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

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2597 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2597

 To suspend temporarily the duty on certain sound isolating earphones 
                         with detachable cable.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 30, 2009

Mrs. Hutchison introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To suspend temporarily the duty on certain sound isolating earphones 
                         with detachable cable.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN SOUND ISOLATING EARPHONES WITH DETACHABLE CABLE.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00      Single-driver       Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                        sound isolating                                                    31/2011.......
                        earphones with
                        skinned (non-
                        porous) slow-
                        recovery foam
                        sleeves,
                        detachable cable
                        and repeatable
                        operating range
                        of 20 Hz to 16
                        kHz (provided for
                        in subheading
                        8518.30.2000)....

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
##### 



Exhibit 32.3

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 Thornburg Mortgage, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Richard P. Story, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

/s/ Richard P. Story

Richard P. Story
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
March 3, 2004
#### Wilson v. Green

Case below: 185 N.C. App.-(21 August 2007)

No. 473P07

Defs’ PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA06-186)

Denied 11/08/07
##### 



Exhibit 99.1

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 Uroplasty, Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-KSB for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Daniel G. Holman,
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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/ DANIEL G. HOLMAN

Daniel G. Holman
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

Dated: May 20, 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 Annual Report of Uroplasty, Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-KSB for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Arie J. Koole,
Controller and Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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/ ARIE J. KOOLE

Arie J. Koole
Controller (Principal Accounting Officer)

Dated:   May 20, 2003

Page 55
#### Gregory A. Beroza, Appellant, v Michele A. Hendler, Respondent.

Submitted September 20, 2010;

decided November 18, 2010

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.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

NOTICE OF REQUEST TO MAKE PAYMENT

ARRANGEMENTS FOR REPORTER’S RECORD

Appellate case name: Eduardo Martinez v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-15-00592-CR

Trial court case number: 1031995

Trial court: 183rd District Court of Harris County

The court reporter, Billy Jalufka, notified the Court that appellant has not made arrangements to 

pay for the record. Our records indicate that the appellant is not appealing as an indigent.

We may consider an appeal without a reporter’s record if no reporter’s record is filed due to 

appellant’s fault. Rule 37.3(c) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure provides:

If No Reporter’s Record Filed Due to Appellant’s Fault. Under the following 

circumstances, and if the clerk’s record has been filed, the appellate court may — after 

first giving the appellant notice and a reasonable opportunity to cure — consider and 

decide those issues or points that do not require a reporter’s record for a decision. The 

court may do this if no reporter’s record has been filed because:

(1) the appellant failed to request a reporter’s record; or

(2) (A) appellant failed to pay or make arrangements to pay the reporter’s fee 

to prepare the reporter’s record; and

(B) the appellant is not entitled to proceed without payment of costs.

TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(c).

The appellant is hereby notified that this appeal may be considered without a reporter’s 

record unless on or before October 27, 2015, the appellant (1) causes the record to be filed in this Court 

by paying for the record, (2) files proof that he has made arrangements to pay the reporter’s fee to 

prepare the reporter’s record or (3) files proof that he is entitled to proceed without payment of costs. 

Clerk signature: _

Date: October 15, 2015
No. 843.

#### Benavides *v.*Texas.

March 2, 1942.

*Mr. M. C. Gonzales*for petitioner. *Messrs. Gerald C. Mann,*Attorney General of Texas, and *Geo. W. Barcus,*Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas denied.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17

- 50478 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff

- Appellee

v. JUAN CARLOS HERNANDEZ

- GAUDILLO, also known as Juan Caudillo, also known as Juan Gonzales

- Hernandez, also known as Juan Trejo, Jr. , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 1:17

- CR

- 71

- 1

Before JONES , DENNIS , and GRAVES , Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Juan Carlos Hernandez

- Gaudillo has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Hernandez

- Gaudillo has filed a
response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair

* 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 Fifth Circuit 

### FILED December 20, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 17-50478 Document: 00514280709 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/20/2017N o. 17

- 50478

2 evaluation of Hernandez

- Gaudillo ’s claim of ine ffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claim without prejudice to collateral review. See United States v. Isgar , 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014 ) ; United States v. Corbett , 742 F.2d 173, 177 (5th Cir. 1984) (per curiam)

. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Hernandez

- Gaudillo ’s response. We concur with

coun sel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R . 42.2. Case: 17-50478 Document: 00514280709 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/20/2017
#### Edwin M. Roens, Appellant, v New York City Transit Authority et al., Respondents.

[609 NYS2d 6]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eugene Nardelli, J.), entered October 13, 1992, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissed plaintiff’s complaint in its entirety, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff purports to state a claim pursuant to Civil Service Law § 75-b based upon his allegations that defendants refused to appoint him to the positions of Medical Director or Assistant Medical Director due, in part, to his dissemination to various governmental bodies and officials of information which he believed proved that the person appointed to the position of Medical Director was not properly certified. He also seeks a name-clearing hearing, alleging that his constitutional rights were violated by defendant’s purportedly malicious publication in the *Chief*— Leader of a statement that petitioner was terminated from his employment due to "unsatisfactory performance”.

For the reason that petitioner seeks only to vindicate his individual interests, his claims are precluded for failure to file a notice of claim pursuant to Public Authorities Law § 1212 *275
      *(Mills v County of Monroe,*59 NY2d 307). Moreover, were we to address plaintiffs claims under Civil Service Law § 75-b on the merits, we would find dismissal appropriate. The evidence submitted by defendants in support of their motion for summary judgment demonstrates an ample basis for defendants’ decision, thus providing a separate and independent basis for the action taken. Nor is there a liberty or property interest asserted in the circumstances which would support a claim under the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution *(see, Paul v Davis*424 US 693, 712). To the extent that plaintiff claims that he is entitled to a name-clearing hearing, publication of the statement that plaintiffs performance was "unsatisfactory” is not of a "stigmatizing nature” such as would give rise to a right for such relief *(Matter of Gray v Director, Bronx Dev. Servs.,*62 NY2d 729, 730). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Asch, Rubin, Williams and Tom, JJ.
September 24, 2004


e-Foodsafety.com, Inc.
1361 Kwana Court
Prescott, AZ 86301


Attention: Mr. Bill Karney and Directors


Due to a family illness and a new career opportunity,  which will demand my full
attention,  along with the need for my family  attention,  I hereby  submit this
notice of resignation as Director of e- FoodSafety.com.

As a result,  this  resignation  leaves  absolutely no tie, either  financially,
operationally,  share  ownership or future  obligations  to the  "Company",  and
relinquishes any and all signing authority from this date forward.

This notice is effective immediately and as dated above.

Sincerely,



/s/
Scott McFee

cc: via email distribution
         Rich Speidell (please distribute to all other directors)
         Mark Tagattz
         Pat Gruden
         Joe Fiori
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ernest Brannon, Appellant.

Submitted July 6, 2010;

decided August 26, 2010

Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Steven Banks, Esq., the Legal Aid Society, 199 Water Street, New York, NY 10038 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Victor Overton, Appellant.

[962 NYS2d 512]

Egan Jr., J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Washington County (McKeighan, J.), rendered February 10, 2011, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of attempted promoting prison contraband in the first degree.

Defendant, a prison inmate, was charged with promoting prison contraband in the first degree after he was found in possession of a sharpened, folded tin can top with a handle made of gauze and tape. Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, defendant pleaded guilty to the reduced charge of attempted promoting prison contraband in the first degree and was sentenced, as a second felony offender, to a prison term of IV2 to 3 years. County Court also imposed the mandatory surcharge, in addition to the DNA databank and crime victim assistance fee, and thereafter denied defendant’s pro se motion to defer payment of the surcharge. This appeal ensued.

We affirm. Initially, to the extent that defendant contends that his plea was involuntary due to County Court’s failure to advise him of the maximum term of imprisonment he faced, the record does not reflect that defendant moved to withdraw his plea or vacate the judgment of conviction. Accordingly, this is*1073sue is unpreserved for our review *(see People v Fields,*79 AD3d 1448, 1449 [2010]; *cf. People v Young,*102 AD3d 1061, 1061 [2013]), “and we decline [defendant’s invitation] to take corrective action in the interest of justice” *(People v Fields,*79 AD3d at 1449 [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]).

Defendant’s related challenge to the imposition of the mandatory surcharge and relevant fees is unpersuasive. “The mandatory surcharge, crime victim assistance fee and DNA databank fee are not components of a defendant’s sentence” *(People v Hoti,*12 NY3d 742, 743 [2009] [citation omitted]). Accordingly, County Court’s failure to pronounce these charges prior to accepting defendant’s plea “did not deprive . . . defendant of the opportunity to knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently choose among alternative courses of action” *(id.*at 743; *see People v Ryan,*83 AD3d 1128, 1130 [2011]).

Finally, defendant’s assertion that County Court erred in summarily denying his request to defer payment of the mandatory surcharge is not properly before us. Defendant’s remaining contentions, to the extent not specifically addressed, have been examined and found to be lacking in merit.

Rose, J.E, Lahtinen and Stein, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
#### Adam Pratt, Respondent, v Gregory Haber, M.D., et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant.

[963 NYS2d 32]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan B. Lobis, J.), entered on or about February 6, 2012, which, in this medical malpractice action, denied defendants-appellants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing all claims against defendant Lenox Hill Hospital, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment dismissing all claims against Lenox Hill.

Defendants made a prima facie showing that defendant Gregory Haber, M.D., was not an employee or agent of Lenox Hill and that Lenox Hill was therefore not liable for Dr. Haber’s alleged malpractice *(see Hill v St. Clare’s Hosp.,*67 NY2d 72, 79 [1986]).

In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. There is no evidence that Dr. Haber was an employee of Lenox Hill. Dr. Haber’s affiliation with Lenox Hill is insufficient to hold the hospital liable for the doctor’s alleged malpractice *(see Ruane v Niagara Falls Mem. Med. Ctr.,*60 NY2d 908, 909 [1983]). Further, plaintiff failed to provide evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact concerning whether Dr. Haber was acting on behalf of the hospital, or whether plaintiff reasonably believed that Dr. Haber was acting at the hospital’s behest *(see Sarivola v Brookdale Hosp. & Med. Ctr.,*204 AD2d 245, 245-246 [1st Dept 1994], *lv denied*85 NY2d 805 [1995]). Plaintiff testified that his private physician referred him to Dr. Haber based on Dr. Haber’s expertise and “pioneering” cure for acid reflux disease. Accordingly, plaintiff’s testimony demonstrates that plaintiff specifically sought Dr. Haber’s services and did not seek treatment from the hospital directly *(see Sarivola,*204 AD2d at 246). Plaintiffs citation to a television “blurb” about Dr. Haber and the procedure, which he saw before he consulted Dr. Haber, is insufficient to raise an issue as to whether Dr. Haber was the hospital’s agent. In order to impose liability on the hospital under a theory of apparent agency, there must be words or conduct by the hospital that give rise to the appearance and belief that the doctor possesses authority to act on behalf of the hospital *(see Sullivan v Sirop,*74 AD3d 1326, 1328 [2d Dept 2010]). Here, plaintiff did not provide evidence that the television broadcast contained statements by the hospital concerning Dr. Haber, or that the hospital had any role in the preparation of the broadcast.

Concur—Friedman, J.E, Sweeny, Renwick, Richter and Román, JJ.
##### 



Exhibit 31.1
 PURSUANT TO RULES 13a-14 AND 15d-14 OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF
1934 AND SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Laurel Capital Group, Inc. (the
Registrant);
 2.
    
    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 report;
 3.
    
    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 Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;
 4.
    
    The Registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and have:
 a.
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is
made known to us by others within those entities, 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; andc.
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the Registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the Registrants most recent fiscal quarter
(the Registrant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;
 5.
    
    The Registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrants auditors and the
audit committee of Registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
 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 Registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; andb.
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the Registrants internal controls over financial
reporting.
  /s/ Edwin R. MausEdwin R. Maus
President and Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>  1
  
            [LETTERHEAD OF SEMPLE & COOPER, P.L.C.]
  
  
    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
  
  
  As independent certified public accountants, we hereby consent to the
  inclusion of our report dated May 2, 1997, on the financial statements
  of Reconditioned Systems, Inc. for the year ended March 31, 1997, in the
  Company s Form 10-KSB for the year then ended.
  
  /s/ Semple & Cooper, P.L.C.
  
  Phoenix, Arizona
  June 23, 1997
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2539 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 1,3,6-Naphthalenetrisulfonic 

acid, 7-[[2-[(aminocarbonyl)amino]-4-[[4-[4-[2-[[4-[[3-[(aminocarbonyl)amino]-4-[(3,6,8-trisulfo-2-naphthalenyl)azo]phenyl]amino]-6-chloro1,3,5-triazin-2-yl]amino]ethyl]-1-piperazinyl]-chloro-1,3,5-triazin-2- 

yl]amino]phenyl]azo]-, lithium potassium sodium salt)-. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 30, 2009 

Mr. BURR introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to 

the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 1,3,6- 

Naphthalenetrisulfonic acid, 7-[[2-[(aminocarbonyl)amino]-4-[[4-[4-[2-[[4-[[3-[(aminocarbonyl)amino]-4- 

[(3,6,8-trisulfo-2-naphthalenyl)azo]phenyl]amino]-6- 

chloro-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl]amino]ethyl]-1-piperazinyl]- 

chloro-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl]amino]phenyl]azo]-, lithium potassium sodium salt)-. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2539 IS

1 SECTION 1. 1,3,6-NAPHTHALENETRISULFONIC ACID, 7-[[2- 

2 [(AMINOCARBONYL)AMINO]-4-[[4-[4-[2-[[4-[[3- 

3 [(AMINOCARBONYL)AMINO]-4-[(3,6,8- 

4 TRISULFO-2- 

5 NAPHTHALENYL)AZO]PHENYL]AMINO]-6- 

6 CHLORO-1,3,5-TRIAZIN-2-YL]AMINO]ETHYL]-1- 

7 PIPERAZINYL]-CHLORO-1,3,5-TRIAZIN-2- 

8 YL]AMINO]PHENYL]AZO]-, LITHIUM POTAS9 SIUM SODIUM SALT)-. 

10 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.25.01 of the Har11 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

12 1,3,6-Naphthalenetrisulfonic acid, 7-[[2- 

13 [(aminocarbonyl)amino]-4-[[4-[4-[2-[[4-[[3- 

14 [(aminocarbonyl)amino]-4-[(3,6,8-trisulfo-2- 

15 naphthalenyl)azo]phenyl]amino]-6-chloro-1,3,5-triazin-2- 

16 yl]amino]ethyl]-1-piperazinyl]-chloro-1,3,5-triazin-2- 

17 yl]amino]phenyl]azo]-, lithium potassium sodium salt)-) is 

18 amended by striking ‘‘12/31/2009’’ and inserting ‘‘12/31/ 

19 2011’’. 

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

21 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

22 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

23 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS