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

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 634 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 634

To amend the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 
     to clarify allowable payment terms for sales of agricultural 
                   commodities and products to Cuba.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 16, 2005

 Mr. Chambliss introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
             referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 
     to clarify allowable payment terms for sales of agricultural 
                   commodities and products to Cuba.

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

SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION OF PAYMENT TERMS FOR SALES OF AGRICULTURAL 
              COMMODITIES AND PRODUCTS TO CUBA.

    Section 908(b)(1)(A) of the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export 
Enhancement Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 7207(b)(1)(A)) is amended by 
inserting before the period at the end the following: ``, which in this 
subsection means the payment by the purchaser of an agricultural 
commodity or product and the receipt of the payment by the seller prior 
to--
                            ``(i) the transfer of title of the 
                        commodity or product to the purchaser; and
                            ``(ii) the release of control of the 
                        commodity or product to the purchaser.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### L.M.V., Appellant, v Cazenovia College, Respondent, et al., Defendant.

[872 NYS2d 88]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (John A. Barone, J.), entered October 23, 2007, which granted defendant Cazenovia’s motion for a change of venue, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff, a student at Cazenovia College, was purportedly raped by another student. She commenced this action against the other student and the school, alleging, in part, the latter’s negligence with regard to its security measures. Cazenovia successfully moved to change venue to Madison County, where the school is located.

The motion was brought in a reasonably timely fashion (CPLR 511 [a]; *see also Gissen v Boy Scouts of Am.,*26 AD3d 289 [2006]). Any delay was due to a dispute Cazenovia was having with its insurance carrier over coverage, and the motion was made shortly after new counsel was substituted. Moreover, discovery was far from complete, and there is no indication of any prejudice to plaintiff. Cazenovia is entitled to a discretionary change in venue under CPLR 510 (3), having demonstrated the convenience of Madison County to certain identified witnesses whose testimony will be material to the case (see *Williamsburg Steel Prods. Co. v Shevlin-Manning, Inc.,*90 AD2d 550 [1982]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Friedman, Acosta and DeGrasse, JJ.
Exhibit
23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC
ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by
reference in Registration Statement No. 333-90890 on Form S-3,
Registration Statement No. 333-112628 on Form S-8, and Registration
Statement No. 333-49387 on Form S-8, of our reports dated
December  14,  2006, relating to the consolidated financial
statements and financial statement schedules of Allied Healthcare
International Inc. and management’s report on the effectiveness
of internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual
Report on  Form 10-K of Allied Healthcare International Inc. for
the year ended September  30,
2006.

/s/ Eisner LLP

New
York, New YorkDecember  14,
2006

---
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 42

To amend title 10, United States Code, to increase the death gratuity payable 

with respect to deceased members of the Armed Forces, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 24, 2005

Mr. ALLEN (for himself, Mr. NELSON of Florida, Mr. DEWINE, Mr. NELSON

of Nebraska, Mrs. DOLE, Ms. MURKOWSKI, and Mr. VITTER) introduced 

the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee 

on Armed Services 

A BILL

To amend title 10, United States Code, to increase the 

death gratuity payable with respect to deceased members 

of the Armed Forces, 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. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Honoring Our Fallen 

5 Soldiers and Families Act of 2005’’. 
2

•S 42 IS 

1 SEC. 2. INCREASE IN DEATH GRATUITY PAYABLE WITH RE2 SPECT TO DECEASED MEMBERS OF THE 

3 ARMED FORCES. 

4 (a) AMOUNT OF DEATH GRATUITY.—Section 

5 1478(a) of title 10, United States Code, is amended by 

6 striking ‘‘$12,000’’ in the first sentence and inserting 

7 ‘‘$100,000’’. 

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

9 subsection (a) shall take effect as of October 1, 2001, and 

10 shall apply with respect to deaths occurring on or after 

11 that date.

Æ
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 13, 2015

No. 04-15-00652-CR

Antonine D. HENDERSON,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015CR5195W

Honorable Mary D. Roman, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Antonine D. Henderson entered into a plea bargain with the State, pursuant to which he 

pleaded nolo contendere to unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. The trial court imposed 

sentence and signed a certificate stating this “is a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has NO 

right of appeal.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). Henderson timely filed a notice of appeal. The 

clerk’s record, which includes the trial court’s rule 25.2(a)(2) certification and a written plea 

bargain agreement, has been filed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d). This court must dismiss an appeal 

“if a certification that shows the defendant has the right of appeal has not been made part of the 

record.” Id.

Henderson is hereby given notice that this appeal will be dismissed pursuant to rule 

25.2(d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure unless an amended certification showing he 

has the right to appeal is made part of the appellate record by December 4, 2015. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 25.2(d); Daniels v. State, 110 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, order), disp. 

on merits, No. 04-03-00176-CR, 2003 WL 21508347 (July 2, 2003, pet. ref’d) (not designated 

for publication).

We order all appellate deadlines suspended until further order of the court. We further 

order the clerk of this court to serve copies of this order on the attorneys of record.
_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 13th day of November, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Mustafa Hadiouche, Appellant.

[870 NYS2d 788]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles J. Tejada, J.), rendered on or about March 8, 2007, unanimously affirmed.

Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see Anders v California,*386 US 738 [1967]; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833 [1976]). We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous points which could be raised on this appeal.

Pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law § 460.20, defendant may apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals by making application to the Chief Judge of that Court and by submitting such application to the Clerk of that Court or to a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of this Department on reasonable notice to the respondent within 30 days after service of a copy of this order.

Denial of the application for permission to appeal by the judge or justice first applied to is final and no new application may thereafter be made to any other judge or justice. Concur—Tom, J.E, Andrias, Nardelli, Catterson and Moskowitz, JJ.
`[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 592 Reported in Senate (RS)]







                                                       Calendar No. 268
109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 592

                          [Report No. 109-167]

To extend the contract for the Glendo Unit of the Missouri River Basin 
                    Project in the State of Wyoming.


_______________________________________________________________________


                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 10, 2005

    Mr. Thomas (for himself, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Enzi, and Mr. Nelson of 
   Nebraska) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

                            October 27, 2005

  Reported by Mr. Domenici, without amendment and an amendment to the 
                                 title

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL


 
To extend the contract for the Glendo Unit of the Missouri River Basin 
                    Project in the State of Wyoming.

    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 ``Glendo Unit of the Missouri River 
Basin Project Contract Extension Act of 2005''.

SEC. 2. GLENDO UNIT OF THE MISSOURI RIVER BASIN CONTRACT EXTENSION.

    Section 2 of the Irrigation Project Contract Extension Act of 1998 
(112 Stat. 2816, 117 Stat. 1854) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``December 31, 2005'' 
        and inserting ``December 31, 2007''; and
            (2) in subsection (b)--
                    (A) by striking ``beyond December 31, 2005'' and 
                inserting ``beyond December 31, 2007''; and
                    (B) by striking ``before December 31, 2005'' and 
                inserting ``before December 31, 2007''.
            Amend the title so as to read: ``To amend the Irrigation 
        Project Contract Extension Act of 1998 to extend certain 
        contracts between the Bureau of Reclamation and certain 
        irrigation water contractors in the States of Wyoming and 
        Nebraska.''.
                                                       Calendar No. 268

109th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                 S. 592

                          [Report No. 109-167]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

To extend the contract for the Glendo Unit of the Missouri River Basin 
                    Project in the State of Wyoming.

_______________________________________________________________________

                            October 27, 2005

        Reported without amendment and an amendment to the title`
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 6D2024-0304

Lower Tribunal No. 2022-DP-448

_____________________________

In the Interest of A.S. and K.K., children.

S.S.,

Appellant, 

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES,

Appellee.

_____________________________

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County.

Greg A. Tynan, Judge.

July 23, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

NARDELLA, WHITE and GANNAM, JJ., concur.

David J. Joffe, of Joffe Law, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for Appellee.

Kelley Schaeffer, Appellate Counsel, of Children’s Legal Services, Bradenton, for 

Appellant.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING 

AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED
#### Sigurd A. Sorenson, Appellant, v 257/117 Realty, LLC, et al., Respondents.

Submitted November 16, 2009;

decided January 19, 2010

Reported below, 62 AD3d 618.

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
#### Hayes *v.*The Mayor and Town Council of Lithonia.

Where one of the errors assigned in a petition for *certiorari*is that the judgment complained of was without any evidence to support it and contrary to the evidence, the petition should set forth the substance of all the evidence that was introduced; and a statement *553in the petition that a number of witnesses were introduced to prove the commission of the offence but none of them would so testify, without setting out what they did testify, is insufficient. For this reason the judge did not err in refusing to sanction the petition for *certiorari*in the present case. *Judgment affirmed.*

June 11, 1894.

Argued at the last term.

Petition for *certiorari.*Before Judge Richard EL Clark. DeKalb county. July 19, 1893.

J. N. Glenn, for plaintiff in error.

According to the petition, Hayes was arrested and tried before the mayor of Lithonia upon the charge of violating an ordinance of that town by keeping spirituous liquors for sale. It sets forth a copy of the ordinance, and states that the testimony on the part of the town was by the marshals thereof, who said they found some jugs of corn whisky in petitioner’s possession, which they seized and brought into court, two of which were full, the other was not; and that when arrested petitioner denied having sold any liquor or having it for sale. The petition then sets forth the statement recited substantially in the head-note; and then the assignments of error, alleging that the mayor and council had no charter power to adopt or enforce the ordinance; that the sentence was a nullity; and that the mayor’s finding was without any evidence to support it, and contrary to the evidence, to law, justice and right. The judge declined to sanction the petition.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                  CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

                        Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as created by Section
            906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of
            World Waste Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") hereby certifies
            that, based on his knowledge:

            (i) the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2005 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended; and

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

Date: July 6, 2006                            /s/ John Pimentel
                                              -----------------
                                              Name:  John Pimentel
                                              Title:  Chief Executive Officer
Letter Agreement dated Oct 1,2004



 Exhibit 4.12 
  
 IACT Asia Pacific Limited 
 c/o IAC/InterActiveCorp

 152 West 57th Street

 42nd Floor

 New York, New York 10019 
  
  
 October 1, 2004 
  
 eLong, Inc. 
 Block B, XingKe Plaza 
 10 Jiuxianqiao Zhonglu 
 Chaoyang District, Beijing 100016 
 People’s Republic of China 
 Telecopy No.: (8610) 64386830 
 Attention: Chief Executive Officer 
  
 With a copy to: 
  
 Goulston & Storrs, A Professional Corporation

 400 Atlantic Avenue 
 Boston, MA 02110 
 Telecopy No.: (617) 574-4112 
 Attention: Timothy B. Bancroft, Esq. 
  
 Dear Mr. Tang: 
  

Reference is hereby made to Sections 8.1 and 10.9 of the Investors Agreement, dated as of July 23, 2004 (the “Investors Agreement”), among
eLong, Inc. (the “Company”), IACT Asia Pacific Limited (“IAC”) and the other shareholders of the Company named therein. Capitalized terms used in this letter agreement (the “Letter Agreement”) and
not defined in this Letter Agreement shall have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the Investors Agreement. 
  
 Pursuant to Sections 8.1 and 10.9 of the Investors Agreement, the undersigned hereby notifies the Company that it consents to the Stock Option Issuances.
“Stock Option Issuances” means the issuance by the Company to (i) Richard Chen of options to purchase 150,000 Ordinary Shares pursuant to the stock option agreement attached hereto as Exhibit A, (ii) Frank Zheng of options to
purchase 100,000 Ordinary Shares pursuant to the stock option agreement attached hereto as Exhibit B and (iii) IAC of options to purchase 260,204 Ordinary Shares pursuant to the stock option agreement attached hereto as Exhibit C (the “IAC
Stock Option Agreement”), in the case of each of (i), (ii), and (iii), to be issued simultaneously with the execution and delivery of this Letter Agreement. 
  
 Reference is also hereby made to the Warrant Agreement, by and between the Company and IAC, dated as of August 4, 2004 (the
“Warrant Agreement”). Each of the Company and IAC hereby agree that for all purposes under the Warrant Agreement, the term “Option” shall mean, collectively, (a) the option to purchase 711,429 Ordinary Shares
pursuant to the Stock Option 

  









 
Agreement, by and between the Company and IAC, dated August 4, 2004 and (b) the option to purchase 260,204 Ordinary Shares pursuant to the IAC Stock Option Agreement.

  
 This Letter Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts, each
of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. 
  
 [REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] 
  









 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the Company and IAC have executed and delivered this Letter Agreement as of the day and
year first written above. 
  

			
	IACT Asia Pacific Limited
		
	 By:
	 	 
	Name:
	Title:


  
 ACCEPTED AND AGREED: 
  
 eLong, Inc. 
  

			
		
	 By:
	 	 
	Name:
	Title:
----

**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONS      OF**

**CHIEF      EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANT      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|   | By:         | /s/ ARTHUR                    D. LEVINSON                                     |   |
|--------|-------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Name:Title: | Arthur                  D. Levinson, Ph.D.Chief                  Executive Officer |   |
|   | Date:       | November                  2, 2007                                                  |   |

|   | By:               | /s/ DAVID                        A. EBERSMAN                                                                                                     |   |
|--------|-------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Name:Title:  | David                      A. EbersmanExecutive                      Vice President and   Chief                      Financial Officer |   |
|   | Date:             | November                      2, 2007                                                                                                                 |   |

----
1 Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

____________________

No. 00-60327 Summary Calendar

____________________

TRACEY HOLLINS, L.T., a minor by and through Tracey Hollins, as next friend; ONITA HOLLINS, L.T., a minor by and through

Onita Hollins, as next friends,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

CITY OF JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI; ET AL.,

Defendants,

CITY OF JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI; WESTWOOD L.P.,

Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:98-CV-562-WS

--------------------

December 19, 2000

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 1

The plaintiffs-appellants appeal the district court’s summary

judgment in favor of the City of Jackson and Westwood, L.P. After

examination of the records and briefs, we have determined that

there was no genuine issue of material fact and that the2

defendants’ motions for summary judgment were properly granted.

The City of Jackson is not liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for

the misconduct of its employee, Kerry Collins. S ee Gros v. City of

Grand Prairie

, 181 F.3d 613, 615 (5 th Cir. 1999). The Mississippi

Tort Claims Act shields the City of Jackson from liability for the

plaintiffs’ state-tort claims. S ee Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-

5(1)(Supp. 20 00). Westwood L.P. did not breach a duty to the

plaintiff under Mississippi law dealing with premises liability.

See Whitehead v. Food Max of Mississippi, Inc. , 163 F.3d 265, 271

(5 th Cir . 1998). Nor is Westwood L.P. vicariously liable for

Collins’s conduct. S ee Tichenor v. Roman Catholic Church of New

Orleans

, 32 F.3d 953, 959 (5 th Cir. 1994)

. Finally, Westwood L.P.

cannot be held liable under 42 U.S. C. § 1983. S ee Wong v.

Stripling

, 881 F.2d 200, 202 (5 th Cir. 1989); Williams v. Luna

, 909

F.2d 121, 123 (5th C ir. 1990). The district court’s grant of

summary judgment is AFFIRMED.
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-14-00241-CV

RICARDO MARTINEZ, M.D. AND ALBERTO PENA, M.D.

v.

MARIA GONZALES, ET AL.

On Appeal from the

206th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas

Trial Cause No. C-2797-12-D

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED. Costs of the appeal are adjudged 

against appellants.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

September 17, 2015