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

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 164 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                         June 18, 1997.
    Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker 
may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule XXIII, declare the House resolved into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 437) to reauthorize the National Sea Grant College Program Act, and 
for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. 
General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour, with 
forty minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Resources and twenty minutes equally divided 
and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Science. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under 
the five-minute rule. In lieu of the amendment recommended by the Committee on 
Science now printed in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an original 
bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in 
the nature of a substitute printed in the Congressional Record and numbered 1 
pursuant to clause 6 of rule XXIII. Each section of that amendment shall be 
considered as read. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment 
the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments 
as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House on 
any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute made in order as original text. The 
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments 
thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
recommit with or without instructions.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
#### *A.*Spurlock, Assignee, etc., *v.*Reuben Johnson, etc.

Vendor and Purchaser — Deficit—General Rule as to Remuneration.

The general rule is that where the vendor of land is unable to make title to the whole tract sold and his vendee is willing to accept title for so much as he is able to convey, he shall mate remuneration in damages or deduct from the price the proportional price of the whole tract for so much as he is unable to convey.

Vendor and Purchaser — Deficit—Special Value of Tract Not Conveyed— Pleadings.

In an action by a vendee to recover damages for deficit in land sold, the general rule will prevail, unless there is an allegation in the petition sustained by the proof, showing that the land which the vendor could not convey was more valuable per acre than that which he could convey.

APPEAL PROM ROCKCASTLE CIRCUIT COURT.

April 14, 1871.

Opinion by

Judge Peters:

The terms of the title bond executed by Rowlett, in which he sells what was known as the Clark tract, binds him to convey *253one hundred and seven acres, and for the ascertained deficit he certainly is responsible, and so the court below adjudged, but made him pay more for the deficit than the proportional price of the whole tract which was sold to appellee at the price of seven dollars, twenty-four cents and a fraction per acre, while twenty dollars per acre were allowed in the judgment for the deficiency; and whether or not the court below erred in so adjusting the price therefor is the main question presented in this appeal.

*Carter, for appellants.*

*Holman, for appellee.*

The general rule is that where the vendor of land is unable to make title to the whole tract sold, and his vendee is willing to accept title for so much as he is able to convey, he shall make remuneration in damages or deduct from the price, the proportional price of the whole tract for so much as he is unable to convey, unless there are some elements rendering the part not conveyed of more value than that which was. In this case there is no averment of facts in the cross-petition showing that the land which the vendor could not convey was more valuable per acre than that which was conveyed, the land appears to have been purchased for tillage by appellees. The boundaries were well known to them before they purchased, as was the quality of the soil, and it is not improbable that they knew better than their vendor what number of acres were in the tract, as one of them lived adjoining it, and had known it longer than Rowlett had and no facts are stated in the pleadings, and none are proved to take the mode of estimating the allowance for the deficit out of the general rule, indeed appellees pray that the allowance therefore may be made *pro rata.*

The court below having adopted an improper criterion of value for the land Rowlett was unable to convey, which was prejudicial to appellant, the judgment must be *reversed,*and the cause remanded with directions to allow appellees credit on the unpaid price for the deficiency, at the same rate per acre that they by their contract agreed to pay per acre for the whole tract, and for further proceedings consistent herewith.
EXHIBIT 32.1: Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to 18
U.S.C.ss.1850 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002.

                           CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. ss.1350
                            AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Nutek Oil, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-KSB/A for the period ending December 31,2004as filed with the Securities and
Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Murray N. Conradie,
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, and that to the best of the undersigned's knowledge and belief:

(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/ Murray N. Conradie
                         -------------------------------------------
                         MURRAY N. CONRADIE, Chief Executive Officer

Dated: October 7, 2005
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 407 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                        April 22, 1998.
    Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 111) proposing an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States with respect to tax 
limitations. The joint resolution shall be considered as read for amendment. The 
amendment specified in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
resolution shall be considered as adopted. The previous question shall be 
considered as ordered on the joint resolution, as amended, and on any further 
amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) three 
hours of debate on the joint resolution, as amended, which shall be equally 
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on the Judiciary; (2) one motion to amend, if offered by the Minority 
Leader or his designee, which shall be considered as read and shall be 
separately debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
proponent and an opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE
     UNAUDITED  FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS  FOR THE PERIOD  ENDED MARCH 31, 2000 THAT
     WERE WERE FILED WITH THE  COMPANY'S  REPORT ON FORM 10-QSB AND IS QUALIFIED
     IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>         0001047733
<NAME>        Learner's World, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                  1
<CURRENCY>                                    U.S. Dollars

<S>                                      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                JAN-1-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                  MAR-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         10,527
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   8,416
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               18,943
<PP&E>                                      1,001,401
<DEPRECIATION>                                      0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              1,074,005
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         140,198
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                          978
<OTHER-SE>                                   (190,273)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                1,074,005
<SALES>                                       390,185
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              390,185
<CGS>                                         221,380
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 221,380
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              250,802
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             29,108
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (111,105)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (111,105)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (111,105)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.01)


</TABLE>
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

CLEAN FUEL TECHNOLOGIES II,

LLC, A TEXAS LIMITED LIABILITY 

COMPANY,

 Appellant,

v.

E.L. HOLLINGSWORTH & CO., INC.,

A MICHIGAN CORPORATION,

 Appellee. 

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-15-00277-CV

Appeal from

120th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC # 2015-DCV0527)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pending before the Court is a joint motion to dismiss the appeal pursuant to TEX.R.APP.P.

42.1(a)(2) because the parties have resolved the dispute. We grant the motion and dismiss the 

appeal. Pursuant to the parties’ agreement, costs of the appeal are assessed against the party 

incurring same. See TEX.R.APP.P. 42.1(d).

August 17, 2016

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Roxana Bardan","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/dbardan\/","title":"NASA Trio Take Flight in Support of Disability Inclusion in Space","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"4zEgb0mcSI\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/people-of-nasa\/diversity-at-nasa\/missionequity\/nasa-trio-take-flight-in-support-of-disability-inclusion-in-space\/\">NASA Trio Take Flight in Support of Disability Inclusion in Space<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/people-of-nasa\/diversity-at-nasa\/missionequity\/nasa-trio-take-flight-in-support-of-disability-inclusion-in-space\/embed\/#?secret=4zEgb0mcSI\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA Trio Take Flight in Support of Disability Inclusion in Space” — NASA\" data-secret=\"4zEgb0mcSI\" 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\/2022\/12\/astroaccess_flight_photo.jpeg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":400}
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 219 (Thursday, November 13, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 67531]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-26731]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary of Transportation


Notice of Availability of Guidance on Accelerated Decisionmaking 
in Environmental Reviews

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary of Transportation, Department of 
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: DOT is announcing the availability of guidance implementing 
Section 1319 of MAP-21, on Accelerated Decisionmaking in Environmental 
Reviews. This section of MAP-21 provides for the use of errata sheets 
on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, in lieu of a Final EIS 
(FEIS), when the EIS has limited or factual changes. It also states 
that the lead agency under NEPA shall issue a combined FEIS and ROD 
unless circumstances exist to make it impracticable. This eliminates 
the 30-day wait period between the release of the FEIS and ROD. This 
guidance builds on the interim guidance that was released by FHWA and 
FTA in January 2013, but applies to the entire Department. The FHWA and 
FTA interim guidance is retained as a supplemental appendix specific to 
those agencies. The guidance is available at http://www.dot.gov/office-policy/transportation-policy/guidance-accelerated-decision-making-environmental-reviews.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebecca Higgins, Department of 
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE. W84-318, Washington, DC 20590; 
email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#efbd8a8d8a8c8c8ec1a786888886819caf8b809bc1888099"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="32605750575151531c7a5b55555b5c4172565d461c555d44">[email protected]</span></a>; telephone (202) 366-7098.

    Issue Date: November 3, 2014.
Shoshana Lew, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-26731 Filed 11-12-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-6348

KIM TYRONE JESSUP, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

 v. 

THEODORE DAVID HILL, Detective; JOHN PAUL TIMBERLAKE, 

Detective; STEVEN WAYNE TOLLIE, Corporal; CITY OF WINSTONSALEM, NORTH CAROLINA, Forsyth County; RENEE SUZANNE MELLY, 

Detective; TIMOTHY VAUGHN SOUTHERN, Sergeant; JAMES THOMAS 

MCKNIGHT, Deputy; JAMIE DENTON, Deputy; DANNY CARTER, 

Deputy; WINSTON-SALEM POLICE DEPARTMENT; FORSYTH COUNTY, 

 Defendants - Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. 

Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:06-cv-01114-WO-WWD) 

Submitted: July 10, 2009 Decided: August 14, 2009 

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Kim Tyrone Jessup, Appellant Pro Se. James R. Morgan, Jr., 

Robert T. Numbers, II, WOMBLE, CARLYLE, SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC, 

Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

Kim Tyrone Jessup appeals the district court’s order 

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. The 

district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2006). The magistrate judge 

recommended that relief be denied and advised Jessup that 

failure to file timely and specific objections to this 

recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court 

order based upon the recommendation. Although Jessup filed 

timely objections, he failed to object to the magistrate judge’s 

recommendation that his claim was barred by collateral estoppel. 

The timely filing of specific objections to a 

magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve 

appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when 

the parties have been warned of the consequences of 

noncompliance. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th 

Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Jessup 

has waived appellate review by failing to timely file specific 

objections to a dispositive basis for the ruling after receiving 

proper notice.* Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the 

district court. 

 *

 In any event, we have reviewed the record and agree that 

Jessup’s § 1983 complaint is barred by the doctrine of 

collateral estoppel. 

2 
3 

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
<FN>





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 XFormity Technologies, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we,
Christopher Ball, Chief Executive Officer of the Company and Jack Rabin, 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; 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/  Christopher
Ball


Christopher
Ball


Chief
Executive Officer


November
14, 2008





/s/  Jack
Rabin


Jack
Rabin


Chief
Financial Officer


November
14, 2008
#### Commonwealth For the Use of Christian County *v.*E. P. Campbell.

Taxation — Bank Stock — Corporation Liable For.

Tile owner of bank stock is not required to list it with the assessor for taxation. Tlie liability is on the corporation.

APPEAL PROM CHRISTIAN CIRCUIT COURT.

October *4,*1871.

Opinion by

Judge Pryor:

The proceeding by rule against the appellee requiring him to list his bank stock for taxation was properly dismissed by the court below.

The owners of bank stock taxed in this state are not required to list it for taxation, as it is expressly excluded by the statutes requiring a party to make up the estimate of his estate in leaving it with the assessor. *Louisville Saving Bank v. Commonwealth,*14 *B. Monroe*410. The appellee did all that he was required to *249do by the law, and the effort upon the part of the county court is to make him pay tax upon property that the law expressly exempts him from paying. The tax upon bank stock is to be paid by the corporation as provided by law, and if a liability exists in this case (a question we are not called on to decide) it is upon the part of the corporation, and not the undivided stockholders. The judgment of the court below is affirmed.

*Wood, for appellant.*

*Campbell, for appellee.*
| (1) | the                Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the year ended December                31, 2007 (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. |
|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | /s/                Cindy Swank               |
|--------|----------------------------------------------|
|   | Cindy                Swank                   |
|   | Chief                Executive Officer       |
|   | (Principal                Financial Officer) |

----
The State of TexasAppellee

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 7, 2014

No. 04-14-00209-CR

Shanelle COOKS,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014CR0038

Honorable Maria Teresa Herr, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The trial court’s certification states that this “is a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has 

NO right of appeal.” We therefore ORDER the trial court clerk to file, within ten days of the 

date of this order, an electronic clerk’s record containing the following documents:

1. All pre-trial motions and the orders on those motions, if any;

2. All documents relating to the defendant’s plea bargain, including the 

court’s admonishments, the defendant’s waiver and consent to stipulation 

of testimony, and any other stipulations;

3. The judgment;

4. All post-judgment motions and the orders on those motions, if any;

5. The notice(s) of appeal;

6. The trial court’s certification of defendant’s right of appeal; and

7. The criminal docket sheet.
All other appellate deadlines are suspended pending further order of this court. The clerk 

of this court is ORDERED to send a copy of this order to the attorneys of record, the trial court 

clerk, and the court reporter responsible for preparing the reporter’s record in this appeal.

_________________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

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

court on this 7th day of April, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court