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":"General Law","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"piEOXc05A7\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/organizations\/general-law\/\">General Law<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/organizations\/general-law\/embed\/#?secret=piEOXc05A7\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“General Law” — NASA\" data-secret=\"piEOXc05A7\" 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"}
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> BD
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
unaudited Consolidated Balance Sheet as of September 30, 1999 and the unaudited
Consolidated Statement of Operations for the nine months ended September 30,
1999, which are contained in the body of the accompanying Form 10-Q and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-12-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          23,787
<RECEIVABLES>                                   33,790
<SECURITIES-RESALE>                                  0
<SECURITIES-BORROWED>                                0
<INSTRUMENTS-OWNED>                            130,710
<PP&E>                                           9,001
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 202,112
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<PAYABLES>                                      28,122
<REPOS-SOLD>                                         0
<SECURITIES-LOANED>                                  0
<INSTRUMENTS-SOLD>                               1,568
<LONG-TERM>                                      1,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       208,680
<OTHER-SE>                                     (37,758)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   202,112
<TRADING-REVENUE>                               17,586
<INTEREST-DIVIDENDS>                             7,479
<COMMISSIONS>                                    9,940
<INVESTMENT-BANKING-REVENUES>                   27,163
<FEE-REVENUE>                                    7,635
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,160
<COMPENSATION>                                  52,665
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (17,167)
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     (17,167)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (17,167)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.35)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.35)


</TABLE>
#### Samuels, Arnold & Co. *v.*R. M. Henderson & Co.

Fraudulent Conveyance — Purchase by Husband — Title Bond to Wife— Stranger.

The debtor is found in the possession of the land, and he contracted for the purchase of it, and, although by the recitals of the bond his wife holds the equitable title, the recitals are not evidence against a stranger to the transaction, while between the parties they might be evidence of the facts recited. •

APPEAL FROM BALLARD CIRCUIT COURT.

December 20, 1871.

Opinion by

Judge Peters :

At the conclusion of the p'rayer for relief; and at the end of a petition of more than five pages in length, the averment of *211which the relief sought could not have been granted, is found, out of place and where it was not to be looked for; it therefore escaped ¡the attention of the court, and was not observed until after an opinion had been delivered and a petition for a rehearing was presented. But the allegation is made and is not controverted by the answers; it must, therefore, be taken as true. And the question arises, are the facts pleaded in the answer without evidence to sustain them sufficient to defeat a recovery? They are not, because it fails to controvert the fact that the debt of appellants was created before the bond was executed. And as R. M. Henderson, the debtor, is found in the ostensible possession of the land and he contracted for the purchase of it, and although by the *recitals of the*bond,- Mrs. Henderson- holds the equitable title; the recitals are not evidence against strangers to the transaction while as between the parties they might be evidence of the facts recited; that being the case, it was incumbent on appellees to prove that the land was paid for with her means, which was not done. Wherefore the judgment is reversed and the cause re-mhnded for further proceedings consistent herewith. Appellees should- have reasonable time allowed to make preparation by proof in the case if it is desired. Judge Lindsay not sitting in the case.

*Bigger & Moss, for appellant.*

*Bullock, for appellee.*
Exhibit 10.30  Execution Version  SECOND AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT  This
Second Amendment to Employment Agreement (Amendment) is made and
entered into by and between STEVEN L. ORTIZ (Executive) and TEXAS
ROADHOUSE, INC., a Delaware corporation ( the Company).  WHEREAS,Executive and the Company entered into that certain
Employment Agreement effective December 26, 2007, as amended by that
Amendment to Employment Agreement effective January 1, 2009 (the Agreement)
providing for the employment of the Executive by the Company; and  WHEREAS,the parties now mutually desire to further amend
the Agreement.  NOW THEREFORE,for good and valuable consideration, the
receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereby
agree as follows:  1.             Capitalized terms not otherwise
defined herein shall have the meaning set forth in the Agreement.  2.             The Term is extended for a period
of one (1) year until January 7, 2012 (the Extended Term),
unless the Agreement is earlier terminated as permitted pursuant to the terms
of the Agreement.  3.             During the Extended Term, Executive
shall continue to be paid a base salary at his current rate of Four Hundred
Sixty Thousand and no/100 Dollars ($460,000.00) per fiscal year.  4.             During the Extended Term, Executive
shall continue to be eligible for an annual target incentive bonus in the same
amount applicable to the 2010 fiscal year.  5.             On January 8, 2011, the
Executive shall be granted 58,333 Restricted Stock Units which shall vest on January 7,
2013.  6.             Except as expressly amended hereby,
the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.  [Signature page follows.]  1


IN WITNESS WHEREOF,and intending to be legally
bound thereby, Executive and the Company have executed the foregoing Amendment
on the dates set forth below.   TEXAS
  ROADHOUSE, INC.Dated:
  February
  18, 2010
  
  By:
  /s/
  W. Kent TaylorName:
  W.
  Kent TaylorIts:
  ChairmanSTEVEN
  L. ORTIZDated:
  February 18,
  2010
  
  /s/
  Steven L. Ortiz  2
EXHIBIT 32.2 
 **CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**
 **PURSUANT
TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C.
&SECT;&NBSP;1350)**
  I, John
S. Reiland, of US Dataworks, Inc. certify pursuant to section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:
  (i)  the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended December 31, 2004 (the
“Report”), which this statement accompanies fully complies with the requirements
of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
  (ii)  the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of US Dataworks,
Inc.
 ****Date: February 14,
    2005
    By:
    /s/ John S.
  ReilandJohn S. Reiland, Chief
      Financial Officer
#### James M. Ray, etc., *v.*Geo. H. Knowles, etc.

Actions — Suit Should be Against Corporation and Not Against Stockholder.

This action should have been brought against the Licking River Lumber and Mining Co. in its corporate capacity, and not against the stock holders.

Appeals and Errors, Who May Appeal.

The stockholders of a corporation have no right to prosecute an appeal from a judgment against the company in its corporate capacity.

APPEAL PROM MORGAN CIRCUIT COURT.

January 30, 1872.

*Phister, Kendall, Hargis, for appellants.*

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay:

This action should have been brought against the Licking River Lumber and Mining Company in its corporate capacity and not against the incorporators and stockholders, composing that corporation.

The judgment, howeyer, is rendered against the corporation.

This appeal is prosecuted by certain persons who say that they compose the Lumber and Mining company.

There has been no judgment against these persons. In their individual capacities they have no right to complain on account of the action of the court below. No appeal is prosecuted by the company against which the judgment was rendered. These appellants being no parties to the judgment their appeal must be dismissed.

This dismissal, however, is not to prejudice the right of the Lumber and Mining company to prosecute their appeal.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

The undersigned officer of WII Components, Inc. (the “Company”) hereby certifies that the Company’s annual report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010 to which this certification is being furnished as an exhibit (the “Report”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

This certification is provided solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K (“Item 601(b)(32) “) promulgated under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), and the Exchange Act.  In accordance with clause (ii) of Item 601(b)(32), this certification (A) shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section, and (B) shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.

 
| Date: March 30, 2011 |                                           |
|---------------------------|------------------------------------------------|
|                      | /s/   John Fitzpatrick                         |
|                      | Name:   John Fitzpatrick                       |
|                      | Title:   President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
EXHIBIT
32.1
 
 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO
 SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 (18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350)
 
 In connection with the accompanying
Annual Report of Index Oil and Gas Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-K/A for the period ended March 31, 2009 (the “Report”), I,
Lyndon West, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify that to my
knowledge:
 
 (1)           The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); 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 30, 2009
                By:
                /s/ Lyndon
      WestLyndon
      WestChief
      Executive Officer
#### Gurpal SINGH, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 03-73765.

Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*599Submitted Dec. 6, 2004.*

Decided Dec. 16, 2004.

Robert B. Jobe, Esq., Law Offices of Robert B. Jobe, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.

Regional Counsel, Laguna Niguel, CA, Terri J. Scadron, Esq., Joshua E. Braunstein, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before GOODWIN, WALLACE, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Gurpal Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Because the BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision without opinion, we review the IJ’s decision as the final agency determination. *See Falcon Carache v. Ashcroft,*350 F.3d 845, 849 (9th Cir.2003). We review an adverse credibility finding for substantial evidence, *Chebchoub v. INS,*257 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir.2001), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Singh presented inconsistent evidence about the events leading up to his departure from India. *See id.*(indicating that inconsistencies about events leading up to and surrounding a refugee’s departure from the country of persecution can go to the heart of an asylum claim). Accordingly, Singh failed to establish eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal. *Rivera-Moreno v. INS,*213 F.3d 481, 487 (9th Cir.2000).

We do not review the denial of Singh’s Convention Against Torture claim because he did not mention the claim in his *600opening brief. *See Martinez-Serrano v. INS,*94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir.1996).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

          - [File No. 500-1]

It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of VHGI Holdings, Inc. (“VHGI”) because it has not filed a periodic report since it filed its Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2012, filed on June 26, 2013. VHGI's common stock (ticker “VHGI”) was quoted on OTC Link (previously “Pink Sheets”) operated by OTC Markets Group, Inc.

The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the securities of VHGI. Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of VHGI is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT on November 3, 2014, through 11:59 p.m. EDT on November 14, 2014.

By the Commission.

Brent J. Fields,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2014-26360 Filed 11-3-14; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
Opinion filed June 16 , 2011



## In The



# Eleventh Court of Appeals

__________



### No. 11

- 11

- 00075

- C V

__________

CHAD MURRAY, Appellant

V.

KAREN CHAVANA, Appellee

On Appeal from the 259th District Court

Jones County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 021733

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

O n April 21, 2011, this court entered an order abating the appeal pending receipt of

findings from the trial court regarding the date that appellant, Chad Murray, first received notice

or acquired actual knowledge of the trial court’s judgment. In the inte rim, the trial court has

entered a nunc pro tunc judgment that effectively renders the appeal moot. In this regard,

appellant has now forwarded a motion to dismiss the appeal based upon the nunc pro tunc

judgment. Specifically, a ppellant states in the mo tion that

, “[o]n June 13, 2011, the trial court

signed an order nunc pro tunc which replaced the January 31, 2011 order awarding attorney fees ’

and resolved the issue of attorney fees’ complained of in this appeal . . . . A ppellant requests the2

court to dismiss his appeal.” Accordingly, th e appeal is reinstated and appellant’s motion to

dismiss is deemed filed. I n accordance with appellant’s request

, we dismiss the appeal pursuant

to T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(1)

.

The motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM

June 16 , 2011

Panel 1 consists of: Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Hill , J. 2

1 Rick Strange, Justice, resigned effective April 17, 2011. The justice position is vacant pending appointment of a

successor by the governor.

2 John G. Hill, Former Justice, Court of Appeals, 2nd District of Texas at Fort Worth, sitting by assignment.
#### Frank W. HOLT, Claimant-Appellant, v. Anthony J. PRINCIPI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 02-7109.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Oct. 21, 2004.

ORDER

Pursuant to the Court’s letter dated September 27, 2004,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

This appeal is dismissed.
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 43 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                      February 6, 1997.
    Resolved, That the following named Member be, and he is hereby, elected to 
the following standing committee of the House of Representatives:
    Committee on Veterans' Affairs: Mr. LaHood.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
Exhibit
31.1



Certification
of Principal Executive Officer



I,
David L. Fischel, certify that:



| | 1. | I
    have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on Form 10-K/A of Stereotaxis, Inc.;                                                                                                                                                                                                                    
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       
| | 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 9, 2020 | /s/
    David L. Fischel         
|----------------------- | ---------------------------------
|                        | David
    L. Fischel             
|                        | Chief
    Executive Officer      
|                        | Stereotaxis,
    Inc.            
|                        | (Principal
    Executive Officer)
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 269 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                      October 22, 1997.
    Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 97) making further 
continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 1998, and for other purposes. The 
joint resolution shall be considered as read for amendment. The joint resolution 
shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman 
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. The previous 
question shall be considered as ordered on the joint resolution to final passage 
without intervening motion except one motion to recommit.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
I

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 935

To amend title 18, United States Code, to impose a penalty upon States

that do not give full faith and credit to the protective orders of other

States.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 5, 1997

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

Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend title 18, United States Code, to impose a penalty

upon States that do not give full faith and credit to

the protective orders of other States.

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

3 SECTION 1. FULL FAITH AND CREDIT GIVEN TO PROTEC4 TIVE ORDERS.

5 Section 2265 of title 18, United States Code, is

6 amended by adding at the end the following:

7 ‘‘(d) FORMULA GRANT REDUCTION FOR NONCOMPLI8 ANCE.—
2

•HR 935 IH

1 ‘‘(1) REDUCTION.—The Attorney General shall

2 reduce by 10 percent (for redistribution to other

3 participating States that comply with subsections (a)

4 and (b)) the amount a State would receive under

5 subpart 1 of part E of title I of the Omnibus Crime

6 Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 if such State

7 fails to comply with the requirements of subsections

8 (a) and (b).

9 ‘‘(2) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The Attorney General

10 may begin to reduce funds described in paragraph

11 (1) on the first day of each fiscal year succeeding

12 the first fiscal year beginning after the date of the

13 enactment of this subsection.’’.

Æ