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

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 48 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 48

To reauthorize appropriations for the New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail 
                     Route, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 24, 2005

 Mr. Lautenberg (for himself and Mr. Corzine) introduced the following 
bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To reauthorize appropriations for the New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail 
                     Route, 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. REAUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR NEW JERSEY COASTAL 
              HERITAGE TRAIL ROUTE.

    (a) Reauthorization.--Section 6 of Public Law 100-515 (16 U.S.C. 
1244 note) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (b)(1), by striking ``$4,000,000'' and 
        all that follows and inserting ``such sums as are necessary''; 
        and
            (2) in subsection (c), by striking ``10'' and inserting 
        ``12''.
    (b) Strategic Plan.--
            (1) In general.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
        enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall 
        prepare a strategic plan for the New Jersey Coastal Heritage 
        Trail Route.
            (2) Contents.--The strategic plan shall describe--
                    (A) opportunities to increase participation by 
                national and local private and public interests in the 
                planning, development, and administration of the New 
                Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route; and
                    (B) organizational options for sustaining the New 
                Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT
32.2
 
 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 BSD Medical Corporation (the “Company”)
on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended May 31, 2009, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Dennis
P. Gauger, Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer) of the Company,
hereby 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 result of operations of the Company.
  
 /s/ Dennis P.
      GaugerDennis
      P. GaugerChief
      Financial Officer(Principal
      Accounting Officer)July
      10, 2009
SERVICER
COMPLIANCE STATEMENT


BSSLT
2007-1


I,
Michael Gathright, an authorized officer of GreenPoint Mortgage Funding, Inc.
(the "Servicer"), certify that:


1.  A review
of the Servicer's activities during the period from and including January 1,
2007 through and including December 31, 2007 (or applicable portion thereof) and
of the Servicer's performance under the applicable servicing agreement has been
made under my supervision.


2.  To the
best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of
its obligations under the applicable servicing agreement in all material
respects throughout such period.


Capitalized
terms used but not defined herein have the meanings ascribed to them in the
Agreement.








Date:  February
29, 2008








/s/
Michael Gathright


Michael
Gathright


Senior
Vice President, Loan Administration
Exhibit 31.1    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302  OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  I, JinJun Qi, certify that:  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Max Nutrition, Inc.  1. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report;  2. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  3. I am the Companys certifying officer and am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Company and have:  a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Company is made known to me, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the Company's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the Company's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.  4. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Company's auditors:  a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Company's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Company's internal control over financial reporting.   Date: February 13, 2008 /s/   JinJun Qi  Name: JinJun Qi  Title: Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
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 CLASSIC COSTUME,
INC.  (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the period ending
December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (“Report”), I, Carl
Oberg, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Accounting/Financial 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 to the best of my
knowledge:





(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 result of operations of the
      Company.










/s/Carl
Oberg


Carl Oberg,
President


Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial/Accounting Officer
MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-11-00604-CR

Andrew GARCIA,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 399th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2010CR9712

Honorable Juanita A. Vasquez-Gardner, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Delivered and Filed: September 21, 2011

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

The trial court imposed sentence in the underlying cause on July 5, 2011. Because 

appellant did not file a motion for new trial, the notice of appeal was due to be filed August 4, 

2011. TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a)(1). A motion for extension of time to file the notice of appeal was 

due on August 23, 2011. TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3. Appellant filed a notice of appeal on August 8, 

2011, but appellant did not file a motion for extension of time. A timely notice of appeal is 

necessary to invoke a court of appeals’ jurisdiction. See Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 
04-11-00604-CR

- 2 -

(Tex. Crim. App. 1996). A late notice of appeal may be considered timely so as to invoke a 

court of appeals’ jurisdiction if (1) it is filed within fifteen days of the last day allowed for filing, 

(2) a motion for extension of time is filed in the court of appeals within fifteen days of the last 

day allowed for filing the notice of appeal, and (3) the court of appeals grants the motion for 

extension of time. See id.

On August 22, 2011, this court ordered appellant to show cause in writing within two 

weeks from the date of our order why the appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 

See id.; see also Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 802 S.W.2d 241 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (outof-time appeal from final felony conviction may be sought by filing a writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure). This court noted that the 

notice of appeal appeared to have been untimely filed, and no motion for extension of time was 

filed. The court also noted a concern regarding the trial court’s certification. See TEX. R. APP. P.

25.2. Appellant’s attorney responded, acknowledging the problem with the trial court’s 

certification, but did not address the jurisdictional issue. Because the record reflects that the 

notice of appeal was untimely filed, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See Olivo, 

918 S.W.2d at 522.

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH
# Continuation of the National Emergency with Respect to the Actions of the Government of Syria

On May 11, 2004, pursuant to his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, 50 U.S.C. 1701-1706, and the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003, Public Law 108-175, the President issued Executive Order 13338, in which he declared a national emergency with respect to the actions of the Government of Syria. To deal with this national emergency, Executive Order 13338 authorized the blocking of property of certain persons and prohibited the exportation or re-exportation of certain goods to Syria. On April 25, 2006, and February 13, 2008, the President issued Executive Order 13399 and Executive Order 13460, respectively, to take additional steps with respect to this national emergency.

The President took these actions to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States constituted by the actions of the Government of Syria in supporting terrorism, maintaining its then-existing occupation of Lebanon, pursuing weapons of mass destruction and missile programs, and undermining U.S. and international efforts with respect to the stabilization and reconstruction of Iraq.

Because the actions and policies of the Government of Syria continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States, the national emergency declared on May 11, 2004, and the measures adopted on that date, on April 25, 2006, in Executive Order 13399, and on February 13, 2008, in Executive Order 13460, to deal with that emergency must continue in effect beyond May 11, 2009. Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act, 50 U.S.C. 1622(d), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency declared with respect to certain actions of the Government of Syria.

                        This notice shall be published in the                         *Federal Register*                         and transmitted to the Congress.                    

[FR Doc. E9-11047

Billing code 3195-W9-P
#### Theresa Flotteron et al., Appellants, v JEL Realty et al., Appellants. Harrison J. Snell, Nonparty Respondent.

[871 NYS2d 706]

In an action, inter alia, to dissolve certain partnerships, the plaintiffs and the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dabiri, J.), dated April 3, 2008, as granted that branch of the motion of the permanent receiver, nonparty Harrison J. Snell, which was to fix the compensation to be paid to him to the extent of awarding him a commission in the sum of $59,230.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Upon application of a receiver, the court may direct the parties who sought that appointment to pay necessary expenses and compensation which exceeds the money in the receiver’s hands upon termination of the receivership *(see generally*CPLR 8004 [b]). Here, after the Supreme Court disbursed the remaining funds in the receiver’s account to the property manager, it discharged the receiver. Under the circumstances presented, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in determining that special circumstances existed warranting a recovery in excess of five percent of the amount collected by the receiver in rents *(see Sun Beam Enters. v Liza Realty Corp.,*210 AD2d 153*678[1994]; *Litho Fund Equities v Alley Spring Apts. Corp.,*94 AD2d 13, 16 [1983]; *see also Commodity Futures Trading Commn. v Korbean Intl. Inv. Corp.,*1998 WL 770516, 1998 US Dist LEXIS 17206 [SD NY 1998]; *Resolution Trust Corp. v Volpe,*912 F Supp 65, 67 [1996]; *American Sav. Bank v Saleski Dev., Inc.,*812 F Supp 28, 32 [1993]; *Federal Home Loan Mtge. Corp. v S.E.A. Yonkers Assoc., 869 F*Supp 187, 188 [1994]). Thus, the court properly fixed the receiver’s compensation “in accordance with the respective services [he] rendered” (CPLR 8004 [b]).

The appellants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Skelos, J.P, Santucci, McCarthy and Dickerson, JJ., concur.
#### Henderson *et al. v.*East Tenn., Va. & Ga. Rwy. Co.

This case falls within the general rule that the first grant of a new trial by the presiding judge will not be reversed.

March 26, 1894.

Argued at the last term.

Complaint for land. Before Judge Henry. Floyd superior court. September term, 1892.

T. W. Alexander and Hooper Alexander, for plaintiffs. McCutchen & Shumate, Hoskinson & Harris and C. N. Featherston, for defendant.

*Judgment affirmed.*
##### 



(BROOKFIELD LOGO)
 NEWS RELEASE
 BROOKFIELD CONSORTIUM RECEIVES UNITHOLDER APPROVAL FOR SUBSEQUENT ACQUISITION TRANSACTION
 For Immediate Release
 TORONTO, November 28, 2005
   Brookfield Properties Corporation, www.brookfieldproperties.com
 BPO Properties Ltd., www.bpoproperties.com




---



##### 



Contact:
 Brookfield Properties and BPO Properties:
    mcoley@brookfieldproperties.com
  Cautionary Statement Regarding Forward Looking Statements
 Note: This press release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of
the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended. The words believe, expect, anticipate, intend, estimate, and other expressions
which are predictions of or indicate future events and trends and which do not relate to historical
matters, identify forward looking statements. Reliance should not be placed on forward-looking
statements because they involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors, which may
cause the actual results, performance or achievements of the companies to differ materially from
anticipated future results, performance or achievement expressed or implied by such forward-looking
statements. Factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those set forward in
the forward-looking statements include general economic conditions, local real estate conditions,
timely re-leasing of occupied square footage upon expiration, interest rates, availability of
equity and debt financing and other risks detailed from time to time in the companies 40-F filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The companies undertakes no obligation to publicly
update or revise any forward looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future
events or otherwise.
#### The Nashville, Chattanooga and Saint Louis Railway Company *et al. v.*Cleghorn & Company.

Section 3272 of the code declaring that an attachment against a nonresident of the State, where the debt sworn to exceeds one hundred dollars, may be made returnable to the superior court of any county, construed in the light of section 3270, seems to mean that such an attachment may be made returnable to the superior court of any county, without respect to whether or not the debtor has effects therein, either in the form of property subject to levy, or of credits subject to garnishment. *Judgment affirmed,.*

March 19, 1894.

Argued at the last *term.*

*414Attachment. Before Judge Janes. Chattooga superior court. March term, 1893.

R. J. & J. McCamy, for plaintiffs in error.

J. M. Bellah, *contra.*

Attachment was sued out in Chattooga county against defendants as non-residents, returnable to Chattooga superior court. Copies of the attachment, together with the affidavit therefor and the bond, were certified as such by the magistrate by whom the attachment was issued, and it was levied by the sheriff of "Whitfield county. At the first term thereafter the defendants moved to dismiss the levy, on the ground that the attachment was void, being returnable to Chattooga superior court, when defendants had no property to attach and none was in fact attached in Chattooga county, nor was there any personal service on either of defendants; and because the attachment should have been made returnable to Whitfield superior court. The motion was overruled, and defendants excepted.
#### In the Matter of Juanita Aikens, Respondent, v Kenneth Mark Nell, Appellant.

Submitted July 27, 2009;

decided October 27, 2009

Reported below, 63 AD3d 1662.

Motion for leave to appeal granted. Motion for poor person relief granted.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Pedro Ivan AGUILAR-QUINONEZ, aka John Doe, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-50387.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 16, 2006.*

Filed Oct. 18, 2006.

Ellyn M. Lindsay, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Criminal Division, Los An-geles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Davina T. Chen, Esq., Federal Public Defender’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: T.G. NELSON, W. FLETCHER, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, appellant’s request for oral argument is denied as moot.

MEMORANDUM **

Pedro Ivan Aguilar-Quinonez appeals from the 77-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being an illegal alien found in the United States after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm, and remand with instructions to correct the judgment.

Aguilar-Quinonez contends that his Fifth Amendment rights were violated by the imposition of a condition of supervised release that requires him to report to a United States probation officer within 72 hours of reentering the United States. This contention is foreclosed by *United States v. Rodriguez-Rodriguez,*441 F.3d 767, 771-73 (9th Cir.2006).

Aguilar-Quinonez also contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) is facially unconstitutional. This argument is foreclosed by *United States v. Velasquez-Reyes,*427 F.3d 1227, 1229 (9th Cir.2005), and *United States v. Weiland,*420 F.3d 1062, 1079 n. 16 (9th Cir.2005).

In accordance with *United States v. Riv-erctr-Sanchez,*222 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir. | 2000), we remand the case to the district court with instructions that it delete from the judgment the reference to § 1326(b)(2). *See United States v. Herrera-Blanco,*232 F.3d 715, 719 (9th Cir. 2000) (remanding sua sponte to delete the reference to § 1326(b)).

AFFIRMED; REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
House Lease Agreement No: Vitup House Lease Agreement 2006-0989  Party A (Lessor): Wang Shubin ID Card No: 220622196506270630 Address: No. 10-1-3-2 (03), Ming Ze Yuan, Dalian City, China  Party B (Lessee): Dalian Vitup Management Holdings Co., Ltd Address: Third floor, No. 108, Nanshan Road, Zhongshan District, Dalian  Whereas  Party A is willing to lease and Party B agrees to rent the house located at No. 108-1, 108-2 Nanshan Road, Zhongshan District, Dalian.  Now therefore, both Party A and Party B have reached an agreement regarding to the abovementioned lease matter with terms and conditions as follows:  1 The house situated at No. 108-1, 108-2 Nanshan Road, Zhongshan District, Dalian and with a floor space of 1230.94 square meters constitutes a three-tier frame-structured building (Hereinafter referred to as the House) and is owned by Party A.  2 Party A agrees to lease 20 square meters the House to Party B for use as an office for business operation. The annual rental is RMB 5800, and each years rental shall be settled by the end of that year. However, subject to a specific circumstance, Party A may collect the next years rental in advance.  3 Both Party A and Party B agree that the lease term is twenty years, commencing from the date of the execution of the House Lease Agreement herein.  4 During the term of this Agreement, the two parties herein agree to adjust the rental of the House once every two years through consultation according to the then-current real estate market situation and business operation conditions of Party B.  5 Upon the execution of this Agreement, the leased House shall be delivered for occupation by Party B, and all taxes, expenses or other relevant charges arising from the lease, occupation and use of the House shall be born by Party B.  6 Both Party A and Party B shall bear the responsibility to observe the terms and conditions set forth above. In case that any party breach the agreement, the other party is entitled to file a civil lawsuit to any court that has jurisdiction for indemnification for economic losses.  7 This Agreement takes effect from the date of signature by the two parties herein. The  Agreement is made in quadruplicate; each party holds one and the others are submitted to relevant government departments for filing and recording purpose. All originals shall have the same legal effect.   IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the two parties have cause this House Lease Agreement to be executed by their respective authorized representatives as of the date hereinblow written.      Party A: Wang Shubin   Signature:      Party B: Dalian Vitup Management Holdings Co., Ltd   Signature:     Date: Aug. 15, 2006
EXHIBIT
32.2





STATEMENT
OF CHIEF ACCOUNTING OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO SECTION 1350 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE








Pursuant
to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, the undersigned, Sam H.
Lindsey, Jr., chief accounting officer of Biofuels Power Corporation (the
“Company”), hereby certifies that:





The
Company’s Form 10-K Annual Report for the year ended December 31, 2008 (the
“Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 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.








/s/ Sam H. Lindsey,
Jr.,


Sam H.
Lindsey, Jr., Chief Accounting Officer


Dated:
April 15,, 2010