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

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1726 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

<DOC>
118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 1726

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 25, 2024

   Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, 
                        Nutrition, and Forestry

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To require the Secretary of the Interior to partner and collaborate 
 with the Secretary of Agriculture and the State of Hawaii to address 
               Rapid Ohia Death, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Continued Rapid Ohia Death Response 
Act of 2023''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

    In this Act:
            (1) Rapid ohia death.--The term ``Rapid Ohia Death'' means 
        the disease caused by the fungal pathogen known as Ceratocystis 
        fimbriata that affects the tree of the species Metrosideros 
        polymorpha.
            (2) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of Hawaii.

SEC. 3. COLLABORATION.

    The Secretary of the Interior shall partner and collaborate with 
the Secretary of Agriculture and the State to address Rapid Ohia Death.

SEC. 4. SUSTAINED EFFORTS.

    (a) Transmission.--The Secretary of the Interior, acting through 
the Director of the United States Geological Survey, and the Chief of 
the Forest Service, acting through the Forest Service Institute of 
Pacific Islands Forestry, shall continue to conduct research on Rapid 
Ohia Death vectors and transmission.
    (b) Ungulate Management.--The Secretary of the Interior, acting 
through the Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 
shall continue to partner with the Secretary of Agriculture, the State, 
and with local stakeholders to manage ungulates in Rapid Ohia Death 
control areas on Federal, State, and private land, with the consent of 
private landowners.
    (c) Restoration and Research.--The Secretary of Agriculture, acting 
through the Chief of the Forest Service, shall continue to provide--
            (1) financial assistance, including through agreements with 
        the Secretary of the Interior--
                    (A) to prevent the spread of Rapid Ohia Death; and
                    (B) to restore the native forests of the State; and
            (2) staff and necessary infrastructure funding to the 
        Institute of Pacific Islands Forestry to conduct research on 
        Rapid Ohia Death.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 24, 2024.

            Attest:

                                             KEVIN F. MCCUMBER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
**Exhibit
        10.24**
 
 
 **PROMISSORY
        NOTE**
 
 **$67,304**
              **December
                  31, 2005**
 
 
 For
        value
        received, Trinity3 Corporation promises to pay Shannon
        T. Squyres or order ***sixty-seven-thousand-three-hundred-four
        and 00/100*** dollars,
        in lawful money of the United States of America, payable in one installment,
        together with -0- interest per annum. The payment is to be upon demand. If
        the
        said installment is not so paid, the whole of said principal sum and interest
        is
        to become immediately due and collectible at the option of the holder of
        this
        note. And in case suit action is instituted to collect this note or any portion
        thereof, the Company promises to pay such additional sum as the Court may
        adjudge reasonable as attorney’s fees in said suit of action. This note
        supersedes all other notes.
 
 Due: on
        demand
 
 At:
        Orange County, CA
 Dated:
        December 31, 2005




/s/
              Steven D.
              HargreavesSteven
              D. HargreavesPresident,
                CFO and
                Director
              Trinity3
                Corporation




/s/
                Shannon T.
                SquyresShannon
                T. SquyresCEO
                  and Director
                Trinity3
                  Corporation
   /s/
                Jeffrey S.
                WillmannJeffrey
                S. WillmannDirector
                Trinity3
                  Corporation
No. 15,948.

#### Ewing *v.*Smith.

Real *Estate*— Conveyance of.— *Want of Consideration.*— Parol *Evidence Admissible.*— When there is fraud or mistake in executing or securing, the execution of a conveyance, for which no consideration is paid, parol evidence is admissible.

Evidence.— *When Admissible to Show Fraud or Mistake.*— When the defendant answered by general denial, and also filed a cross-complaint, there was an issue formed under which evidence tending to prove fraud and mistake was admissible.

From the Cass Circuit Court.

*F. Ullman, J. C. Nelson,*and *Q. A. Myers,*for appellant.

D. D. *Dykeman, W. T. Wilson, G. C. Taber,*and *M. Winfield,*for appellee.

Elliott, J.

— The controlling questions which this record presents are settled against the appellants by the decision in the case of *Ewing*v. *Wilson, post,*p. 223, and with those questions the incidental ones were necessarily determined.

The trust deed upon which the appellants rely, and which confers the only shadow of title which they have, was fully considered in that ease, and we adjudged that while its provisions were peculiar, it was on its face an effective conveyance, but we also adjudged that the question of whether there was fraud or mistake in executing* it was a matter open to inquiry. We found in the course of our investigation of the authorities that many of them asserted that' where it was proved that such an intrument was executed without consideration, the failure to insert a clause empowering the donor to revoke it would be attributed to mistake, but we did not find it necessary to go that far. We'did, however, hold that the circumstances under which it was executed were such as to require the conclusion that it was executed *206through fraud or mistake, and that in either event it was revoked by the deed executed by the grantee reconveying the property to the grantor.

Filed May 23, 1892;

petition for a rehearing overruled Sept. 17, 1892.

There can be no doubt that where there is fraud or mistake in executing or securing the execution of a conveyance for which no consideration is paid, parol evidence is competent. In this case the character of the instrument, with very slight additional evidence, fully opened the way to the admission of conversations between the grantor and grantee. We think it very clear that there was no error in admitting parol evidence nor in refusing to instruct the jury that they could not regard such evidence.

The appellees claimed title by their cross complaint, and they also answered the appellant’s complaint by a general denial. Under our decisions the appellees had a right to prove their title under their cross complaint, and under their answer of general denial to the appellant’s complaint they were entitled to give in evidence all defences, legal or equitable. There can, therefore, be no doubt that there was an issue under which the evidence tending to prove fraud and mistake was admissible.

Judgment affirmed.
#### Carr *v.*Eaton.

*Continuance.—Motion for New Trial.—Assignment of*Error.—The refusal to grant a continuance can only be presented as error by making it a cause for' a new trial and assigning the overruling of that motion as error on appeal.

APPEAR from the Howard Circuit Court.

Downey, J.

The judgment below in this case was in favor of the appellee against the appellant. The -errors assigned are: 1. The overruling the defendant’s motion for a continuance of the cause. 2. The refusal of the court to grant a new trial, and, 3. The overruling of the defendant’s motion for judgment on the special findings by the jury.

The first error assigned cannot be sustained. Where the court has improperly refused to grant a continuance, the ruling must be made the ground of a motion for a new trial, in order to present the question to this court, and then it must be done by assigning as error the overruling of the motion for a new trial. *Kent*v. *Lawson,*12 Ind. 675; *Scoville*v. *Chapman,*17 Ind. 470; *The Bellefontaine Railway Co.*v. *Reed,*33 Ind. 476. This was not done in this case.

One ground on which it is claimed that a new trial-should have been granted is, that the evidence is not sufficient to sustain the finding of the jury. The amount of' the verdict was one hundred and nine dollars and ninety-two> cents. Counsel for appellant contend that, at most, it should have been only eighty-four dollars and seventy-two cents. The evidence covering the items making up the difference,, which is twenty-five dollars and twenty cents, is too conflicting to justify us in disturbing the judgment on this> ground. The remaining ground is, that the court erred in giving the second and third instructions to the jury. We think there was no error in giving the instructions. The jury were told, in substance, that they should allow the-accounts on each side, so far as proved, and make* their verdict accordingly.

*386*N. P. Richmond*and *C. E. Hendry,*for appellant.

*M. Bell*and *A. S. Bell,*for appellee.

The remaining question, as to the action of the court in refusing to render judgment for the defendant on the special findings of the jury, must also be decided against the appellant. We need not set out the interrogatories to the jury and their answers thereto. It is enough to say that there is not that inconsistency of the special findings with the general verdict which would authorize us to say that judgment should have been rendered on them rather than on the general verdict. *Campbell*v. Dutch, 36 Ind. 504, and cases cited.

The judgment is affirmed, with five per cent, damages and costs.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

 )

vs. ) CRIMINAL ACTION 09-179-KD-M

 )

ERIC BARROW, )

Defendant. )

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Defendant’s unopposed Sixth Motion to Continue Trial

Setting (as Amended). (Docs. 62, 64). The Defendant has also filed a Waiver of Speedy Trial in

conjunction with the motion. (Doc. 63). 

As grounds for the motion to continue, counsel for Defendant asserts that he is still awaiting

receipt of the computer expert’s report and accordingly, cannot prepare the defense or advise the

Defendant until the results are received. Additionally, counsel for Defendant asserts that depending

upon the results, the United States may need more time to have their expert respond. 

Upon consideration of the grounds presented in the motion and the Government’s lack of

objection to the continuance, the Court finds that the Defendant, who is in custody, will not be

unduly prejudiced by a continuance to the next trial term. The Court also finds that pursuant to 18

U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A), “the ends of justice served by taking such action outweighs the best interest

of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.” Moreover, the Court finds that the request for

continuance so that a review of the computer expert report may be completed, as noted supra, is

reasonable under the circumstances. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv) (identifying as a factor for

consideration, the issue of “[w]hether the failure to grant such a continuance in a case which, taken

as a whole, is not so unusual or so complex as to fall within clause (ii), would deny . . . counsel for

the defendant or the attorney for the Government the reasonable time necessary for effective

Case 1:09-cr-00179-KD-M Document 65 Filed 04/22/10 Page 1 of 2
2

preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence[]”). 

Therefore, it is ORDERED that the Defendant’s motion (as amended) (Docs. 62, 64) is

GRANTED and trial of this matter is hereby CONTINUED to the June 2010 criminal trial term,

commencing with jury selection at 8:45 a.m. on June 1, 2010.

The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to refer this matter to the appropriate Magistrate

Judge for the scheduling of a new pretrial conference.

DONE and ORDERED this the 22nd day of April 2010.

/s/ Kristi K. DuBose 

KRISTI K. DuBOSE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 1:09-cr-00179-KD-M Document 65 Filed 04/22/10 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 32.1
 
 Certificate 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 Annual Report of U.S. Neurosurgical, Inc. on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Alan Gold, President and Chief Executive Officer of U.S. Neurosurgical, Inc., 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 results of operations of U.S. Neurosurgical, Inc.
 
 
 
 
 /s/ Alan Gold
 Alan Gold
 President and Chief Executive Officer
 March 30, 2010
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
            SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, as
Vice President, Corporate Controller and Chief Accounting Officer of BTU
International, Inc. (the "Company"), does hereby certify that to his knowledge:

      1.    the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
            ended April 4, 2004 (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 results of operations
            of the Company for the periods covered by the Report.

                                /S/ Thomas P. Kealy
                                -------------------
                                Thomas P. Kealy
                                Vice President, Corporate Controller
                                and Chief Accounting Officer (principal
                                financial and accounting officer)

Dated: May 19, 2004
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-131729 on Form S-8 and Registration Statement Nos. 333-144043
and 333-144989 on Form S-3 of our reports dated 27 August 2007 and 18 December 2006, relating to the Management Report and Annual Financial Statements of Sasol-Huntsman
GmbH & Co. KG, Moers, as at 30 June 2006 and 30 June 2007 and for the twelve months periods then ended, appearing in this Amendment No. 3 on Form 10-K/A of
Huntsman Corporation for the year ended 31 December 2007.

June
30, 2008

Deloitte & ToucheGmbH
Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft

Schwannstrasse
6
40476 Düsseldorf
Germany

|/s/ Norbert Graetz
(Norbert Graetz) |  | /s/ Caren Löhr
(Caren Löhr) |  | 
|----------------------------------- |  | --------------------------- |  | 
|Wirtschaftsprüfer                   |  | Wirtschaftsprüfer           |  | 
|(German Public Auditor)             |  | (German Public Auditor)     |  | 

---



QuickLinks
<PAGE>
 
                                                                   EXHIBIT 3.1


           CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT OF CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION

                                      OF

                         IMTEK OFFICE SOLUTIONS, INC.


It is hereby certified that:

          1. The name of the corporation (hereinafter called the "corporation")
is:

                              IMTEK OFFICE SOLUTIONS, INC.

          2. Article III of the certificate of incorporation of the corporation
is hereby amended to read as follows:


Article III.  The total number of shares of stock which the Corporation shall
have the authority to issue shall be 250,000,000 shares of Common Stock of the
par value of $.000001 per share and 5,000,000 shares of Preferred Stock of the
par value of $.01 per share.

The Preferred Stock may be issued from time to time in series.  All Preferred
Stock shall be of equal rank and identical, except in respect to the particulars
that may be fixed by the board of directors.  The board of directors is
authorized to fix, in the manner and to the full extent provided and permitted
by law, all provisions of the shares of each series of Preferred Stock set forth
below:

1.        The distinctive designation of all series and the number of shares
          that shall constitute those series;

2.        The annual rate of dividends payable on the shares of all series and
          the time, conditions and manner of payment;

3.        The redemption price or prices, if any, for the shares of each, any
          and all series.

4.        The amount payable upon shares of each series in the event of
          voluntary or involuntary liquidation and the relative priority of each
          series in the event of liquidation.

5.        The rights, if any, of the holders of shares of each series to convert
          those shares into Common Stock and the terms and conditions of that
          conversion.
<PAGE>
 
6.  The voting rights, if any, of the holders of shares of each series.

 
          3. The amendment of the certificate of incorporation herein certified
has  been duly adopted and written consent has been given in accordance with the
provisions of Sections 228 and 242 of the General Corporation law of the State
of Delaware.



Signed on January       , 1998
                                               ---------------------------------
                                                  Edwin C. Hirsch, President
#### *A.*Ham Ayer *v.*James Waltrip’s Adm’r, et al.

Pleading — Amendments.

Under § 161, Civil Code, the court is authorized to allow amendments to pleadings, conforming the pleadings to the facts proven, when to do so will not substantially change the claim or defense, but a defendant who has answered and given some proof to sustain it, cannot go on the witness stand and swear to an entirely different state of facts and then expect the court to allow him to amend his answer to conform thereto, especially when he offers no excuse for his failure to rely upon his original answer.

APPEAL FROM McLEAN CIRCUIT COURTi

February 16, 1875.

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay:

Sec. 161, Civil Code of Practice, authorizes the courts to allow amendments in furtherance of justice, by conforming the pleadings to the facts proved, when the amendment does not change substantially the claim or defense. But where, as in this case, a defense has been set up by answer, and the defendant then puts himself upon the witness stand, and swears to facts utterly irreconcilable with his answer, it is an abuse of discretion to allow him to abandon Iris original, and set up a new defense, under the pretext of conforming his pleadings to the proof. And more especially is this so when he offers no reason or excuse for his failure to rely on his original answer, upon the facts to which he deposed as a witness, and which, if true, were known to him when he first answered. Further than this, when the amended answer was permitted to be filed, his pleadings then contradicted each other, and no attempt was made to explain the contradiction. The court had no means of determining which of the two answers was true, and outside of the *454proof might have set one off against the other, and disregarded both. But independent of the pleadings, the weight of the testimony is against the claim asserted by appellee.

*J. C. Jonson, for appellant. Geo. A.*Prentice, *for appellees.*

Bryant’s statement that appellee told him that the conveyance by Waltrip was a contrivance to avoid the payment of the grantor’s debts is uncontradicted, except by appellee himself. All the circumstances proved, tend to show that the conveyance was so intended; and the payment of money, in the presence of Wall, is'calculated to confirm rather than to’ weaken this conclusion. Appellees are unable to tell how1 much money (whether $500 or $600) he paid to Waltrip,' and Wall swears that he was sent for, and was present to see the money paid. After the pretended purchase, the crops raised on the land were divided between the vendor and vendee; and when Waltrip died, not one cent of the amount paid to him in the presence of Wall passed to his administrator, and no account is given of his having in any way appropriated the money during the short time he lived after its pretended payment to him.

Judgment *reversed*and cause remanded, with instructions to subject the land to the payment of appellant’s claim.
#### William E. Greene, plaintiff, *vs.*Nicholas D. Herder, impleaded, &c. defendant.

1. On.an application, under the provisions of the Code, hy a *party,*for the examination of the adverse party as a witness in the action, he must present an affidavit stating, 1st. The nature of the action and the plaintiff’s demand. 2d. If the application be made by the defendant, then the nature of his defense; and, 3d. The name and residence of the proposed witness.

2. Upon that affidavit the party may apply for such an order as is mentioned in section 3 of the statute in relation to the conditional examination of witnesses within this state, (2 *JR. 8.*392,) and also for the summons provided for in section 10 of the same statute.

3. The order so obtained should be served upon the attorneys of all the parties who have appeared, or, if the time for appearance has not yet expired, then upon the adverse parties themselves, who have not appeared; and the summons should also be served upon the proposed witness.

4. In case the proposed witness fails to appear, the party who has procured the order and summons may, upon a proper affidavit, obtain a warrant directing the sheriff to apprehend such witness and bring him before the judge, (2 *JR. 8.*401, § 60;) or, at his option, he may, on a proper affidavit and notice, have an order directing the pleading of the recusant witness to be stricken out. *(Code,*§ 394.)

(Before Babboüb, J. special term, at chambers,

December 15,1865.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

RITA MAURINO

, Appellant,

v.

TERRI HUGHES

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 20

- 677

[ February 25, 2021 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm

Beach County ; Sara h Willis , Judge; L.T. Case No. 2020DR001374

.

Michael D. Gelety, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

No appearance filled for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

M AY

, G ERBER and K UNTZ

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.