The defendant obtained a verdict and judgment.

This evidence was inadmissible, and these instructions were incorrect. The pendency of another action for the same cause, is, in general, only the subject-matter of a plea in abatement; 1 Chitt. Pl. 443, and the authorities there cited; and can never he given in evidence under the general issue. Nor does this record show the pendency of another action. It presents the history of an action that was finally determined in the Circuit Court, and wholly reversed and set aside in this Court. So that it was no longer pending, but finally and conclusively determined (1).

*Per Curiam.*

The judgment is reversed, and the verdict set aside, with costs. Cause remanded, &c„.

(1)

 The pendency of *a subsequent*suit cannot be pleaded in abatement. *Renner v. Marshall, 1*Wheat. 217. Nor can the pendency of agrior suit in a foreign.Court, or in the Court of another state, be so pleaded, *Bowne*v. *Seymour, 9*Johns. R. *221.*— Walsh v. *Durkin,*12 ib. 99.
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 Quarterly Report of Anworth Mortgage Asset Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2005 (the Report), I, Thad M. Brown, 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, 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.



By:

/s/    THAD M. BROWNThad M. Brown Chief Financial Officer November 9, 2005




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 906), or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the
electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Rogaciano Lopez-Ramon, 

Defendant.

No. CR-16-00100-PHX-DJH

DETENTION ORDER 

 On March 1, 2018, Defendant appeared before this Court on a petition for 

revocation of supervised release. The issue of detention was submitted to the Court. The 

Court considered the petition and file in determining whether Defendant should be 

released on conditions set by the Court. 

 The Court finds that Defendant, having previously been convicted and placed on 

supervised release, and having appeared before the Court in connection with a petition to 

revoke his supervised release, has failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence 

that he is not likely to flee or pose a danger to the safety of the community if released 

pursuant to Rule 46(d), and Rule 32.1(a)(6), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and 18 

U.S.C. § 3143. 

 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant be detained pending further 

proceedings. 

 Dated this 1st day of March, 2018. 

Honorable Eileen S. Willett

United States Magistrate Judge
I

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 680

To amend the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949

to authorize the transfer to States of surplus personal property for

donation to nonprofit providers of necessaries to impoverished families

and individuals.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 11, 1997

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

Committee on Government Reform and Oversight

A BILL

To amend the Federal Property and Administrative Services

Act of 1949 to authorize the transfer to States of surplus

personal property for donation to nonprofit providers

of necessaries to impoverished families and individuals.

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

3 SECTION 1. TRANSFER OF SURPLUS PERSONAL PROPERTY

4 FOR DONATION TO PROVIDERS OF NEC5 ESSARIES TO IMPOVERISHED FAMILIES AND

6 INDIVIDUALS.

7 Section 203(j)(3)(B) of the Federal Property and Ad8 ministrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C.
2

•HR 680 IH

1 484(j)(3)(B)) is amended by inserting after ‘‘homeless in2 dividuals’’ the following: ‘‘, providers of assistance to fami3 lies or individuals whose annual incomes are below the

4 poverty line (as that term is defined in section 673 of the

5 Community Services Block Grant Act),’’.

Æ
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

Exhibit 4.2    
  


        The
Rules of the Barclays PLC Renewed 1986 Executive Share Option Scheme have been incorporated by reference to the 2000 Form 20-F filed with the SEC on April 16, 2001. 









QuickLinks



Exhibit 4.2
Case 2:16-mj-01052-JFM Document 3 Filed 01/26/16 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:16-mj-01052-JFM Document 3 Filed 01/26/16 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:16-mj-01052-JFM Document 3 Filed 01/26/16 Page 3 of 3
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed July 10 , 2012

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 12

- 00527

- CR

STEPHEN ROBERT HOWAR D , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 338th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1276201



### M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant entered a guilty plea to theft by check . In accordance with the terms of a plea bargain agreement with the State, the trial court sentenced appellant on March 9,
2011 , to two years’ deferred adjudication probation. On December 15, 2011, the State filed a motion to adjudicate appellant’s guilt. Appellant entered a plea of true to the allegations in the State’s motion to adjudicate. In accordance with the terms of a plea
b argain agreement with the State, the trial court sentenced appellant on March 2, 2012, to
confinement for six months in the State Jail Division of the Texas Department of2

Criminal Justice. Appellant filed a notice of appeal. We dismiss the appeal.

The t rial court entered a certification of the defendant’s right to appeal in which
the court certified that the defendant waived the right of appeal

. See T ex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). The trial court’s certification is included in the record on appeal. See T e x. R. App. P. 25.2(d). The record supports the trial court’s certification. See Dears v. State , 154 S.W.3d 610, 615 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). In the stipulation of evidence signed by appellant in conjunction with his plea of true, appellant initialed the following statement:
As part of my agreement with the prosecutor to plead true, I AGREE TO WAIVE an y right to appeal I may have concerning any issue or claim in this case, including my plea or [sic] true or admission of guilt.
A defendant in any criminal a ction has a right to appeal. Tex. Code Crim. Proc.
Ann. art. 44.02. A valid waiver of appeal, whether negotiated or non

- negotiated, will prevent a defendant from appealing without the consent of the trial court. Monreal v.
State , 99 S.W.3d 615, 622 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). Although negotiated waivers of the right to appeal are valid, non

- negotiated waivers of the right to appeal are valid only if the defendant waived the right of appeal, knowing with certainty the punishment that
would be assessed. See id . at 621. Because this is a plea bargain case, and the waiver was negotiated as part of a plea deal, the waiver of the defendant’s right to appeal is
valid. Id.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Boyce, Christopher , and Jamison

. Do Not Publish

— T ex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
I

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 737

To amend the International Air Transportation Competition Act of 1979.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 12, 1997

Mr. TIAHRT (for himself, Mr. SNOWBARGER, Mr. MORAN of Kansas, and Mr.

RYUN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Transportation and Infrastructure

A BILL

To amend the International Air Transportation Competition

Act of 1979.

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

3 That section 29 of the International Air Transportation

4 Competition Act of 1979 (94 Stat. 48; 49) is repealed.

Æ