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

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 463 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 463

  To deauthorize the project for navigation, Northeast Harbor, Maine.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 18, 2005

   Ms. Snowe introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To deauthorize the project for navigation, Northeast Harbor, Maine.

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

SECTION 1. NORTHEAST HARBOR, MAINE.

    The project for navigation, Northeast Harbor, Maine, authorized by 
section 2 of the Act of March 2, 1945 (59 Stat. 12, chapter 19), is 
deauthorized as of the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
[774 NYS2d 616]

#### Sambr, LLC, Respondent, v Sally P. Brown, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

February 27, 2004

*63APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Sally E Brown,*appellant pro se. *Mitofsky, Shapiro, Neville & Hazen, LLP,*New York City *(Gerald Shapiro*and *Michael D. Simons*of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Final judgment entered November 15, 2002 affirmed, with $10 costs.

We affirm Civil Court’s award of summary judgment granting possession to landlord based upon tenant’s failure to renew the most recent stabilized lease “on the same terms and conditions as the expir[ed 2000-2001] lease” (Rent Stabilization Code [9 NYCRR] § 2523.5 [a]). Tenant’s original lease terminating May 31, 2001 was guaranteed by her brother-in-law and contained a “no waiver” clause (¶ 28). The tenant subsequently executed a one-year renewal lease expiring May 31, 2002, but the guarantor’s signature was left blank. Addressing that omission, landlord promptly returned the lease to tenant for signature by the guarantor, which was never provided.

In February 2002, landlord served tenant with timely notice for a second renewal of the lease, commencing June 1, 2002; landlord continued to include a guaranty of tenant’s obligations. Following the guarantor’s revocation of the guaranty *(see, Levine v Segal,*174 Misc 2d 998 [1997], *affd*256 AD2d 199 [1998]), and landlord’s rejection of tenant’s proposed substitute guarantor based upon its review of the latter’s financial condition, landlord terminated the tenancy and this holdover proceeding ensued.

On this record, it cannot be reasonably argued that the 2002 renewal lease was not “on the same terms and conditions” as the original lease executed in 2000. The Rent Stabilization Code seeks to “afford a measure of protection to both parties by permitting the tenant to renew the lease on its original terms . . . while protecting the landlord against the loss of the contractual rights for which it originally bargained” *(Matter of David v New York City Conciliation & Appeals Bd.,*59 NY2d 714, 716 [1983]). Here, execution of a guaranty was material to the grant of the original lease, and the 2002 renewal lease “did not abridge or diminish rights accorded to the tenant under the [2000] lease, nor did it create new tenancy obligations not expressed in the earlier lease” *(Matthews v Patten,*NYLJ, Apr. 9, 1993, at 21, cols 1-2 [App Term, 1st Dept]).

*64Civil Court correctly found, in view of the “no waiver” clause and other circumstances, that landlord did not waive the requirement that the lease renewal be executed by both tenant and a suitable guarantor *(see, Jefpaul Garage Corp. v Presbyterian Hosp.,*61 NY2d 442, 446 [1984]).

Suarez, EJ., Davis and Schoenfeld, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.2

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION - CFO

In connection with the Annual Report of Plains Exploration & Production Company
(the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Winston M. Talbert, 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:

To the best of
my knowledge, after reasonable investigation:



| | (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.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: February 27, 2007



/s/ Winston M. TalbertWinston M. TalbertChief Financial Officer


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.

A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company
and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Patrick E. McDonald, Appellant.

[972 NYS2d 803]

Appeal from a judgment of the Ontario County Court (William F. Kocher, J.), rendered July 7, 2011. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (four counts).

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

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of four counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.39 [1]). Defendant’s contention that his plea was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered is unpreserved for our review because he did not move to withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction *(see People v Davis,*99 AD3d 1228, 1229 [2012], *lv denied*20 NY3d 1010 [2013]). Defendant’s further contention that County Court erred in refusing to suppress the identification made by a confidential informant from a photo array is also unpreserved for our review *(see People v Cruz,*89 AD3d 1464, 1465 [2011], *lv denied*18 NY3d 993 [2012]), and in any event that contention is without merit.

We reject defendant’s contention that the bargained-for sentence is unduly harsh and severe *(see generally People v Santiago,*1 AD3d 957, 957 [2003], *lv denied*1 NY3d 601 [2004]). Defendant correctly contends, however, that the uniform sentence and commitment sheet fails to specify whether that sentence is to run concurrently with or consecutively to the sentences imposed for crimes charged in a separate superior court information (SCI), to which he also pleaded guilty. The uniform sentence and commitment sheet therefore must be amended in accordance with the court’s directive at sentencing, i.e., to reflect that the sentence pertaining to the SCI is to be served consecutively to the sentence imposed herein *(see People v Jackson,*108 AD3d 1079, 1081 [2013]). Present — Smith, J.P., Fahey, Sconiers, Valentino and Whalen, JJ.
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 24

- 00370

- CV

Zaya Zavala v. 7

- Eleven, Inc. d/b/a Stripes
On Appeal from the 476th District Court of Hidalgo County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. C

- 0065

- 24

- M

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed . The Court orders the appeal DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion . Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appellant. We further order this decision certified below for observance. August 15, 2024
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                             MCAFEE ASSOCIATES, INC.

                Consolidated Subsidiaries at December 31, 1996


1.     Saber Software Corporation
2.     McAfee (UK) Limited
3.     Saber Software GmbH
4.     IPE Corporation, Ltd.
5.     McAfee France, S.A.
6.     McAfee Europe B.V.
7.     McAfee Development Centre GmbH
8.     Vycor Corporation
9.     FSA Corporation
10.    FSA Combination Corporation
11.    FSA Subsidiary Corporation
12.    McAfee Canada Software, Inc.




                                                                              53
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l unani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). E F/ R es ear ch NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON

UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. DA S HO N L AV ARR I C HA R DS ON , D e f

e n d an t - A p p e llan t. N o. 08- 50453 D . C . N o. 2: 08 -c r- 00 32 2-R ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia M anue l L . R e a l , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d J anuary11, 2010 ** B efo re: B E E Z E R , T R O T T , an dB Y B E E , C i rcu i tJu d g es. D a s hon L a varR i c har ds on appe a l s f r om hi s gui l ty - pl e ac onvi c t i on and 168- m o n th s e n te n c e f

o rd is tr ib u tio n o f

c o c a in e b a s e in th e f

o rm o f c r a c kc o c a in e , in 

# FI LED JAN 25 2 010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSE F/ Res ea r ch 08- 50453 2 vi ol a t i on of

21 U . S . C . § 841( a ) ( 1) . P ur s uantt o A n de rs v . Ca lifo rn ia , 386 U . S . 738 ( 1967) , R i c har ds on’ s c ouns e l ha s f i l e d abr i e f

s t a t i ng the r e ar e no gr ounds f or re l i ef , al on g w i th a m ot i on t o w i thd raw as coun se l of re cord. T he appel l anthas f i l e d apr o s e s uppl e m e nt a l br i e f and apr o s e m ot i on t o “ c ons ol i da t e i s s ue s and fa ct s w i thi n h i s m ot i on . ” T he go vernm enthas f i l ed a m ot i on t o sum m ar i l y a ff i rm th e c o n v ic tio n an dd is m is s th e ap p e a l f o rla c ko f

ju r is d ic tio n . O uri nde pe nde ntr e vi e w of the r e c or d pur s uantt o P e n s o n v . O h io , 4 8 8 U . S. 7 5 , 8 0 - 8 1 ( 1 9 8 8 ) , d is c lo s e s n o ar g u ab le g r o u n d s f o rr e lie f o n d ir e c t ap p e a l. T h e g o v ern m en t ’ s m o t i o n i s DE NI E D. Se e U ni te d States v . J

ac obo Ca s tillo , 4 9 6 F . 3 d9 4 7 , 9 5 7 (9 th C i r. 2 0 0 7 ) (en b an c). T h e ap p el l an t ’ s p ro se m ot i on i s a l s o DE NI E D. C o u n sel ’ s m o t i o n t o w i th d raw i s G R A N TED , an dth e d istrict co u rt’s j u d g m en ti s AF F I RME D. H ow ever , w e RE MAND sua s po nt e f or the l i m i t ed p u rp o s e o f

c o rr e c tin g th e ju d g m e n t to r e f le c t th a t th e te rm o f

s up e rv is e dr e le a s e is f iv e y e ar s f

o rC o u n t 4 an dth r e e y e ar s f o rC o u n t 7 , to ru n c o n c u rr e n tly . See 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 8 3 ( b ) ; 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 1 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( B ) - ( C ) .
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Jay Jo-mar Bradshaw, Respondent.

Submitted November 1, 2010;

decided November 17, 2010

Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Lynn WL. Fa-hey, Esq., Appellate Advocates, 2 Rector Street, 10th Floor, New York, NY 10006 assigned as counsel to the respondent on the appeal herein.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

JULIE RENEE PATRICK

, Appellant,

v.

BRENT WOLTMAN

, Appellee.

No. 4D 22

- 2572

[ July 20, 2023 ]

Appeal from the C ircuit Court for the Fift eenth Judicial Circuit, Palm

Beach C ounty; Cheryl A. Caracuzzo

, Judge; L.T. Case No.

502016DR004569

.

Caryn A. Stevens and Eddie Stephens of Stephens & Stevens, PLLC,

West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Grant J. Gisondo of Grant J. Gisondo, P.A., Palm Beach Gardens, for

appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

W ARNER

, D AMOORGIAN and K UNTZ

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
<PAGE>

                                                                    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

I, Randall L. Herrel, Sr., in my capacity as Chairman, President and Chief
Executive Officer of Ashworth, Inc. (the "Registrant"), do hereby certify in
accordance with 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 Quarterly Report of the Registrant, on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended April 30, 2004 (the "Report"), to which this certification is attached as
an exhibit fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section
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
Registrant.

Dated:  June 14, 2004            /s/ Randall L. Herrel, Sr.
                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                 Randall L. Herrel, Sr.,
                                 Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
**Exhibit 15.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement No. 333-185153 on Form F-3 of our report dated April 29, 2014, relating tothe consolidated financial statements of Banco Santander, S.A. (the “Bank”) and Companies composing, together with the Bank, the Santander Group (the “Group”), and our report dated April 29, 2014, relating to theeffectiveness of the Group’s internal control over financial reporting, appearing in the Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Group for the year ended December 31, 2013. 

/s/ DELOITTE, S.L. 

DELOITTE, S.L. 

Madrid, Spain 

April 29, 2014
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-30-1999
<CASH>                                         432,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  786,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     12,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               335,000
<PP&E>                                         835,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                  79,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,410,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,088,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    300,000
<COMMON>                                     9,679,829
<OTHER-SE>                                      39,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,410,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,371,000
<CGS>                                           95,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,253,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (3,000)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                115,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            111,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   111,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.01


</TABLE>
No. 944.

#### Inter-Ocean Casualty Co. *v.*Brockman.

March 9, 1942.

*Mr. Harry Scherr*for petitioner.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 761 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 17, 2005 

Referred to the Committee on Resources 

AN ACT 

To rename the Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area in the State of Idaho as the Morley Nelson 

Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area 

in honor of the late Morley Nelson, an international 

authority on birds of prey, who was instrumental in 

the establishment of this National Conservation Area, 

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 ‘‘Morley Nelson Snake 

5 River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area Act’’. 
2 

S 761 RFH 

1 SEC. 2. RENAMING OF SNAKE RIVER BIRDS OF PREY NA2 TIONAL CONSERVATION AREA. 

3 (a) RENAMING.—Public Law 103–64 is amended— 

4 (1) in section 2(2) (16 U.S.C. 460iii–1(2)), by 

5 inserting ‘‘Morley Nelson’’ before ‘‘Snake River 

6 Birds of Prey National Conservation Area’’; and 

7 (2) in section 3(a)(1) (16 U.S.C. 460iii– 

8 2(a)(1)), by inserting ‘‘Morley Nelson’’ before 

9 ‘‘Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation 

10 Area’’. 

11 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg12 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

13 States to the Snake River Birds of Prey National Con14 servation Area shall be deemed to be a reference to the 

15 Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Con16 servation Area. 

17 (c) TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS.—Public Law 103–64 

18 is further amended— 

19 (1) in section 3(a)(1) (16 U.S.C. 460iii– 

20 2(a)(1)), by striking ‘‘(hereafter referred to as the 

21 ‘conservation area’)’’; and 

22 (2) in section 4 (16 U.S.C. 460iii–3)— 

23 (A) in subsection (a)(2), by striking ‘‘Con24 servation Area’’ and inserting ‘‘conservation 

25 area’’; and 
3 

S 761 RFH 

1 (B) in subsection (d), by striking ‘‘Visitors 

2 Center’’ and inserting ‘‘visitors center’’. 

Passed the Senate November 16, 2005. 

Attest: EMILY J. REYNOLDS, 

Secretary.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

 

 

I, Emanuel N. Hilario, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, inconnection with the Report on Form 10-Q of Angelo and Maxie’s, Inc. for thequarterly period ended September 29, 2003, hereby certify in accordance with 18U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:

 

1)                   Theaccompanying Report of Angelo and Maxie’s, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterlyperiod ended September 29, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934  and

2)                   The informationcontained in such Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of Angelo and Maxie’s, Inc.

 

 
|   | /s/ EMANUEL N. HILARIO                     |   |
|--------|--------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Emanuel N. Hilario                         |
|   | Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
|   | Dated:   November 13, 2003            |

 

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to Angelo and Maxie’s, Inc. and will beretained by Angelo and Maxie’s, Inc. and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

1

----
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
    <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width" />
    <meta name="robots" content="noindex">
    <title>Advisory & Coordinating Committees - NIDDK</title>
    
<meta name="VIcurrentDateTime" content="638490779302677070" />
<meta name="VirtualFolder" content="/" />
<script type="text/javascript" src="/layouts/system/VisitorIdentification.js"></script>

</head>
<body>
    <div></div>
</body>
</html>
EXHIBIT 24.3

                            SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS,  that the  undersigned  constitutes and appoints
Vince  Hren his true and  lawful  attorney-in-fact  and agent with full power of
substitution  and  resubstitution,  for him/her and in his/her name,  place, and
stead, in any and all capacities,  to sign the Annual Report on Form 10K for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 1998, for filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission by Microtest, Inc., a Delaware corporation, together with any and all
amendments to such Form 10K, and to file the same with all exhibits thereto, and
all  documents  in  connection  therewith,  with  the  Securities  and  Exchange
Commission,  granting to such  attorneys-in-fact  and agents,  and each of them,
full  power  and  authority  to do and  perform  each and  every  act and  thing
requisite and  necessary to be done in and about the  premises,  as fully and to
all intents and purposes as he might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and
confirming  all that such  attorneys-in-fact  and agents,  or each of them,  may
lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.


DATED: 3/26/99

                                                  /s/  Steven G. Mihaylo
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                  Steven G. Mihaylo
EXHIBIT 32.2

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION - CFO

In connection with the Annual Report of Plains
Exploration & Production Company (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Winston M.
Talbert, 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:

To the best of my knowledge, after reasonable investigation:



| | (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.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: February 23, 2012



/s/ Winston M. TalbertWinston M. TalbertChief Financial Officer


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.

A signed original of this written statement required
by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the
Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.