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

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4446 

To amend the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 to reform 

funding for the Seniors Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program, and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 20, 2004 

Ms. KAPTUR (for herself and Mr. WALSH) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Agriculture 

A BILL 

To amend the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act 

of 2002 to reform funding for the Seniors Farmers’ 

Market Nutrition Program, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SENIORS FARMERS’ MARKET NUTRITION PRO4 GRAM. 

5 (a) FUNDING.—Subsection (a) of section 4402 of the 

6 Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (7 

7 U.S.C. 3007; Public Law 107–171; 116 Stat. 334) is 

8 amended to read as follows: 
2 

•HR 4446 IH 

1 ‘‘(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—The Secretary of Agri2 culture shall use funds available to the Commodity Credit 

3 Corporation to carry out and expand a seniors farmers’ 

4 market nutrition program in the following amounts: 

5 ‘‘(1) For fiscal year 2004, not less than 

6 $25,000,000. 

7 ‘‘(2) For fiscal year 2005, not less than 

8 $50,000,000. 

9 ‘‘(3) For fiscal year 2006, not less than 

10 $75,000,000. 

11 ‘‘(4) For fiscal year 2007, not less than 

12 $100,000,000.’’. 

13 (b) PURPOSES.—Subsection (b)(1) of such section is 

14 amended— 

15 (1) by striking ‘‘unprepared’’ and inserting 

16 ‘‘minimally processed’’; and 

17 (2) by striking ‘‘and herbs’’ and inserting 

18 ‘‘herbs, and other locally produced farm products as 

19 the Secretary considers appropriate’’. 

20 (c) LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS.—Such 

21 section is further amended by adding at the end the fol22 lowing new subsection: 

23 ‘‘(d) ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS.—Not more than 10 

24 percent of the funds made available for a fiscal year under 
3 

•HR 4446 IH 

1 subsection (a) may be used to pay administrative costs in2 curred in carrying out this section.’’. 

Æ
10710.

#### DAVIS *v.*THE STATE.

A conviction of robbery was unauthorized by the evidence.

Decided November 4, 1919.

Indictment for robbery; from Chatham superior court—Judge Meldrim. June 9, 1919

The indictment charged that the robbery was committed by making an assault on Louise Sunday and taking her pocket-book from her by force and intimidation and without her consent. She testified that she went to a certain store and had on a large coat with a long sleeve, and in the right hand pocket of the coat had her purse with her hand over it, holding it; that she was looking around at things in the store, and had an article in her hand, and felt something in her sleeve, and “thought it was the coat sleeve that was so long,” and raised her hand up out of the pocket, where the purse was, to fix the sleeve, and as she put her hand back in her coat-pocket her pocket-book was gone; that at the same moment she turned around and saw two colored women standing behind her, and as she turned they told her that two boys had stolen her pocketbook; she saw the two boys running and “took after them;” she discovered that the pocket-book was gone when the colored women told her about it. It was testified that the defendant, when arrested, said that a certain other man snatched the pocket-book and gave it to him.

*Shelby MyricJc,*for plaintiff in error.

*Walter G. Hartridge, solicitor-general,*contra.

Luke, J.

The defendant was convicted of the offense of robbery. The evidence failed to show that any force or intimidation was used, or that there was a sudden snatching, taking, or carrying away, such as as is defined to be robbery. Penal Code (1910), § 148; *Williams*v. *State,*9 *Ga. App.*170 (70 S. E. 890). His conviction of the offense of robbery was unauthorized by the evidence. A conviction of larceny from the person would have been authorized if he had been indicted for that offense. Eor the reason that the evidence did not authorize his conviction, his motion for a new trial, upon the general grounds, must be granted.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Broyles, G. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.*
No. 87-6608.

#### Goldsborough *v.*United States.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 32


                      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 Imagenetix, Inc. (the
"Registrant") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2003, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Quarterly Report"), We, William P. Spencer, CEO, President and
director and Debra L. Spencer, Secretary/Treasurer and director of the
Registrant, 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 Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of
operations of the Registrant.


Dated: 8/19/03                        /s/William P. Spencer
      ----------                      ---------------------------
                                      William P. Spencer
                                      CEO, President and director



Dated: 8/19/03                        /s/Debra L. Spencer
      ----------                      ---------------------------
                                      Debra L. Spencer
                                      Secretary/Treasurer and director
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-07-341-CV

TAMMIE D. LAIN AND ERIN JONES	APPELLANTS	

	V.

WICHITA COUNTY COMMISSIONER DR. JOE MILLER,	APPELLEE

INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY 	

	----------

	FROM THE 89TH DISTRICT COURT OF WICHITA COUNTY

	----------

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

	----------

	We have received the parties’ “Agreed Motion To Dismiss Appeal And Remand To Trial Court” which states that the appeal is “premature” because the claims against appellee in his individual capacity remain pending in the trial court.  Because there is no final judgment or appealable interlocutory order, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.  See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).

								PER CURIAM

PANEL D:  MCCOY, J.; CAYCE, C.J.; and LIVINGSTON, J.

DELIVERED:  January 10, 2008
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference in this Registration Statement of our report dated April 24, 1998, for
the three months ended March 31, 1998, and for the period from inception (April
22, 1997) through December 31, 1997, and to all references to our Firm included
in this Amendment No. 3 to the Registration Statement on Form S-4.



                                             ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

Dallas, Texas
May 22, 1998
#### In re: Frederick Lynn KELLANDER Debtor. David A. Smyth, Appellant.

No. 99-17645.

BAP No. NC-99-01261 RPRy.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 15, 2001.*

Decided June 1, 2001.

*586Before SNEED and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges, and SEDWICK,** District Judge.

*

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

**

 The Honorable John W. Sedwick, United States District Judge for the District of Alaska, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

David Smyth appeals the BAP order affirming sanctions entered against him by the bankruptcy court. The bankruptcy court sanctioned Smyth for filing a frivolous 11 U.S.C. § 522(f) motion to avoid a judgment lien and for filing the motion for an improper purpose. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(d) and review the sanctions for an abuse of discretion. *In re Rainbow Magazine, Inc.,*77 F.3d 278, 283 (9th Cir.1996). We affirm.

Because the parties are familiar with the facts of this case, we will not recite them in this decision in detail. Smyth argues that the bankruptcy court failed to make adequate findings. The bankruptcy court found that the judgment lien secured a child support debt, that a child support lien could not be avoided under § 522(f) and that Smyth filed the motion for an improper purpose - “to shake things up.” The evidence in the record supports the bankruptcy court’s findings that the § 522(f) motion to avoid the child support lien was frivolous and filed for an improper purpose.

Smyth also argues that the bankruptcy court could not sanction him because he effectively withdrew the § 522(f) motion prior to the order to show cause by not setting the motion for a hearing and by informing opposing counsel of same. The bankruptcy court cannot award monetary sanctions on its own initiative unless it issues the order to show cause “before a voluntary dismissal or settlement of the claims made by or against the party which is, or whose attorneys are, to be sanctioned.” Fed. R. Bankr.9011(e)(2)(B). Smyth’s argument fails because he neither settled nor dismissed the claims relating to the judgment lien before the order to show cause was issued. He merely refrained from having it set for hearing at *that*time. Since it was not formally withdrawn, it could have been resurrected for hearing at any time. In fact, Smyth continued to pursue the judgment hen issue through a second Chapter 13 proceeding. The safe *587harbor provision of Rule 9011(c)(2)(B) did not preclude the sanctions against Smyth.

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, August 08, 2022. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, August 08, 2022 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A22D0464. BRASELTON ASC, LLC et al. v. GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY HEALTH et al.
Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.
LC NUMBERS: 2022CV101
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           2,868
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   31,741
<ALLOWANCES>                                       489
<INVENTORY>                                      6,048
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                45,611
<PP&E>                                         227,300
<DEPRECIATION>                                 129,727
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 143,639
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           23,429
<BONDS>                                         46,815
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         8,787
<OTHER-SE>                                      49,399
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   143,639
<SALES>                                         62,509
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                62,509
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   56,461
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,039
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,033
<INCOME-TAX>                                       434
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                599
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       599
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .07
        

</TABLE>
10926.

#### Wright *v.*The State.

Decided December 9, 1919.

Broyles, C. J.

1. Under repeated rulings of the Supreme Court and of this court, a special ground of a motion for a new trial must be complete within itself, and it will not be considered by the reviewing court when, in order to determine whether the assignment of error therein is well taken, it is necessary to refer to the brief of the evidence or to some other portion of the record. Under this ruling the first two special grounds of the motion for a new trial can not be considered.

2. The defendant was indicted in June, 1919, for a misdemeanor, and was charged with having, controlling, and possessing intoxicating liquors on the 10th day of May, 1919. The statute of limitations for a misdemeanor being only two years, the inadvertent charge of the court, that if the jury believed beyond a reasonable doubt that the offense as charged in the indictment was committed at any time after the first day of May, 1917, and prior to the date of the finding of the indictment, that would be sufficient proof of the allegation in the indictment as to the particular date upon which the offense was committed, was error; but the error was harmless, since the proof showed that the charge against the defendant was based entirely upon a single transaction which occurred in May, 1919. See, in this connection, *Adams*v. *State,*22 *Ga. App.*252 (2) (95 S. E. 877).

3. There was ample evidence to support the verdict, and the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed:'*

*Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concwr.*

*544Indictment for possession of liquor; from DeKalb superior court —Judge Smith. September 2, 1919.

*E. G.*Buchanan> for plaintiff in error.

*George M.*Napier, *solicitor-general,*contra.
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4542 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Pigment Red 187. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 9, 2004 

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

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Pigment 

Red 187. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PIGMENT RED 187. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.32.22 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended 

6 by striking ‘‘12/31/2002’’ and inserting ‘‘12/31/2006’’. 

7 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

8 subsection (a) applies with respect to goods entered, or 

9 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

10 January 1, 2003. 

Æ
10789.

#### Bailey *et al. v.*The State.

Decided December 12, 1919.

Conviction of receiving stolen goods; from Miller superior court ■—Judge Worrill. July 7, 1919.

*P. D. Rich,*for plaintiff in error.

*B. T. Oastellow, solicitor-general, R. R. Arnold,*contra.

Luke, J.

The evidence in this ease authorized the conviction of the defendants. The charge of the court, when considered in its entirety, fully and fairly submitted the issues and contentions of the defendants. For no reason assigned was it error to overrule the motion for a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, O. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.*
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE           CONTACTS:               Media:    Caroline Free
October 12, 1998                                                 (214) 953-8478
                                                              cfree@amresco.com

                                       Investors and Analysts:       Tom Andrus
                                                                 (214) 953-7704
                                                           investor@amresco.com


          AMRESCO ANNOUNCES $936 MILLION COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE LOAN SALE

         DALLAS - AMRESCO (Nasdaq: AMMB) announced today that it has completed
the sale of $936 million in commercial mortgage loans. The cash proceeds from
the sale were used to payoff the warehouse facility used to finance the mortgage
loans, with the remainder used for other corporate needs.

         In conjunction with this transaction, AMRESCO has closed its hedge
position related to the mortgages and thereby has eliminated the potential for
future margin calls related to these hedges and mortgage loans. The gain
resulting from the loan sale was offset by hedging losses, resulting in a $35.8
million net loss.

         "This transaction substantially reduces the size of our balance sheet,
strengthens our liquidity position and reduces the risk associated with carrying
commercial mortgages in the current difficult market environment," said Robert
H. Lutz, Jr., chairman and CEO of AMRESCO.

         Earnings per share for the recently completed third quarter are
expected to be nominal, ranging from $0.00 to $0.03 per fully diluted share.
This level of profitability reflects the mark to market of the company's entire
commercial mortgage portfolio at quarter end, including unfunded commitments.
AMRESCO expects to provide a full earnings release on October 20, 1998.

         AMRESCO, INC. is a diversified financial services company specializing
in commercial and residential real estate and home equity lending; asset
management workout services; and commercial finance. The company is
headquartered in Dallas and has offices nationwide as well as internationally in
Canada, United Kingdom and Mexico. For more information about AMRESCO, visit the
web site at www.amresco.com.

                                      # # #
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

   
     We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Experts" and to
the use of our report dated January 16, 1998 (except Note 19, as to which the
date is February 10, 1998), with respect to the consolidated financial
statements and schedule of Cooperative Computing Holding Company, Inc. and our
report dated January 16, 1998, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements of Triad Systems Corporation, in Amendment No. 1 to the Registration
Statement (Form S-1 No. 333-49389) and related Prospectus of Cooperative
Computing, Inc. for the registration of $100 million of 9% Senior Subordinated
Notes due 2008.



                                                /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP
    


Austin, Texas
July 1, 1998
The H onorable Michael James Davis, United States District Judge for th e 1 District of Minnesota.



## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 98-1643

___________ Dale Curtis Patterson, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. Austin Medical Center, * UNPUBLISHED * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: September 7, 1998 Filed: September 11, 1998

___________ Before WOLLMAN, HANSEN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Dale Curtis Patterson appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his actio n 1 against Austin Medical Center under the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552a
. Hav ing carefully reviewed the record and the parties’ submissions, we affirm th e judgment of the district court for the reasons set for th in its memorandum. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.-2-

A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 234 (Friday, December 5, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 72165]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28582]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[B-55-2014]


Foreign-Trade Zone 221--Mesa, Arizona; Authorization of 
Production Activity; Apple Inc./GTAT Corp. (Components for Consumer 
Electronics); Mesa, Arizona

    On July 31, 2014, the City of Mesa, grantee of FTZ 221, submitted a 
notification of proposed production activity to the Foreign-Trade Zones 
(FTZ) Board on behalf of Apple Inc./GTAT Corp., within Subzone 221A, in 
Mesa, Arizona.
    The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations 
of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the Federal 
Register inviting public comment (79 FR 47088-47089, 8-12-2014). The 
FTZ Board has determined that no further review of the activity is 
warranted at this time. The production activity described in the 
notification is authorized, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's 
regulations, including Section 400.14.

    Dated: November 28, 2014.
Andrew McGilvray,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-28582 Filed 12-4-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P