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

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 719 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

  1st Session
                                 S. 719

To extend Corridor O of the Appalachian Development Highway System from 
 its current southern terminus at I-68 near Cumberland to Corridor H, 
  which stretches from Weston, West Virginia, to Strasburg, Virginia.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 6, 2005

 Mr. Sarbanes (for himself and Ms. Mikulski) introduced the following 
bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment 
                            and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To extend Corridor O of the Appalachian Development Highway System from 
 its current southern terminus at I-68 near Cumberland to Corridor H, 
  which stretches from Weston, West Virginia, to Strasburg, Virginia.

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

SECTION 1. APPALACHIAN DEVELOPMENT HIGHWAY SYSTEM.

    Section 14501 of title 40, United States Code, is amended by 
striking subsection (a) and inserting the following:
    ``(a) Purpose.--
            ``(1) In general.--The Secretary of Transportation may 
        assist in the construction of an Appalachian development 
        highway system and local access roads serving the Appalachian 
        region to provide a highway system that, in conjunction with 
        the Interstate System and other Federal-aid highways in the 
        Appalachian region, will open an area with developmental 
        potential in which commerce and communication have been 
        inhibited by lack of adequate access.
            ``(2) Limitations.--
                    ``(A) Construction.--Construction on the 
                development highway system described in paragraph (1) 
                shall not be greater than 3,125\1/2\ miles.
                    ``(B) Local access roads.--There shall not be more 
                than 1,400 miles of local access roads that--
                            ``(i) serve--
                                    ``(I) specific recreational, 
                                residential, educational, commercial, 
                                industrial; or
                                    ``(II) similar facilities; or
                            ``(ii) facilitate a school consolidation 
                        program.''.

SEC. 2. DESIGNATION OF ADDITION.

    (a) In General.--There is designated as an addition to Corridor O 
in Maryland and West Virginia on the Appalachian Development Highway 
System a segment from Interstate Route 68 to Corridor H.
    (b) Extension and Development.--The addition to Corridor O shall--
            (1) extend approximately 35\1/2\ miles; and
            (2) be developed as a multilane freeway, with interchanges 
        at appropriate crossroad locations.
                                 <all>
```
#### Smith, Buck & Company *v.*Moody.

1. In the trial of an action upon a promissory note containing the stipulation: “ And should it become necessary to employ an attorney in the collection of this debt, we promise to pay all reasonable attorney’s fees charged therefor,” the plaintiff would be entitled to recover only the actual counsel fees incurred by him under a reasonable contract fixing the amount of the same, or, if he made no contract as to amount, then only what would he a reasonable charge; and it would be incumbent on the plaintiff to pi’ove what was charged him for collection and that it was reasonable, or else that no amount was agreed upon between him and his attorney, and then show what would in fact be a reasonable charge; but as the defendant, without objection, permitted the plaintiff to introduce evidence showing that reasonable fees would range from ten to twenty per cent., it was no cause for new trial that the court charged: “Upon the question of attorney’s fees, you are to look to this note, and then to the evidence, and determine what would be a reasonable sum for attorney’s fees, whether it be ten per cent., fifteen per cent;, or more, upon the amount of the principal and intei'est found to be due upon this note. For such amount as you may find in that way, the plaintiff would be entitled to recover by virtue of the contract as set out in this note.”

*2.*Where interrogatories were executed by a single commissioner (it being inferential from the record that a second commissioner was dispensed with by consent), and it appeared that the envelope in which the interrogatories and the answers thereto were contained was in a badly mutilated condition, being open half its length on each side and at each of the four corners, andnot having the name of the commissioner written across the seal as directed in section 3888 of the code, but there being upon the envelope an entry signed by the postmaster at the office to which it was addressed, in these words, “ Received in bad condition in due course of mail, but can’t say it has been tampered with,” it was error to admit the answers to these interrogatories over the objection of the opposite party, based on the above recited facts, made in due time and in other respects complying fully with the requirements of section 3892 of the code touching exceptions to the execution and return of commissions to take inten’ogatories. Because of the facts stated the answers ought to have been excluded, although the envelope did have upon it an entry signed by the postmaster at the office where it was mailed, certifying that he had received the package from the commissioner, naming him, to be forwarded by due course of mail. The answers being vitally important to the plaintiff’s case, the error in admitting them is cause for a new trial.

*5353. There was no other error requiring the granting of a new trial.

April 30, 1894.

Argued afc the last term.

Action on notes. Before Judge Sweat. Clinch, superior court. October term, 1892.

S. R. Atkinson, S. W. Hitch and S. C. Atkinson, for plaintiff's in error.

E. P. Padsett and J. C. McDonald, *contra.*

*Judgment reversed.*
EXHIBIT 32.a

                       CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

                           18 U.S.C. 1350,

                        AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

             SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Regent Technologies, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2007,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, David A. Nelson, in my capacity as Chief Executive
Officer and Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


Date: August 20, 2007                  /S/ DAVID A. NELSON
                                      -------------------
                                      David A. Nelson, Chief Executive
                                      Officer and Principal Accounting Officer
Exhibit 4.12  


[STOCK CERTIFICATE]  



	[LOGO]
 B&G Foods, Inc.
 INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
	

 	
 	

 
	NUMBER	 	SHARES
	BGF-A	 	 
	

 	
 	

 
	

CLASS A COMMON STOCK

PAR VALUE $.01	
 	

CUSIP 05508R        10        6

SEE REVERSE FOR CERTAIN DEFINITIONS
	

This Certifies that	
 	

 
	

 	
 	

 
	

 	
 	

 
	

 	
 	

 
	is the owner of	 	 
	
fully paid and non-assessable shares of the above Corporation transferable on the books of the Corporation by the holder hereof in person or by duly authorized attorney upon surrender of this
Certificate properly endorsed. This Certificate is not valid unless countersigned and registered by the Transfer Agent and Registrar.

In Witness Whereof, the said Corporation has caused this Certificate to be signed by its duly authorized officers and to be sealed with the Seal of the Corporation.
	

Dated:	
 	

 
	

 	
 	

 
	

/s/ ROBERT CANTWELL

SECRETARY	
 	

/s/ DAVID WENNER

PRESIDENT
	

 	
 	

 
	[CORPORATE SEAL OF B&G FOODS, INC.]





	

 	
 	

 	
 	

 	
 	

 	
 	

 	
 	

 
	

 	
 	

 	
 	

 	
 	

 	
 	

 	
 	

 
	Countersigned and Registered:	 	 	 	 
	THE BANK OF NEW YORK
 (NEW YORK)	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	Transfer Agent

and Registrar	 	 	 	 
	

By	
 	

 	
 	

 	
 	

 	
 	

 	
 	

 
	

 	
 	

 	
 	

 	
 	

 	
 	

 	
 	

 
	

 	
 	

 	
 	

 	
 	

 	
 	

 	
 	

 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	Authorized Signature
##### 



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 the WMS Industries, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Brian R. Gamache, Chief Executive 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:



| | (1) |  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities and 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.

/s/ Brian R. Gamache
Brian R. Gamache
Chief Executive Officer
November 12, 2003

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 the WMS Industries, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Scott D. Schweinfurth, 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:



| | (1) |  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities and 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.

/s/ Scott D. Schweinfurth
Scott D. Schweinfurth
Chief Financial Officer
November 12, 2003
EX-35.3
(logo) Universal Master Servicing



SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

I, Michael Schlaff, hereby certify that I am an officer of Universal Master
Servicing, LLC, (the "Servicer"). I further certify, with respect to the
applicable servicing agreement relating to the securitization transactions(s)
set forth on Exhibit A attached hereto (the "Servicing Agreement") that:

i.  A review of the activities of the Servicer during the preceding calendar
    year and of the performance of the Servicer under the Servicing Agreement
    has been made under my supervision; and

ii. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has
    fulfilled all of its obligations under the Servicing Agreement in all
    material respects throughout such year.


Universal Master Servicing, LLC.

Certified by: /s/ Michael Schlaff

Name: Michael Schlaff

Title: Vice President

Date: March 10, 2008



200 South Tryon Street * Suite 900 * Charlotte, NC 28202
Tel: 704-632-1040 * Fax: 704-632-1041


(page)


Exhibit A


CSAB Mortgage-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-1

CSMC Mortgage-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-3

CSMC Mortgage-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-4

CSMC Mortgage-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-6

CSMC Mortgage-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-7
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, April 27, 2021.

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, April 27, 2021

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A21D0291. TRINA D. HIBBLER v. MATTHEW E. HOSEY.

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:

19a04056 11A06792
Exhibit 32.1


                            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 Annual Report of Skyview Holdings Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2007, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), the undersigned
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of the undersigned's
knowledge, 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 the
Company.


Dated: March 28, 2008                        By: /s/ Donald R. McKelvey
       --------------                            ----------------------
                                                 Donald R. McKelvey, President
                                                 (Principal Executive Officer)


Dated: March 28, 2008                        By: /s/ Donald R. McKelvey
       --------------                            ----------------------
                                                 Donald R. McKelvey
                                                 Principal Financial Officer
#### In re J.J., T-a.J., T-e.J.

Case below: 180 N.C. App. 606

No. 015A07

1. Respondent’s (Mother) PWC to Review Decision of COA (COA05-1510)

2. Respondent’s (Mother) second PWC to Review Decision of COA

1. Allowed 05/03/07

2. Allowed 05/03/07

Hudson, J., Recused
Amendment No. 1 to Loan Documents



 Exhibit 10.2 
  
 Silicon Valley Bank 
  
 Amendment to Loan Documents 
  

			
	 Borrower:
	 	 Essential Group, Inc.
 AmericasDoctor.com
Coordinator Services, Inc.

	 Date:
	 	September 27, 2004

  
 THIS AMENDMENT TO
LOAN DOCUMENTS is entered into between Silicon Valley Bank (“Silicon”) and the borrower named above (“Borrower”). 
  
 The Parties agree to amend the Loan and Security Agreement between them, dated September 27, 2004 (as otherwise amended, if at all, the “Loan
Agreement”), as follows, effective as of the date hereof. (Capitalized terms used but not defined in this Amendment shall have the meanings set forth in the Loan Agreement.) 
  
 1. Modified Minimum Tangible Net Worth Financial Covenant. The Minimum Tangible Net Worth Financial Covenant set
forth in Section 5 of the Schedule to Loan and Security Agreement is hereby modified to read as follows: 
  

			
	 Minimum Tangible
	 	 
	 Net Worth:
	 	Borrower shall maintain a Tangible Net Worth of not less than the following:
	 	 	For the month ending June 30, 2004: <$2,500,000>;
	 	 	For each of the months ending July 31, 2004, August 31, 2004 and September 30, 2004: <$3,250,000>;
	 	 	For each of the months ending October 31, 2004, November 30, 2004 and December 31, 2004: <$4,250,000>; and
	 	 	For each month ending thereafter: <$5,500,000>.

  
 2. Representations
True. Borrower represents and warrants to Silicon that all representations and warranties set forth in the Loan Agreement, as amended hereby, are true and correct (except to the extent that such representations and warranties specifically refer
to an earlier date, in which case they shall be true and correct as of such earlier date). 
  
 3. General Provisions. This Amendment, the Loan Agreement, any prior written amendments to the Loan Agreement signed by Silicon and Borrower, and the other written documents and agreements between Silicon and
Borrower set forth in full all of the representations and agreements of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersede all prior discussions, representations, agreements and understandings between the parties with respect to the
subject hereof. Except as herein expressly amended, all of the terms and provisions of the Loan Agreement, and all other documents and agreements between Silicon and Borrower shall continue in full force and effect and the same are hereby ratified
and confirmed. 
  

 - 1- 








 Silicon Valley Bank Amendment to Loan Agreement 
  

							
	 Borrower:
	 	 Silicon:

		
	 ESSENTIAL GROUP, INC.
	 	 SILICON VALLEY BANK

				
	 By
	 	 /s/ Essential Group, Inc.

	 	 By
	 	 /s/ Silicon Valley Bank


	 	 	 President or Vice President
	 	 Title
	 	  


				
	 By
	 	  

	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 Secretary or Ass’t Secretary
	 	 	 	 


			
	 Borrower:

	
	 AMERICASDOCTOR.COM COORDINATOR
 SERVICES, INC.

		
	 By
	 	 /s/AmericasDoctor.com Coordinator Services, Inc.


	 	 	 President or Vice President

		
	 By
	 	  


	 	 	 Secretary or Ass’t Secretary


  

 -2-
#### DALIAN SHANHAI SEAFOOD CO., LTD., a foreign corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. HONG CHANG CORPORATION, a California corporation, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 08-55088.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 14, 2009.*

Filed April 30, 2009.

John Jingsheng Ma, Esquire, South Pasadena, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Stephen L. Bucklin, Esquire, Sandler Travis Rosenberg Glad & Ferguson, West Hills, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, PREGERSON, Circuit Judge, and MILLS, District Judge.**

*

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

**

 The Honorable Richard Mills, United States District Judge for the Central District of Illinois, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

The district court did not err in rejecting Hong Chang’s argument that the first arbitrator’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction barred the award in favor of Dalian Shanhai following the second arbitration proceeding. Pursuant to Article 6 of the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission Rules, the first arbitrator was entitled to determine its jurisdiction and thus did not reach the merits of the dispute. Hong Chang does not raise any legitimate grounds, pursuant to Article V of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, *see*25 U.S.T. 2517, for refusing to recognize the second arbitrator’s award. Thus, the district court committed no error in confirming the award. *See*9 U.S.C. § 207.

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Augustus R. Eagle, Jr., Appellant.

[963 NYS2d 499]

Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Stephen T. Miller, A.J.), rendered May 15, 2009. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree (Penal Law § 220.06 [1]), defendant contends that his plea was not knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily entered because his statement concerning defense counsel during the plea colloquy created doubt as to the *1454voluntariness of his plea. Defendant’s contention survives his valid waiver of the right to appeal, but he failed to preserve that contention for our review by failing to move to withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction *(see People v Ruffins, 78*AD3d 1627, 1628 [2010]; *People v Davis,*45 AD3d 1357, 1357-1358 [2007], *lv denied*9 NY3d 1005 [2007]). In any event, defendant’s contention lacks merit. Although defendant responded “[n]o” during the plea colloquy when the prosecutor asked if he was satisfied with his attorney’s representation of him, he did not request new counsel, nor did he raise any “ ‘serious complaints’ ” about his attorney *(People v Porto,*16 NY3d 93, 100 [2010]). Indeed, in a plea agreement document signed on the day of the plea, before the prosecutor conducted the plea colloquy, defendant indicated that he was satisfied with the representation provided by his attorney. Under those circumstances, County Court was not required to make any inquiry with respect to defendant’s response to the prosecutor’s question during the plea colloquy *(see id.*at 99-100; *see generally People v Sides,*75 NY2d 822, 824-825 [1990]). Defendant’s contention regarding the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution is encompassed by the valid waiver of the right to appeal and it is unpreserved for our review *(see People v Rios,*93 AD3d 1349, 1349 [2012], *lv denied*19 NY3d 966 [2012]; *People v Williams,*91 AD3d 1299, 1299 [2012]).

Present—Scudder, EJ., Centra, Carni, Sconiers and Martoche, JJ.
<PAGE>
<TABLE>

							   EXHIBIT 12(a)



					  COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF INCOME TO FIXED CHARGES
				       SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO. AND CONSOLIDATED SUBSIDIARIES


<CAPTION>

						  Twelve         Six
						  Months         Months
						  Ended          Ended
						  July 4,        July 4,                         Year Ended
						  1998           1998
(millions, except ratios)                         (unaudited)    (unaudited)     1997      1996      1995      1994     1993
<S>                                                 <C>            <C>            <C>       <C>       <C>       <C>      <C>

Fixed Charges
 Interest and amortization of debt discount/
  premium and expense on all indebtedness         $1,453         $  737         $1,409    $1,365    $1,373    $1,279   $1,318

 Add interest element implicit in rentals            152             79            147       121       119       114      105
						   1,605            816          1,556     1,486     1,492     1,393    1,423
 Interest capitalized                                  4              2              3         5         4         1        3

Total fixed charges                               $1,609         $   818        $1,559    $1,491    $1,496    $1,394   $1,426


Income
 Income from continuing operations                $1,358         $   469        $1,188    $1,271    $1,025    $  857   $  625
 Deduct undistributed net income (loss)
  of unconsolidated companies                         13               3            13         8         9        (7)       6
						   1,345             466         1,175     1,263     1,016       864      619

Add
 Fixed charges (excluding interest capitalized)    1,605             816         1,556     1,486     1,492     1,393    1,423
 Income taxes                                        919             315           912       834       703       614      329
    Income before fixed charges and
     income taxes                                 $3,869          $1,597        $3,643    $3,583    $3,211    $2,871   $2,371

Ratio of income to fixed charges                    2.40            1.95          2.34      2.40      2.15      2.06     1.66

</TABLE>