alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"Bell XV-15 Tiltrotor","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"uyRiqKChEo\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/bell-xv-15-tiltrotor\/\">Bell XV-15 Tiltrotor<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/bell-xv-15-tiltrotor\/embed\/#?secret=uyRiqKChEo\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Bell XV-15 Tiltrotor” — NASA\" data-secret=\"uyRiqKChEo\" 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\/2023\/03\/362317main_ECN-13850_full.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":475}
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 81 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

  2d Session
                                 H. R. 81

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 24, 1998

 Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 
                              Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To designate the United States courthouse located at 401 South Michigan 
  Street in South Bend, Indiana, as the ``Robert K. Rodibaugh United 
                    States Bankruptcy Courthouse''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The United States courthouse located at 401 South Michigan Street 
in South Bend, Indiana, shall be known and designated as the ``Robert 
K. Rodibaugh United States Bankruptcy Courthouse''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the United States courthouse referred to 
in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Robert K. 
Rodibaugh United States Bankruptcy Courthouse''.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 23, 1998.

            Attest:

                                                ROBIN H. CARLE,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### JOHN SBROLLA, APPLICANT, v. MARIA HESS, RESPONDENT.

Argued May 2, 1945

Decided May 23, 1945.

Before Justices Case, Bobine and Peeskie.

Por the applicant, *John B. Baratía.*

Por the respondent, *Martin Bloom.*

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Case, J.

This is a landlord and tenant case wherein the landlord sued in the Atlantic City District Court for possession. The trial court dismissed the proceeding. The landlord now seeks to attack the judgment thereon upon the ground that the court was without jurisdiction to render it.

The rule usually followed by the Supreme Court is that although it has constitutional power to supervise generally, *72by *certiorari,*the proceedings in District Courts, *Green*v. *Heritage,*64 *N. J. L.*567, it will leave the parties to their appeal except where some jurisdictional question is involved, *Degenring*v. *Kimble,*115 *Id.*379, and, further, acquiesce in the statute which, in summary proceedings to dispossess a tenant, forbids appeal or removal by *certiorari*either by the landlord or the tenant, *R. S.*2:32 — 273; *R. S.*2:58-26; *Van Vlaanderen Machine Co.*v. *Fox,*95 *Id.*40. The landlord does not dispute the fact or the propriety of that practice but argues that he is entitled to a writ because the District Court acted without jurisdiction. That court had, of course, jurisdiction to entertain the suit; and this is admitted by the landlord — an admission which is obviously inevitable because the landlord brought the proceeding. Necessary to the exercise of that jurisdiction was the disposition of the cause, either by granting or refusing judgment for possession. The court exercised its jurisdiction by refusing to render judgment for possession. Chief Justice Beasley in *Munday*v. *Vail,*34 *Id.*418, 422, said:

> “Jurisdiction may be defined to be the right to adjudicate concerning the subject-matter in the given case. To constitute this there are three essentials: Eirst. The court must have cognizance of the class of cases to which the one to be adjudged belongs. Second. The proper parties must be present. And, third. The point decided must be, in substance and effect, within the issue.”

We find no lack of jurisdiction. Perhaps, as the landlord contends, the statute upon which the court relied, in coming to its conclusion, was unconstitutional, and if that be so, the finding was in error. But this is not to say that the court lacked jurisdiction. The landlord was not without opportunity to put himself in the way of having a review; he could have made seasonable application for permission to transfer to the Circuit Court. *R. S.*2:32-274; *R. S.*2:58-27. The disposition by the District Court creates no estoppel by judgment against the landlord. *Van Vlaanderen Machine Co.*v. *Fox, supra.*

We are not disposed to grant a writ on the record as submitted, even though it be assumed that a writ, in proper *73circumstance, might issue to review the constitutionality of a statute relied upon by a District Court in a landlord and tenant case.

The application for a writ of *certiorari*is denied, with costs.
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 21


              SUBSIDIARIES OF GEMSTAR INTERNATIONAL GROUP LIMITED
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                                  State or Other
                                                                 Percentage      Jurisdiction of
Name                                                            of Ownership      Incorporation
----                                                           -------------   -------------------------
<S>                                                            <C>              <C>

E Guide, Inc................................................       100%         California

Gemstar (B.V.I.) Limited....................................       100%         British Virgin Islands

Gemstar Development Corporation.............................       100%         California

Gemstar Development Limited.................................       100%         United Kingdom

Gemstar Holdings, Inc.......................................       100%(a)      California

Gemstar Marketing GmbH......................................       100%         Germany

Gemstar Marketing, Inc......................................       100%         California

Gemstar Technology, Inc.....................................       100%         California

Index Systems (Canada) Inc..................................       100%(b)      Canada

Index Systems Inc...........................................       100%         British Virgin Islands

Laminar Trading Limited.....................................       100%(b)      British Virgin Islands

Norpak Corporation..........................................        73%(c)      Canada

NuvoMedia, Inc..............................................       100%         California

Pros Technology Limited.....................................       100%         Hong Kong

SoftBook Press, Inc.........................................       100%         California

StarSight Telecast, Inc.....................................       100%         California

TDN, Inc....................................................        76%(d)      Delaware

VCR Index Systems B.V.......................................       100%         Netherlands

VideoGuide, Inc.............................................       100%         Delaware

Wardpark Limited............................................       100%         Liberia
---------
</TABLE>
(a) Wholly owned subsidiary of Gemstar Development Corporation
(b) Wholly owned subsidiary of Index Systems Inc.
(c) 73% owned subsidiary of Index Systems (Canada) Inc.
(d) 76% owned subsidiary of Gemstar Marketing, Inc.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 8, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-20874

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

GERARDO VELASQUEZ-GONZALEZ,

also known as Gerardo Velasquez,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:05-CR-180-ALL

--------------------

Before KING, GARWOOD, and JOLLY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Gerardo

Velasquez-Gonzalez raises arguments that are foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998),

which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and

not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for

summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district

court is AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 21

Subsidiaries of DrugMax.com, Inc.
---------------------------------


                              LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                    State or Jurisdiction of                    Type of          Percent
Subsidiary or Partnership           Incorporation or Organization               Interest *       Owned
-------------------------           -----------------------------               --------         -----
<S>                                    <C>                                      <C>                <C>
Valley Drug Company                 Ohio                                          C               100%
Discount Rx                         Louisiana                                     C               100%
Desktop Media Group, Inc.           Florida                                       C               100%
Desktop Ventures, Inc.              Texas                                         C               100%
VetMall, Inc.                       Florida                                       C                70%
---------
</TABLE>

* C= Corporation, LLC= Limited Liability Company, LP= Limited Partnership
Interest, GP= General Partnership Interest.
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 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Carlos C. Hernandez, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Bank of America, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-16-00023-PHX-JJT

ORDER 

 Upon review of the Stipulation to Dismiss Defendant Transunion (Doc. 42), filed 

by Plaintiff and Defendant Trans Union, LLC, only, and good cause appearing, 

 IT IS ORDERED granting the Stipulation (Doc. 42). The above-entitled matter is 

hereby dismissed with prejudice as to Defendant Trans Union, LLC, only, the parties to 

bear their own costs and attorneys’ fees. 

 Dated this 11th day of October, 2016. 

Honorable John J. Tuchi

United States District Judge 

Case 2:16-cv-00023-JJT Document 44 Filed 10/11/16 Page 1 of 1
105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 824

AN ACT

To redesignate the Federal building located at 717

Building’’.as the ‘‘Howard T. Markey National CourtsMadison Place, NW., in the District of Columbia,
105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 824

AN ACT

To redesignate the Federal building located at 717 Madison

Place, NW., in the District of Columbia, as the ‘‘Howard

T. Markey National Courts Building’’.

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

•HR 824 EH

1 SECTION 1. REDESIGNATION.

2 The Federal building located at 717 Madison Place,

3 NW., in the District of Columbia and known as the Na4 tional Courts Building shall be known and designated as

5 the ‘‘Howard T. Markey National Courts Building’’.

6 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

7 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

8 paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal

9 building referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be

10 a reference to the ‘‘Howard T. Markey National Courts

11 Building’’.

Passed the House of Representatives September 23,

1997.

Attest:

Clerk.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Rachael Whitefield","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/rachaellwhitefield-2-2-2\/","title":"Mark T. Vande Hei","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"Z1U3dQvxRy\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/people\/mark-t-vande-hei\/\">Mark T. Vande Hei<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/people\/mark-t-vande-hei\/embed\/#?secret=Z1U3dQvxRy\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Mark T. Vande Hei” — NASA\" data-secret=\"Z1U3dQvxRy\" 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\/2021\/03\/jsc2016e000683_alt.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":750}
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 577 Introduced in House (IH)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 577

 To amend title II of the Social Security Act to provide for treatment 
 of severe spinal cord injury equivalent to the treatment of blindness 
 in determining whether earnings derived from services demonstrate an 
           ability to engage in substantial gainful activity.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 4, 1997

Mrs. Mink  of Hawaii introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                   to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title II of the Social Security Act to provide for treatment 
 of severe spinal cord injury equivalent to the treatment of blindness 
 in determining whether earnings derived from services demonstrate an 
           ability to engage in substantial gainful activity.

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

SECTION 1. TREATMENT OF SEVERE SPINAL CORD INJURY EQUIVALENT TO 
              TREATMENT OF BLINDNESS IN DETERMINING SUBSTANTIAL GAINFUL 
              ACTIVITY.

    Section 223(d)(4)(A) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
423(d)(4)(A)) is amended in the second sentence by inserting ``, or who 
has an impairment consisting of spinal cord injury which is alone of 
sufficient medical severity as to otherwise be the sole basis of 
eligibility under this section,'' after ``who is blind''.

SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendment made by section 1 shall apply with respect to 
determinations (of whether an individual is able to engage in 
substantial gainful activity) made after the date of the enactment of 
this Act. Benefits which would not be payable but for such amendment 
shall be payable solely for months beginning after 180 days after the 
date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 13.1

Certification by the Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with Amendment No. 1 on Form 20-F/A to the annual report of Spreadtrum Communications, Inc. (the Company)
on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Leo Li, Chief Executive 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 to my knowledge:

(1) The
Report fully complied 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.

Date: July 6, 2010



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ Leo Li                           
|Leo Li                               
|President and Chief Executive Officer
|Spreadtrum Communications, Inc.
EXHIBIT
32.1




CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SS. 1350 ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Report of Physical Property Holdings Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ngai Keung Luk,
Chairman and Chief Executive 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;
and





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




/s/ Ngai Keung
Luk


Ngai
Keung Luk


Chairman
and Chief Executive Officer





May 14,
2010
#### The Eastern Ky. Railway Co. *v.*Greenup County.

Railroads — Taxation for Local Purposes — General Laws.

Railroads are not legitimate subjects of local taxation under the general laws of tbis state.

APPEAL PROM GREENUP CIRCUIT COURT.

January 4, 1871.

Opinion op the Court by

Judge Lindsay:

This was a motion in the Greenup Oounty Oourt by the Eastern *186Kentucky Kailway Company to bave tbe assessment of tbeir property for tbe year 1870 corrected. Upon tbe trial of said motion it was proven that tbe company bad, before tbe lOtb of July, 1870, returned to tbe auditor tbe length of tbeir road, &c., in compliance with tbe requirements of tbe act of February 20th, 1864 *(Myers Supplement).*

*Dulin, for appellant.*

*Filson, for appellee.*

Tbe motion was sustained so far as tbe assessment for state revenue 'purposes was concerned, but it was ordered that tbe valuation fixed on tbe road, road-bed, engines, fixtures, &c., viz: $260,000 be retained on tbe assessor’s book for tbe purpose of being subjected to taxation for county purposes, and from tbis portion of tbe order tbe railway company bas appealed.

There are two acts authorizing tbe county of Greenup to levy an ad valorem tax, tbe one to be found on page *Vol. 1, Acts of 1865,*tbe other on *page J/.95, Vol. 1, Acts of 1869,*but we perceivé nothing in either of said acts which places tbis road and its fixtures upon a- footing different from that of other railroads in tbis State.

Tbis court in tbe cases of tbe *Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company v. Warren County Court, 5th Bush, 244,*and of *Applegate &c. v. Ernst &c., 3rd Bush, 648,*held that railroads are not. legitimate subjects of local taxation under tbe general laws of tbe State.

Tbe legislature bas not indicated in either of tbe acts referred to an intention to subject tbe property of appellants to a burden not imposed upon similar property owned by other railroad companies.

Tbe county court erred in refusing to sustain tbe motion to correct tbe assessment as to county as wrell as state taxation, and for tbis error its action is reversed and tbe cause remanded with instructions to correct tbe assessment in tbe manner indicated in tbis opinion.