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

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4271 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4271

 To require the Secretary of State, in consultation with the heads of 
  other appropriate departments and agencies, to conduct an economic 
 impact study on the dual gateway policy of the Government of Ireland 
   before the United States takes any action that could lead to the 
                     discontinuation of the policy.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 4, 2004

Mr. Smith of New Jersey (for himself, Mr. Oberstar, Mr. Hyde, Mr. King 
 of New York, and Mr. Payne) introduced the following bill; which was 
          referred to the Committee on International Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To require the Secretary of State, in consultation with the heads of 
  other appropriate departments and agencies, to conduct an economic 
 impact study on the dual gateway policy of the Government of Ireland 
   before the United States takes any action that could lead to the 
                     discontinuation of the policy.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Dual Gateway Policy Review Act''.

SEC. 2. DUAL GATEWAY POLICY REVIEW REQUIRED.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary of State shall review the dual 
gateway policy and determine the effects the discontinuation of the 
policy might have on the United States economy and the Western Ireland 
economy before the United States takes any diplomatic action that could 
lead to the discontinuation of the policy.
    (b) Economic Impact Study.--In determining the effects that the 
discontinuation of the dual gateway policy might have on the United 
States economy, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the heads 
of other appropriate departments and agencies, shall consider the 
effects the discontinuation of the policy might have on United States 
businesses operating in Western Ireland and Irish businesses operating 
in and around Shannon Airport.
    (c) Report.--The Secretary of State shall submit a report 
describing the determinations made under subsection (a), together with 
any recommendations for United States action, to Congress not later 
than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
    (d) Dual Gateway Policy.--The term ``dual gateway policy'' means 
the policy of the Irish Government which requires certain air carriers 
serving Dublin Airport to undertake equal numbers of flights to Shannon 
Airport and Dublin Airport during each calendar year.
                                 <all>
```
#### Lou. & Nashville R. R. Co. *v.*Albert Licking.

Appeal — Reversal—Instruction. .

It is reversible error to instruct tbe jury that they have a right to award punitive damages in the event defendant was guilty of gross negligence, where there are no facts warranting an instruction as to punitive damages.

APPEAL PROM WASHINGTON CIRCUIT COURT.

January 11, 1873.

*Noble & Brown, Ramrsey, for appellcmt.*

*Hays & Thurman, Lee & Rodman, for appellee.*

Opinion by

Judge Pryor:

In a former opinion rendered by this court touching the facts in controversy, it was adjudged that, “as there was no intentional injury, nor such gross neglect as to manifest recklessness or bad faith, even if a recovery could be had, it must be limited strictly to compensation.”

The facts, as they now appear upon the question of negligence, are identical with those proven on the first trial. It-is true that a jury, upon a proper state of case presented, such as a permanent injury to the appellee’s arm', would have the right to consider this permanent injury in making compensation by way of damages, and this court would not disturb such a verdict unless it evidenced a departure from a mere compensation, and a desire to punish the party for the alleged negligence. The jury, however, are told by Instruction No. 2 that they have the right to award punitive damages in the event the appellant was guilty of gross negligence, basing the instructions upon a state of facts not appearing in the record, for there is no evidence showing that the injury was intentional or that the appellants were guilty of such negligence as amounted to recklessness or bad faith. *Louisville & Portland R. Co. v. Smith, 2*Du-vall 559.

We are satisfied that the question of punishment was considered by the jury in making up their verdict.

We perceive no error to the prejudice of either the appellants or appellee in the other instructions given or refused. The judgment of the court below is reversed, with directions to award the appellants a new trial and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
     Gallery Rodeo International and its subsidiaries unaudited balance
     sheet as of June 30, 1996 and the related statement of income for
     the six months then ended and is qualified in its entirety by
     reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000837852
<NAME>                        Gallery Rodeo International
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                    JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                  327
<SECURITIES>                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                             0
<ALLOWANCES>                              0
<INVENTORY>                               0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        327
<PP&E>                            2,154,823
<DEPRECIATION>                       (1,021)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    5,604,264
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             1,580,309
<BONDS>                                   0
<COMMON>                          5,364,222
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<OTHER-SE>                       (4,656,616)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      5,604,264
<SALES>                                   0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          0
<CGS>                                     0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                    170,447
<LOSS-PROVISION>                    350,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                   61,957
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    (482,033)
<INCOME-TAX>                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                (482,033)
<DISCONTINUED>                     (123,105)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                       (605,138)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                         (0.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                         (0.04)
        


</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.2CERTIFICATIONSI, Pamela G. Boone, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Synergetics USA, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;(b) [Paragraph omitted in accordance with SEC transition instructions contained in SEC Release34-47986];(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
|Exhibit 32.2
|------------



|CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Mercari Communications Group, Ltd. on Form 10-QSB for the period ending November 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John P. Kanouff, Treasurer/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, to the best of my 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/ John P. KanouffJohn P. KanouffTreasurer(Principal Financial Officer)
|------------------------------------------------------------------------



|January 11, 2008
|----------------

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



---
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.5


                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Registration Statement on
Form  S-3 for the Dividend Reinvestment and Share Purchase Plan of American
Industrial Properties REIT of our report dated January 26, 1998, appearing in
the Current Report on Form 8-K dated March 23, 1998, with respect to the
Combined Statement of Revenues and Certain Expenses of Corporex Plaza I and
Presidents' Plaza Business Center for the year ended December 31, 1996, and the
reference to us under the heading "Experts" in the Prospectus, which is part of
such Registration Statement.



/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP


Cincinnati, Ohio
March 20, 1998
Year Ended December 31,2008
    
    
    2007
    
    
    2006
    
    
    2005
    
    
    2004EARNINGSPre-tax income from operations
    
    $
    (13,197
    )
    
    $
    (4,836
    )
    
    $
    85,795
    
    
    $
    78,549
    
    
    $
    23,930Fixed charges
    
    
    18,777
    
    
    
    16,650
    
    
    
    16,880
    
    
    
    16,403
    
    
    
    9,964Capitalized interest
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Earnings available for fixed charges
    
    $
    5,580
    
    
    $
    11,814
    
    
    $
    102,675
    
    
    $
    94,952
    
    
    $
    33,894FIXED CHARGES:Interest expense (including debt
issuance costs amortized to
interest expense)
    
    $
    15,389
    
    
    $
    14,296
    
    
    $
    15,147
    
    
    $
    14,720
    
    
    $
    8,849Capitalized interest
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Interest component of rent
expense1
    
    
    3,388
    
    
    
    2,354
    
    
    
    1,733
    
    
    
    1,684
    
    
    
    1,115Total fixed charges
    
    $
    18,777
    
    
    $
    16,650
    
    
    $
    16,880
    
    
    $
    16,404
    
    
    $
    9,964Ratio of earnings to fixed charges
    
    
    0.30
    
    
    
    0.71
    
    
    
    6.08
    
    
    
    5.79
    
    
    
    3.40
 
 1
    
    For purposes of calculating the ratio of earnings to fixed
charges, earnings are defined as income from continuing
operations before income taxes and cumulative effect of
change in accounting principles plus fixed charges. Fixed
charges include interest expense (including amortization of
deferred financing costs) and an estimate of operating rental
expense, approximately 20%, which management believes is
representative of the interest component.
Order filed, October 19, 2012.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-12-00479-CV

____________

SHRIHARI ENTERPRISES, INC, Appellant

V.

SATIESH Y. RAO AND SAI & SAI, INC, Appellee

On Appeal from the 55th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2010-54280

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due July 3, 2012, 2012. See Tex. R. App. P. 

35.1. On August 30, 2012, this court ordered the court reporter to file the record within 

30 days. The record has not been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record has 

not been filed timely, we issue the following order.

We order Gina Wilburn, the official court reporter, to file the record in this 

appeal within 30 days of the date of this order. No further extension will be 

entertained absent exceptional circumstances. The trial and appellate courts are 
jointly responsible for ensuring that the appellate record is timely filed. See Tex. R. App. 

P. 35.3(c). If Gina Wilburn does not timely file the record as ordered, we will issue an 

order directing the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine the reason for the failure 

to file the record.

PER CURIAM
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE OCTOBER
31, 1996 CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1996
<CASH>                                          55,973
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  423,185<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    602,607
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,123,568
<PP&E>                                         120,750<F1>
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,344,595
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          274,901
<BONDS>                                        490,736
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           353
<OTHER-SE>                                     474,608
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,344,595
<SALES>                                        230,779
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               230,779
<CGS>                                          120,044
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  120,044
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,998
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,792)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (654)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,138)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,138)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.03)<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.03)<F2>
<FN>
<F1>This asset value represents a net amount.
<F2>The amount reported for EPS primary and fully diluted is in compliance with
Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 128, "Earnings Per Share,"
and represents the Basic and Diluted calculation as required by this standard.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KEVIN L. PERRY,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v. SAN DIEGO COUNTY, a public entity,

Defendant

- Appellee. No. 14

- 56618
D.C. No. 3:14

- mc - 00381

- JLS

MEMORANDUM *

KEVIN L. PERRY,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v. VEOLIA TRANSPORT, DBA Veolia Transportation Services, Inc., A Maryland Corporation; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 14

- 56707
D.C. No. 3:11

- cv - 00176

- LAB

RBB

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Janis L. Sammartino, District Judge, Presiding Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3. 

# FILED

NOV 7 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 14

- 56618 Submitted October 25, 2016 **
Before: LEAVY, GRABER, and CHRISTEN , Circuit Judges. In these consolidated appeals, Kevin L. Perry appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his action for failure to comply with a vexatious litigant
order (No. 14

- 56618) , and the district court’s order denying his Fed eral Rule of
Civil Procedure 60(b) motion for relief fro m judgment (No. 14

- 56707). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse o f discretion both the
district court’ s denial of leave to file a complaint pursuant to a vexatious litigant
order , In re Fillbach , 223 F.3d 1089, 10 90

- 91 (9th Cir. 2000) , and the district
court’s denial of a Rule 60(b) motion, Harman v. Harper , 7 F.3d 1455, 1458 (9th Cir. 1993). We affirm.
As to No. 14

- 56618, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Perry’s motion for leave to file a compla int because Perry failed to comply with the vexatious litigant order entered against him. See Perry v. Veolia Transp. , et al. , No. 11

- CV

– 176

– LAB

– RBB , 2011 WL 4566449 at *9

- 12 ( S.D. Cal

. Sept. 30,
2011 ). Perry failed to submit a copy of the vexatious liti gant order with his motion as required and falsely certified that his proposed complaint raised new issues not previously raised in a prior state or federal action.

** The panel unanimously concludes th ese case s are suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).3 14

- 56618

As to No. 14

- 56707, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Perry’s motion for relief from judg ment where Perry never appealed from the judgment, presented no reason for the nearly three

- year delay in filing his motion , and did not establish any basis for relief

. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)( 5 )

- ( 6 ); Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c) (1) ( Rule 60(b)( 5 ) and 60(b)( 6 ) motions must be filed “within a reasonable time”) ; see also In re Pac

. Far East Lines, Inc. , 889 F.2d 24 2, 249 (9th Cir. 1989) ( “ W ha t constitutes a reasonable time depends on the facts of each case.”).
14

- 56618: AFFIRMED
. 1 4

- 56707: AFFIRMED
.
Presentation to 

SC 37 / Working Group 3 

P Kusan,orea 

July 11, 2008 

Patrick Grother 

US National Body 
IREX Family 

IREX = Iris Exchange 

Ongoing development of standardized, hig

performance, interoperable, iris images i.e. su

of ISO/IEC 19794-6:20XX 

IREX 08 

Compact Formats 

Compression Limits 
IREX 08 

Scope is: • Evaluation of three compact formats 

– UK cropped rectilinear, UK ROI-masked rectilinear, 

“unsegmented polar” proposed for 19794-6 

• Development of: 

– Compression profiles of JPEG 2000 vs. JPEG 

How: • Measure accuracy (FMR, FNMR, FTE) of algori

implementing the IREX API 

• Using binary data structure – something like th

existing Tables 1-4 

Images: • LG 2200, LG 3000, LG 4000, Pier ... • Also NIST is still requesting organizations to 

contribute other sets of iris images 
IREX :: Status 

Timeline: • 6/28/08 - Final IREX Test Plan and API releas• 7/2/08 – Deadline for “intention to participate• 8/05/08 – Window for submission of SDKs ope• 9/12/08 – Window for submission of SDKs clos• Results Results to WG3 before WG3 before 1/19/09 1/19/09 Participation: • Thirteen organizations have indicated intent to 

participate – this is enough to proceed. 

• Participants can withdraw anonymously before 

September 12. 
IREX Family 

Ongoing development of standardized, high 

performance, interoperable, iris images i.e. sup

of ISO/IEC 19794-6:20XX 

A Future Possi

IREX III 

“Beyond 640x

IREX 

Now: IREX 08 

IREX I 

Compact Formats 

Compression Limits 

A Future Possibility 

IREX II “Sensor 

Interoperability” 

WG3 Direction is Key 
For IREX news, FAQ and the fina

and concept 

http://iris.nist.gov/irex 

Suggestions, contributions, questio

patrick.grother@nist.gov