alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
H. Res. 382

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

March 11, 1998.

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. 992) to end the Tucker Act shuffle. The first

reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. General debate

shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour

equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking

minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. After

general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment

under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as

an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the fiveminute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in

the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. During consideration of

the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of

the Whole may accord priority in recognition on the basis of
2

•HRES 382 EH

whether the Member offering an amendment has caused it to

be printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. The Chairman

of the Committee of the Whole may: (1) postpone until a time

during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole

a request for a recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce to five minutes the minimum time for electronic voting

on any postponed question that follows another electronic

vote without intervening business, provided that the minimum

time for electronic voting on the first in any series of questions shall be 15 minutes. 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 committee amendment in the

nature of a substitute. 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.
#### James A. BUTLER, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. WARDEN; United States of America, Defendants—Appellees.

No. 04-6052.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 17, 2004.

Decided Dec. 21, 2004.

James A. Butler, Appellant pro se. Matthew Wayne Mellady, United States Department of Justice, Annapolis Junction, Maryland, for Appellees.

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM.

James A. Butler appeals the district court’s order dismissing his Federal Tort Claims Act suit. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See Butler v. Warden,*No. CA-02-102-1-WMN (D.Md. Oct. 24, 2003). 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.*
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 43 Agreed to House (ATH)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 43

  Electing Representative Ray LaHood of Illinois to the Committee on 
                           Veteran's Affairs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 6, 1997

 Mr. Solomon submitted the following resolution; which was considered 
                             and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Electing Representative Ray LaHood of Illinois to the Committee on 
                           Veteran's Affairs.

    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.
                                 <all>
```
Handbook 44 - 2008 4.46. Berry Baskets and Boxes 

Section 4.46. Berry Baskets and Boxes 

A. Application 

A.1. - This code applies to baskets and boxes for berries and small fruits in capacities of 1 dry quart and less. 

A.2. - See also Sec. 1.10; General Code requirements. 

S. Specifications 

S.1. Units. - The capacity of a berry basket or box shall be 1⁄2 dry pint, 1 dry pint, or 1 dry quart. 

S.2. Materials. - A berry basket or box shall be made of any suitable materials that will retain its shape during normal 

filling, storage, and handling. 

S.3. Capacity Point. - The capacity of a berry basket or box shall be determined by its top edges. 

N. Notes 

N.1. Method of Test. - A berry basket or box may be tested either volumetrically, using rape seed as the testing medium, 

or geometrically through accurate inside dimension measurement and calculation. 

T. Tolerances 

T.1. Tolerances on Individual Measures. - Maintenance and acceptance tolerances in excess and deficiency on an 

individual measure shall be as shown in Table 1. Maintenance and Acceptance Tolerances in Excess and in Deficiency. 

T.2. Tolerances on Average Capacity. - The average capacity on a random sample of 10 measures selected from a lot 

of 25 or more shall be equal to or greater than the nominal capacity. 

(Amended 1979) 

Table 1. 

Maintenance and Acceptance Tolerances 

in Excess and in Deficiency

Tolerance 

Nominal Capacity In Excess 

cubic inches 

In Deficiency 

cubic inches 

1⁄2 pint 1 0.5 

1 pint 2 1.0 

1 quart 3 1.5 

4-23 
4.46. Berry Baskets and Boxes Handbook 44 - 2008 

THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK. 

4-24
**Exhibit
      32.1**




**CERTIFICATION
        OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**


**INDEX
        OIL AND GAS, INC.**


**FORM
        10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2006**


**PURSUANT
        TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED**


**PURSUANT
        TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**






I,
      Lyndon
      West, Chief Executive Officer of Index Oil & Gas Inc. (the "Company"),
      hereby 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
      Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A of the Company for the year ended December 31,
      2005, which this certification accompanies (the "Periodic Report"), fully
      complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange
      Act
      of 1934; and




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








**INDEX
                  OIL
                  AND GAS, INC.**Date: November
                  27, 2006
                By:
                /s/ Lyndon
                  WestLyndon
                  WestChief
                  Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 11

                     NB CAPITAL CORPORATION
                COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE



                                 Three-month period         Three-month period
                                ended June 30, 1999         ended June 30, 1998


Net income                            $8,962,759                 $9,119,605

Deduct:Senior preferred stock
       and series A preferred
       stock dividends                 6,269,620                  6,270,330

                               (A)    $2,693,139                 $2,849,275

Common share outstanding       (B)           100                        100

Earning per share            (A/B)       $26,931.39                 $28,492.75















                                      -13-
[Cite as State v. Lewis, 2019-Ohio-1718.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

LAKE COUNTY, OHIO 

STATE OF OHIO, : MEMORANDUM OPINION 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, : 

 CASE NO. 2019-L-018

 - vs - : 

KENNY LEWIS a.k.a. KENY LEWIS 

a.k.a. KENYATTA LEWIS, 

: 

 Defendant-Appellant. : 

Criminal Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 2010 CR 000649. 

Judgment: Appeal dismissed. 

Charles E. Coulson, Lake County Prosecutor, and Karen A. Sheppert, Assistant 

Prosecutor, 105 Main Street, P.O. Box 490, Painesville, OH 44077 (For PlaintiffAppellee). 

Kenny Lewis, pro se, PID: A594-271, Marion Correctional Institution, 940 MarionWilliamsport Road, P.O. Box 57, Marion, OH 43302 (Defendant-Appellant). 

MARY JANE TRAPP, J. 

{¶1} Appellant, Kenny Lewis, pro se, moves this court for a delayed appeal. 

Along with his motion, appellant filed his notice of appeal on February 26, 2019. 

Appellant indicates that he is appealing from the trial court’s “December 15, 2010 

Judgement (sic) Entry of Sentence,” which he attached to his notice. 

{¶2} Appellee, the state of Ohio, filed a response in opposition to the motion, 

and appellant filed a pro se reply to the opposition. 
2

{¶3} App.R. 5(A) provides, in relevant part: 

{¶4} “After the expiration of the thirty day period provided by App.R. 4(A) for the 

filing of a notice of appeal as of right, an appeal may be taken by a defendant with leave 

of the court to which the appeal is taken * * *.” 

{¶5} The state correctly contends that appellant has previously appealed the 

December 15, 2010 sentencing entry in State v. Lewis, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2011-L-004, 

2011-Ohio-4700, which was decided on September 16, 2011. In his appeal as of right, 

Mr. Lewis raised one assignment of error claiming the trial court erred by sentencing 

him to the maximum, consecutive term of imprisonment. 

{¶6} An App.R. 5(A) delayed appeal cannot be utilized to file successive 

appeals from the same judgment. See State v. Haynes, 111 Ohio App.3d 244, 245 

(1996); State v. Melton, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2016-L-073, 2016-Ohio-7444, ¶ 9; State v. 

Cioffi, 11th Dist. Trumbull Nos. 2009-T-0065 and 2009-T-0066, 2009-Ohio-4932 at ¶ 10; 

State v. Perry, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2008-T-0127, 2009-Ohio-1320 at ¶ 5. 

{¶7} Because appellant timely appealed the December 15, 2010 sentencing 

entry resulting in a full opinion by this court affirming the trial court’s decision on the 

merits, an untimely appeal from the same judgment is not available to appellant through 

App.R. 5(A). Thus, appellant’s pro se motion for leave to file a delayed appeal is hereby 

overruled, and the appeal is dismissed. 

 

THOMAS R. WRIGHT, P.J., 

CYNTHIA WESTCOTT RICE, J., 

concur.
#### A. A. Grady, etc., *v.*Rufus Bailey, etc.

Vendor, and Purchaser — Title Bond — Assignment—Responsibility of Assignor.

The assignment of a title bond by the vendee therein does not impose on him the responsibility of the vendor, but only that of an ordinary assignor.

Judgment — Rescinding Contract of Assignment.

A judgment rescinding a contract of assignment of a title bond ■without litigation between the assignor and the maker is erroneous.

APPEAL PROM ADAIR CIRCUIT COURT.

September 7, 1871.

Opinion by

Judge Hardin:

According to well settled principle the assignment by Grady, of the title bond of Williams, did not necessarily impose on Grady the responsibility of Williams, the vendor, but that of an ordinary assignor; and as the answer of Mrs. Turk, tendered in the suit of Bridgewater on the 7th of November, 1867, only disclosed a defect of title in Williams, without the further facts necessary to fix the liability of Grady on his assignment, it did not, in our opinion, present a valid defense to the action, and for this reason the court might have properly rejected it, independently of any statement of Mr. Russell, the counsel of Bridgewaters, or for himself; and this being so it logically results that the statements of Russell to the defendant’s counsel in relation to the acceptance of the deed of Williams, however incorrect, did not constitute a sufficient ground for setting aside the judgment. It seems to us, therefore, that the judgment rescinding the contract of assignment, without litigation between the *645assignor of the bond and Williams, and without the disclosure of facts disposing with such proceeding, is erroneous.

*Russell, Garnett, for appellants.*

*Baker & Walker, for appellees.*

Wherefore the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for a judgment not inconsistent with this opinion.
United States Department of Com

National Institute of Standards and Technolo

Certificate of Metrological Traceability For:

Alabama 

This laboratory has demonstrated evidence of an unbroken chain of metrological traceability of its standards to the international system of units (SI), documented measurement uncertainties, uses documented measurement procedures, successfully 

completed training and proficiency tests, documented calibration intervals, submitted a quality management system, anddemonstrated suitable measurement assurance for the Scope listed on this certificate. The Office of Weights and Measures Program assesses laboratories to NIST Handbook 143 - Program Handbook for State Weights and Measures Laboratories and ISO/IEC 17025:2017. 

Scope 

Mass Echelon III 25 kg to 1 mg

1000 lb to 0.001 lb

8 oz to 0.03125 oz

Volume Transfer, II 5 galField Calibrations 1500 gal to 25 gal ___________

Katrice LippNIST Office Effective Date

(Rev.: September 2021)
<PAGE>
                                                                   Exhibit 10.51

                            LOAN REPAYMENT AGREEMENT


         This Loan Repayment Agreement (the "Agreement") is by and among
Radiation Therapy Services, Inc., a Florida corporation (the "Corporation"),
Daniel E. Dosoretz, M.D.; Michael J. Katin, M.D.; Howard Sheridan, M.D.; Peter
H. Blitzer, M.D.; and James H. Rubenstein, M.D.; (Drs. Dosoretz, Katin,
Sheridan, Blitzer and Rubenstein are hereinafter individually referred to as
"Shareholder").

                                   WITNESSETH

         WHEREAS, the Corporation owes each Shareholder certain sums pursuant to
various outstanding loans from the Shareholder to the Corporation which in the
aggregate total $1,465,490.98 in principal amount (collectively the "Loans");
and

         WHEREAS, the parties desire to agree that the Corporation will repay
each Shareholder, and each Shareholder will accept, an equal amount in full
satisfaction of the Loans in the event the proposed underwritten initial public
offering of common stock by the Corporation is completed.

         NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants
herein contained and for other valuable consideration, receipt of which is
hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:

         1.       In the event the Corporation's proposed initial public
offering is consummated, each Shareholder agrees to accept from the Corporation
the sum of $298,098.20 as full repayment and satisfaction of the outstanding
Loans. Upon payment of $298,098.20 by the Corporation to each Shareholder, the
Loans shall be deemed paid in full.

         2.       This Agreement may be signed in one or more counterparts, all
of which shall be considered one and the same agreement, and a facsimile
signature shall be deemed the same as an original signature.

                     [THE SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS THIS PAGE]


                                       1
<PAGE>
         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this instrument
effective as of the date set forth herein.



RADIATION THERAPY SERVICES, INC.        SHAREHOLDERS


By:
   --------------------------------     ---------------------------------------
Name:  David M. Koeninger               Daniel E. Dosoretz, M.D.
Title: Executive Vice President
       and Chief Financial Officer
                                        ---------------------------------------
                                        Michael J. Katin, M.D.


                                        ---------------------------------------
                                        Howard Sheridan, M.D.


                                        ---------------------------------------
                                        Peter H. Blitzer, M.D.


                                        ---------------------------------------
                                        James H. Rubenstein, M.D.



                                       2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED SOVEREIGN
SPECIALTY CHEMICALS INC.'S MARCH 31, 1998 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           4,130
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   31,115
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     22,104
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                60,801
<PP&E>                                          52,698
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (5,049)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 244,429
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           28,828
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      54,448
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   244,429
<SALES>                                         51,747
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                51,747
<CGS>                                           35,360
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   35,360
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                11,813
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,080
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    494
<INCOME-TAX>                                       419
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 75
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        75
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00
        

</TABLE>
June 23. 2015

No. 04-15-00342-CV

VILLA DIJON CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION. INC. AND IMPL1CITY MANAGEMENT

COMPANY,

Appellants

v.

MARY WINTERS AND M1LA CHEATOM,

Appellees

From the 166th Judicial District Court. Bexar County. Texas

Trial Court No. 2015-CI-03926

lonorable John D. Gabriel, Jr.. Judge Presiding

ORDER

This court has determined that this dispute is appropriate for referral to an Alternative Dispute

Resolution (ADR) procedure. See TEX. ClV. Prac. REM. Code

154.021 (Vcrnon 2005). All further communications with this court by the parties regarding ADR shall

be directed to the Clerk of the Court for any assistance in the mediation process.

All parlies are ORDERED to respond in writing by July 13, 2015 stating: (1) the name, address,

and fee schedule of the mediator of their choice; or (2) that they cannot agree on mediator, in which case

the court will appoint one; or (3) any objection to mediation and the reasons for such objection. See id.

154.022 (b).

Provided the parties submit to mediation, this court will issue an order suspending all appellate

deadlines for forty-five (45) days in order that the parties may concentrate on the scheduling and

completion of the mediation process.

Is it so ORDERED on June 23. 2015.

Mari%n Barnaul. Justice

Io/l^ WBraffiSSffllilribiREOF. have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on

^le, Cleric
IV

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 452

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the Board of

Governors of the United States Postal Service should reject the recommended decision issued by the Postal Rate Commission on May 11,

1998, to the extent that it provides for any increase in postage rates.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 3, 1998

Mr. LATHAM submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on Government Reform and Oversight

RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that

the Board of Governors of the United States Postal

Service should reject the recommended decision issued

by the Postal Rate Commission on May 11, 1998, to

the extent that it provides for any increase in postage

rates.

Whereas the United States Postal Service has realized a cumulative net income of approximately $5,800,000,000

during the past three and one-half fiscal years;

Whereas the national rate of inflation has declined substantially during that time;
2

•HRES 452 IH

Whereas the postal customers and taxpayers of the United

States deserve to share in the recent financial gains of

the Postal Service;

Whereas any increase in postage rates affects every citizen,

resident, and business in the United States, and is especially harmful to individuals living on low or fixed incomes;

Whereas the Postal Rate Commission issued a recommended

decision on May 11, 1998, that proposes, among other

things, increases in certain postage rates;

Whereas it has been estimated that the proposed rate increase for first-class mail would increase the annual revenue of the Postal Service by approximately

$1,000,000,000; and

Whereas the Board of Governors of the Postal Service is expected to meet in June 1998 to act upon the recommended decision: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep2 resentatives that the Board of Governors of the United

3 States Postal Service should reject the recommended deci4 sion issued by the Postal Rate Commission on May 11,

5 1998, to the extent that it provides for any increase in

6 postage rates.

Æ
Exhibit 15.1

|                           |                             
|-------------------------- | ----------------------------
|                           |                             
|ROBISON, HILL & CO.        | Certified Public Accountants
|A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION |                             
|                           | BRENT M. DAVIES, CPA        
|                           | DAVID O. SEAL, CPA          
|                           | W. DALE WESTENSKOW, CPA     
|                           | BARRY D. LOVELESS, CPA      
|                           | STEPHEN M. HALLEY, CPA      

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS



To the Board of DirectorsHomeland Precious Metals Corp.

We have issued an audit report dated June 27, 2008 for the year ended March 31, 2008 for Homeland Precious Metals Corp. which is included in this Form 20-F annual report. We consent to the use of our auditors report in the aforementioned annual report and to the reference to our firm under the heading Experts.





/s/ Robison, Hill & Co.Certified Public Accountants


Salt Lake City, UtahJuly 18, 2008













---