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

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3400 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3400

     To ban the sale, manufacture, distribution, and use in public 
   facilities of drop-side cribs in the United States, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 24, 2010

Mrs. Gillibrand introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
   referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To ban the sale, manufacture, distribution, and use in public 
   facilities of drop-side cribs in the United States, 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. BAN ON DROP-SIDE CRIBS.

    (a) Drop-Side Crib Defined.--In this section, the term ``drop-side 
crib'' means any infant crib that has at least 1 side that moves up and 
down. Such term does not include a drop-gate crib or any other crib 
that has immovable sides with a portion of 1 side capable of being 
folded down.
    (b) Ban.--Beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, every 
covered product shall be treated as a banned hazardous product pursuant 
to a rule promulgated under section 8 of the Consumer Product Safety 
Act (15 U.S.C. 2057).
    (c) Covered Product.--For purposes of this section, a covered 
product is any drop-side crib that is sold, offered for sale, 
manufactured for sale, distributed in commerce, used in public 
facilities such as hotels or day care centers, or imported into the 
United States on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
No, 4927.

(Court of Appeal, Parish of Orleans.)

#### B. M. EISERLOH vs. DENNIS SHEEN.

Bernard Bruenn for plaintiff and appellant.

Denegre & Blair for defendant and appellee.

DUFOUR, J.

The plaintiff sued defendant for damages resulting from an injury by the latter’s driver to the former’s mule; defendant’s liability is not seriously disputed and is established by the evidence.

The sole question is as to the quantum of damages.

Plaintiffs original claim: was for the alleged value of the mule, $280; for the loss of its use for thirty days, at $3 per day, $90, and for veterinary’s fee, $2.

The mule was twelve years old and testified to as not worth more than $125, by defendant who had been handling them for forty years.

The District Judge evidently did not accept plaintiff’s theory that mules, like wine, improve with age, and for both items originally sued for, awarded $210.

Sheen, after the accident, took the injured mule to his stables and cared for him; he then notified plaintiff to take his mule back, on June 4,1907. He charges $124 for feeding the animal from the date of that notice until .March, 1908, at which time Sheen found an opportunity of returning to Eiserloh’s stable the mule he had declined to take back after tender.

Sheen’s conduct was proper, and was meant to minimize the damage; the allowance of his claim was correct.

By supplemental petition, Eiserloh claims fifty cents *270a day for care and feed of the mule from the date of its return to his stables; this is based on the theory that he abandoned the animal.

March 7, 1910.

Rehearing refused March 21, 1910.

A claim of this nature is unwarranted on its face; when a party has received the value of his injured animal and the loss resulting from being deprived of its use for a reasonable time and during treatment, full compensation has been made.

He cannot, on the theory that his so-called abandonment has worked a transfer of ownership, keep an animal for two years as that of another, and pile up for payment by the other a bill of costs far exceeding the original value of the animal.

Common sense and common justice repudiates such a suggestion.

The judgment does substantial justice.

Judgment affirmed.
# WRITTEN STATEMENT OF
THE VICE PRESIDENT, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER,SECRETARY AND
TREASURERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SS.1350

Solely
for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, I, the undersigned Vice President,
Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer of Badger Paper Mills, Inc. (the
Company), hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that the Annual Report on
Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2004 (the Report)
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly represents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|                                | 
|------------------------------- | 
|/s/  Paul M. Bouthilet          | 
|Paul M. BouthiletMarch 31, 2005 |
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CARLOS ALFREDO SILVA,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-74138

Agency No. A090-145-172

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 8, 2013** 

Pasadena, California

Before: NOONAN, WARDLAW, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

Carlos Alfredo Silva petitions for review of the BIA’s decision affirming the

IJ’s determination that he was removable and not eligible for cancellation of

removal. 

FILED

MAY 24 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
-2-

Silva argues that the Government failed to prove removability based on his

marijuana conviction. Even if he is correct, the BIA also found him removable

based on his cocaine conviction. Silva does not challenge this second ground and

is, therefore, removable. See Haile v. Holder, 658 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2011)

(denying petition when alien failed to address BIA’s alternative grounds for its

decision).

Even if Silva’s argument that he is entitled to cancellation of removal is not

waived, Silva is unable to meet his burden of demonstrating that he is eligible,

because, even if he is correct that his criminal record check was inconclusive, “an

inconclusive record of conviction does not demonstrate eligibility for cancellation

of removal,” and “is insufficient to satisfy the alien's burden of proof.” Young v.

Holder, 697 F.3d 976, 989 (2012) (en banc).

PETITION DENIED.
Exhibit 10.3
JOINDER AGREEMENT
April 27, 2022
By executing this joinder, the undersigned hereby agrees, as of the date first set forth above, that the undersigned shall become a party to that certain Letter Agreement, dated March 3, 2021 (as may be amended or restated from time to time), by and among Atlantic Coastal Acquisition Corp. (the “Company”), Atlantic Coastal Acquisition Management LLC, and the executive officers and directors of the Company.
[Signature Page Follows]
​



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Joinder Agreement to be signed as of the day and year first above written.
​
​
	​


	​



	​
	/s/ Jason Chryssicas

	​
	Jason Chryssicas



​
​
	​


	​


	​



	ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED:
	​

	​
	​

	​
	​

	ATLANTIC COASTAL ACQUISITION
	​

	CORP.
	​

	​
	​

	​
	​

	By: 
	/s/ Shahraab Ahmad
	​

	​
	Name: Shahraab Ahmad
	​

	​
	Title: Chief Executive Officer
	​



​
​
[Signature Page to Joinder Agreement]
Exhibit 31.2
                                  CERTIFICATION


I, Darren J. Cioffi, certify that:

      1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of 110 Media
Group, Inc.;

      2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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;

      3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respect the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report.

      4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I am responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

            a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, is made known to us by others
within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly
report is being prepared;

            b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of
this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

            c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation
as of the Evaluation Date;

      5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation, 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 in the design or operation of
internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

            b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
controls; and

      6. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal
controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

November 22, 2004


/s/ Darren J. Cioffi
------------------------------
Darren J. Cioffi
Chief Financial Officer
#### Marguerite James, Appellant, v David Wormuth, M.D., et al., Respondents.

Submitted October 15, 2012;

decided November 20, 2012

Motion to dismiss appeal denied.
LUCKYCOM INC.


4790 Caughlin Parkway STE 387,


RENO,Nevada 89SI9,USA


 


 


June 3rd, 2013


 


BHP Capital Markets Hong Kong Ltd.


Level 8, Two Exchange Square, 8 Connaught Place


Central Hong Kong


 


RE: Custodian Agreement


 


To Whom It May Concern:


 


Pursuant to Section 4 of the Custodian Agreement, Luckycom hereby
gives its one month notice to terminate the Agreement for your firm custodian service.


 


Sincerely yours,


 


For LUCKYCOM INC.


 


 


/s/ Kingrich Lee


Kingrich Lee
Exhibit 32.1
 Certifications Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  1)
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  /s/ Allen D. TilleyAllen D. TilleyChief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)/s/ Paul M. ZaidinsPaul M. ZaidinsPresident, Chief Financial Officer and 
Chief Operating Officer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3128 

To amend the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act to ensure 

the categorical eligibility of foster children for free school lunches and 

breakfasts. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 16, 2010 

Mrs. GILLIBRAND introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry 

A BILL 

To amend the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch 

Act to ensure the categorical eligibility of foster children 

for free school lunches and breakfasts. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CATEGORICAL ELIGIBILITY OF FOSTER CHIL4 DREN. 

5 (a) DISCRETIONARY CERTIFICATION.—Section 

6 9(b)(5) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch 

7 Act (42 U.S.C. 1758(b)(5)) is amended— 

8 (1) in subparagraph (C), by striking ‘‘or’’ at 

9 the end; 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3128 IS

1 (2) in subparagraph (D), by striking the period 

2 at the end and inserting ‘‘; or’’; and 

3 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

4 ‘‘(E)(i) a foster child whose care and 

5 placement is the responsibility of an agency 

6 that administers a State plan under part B or 

7 E of title IV of the Social Security Act (42 

8 U.S.C. 621 et seq.); or 

9 ‘‘(ii) a foster child who a court has placed 

10 with a caretaker household.’’. 

11 (b) CATEGORICAL ELIGIBILITY.—Section 

12 9(b)(12)(A) of the Richard B. Russell National School 

13 Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1758(b)(12)(A)) is amended— 

14 (1) in clause (iv), by adding ‘‘)’’ before the 

15 semicolon at the end; 

16 (2) in clause (v), by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end; 

17 (3) in clause (vi), by striking the period at the 

18 end and inserting ‘‘; or’’; and 

19 (4) by adding at the end the following: 

20 ‘‘(vii)(I) a foster child whose care and 

21 placement is the responsibility of an agen22 cy that administers a State plan under 

23 part B or E of title IV of the Social Secu24 rity Act (42 U.S.C. 621 et seq.); or 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 3128 IS

1 ‘‘(II) a foster child who a court has 

2 placed with a caretaker household.’’. 

3 (c) DOCUMENTATION.—Section 9(d)(2) of the Rich4 ard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 

5 1758(d)(2)) is amended— 

6 (1) in subparagraph (D), by striking ‘‘or’’ at 

7 the end; 

8 (2) in subparagraph (E), by striking the period 

9 at the end and inserting ‘‘; or’’; and 

10 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

11 ‘‘(F)(i) documentation has been provided 

12 to the appropriate local educational agency 

13 showing the status of the child as a foster child 

14 whose care and placement is the responsibility 

15 of an agency that administers a State plan 

16 under part B or E of title IV of the Social Se17 curity Act (42 U.S.C. 621 et seq.); or 

18 ‘‘(ii) documentation has been provided to 

19 the appropriate local educational agency show20 ing the status of the child as a foster child who 

21 a court has placed with a caretaker house22 hold.’’. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1430
ANDREW MIIRO, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A74-642-948) Submitted: November 16, 2005 Decided: December 6, 2005 Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Fatai A. Suleman, AMOROW & KUM, P.A., Takoma Park, Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Douglas E. Ginsburg, Senior Litigation Counsel, John D. Williams, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Andrew Miiro, a native and citizen of Uganda, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying as untimely his motion to reopen immigration proceedings. We have reviewed the record and the Board’s order and find that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen. SeeINS v. Doherty , 502 U.S. 314, 323-24 (1992). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. SeeIn re: Miiro , No. A74-642 -948 (B.I.A. Mar. 24, 2005). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AT SEPTEMBER 30, 1997, AND THE STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOR THE NINE
MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         257,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   82,700
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,100
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       6,575,300
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,089,200
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,954,600
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          641,100
<BONDS>                                      1,750,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,954,600
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,185,500
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,076,400
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (8,400)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                67,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              97,400
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 20,100
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             20,100
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    20,100
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.54
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 21.1

                           ATHEY PRODUCTS CORPORATION

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

Name                                                State of Incorporation

Athey Export Corporation                            Illinois

Athey Products International, Inc.                  Barbados

Athey International Sales Corporation               Illinois

                                                    14


<PAGE>
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                                        ATHEY PRODUCTS CORPORATION
                             SCHEDULE II - VALUATION AND QUALIFYING ACCOUNTS

Column A                                Column B       Column C       Column D          Column E
--------                                --------       --------       --------          --------
                                                      Additions
                                       Balance at     Charged to     Deduction from    Balance at
                                     Beginning of     Profit and     Reserves          End of Year
                                         Year           Loss

<S>                                   <C>            <C>         <C>                   <C>
Year Ended December 31, 1996:

Allowance for doubtful
accounts-trade                           $300,000      $  50,000  $     -      (a)       $350,000
Allowance for doubtful
receivable-other                          110,954        -             110,954 (b)        -
Provision for obsolete and slow
moving inventory                          650,000        450,689       300,689 (c)        500,000
Provisions for warranty costs             635,500        976,019       921,519 (d)        690,000

Year Ended December 31, 1995:

Allowance for doubtful
accounts-trade                           $250,000      $  52,966      $  2,966 (a)       $300,000
Allowance for doubtful
receivable-other                          110,954        -                  -  (b)        110,954
Provision for obsolete and slow
moving inventory                          950,000        286,610       586,610 (c)        650,000
Provisions for warranty costs             780,000        705,553       850,053 (d)        635,500

Year Ended December 31, 1994:

Allowance for doubtful
accounts-trade                           $225,000         50,095      $ 25,095 (a)        250,000
Allowance for doubtful
receivable-other                          150,000         60,954       100,000 (b)        110,954
Provision for obsolete and slow
moving inventory                          796,396        193,811        40,207 (c)        950,000
Provisions for warranty costs             370,000      1,303,078       893,078 (d)        780,000

</TABLE>
(a)  Uncollected trade receivables written-off.
(b)  Uncollected other receivables written-off.
(c)  Deductions for obsolete inventory scrapped and obsolete inventory sold at
     reduced selling price.
(d)  Warranty expenses incurred

                                                    15


<PAGE>
97-167.

#### State v. Newman.

Lorain App. No. 92CA005430. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.

Pfeifer, J., dissents.
Exhibit 32.2

                                   Form 10-QSB
                             Arete Industries, Inc.
                        Quarter ended September 30, 2005


                            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 Arete Industries, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2005, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, John Herzog, Interim Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities 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:  November 21, 2005                  By:  /s/ John Herzog
                                                -------------------------------
                                                John Herzog, Interim Chief
                                                Financial Officer and Director