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

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 225

Urging the President to make clear to the People’s Republic of China the

commitment of the American people to security and democracy on Taiwan.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 9, 1997

Mr. ROHRABACHER (for himself, Mr. SOLOMON, Mr. COX of California, Mr.

SMITH of New Jersey, and Mr. ROYCE) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on International Relations

RESOLUTION

Urging the President to make clear to the People’s Republic

of China the commitment of the American people to

security and democracy on Taiwan.

Whereas the American people have long enjoyed strong ties

with the people of Taiwan;

Whereas the people of Taiwan have triumphed in establishing

a stable and secure democracy with free press, free elections, vibrant trade unions, and open trading practices;

Whereas the American people, through the Taiwan Relations

Act, made clear the firm commitment of the United

States to Taiwan’s continued security;

Whereas it is in the national interest of the United States to

provide improved defense systems to Taiwan, especially

anti-missile defense systems;
2

•HRES 225 IH

Whereas it is the stated policy of the United States Government to acknowledge the view of the Chinese people on

both sides of the Taiwan Strait that there is but one

China;

Whereas it is the clear position of the majority of the people

of Taiwan that reunification with the communist People’s

Republic of China will not occur until the People’s Republic of China offers its people economic freedom and

political democracy with attendant human rights;

Whereas United States economic ties with Taiwan continue

to grow in importance: Taiwan is the eighth largest trading partner of the United States, in contrast to the People’s Republic of China with which the United States suffers a nearly $40,000,000,000 trade deficit due to the

relatively closed and inaccessible market of the People’s

Republic of China;

Whereas the Congress of the United States has stated its

support for prompt accession to the World Trade Organization by Taiwan; and

Whereas the President of the United States is scheduled to

meet with the leadership of the People’s Republic of

China in Washington in late October 1997: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the Congress encourages the President

2 to make clear to the leadership of the People’s Republic

3 of China the firm commitment of the American people to

4 security and democracy for the people of Taiwan and that

5 the United States fully expects that the resolution of secu-
3

•HRES 225 IH

1 rity issues on both sides of the Taiwan Strait will be re2 solved by peaceful means.

Æ
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 449 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                 House Calendar No. 197
105th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 449

                          [Report No. 105-552]

Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the 
 bill (H.R. 2400) to authorize funds for Federal-aid highways, highway 
     safety programs, and transit programs, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 22, 1998

   Mr. McInnis, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the 
 bill (H.R. 2400) to authorize funds for Federal-aid highways, highway 
     safety programs, and transit programs, and for other purposes.

    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order to consider the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 
2400) to authorize funds for Federal-aid highways, highway safety 
programs, and transit programs, and for other purposes. All points of 
order against the conference report and against its consideration are 
waived. The conference report shall be considered as read.
                                     

                                                 House Calendar No. 197

105th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                              H. RES. 449

                          [Report No. 105-552]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the 
 bill (H.R. 2400) to authorize funds for Federal-aid highways, highway 
     safety programs, and transit programs, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                              May 22, 1998

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
```
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

2007-1344 

SYNTHON IP, INC., 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

PFIZER, INC., 

Defendant-Appellee. 

Nichole W. Stafford, Wilson Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati, PC, of Austin, Texas, 

argued for plaintiff-appellant. On the brief were Jonathan G. Graves and John P. Moy, 

Cooley Godward Kronish LLP, of Reston, Virginia; Michael A. Ladra and Terry Kearney, 

Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati, PC, of Palo Alto, California; Of counsel was 

Nathan K. Cummings, Cooley Godward Kronish LLP, of Reston, Virginia. 

 

 Jack B. Blumenfield, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell, LLP, of Wilmington, 

Delaware, argued for defendant-appellee. With him on the brief were Maryellen 

Noreika, and James W. Parrett, Jr. Of counsel was John F. Anderson, Troutman 

Sanders LLP, of McLean, Virginia; and Derek J. Fahnestock, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & 

Tunnell, LLP, of Wilmigton. 

Appealed from: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia 

 Judge Thomas Selby Ellis, III 
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

 

2007-1344 

SYNTHON IP, INC., 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

PFIZER, INC., 

 Defendant-Appellee. 

 Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in case 

no. 1:05-CV-1267, Judge Thomas Selby Ellis, III. 

__________________________ 

DECIDED: June 17, 2008 

__________________________ 

 

Before MAYER, Circuit Judge, PLAGER, Senior Circuit Judge and DYK, Circuit Judge. 

PER CURIAM. 

The court, having considered the submissions and oral arguments of the parties, 

and having considered the record before and judgment of the United States District 

Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, holds that the findings of inequitable conduct 

and exceptional case, and the award of attorney fees are affirmed. Under these 

circumstances, we need not reach the issues of infringement and validity.
<PAGE>
                                                                      Exhibit 31

                    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF
                         THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Andrew J. Cederoth, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form 8-K
   containing distribution or servicing reports filed in respect of periods
   included in the year covered by this annual report of Navistar Financial
   2003-A Owner Trust;

2. Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a whole,
   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 as of the
   last day of the period covered by this annual report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information required to
   be provided to the trustee by the Servicer under the pooling and servicing
   agreement, for inclusion in these reports, is included in these reports;

4. Based on my knowledge and upon the annual compliance statement included in
   the report and required to be delivered to the trustee in accordance with the
   terms of the pooling and servicing agreement, and except as disclosed in the
   reports, the Servicer has fulfilled its obligations under that agreement; and

5. The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the Servicer's
   compliance with the minimum servicing standards based upon the report
   provided by an independent public accountant, after conducting a review in
   compliance with the Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers
   or similar procedure, as set forth in the Pooling and Servicing Agreement,
   that is included in these reports.

6. In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information
   provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: Owner Trustee.


By: /s/ ANDREW J. CEDEROTH
    ------------------------
Andrew J. Cederoth
Vice President and Treasurer
Navistar Financial Corporation
January 31, 2005
20-cv-425

Case: 1:20-cv-00425 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/20/20 Page 1 of 17 PageID #:1
Case: 1:20-cv-00425 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/20/20 Page 2 of 17 PageID #:1
Case: 1:20-cv-00425 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/20/20 Page 3 of 17 PageID #:1
Case: 1:20-cv-00425 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/20/20 Page 4 of 17 PageID #:1
Case: 1:20-cv-00425 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/20/20 Page 5 of 17 PageID #:1
Case: 1:20-cv-00425 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/20/20 Page 6 of 17 PageID #:1
Case: 1:20-cv-00425 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/20/20 Page 7 of 17 PageID #:1
Case: 1:20-cv-00425 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/20/20 Page 8 of 17 PageID #:1
Case: 1:20-cv-00425 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/20/20 Page 9 of 17 PageID #:1
Case: 1:20-cv-00425 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/20/20 Page 10 of 17 PageID #:1
Case: 1:20-cv-00425 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/20/20 Page 11 of 17 PageID #:1
Case: 1:20-cv-00425 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/20/20 Page 12 of 17 PageID #:1
Case: 1:20-cv-00425 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/20/20 Page 13 of 17 PageID #:1
Case: 1:20-cv-00425 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/20/20 Page 14 of 17 PageID #:1
Case: 1:20-cv-00425 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/20/20 Page 15 of 17 PageID #:1
Case: 1:20-cv-00425 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/20/20 Page 16 of 17 PageID #:1
Case: 1:20-cv-00425 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/20/20 Page 17 of 17 PageID #:1
Exhibit 10.7  Schedule of the Owners of Company-Managed Texas
Roadhouse Restaurants and the Interests Held by Directors, Executive Officers and 5%
Stockholders Who Are Parties to Limited Partnership Agreements and Operating Agreements  As of December 30, 2008  Percentage Owned byExecutive Officers,Percentage of
  
  Actual Management Fee
  
  Directors & 5%Entity Name
  
  Restaurant Location
  
  Holdings Interest
  
  Charged
  
  StockholdersRoadhouse of
  Longmont, LLC
  
  Longmont, CO
  
  5
  %
  0.5
  %
  47.5
  %Texas Roadhouse
  of Hiram, LLC
  
  Hiram, GA
  
  10
  %
  
  
  Texas Roadhouse
  of Marietta, LLC
  
  Marietta, GA
  
  10
  %
  2.0
  %
  Roadhouse of
  Wichita, LLC
  
  Wichita, KS
  
  5
  %
  0.5
  %
  55.1
  %Roadhouse of
  Bossier City, LLC
  
  Bossier City, LA
  
  5
  %
  0.5
  %
  65
  %Texas Roadhouse
  of Everett, LLC
  
  Everett, MA
  
  5
  %
  0.5
  %
  50
  %Texas Roadhouse
  of Billings, LLC
  
  Billings, MT
  
  5
  %
  0.5
  %
  57
  %Roadhouse of
  Omaha, LLC
  
  Omaha, NE
  
  5
  %
  0.5
  %
  72.5
  %Roadhouse of
  Fargo, LLC
  
  Fargo, ND
  
  5.05
  %
  0.5
  %
  88.89
  %Roadhouse of
  Montgomeryville, LLC
  
  Montgomeryville, PA
  
  7.5
  %
  1.75
  %
  Roadhouse of
  Memphis, LLC
  
  Memphis, TN
  
  10
  %
  
  
  Texas Roadhouse
  of Brownsville, Ltd.
  
  Brownsville, TX
  
  5.03
  %
  0.5
  %
  90.92
  %Roadhouse of
  McKinney, Ltd.
  
  McKinney, TX
  
  5
  %
  0.5
  %
  62
  %Texas Roadhouse
  of Port Arthur, Ltd.
  
  Port Arthur, TX
  
  5
  %
  0.5
  %
  91.5
  %Roadhouse of
  Temple, Ltd.
  
  Temple, TX
  
  5
  %
  0.5
  %
  77
  %Roadhouse of New
  Berlin, LLC
  
  New Berlin, WI
  
  5
  %
  0.5
  %
  62
  %
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. James JONES, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 03-50529.

D.C. No. CR-03-00418-JFW-2.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 7, 2004.*

Decided Dec. 9, 2004.

*550Matthew Umhofer, Esq., USLA-Office of the U.S. Attorney Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Ivan Louis Klein, Esq., Law Offices of Ivan L. Klein, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before B. FLETCHER, RYMER, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

James Jones appeals his conviction for conspiracy, to deliver stolen treasury checks in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, and receiving and retaining stolen treasury checks in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 510(b). We affirm.

There was sufficient evidence for a rational trier of fact to find beyond a reasonable doubt that a conspiracy existed to which Jones had at least a slight connection. *United States v. Wright,*215 F.3d 1020, 1028 (9th Cir.2000). At the meeting concerning the stolen Treasury checks, Jones claimed that he had successfully cashed a $17,000 check in the past, responded “shhh” and placed his finger to his mouth in response to Neal’s inquiry into the source of the stolen checks, and explained to Mayberry how her share of the check proceeds would be split between Neal and Mayberry. A stolen check was on Jones’s thigh. He was aware that checks in the car did not belong to Coleman and that Coleman was engaged in illegal activity involving them. While Jones offered a different account of his part of the conversation at the meeting, the jury resolved credibility issues in favor of the government, *United States v. Bancalari,*110 F.3d 1425, 1428 (9th Cir.1997), and we resolve conflicting evidence in favor of the verdict. *United States v. Alvarez-Valenzuela,*231 F.3d 1198, 1201-02 (9th Cir.2000).

Likewise, there was sufficient evidence that Jones knew the treasury checks were stolen. What he said at the meeting demonstrated prior experience in having “broke checks” and knowledge that Coleman was talking about endorsing checks that did not belong to him, that Mayberry would be cashing checks supplied by Coleman, and that the proceeds would be divided. He looked down at the check on his thigh. Thus, a rational juror could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Jones knowingly received and retained stolen Treasury cheeks.

AFFIRMED.

**

 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.
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Ant onio, Texas

September 17, 2019

No. 04

- 19

- 00474

- CV

IN THE INTEREST B.J.A., A CHILD,

From the 37th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018PA00541 Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

This is an accelerated appeal of the trial court’s order terminating appellant’s parental rights. The appellant’s brief was originally due on September 3, 2019

. Appellant has filed a motion for a 13

- day extension of time to file the brief until September 23, 2019. The motion is GRANTED. Appellant’s brief is due no later than September 23, 2019. Given the time constraints governing the disposition of this appeal, further request s for extensions of time will be disfavored.

_________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said
court on this 17th day of September, 2019

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
EXHIBIT
      32.2





CERTIFICATION





PURSUANT
      TO RULE 13A-14(B) OR RULE 15D-14(B)





OF
      THE
      SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In
      connection with the Annual Report of EPL Intermediate, Inc. (the "Company")
      on
      Form 10-K for the year ended December 26, 2007 as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Joseph N. Stein,
      Senior Vice President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as
      adopted pursuant to §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.




Date:
        March 24, 2008





/s/
                Joseph SteinJoseph
                N. SteinSenior
                Vice PresidentEPL
                Intermediate, Inc.




This
      certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and
      not
      for any other purpose. A signed original of this written statement required
      by
      Section 906 has been provided to EPL Intermediate, Inc. and will be retained
      by
      EPL Intermediate, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
      or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                         308,220
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  706,199
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    565,232
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,675,957
<PP&E>                                       9,816,359
<DEPRECIATION>                                 294,648
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              11,701,784
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,674,596
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     10,000
<COMMON>                                        18,937
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,128,366
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                11,701,784
<SALES>                                      1,157,301
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,157,301
<CGS>                                          435,764
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  435,764
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              72,589
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                323,760
<INCOME-TAX>                                   129,504
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            194,256
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   194,256
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.01


</TABLE>
#### L. C. Kash *v.*G. C. Everett, etc.

Set-Off and Counter Claim — Set-Off Which Could, Have Been Plead' at Law Cannot be Plead I ' in Equity.

A set-off which could have been successfully plead< l at law cannot be plead in a suit in equity.

APPEAL PROM MONTGOMERY CIRCUIT COURT.

April 17, 1871.

Opinion by

Judge Peters:

If, as seems to be the case, appellants had assigned the notes described in the petition to John W. Clay and he had collected the same before he had assigned the note he held on them to Ev*485erett, they could have successfully pleaded them, by way of set-off in Everett’s action at law against them, but after judgment at law was rendered under Section 14, Civil Code, they can not make that defense available in equity, especially as it is not alleged, nor proved, that they were prevented from defending the action at law by any thing that Everett did or said.

*Apperson & Reid, for appellants.*

*Turner, for appellees.*

Wherefore the judgment is affirmed.
#### Sallustiano N. GENESTO, Petitioner, v. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, Respondent.

No. 05-3005.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Nov. 29, 2004.

Before MICHEL, SCHALL, and GAJARSA, Circuit Judges.

*ORDER*

GAJARSA, Circuit Judge.

Sallustiano N. Genesto moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. We consider whether Genesto’s petition for review of the decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board in *Genesto v. Office of Personnel Management,*96 M.S.P.R. 646 (2004) should be dismissed.

Genesto sought review of OPM’s reconsideration decision finding that he had been overpaid $42,190.80 in Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) annuity benefits. The Administrative Judge (AJ) affirmed OPM’s determination that Genesto was not entitled to CSRS annuity benefits and had been overpaid. However, the AJ determined that OPM had not issued a reconsideration decision on the issue of whether Genesto was entitled to a waiver or readjustment with respect to the overpayment and thus remanded to OPM for further proceedings.

This court’s review of Board decisions is governed by 5 U.S.C. § 7703. Section 7703(b)(1) provides that this court has jurisdiction to review final orders and decisions of the Board. We have stated that “an order remanding a matter to an administrative agency for further findings and proceedings is not final.” *Cabot Corp. v. United States,*788 F.2d 1539, 1542 (Fed. Cir.1986). Because the AJ remanded to OPM for further proceedings, the Board’s decision is not final and thus we dismiss *734for lack of jurisdiction.*

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The petition for review is dismissed.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.

(3) All pending motions are moot.

*

 If the Board issues an adverse final decision at a later date, Genesto may, of course, seek review of that decision in this court at that time.