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

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5008 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.5008

                       One Hundred Eighth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
           the twentieth day of January, two thousand and four

                                 An Act

 
To provide an additional temporary extension of programs under the Small 
   Business Act and the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 through 
               September 30, 2004, 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. ADDITIONAL TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF PROGRAMS UNDER SMALL 
              BUSINESS ACT AND SMALL BUSINESS INVESTMENT ACT OF 1958.

    The authorization for any program, authority, or provision, 
including any pilot program, that was extended through June 4, 2004, by 
section 1 of Public Law 108-217 is further extended through September 
30, 2004, under the same terms and conditions.

SEC. 2. TECHNICAL AMENDMENT.

    Section 2 of Public Law 108-205 is amended by striking ``October 1, 
2003'' and inserting ``March 15, 2004''. The amendment made by the 
preceding sentence shall take effect as if included in the enactment of 
the section to which it relates.

SEC. 3. COMPENSATION OF AGENTS.

    Section 5 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 634) is amended--
        (1) in subsection (g)(4), by adding at the end the following:
            ``(C) The Administration may contract with an agent to 
        carry out, on behalf of the Administration, the assessment and 
        collection of the annual fee established under section 
        7(a)(23). The agent may receive, as compensation for services, 
        any interest earned on the fee while in the control of the 
        agent before the time at which the agent is contractually 
        required to remit the fee to the Administration.''; and
        (2) in subsection (h)--
            (A) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3); and
            (B) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
        ``(2) The agent described in paragraph (1)(B) may be 
    compensated through any of the fees assessed under this section and 
    any interest earned on any funds collected by the agent while such 
    funds are in the control of the agent and before the time at which 
    the agent is contractually required to transfer such funds to the 
    Administration or to the holders of the trust certificates, as 
    appropriate.''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
EXHIBIT 99.1

               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT

      We hereby consent to the use in the annual report on Form 10-KSB for
Organetix, Inc. f/k/a Diamond International, Inc. ("Company"), dated on or about
April 13, 2004, relating to the financial statements of the Company for the
period ending September 30, 2003 and to the reference to our Firm under the Item
entitled "Changes In and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and
Financial Disclosure" in the report.


                                    /S/ WEISBERG, MOLE, KRANTZ & GOLDFARB LLP
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    WEISBERG, MOLE, KRANTZ & GOLDFARB LLP

Hicksville, New York
April 13, 2004
. i HonorableNeal Birmingham Opinion No.

CrlmlnalDistrict Attorney. Cass County Re: Whether -.. - c-433 burning of crosses ._ ..- Llnaen, *rexas In a resldentlalarea is in violationof the Texas Dear Mr. Birmingham: Penal Code.

In a recent opinion request of this office you asked whether or not there Is a provision In the Texas Penal Code which specifically prohibits the burning of crosses In resldentlal areas. We have been unable to find such a specific statute.

It Is poaslble,however, that a person, ,&ring the commissionof the act of burning a cross In a resddentlal area, may violate the provisionsof various Articles In Vernon's Penal Code. For example,dependentupon the facts, such act could be In vlolatlonof on& or more of Articles 474, 454a, 1321, 1321b and 1303.

The possible vlolatlonsare not confined to the above set out statutes,of course, but the above are mentioned simply to Indicate that the act of burning a cross In a resldentlal.area may, dependingupon the facts surroundlng'theoccurrence,be In vlolatlozi of one or more Articlesof Vernon's Penal Code. SUMMARY There is no provision In the Texas Penal Code which specifically prohibits the burning of cross68 in a residential area. Yours very truly, WAGGONER CARR AttorneyGeneral of Texas

Assistant Attbrney &mral' -2050-HonorableNeal Birmingham,page 2 (C-433)

SC/lh/br APPROVED: OPINION COMMITTEE W. V. Geppert, Chairman John Banks Al10 B. Crow, Jr. Bob Flowers Sam L. Kelley ,iPPROVED

FOR THE ATTOP8EYGENERAL By: Stanton Stone

-2051-
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : Hon. Dickinson R. Debevoise

V. : Crim. No. 11-133 (DRD)

MOHAMED ALESSA : SCHEDULING ORDER

This matter having come before the Court upon the

application of defendant MOHAMED ALESSA (Stanley L. Cohen, Esq

appearing) for additional time to submit objections to the draft

presentence investigation report, disclose rebuttal expert

reports of Dr. Nuha Abudabbeh and/or Dr. Sanford Drob, and to

prepare for the sentencing of the defendant, and the Court having

heard and considered the arguments of counsel for the defendant

and the government during a telephonic conference on January 8,

2013, and for good cause shown,

It is on this

day of January 2013,

ORDERED that the following schedule is hereby set:

1. The defendant shall submit to the Probation Department

any objections to the draft presentence investigation report no

later than January 14, 2013;

2. The defendant shall disclose to the government any

rebuttal expert reports of Dr. Nuha Abudabbeh and/or Dr. Sanford

Drob, no later than January 21, 2013;

1
3. The Probation Department shall disclose the final

presentence investigation report no later than January 31, 2013;

4. Sentencing submissions of the parties shall be

submitted to the Court no later than March 1, 2013;

5. Responsive sentencing submissions of the parties shall

be submitted no later than March 22, 2013;

6. A status conference is set for April 2, 2013, at 10:00

a.m. before this Court; and

7. The sentencing hearing is set for April 15, 2013, at

10:00 a.m. before this Court,

I I /

HON. DICKINSON R. DEBEVOISE

United States Senior District Judge

2
FILED IN

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

July 28, 2015

ABELACOSTA, CLERK

THOMAS LEON BYRD

THE STATE OF TEXAS

No. PD-0213-15

§

§

IN THE COURT O

CRIMINAL APPEA

OF TEXAS

PD-0213-1

COtfJRT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

AUSTIN, TEXA

ransmitted 7/28/2015 8:52:16 Al

(Accented 7/28/2015 9:23:28 Af

ABEL ACOST,

CLER

APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE REPLY BRIEF

COMES NOW Thomas Leon Byrd, Appellant in the above-styled and

numbered cause, and makes and files this Motion for Leave to File a Reply Brief in

the above cause, and in support thereofshows the Court as follows:

I.

The Court granted review in this appeal on May 20, 2015 but denied

Appellant's request for oral argument. The Appellant's briefwas filed on June 19,

2015. The State's brief was filed on July 20, 2015. The case is set for submission

on August 5, 2015. Appellant requests leave to file an Appellant's reply brief

responding to a key assertion made in the State's brief.

II.

Appellant requests leave because, without being permitted to file a reply brief,

Appellant has no other avenue available to respond to the disputed assertion made

in the State's brief. As explained in the reply brief submitted contemporaneously

with this motion, Appellant contends that the State's disputed assertion is simply

incorrect.
III.

Appellant is tendering the proposed Appellant's Reply Brief to the Court

contemporaneously with this motion.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Appellant requests that the

Court grant leave to file the Appellant's ReplyBrief and such other and furtherrelief

to which he may show himselfjustly entitled.

Respectfully submitted,

Isi Alan Bennett

E. Alan Bennett

Counsel for Appellant

SBOT #02140700

Sheehy, Lovelace & Mayfield, P.C.

510 N. Valley Mills Dr., Ste. 500

Waco,TX 76710

Telephone: (254)772-8022

Fax: (254) 772-9297

Email: abennett@slmpc.com

Certificate of Service

The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy ofthis document

has been served by email on July 28, 2015 to: (1) counsel for the State, Sterling

Harmon, sterling.harmon@co.mclennan.tx.us; and (2) the State Prosecuting

Attorney, Lisa McMinn, Lisa.McMinn@SPA.texas.gov.

Isi Alan Bennett

E. Alan Bennett
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

EMGI, LLC,

Appellant,

v.

NAOMI BLITZ,

Appellee.

No. 4D17-952

[May 10, 2018]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. 

Lucie County; Janet Carney Croom, Judge; L.T. Case No. 

562015CA000106.

Thomas A. Valdez of Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A., Tampa, for 

appellant.

Jonathan Mann and Robin Bresky of the Law Offices of Robin Bresky, 

Boca Raton, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

WARNER, GROSS and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
McELROY, DEUTSCH, MULVANEY &

CARPENTER, LLP

1300 Mt. Kemble Avenue

P.O. Box 2075

Morristown, New Jersey 07962

(973) 993-8100

(973) 425-0161 (fax)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

KIMBERLEE WILLIAMS, individually, as personal 

representative of the Estate of Charles L. Williams, 

deceased on behalf of said estate, and as representative of 

others similarly situated, NANCY PEASE, individually, 

as personal representative of the Estate of William Clark, 

deceased on behalf of said estate, and as representative of 

others similarly situated; MARILYN L. HOLLEY, as 

personal representative of the Estate of Kathryn Darnell, 

deceased on behalf of said estate, and as representative of 

others similarly situated; DONNA WARE, individually 

as personal representative of the Estate of Ralph Ware, 

deceased on behalf of said estate, and as representative of 

others similarly situated; and DONNETTE WENGERD, 

individually, as personal representative of the Estate of 

Jennifer Graham, deceased on behalf of said estate, and 

as representative of others similarly situated, ROSANNE 

CHERNICK, individually, as personal representative of the 

Estate of Steven Chernick, deceased on behalf of said estate, 

and as representative of others similarly situated,

 

Plaintiffs,

 

 v.

BASF CATALYSTS LLC, CAHILL GORDON & 

REINDEL LLP, CAHILL GORDON & REINDEL, a 

partnership including a professional corporation,

THOMAS D. HALKET, ARTHUR A. DORNBUSCH 

II, GLEN HEMSTOCK, HOWARD G. SLOANE 

(A/K/A “PETER SLOANE”), IRA J. DEMBROW, 

SCOTT A. MARTIN, JOHN DOE BUSINESS 

ENTITIES 1 to 100; JOHN DOE BUSINESS 

ENTITIES 101 to 200; JOHN DOE LAWYERS 1 to 

500; and, JOHN DOE 1 to 500,

Defendants.

Civil Action No.: 11-cv-1754 (JLL)(JAD)

Hon. Jose L. Linares, U.S.D.J.

Civil Action

NOTICE OF MOTION TO DISMISS 

PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED 

COMPLAINT

ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED

Document Electronically Filed

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 177 Filed 01/22/16 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 5979
2

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on a time and date determined by the Court, 

Defendant Glen Hemstock, by and through his attorneys, McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & 

Carpenter LLP, will move before the Hon. Jose L. Linares, U.S.D.J., at the United States 

District Courthouse, 50 Walnut Street, Newark, New Jersey for an Order dismissing 

plaintiffs’ second amended complaint pursuant to Rules 9(b) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure.

PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that Defendant Glen Hemstock will rely 

on the Memorandum of Law submitted herewith, as well as all papers on file, in support 

of the motion.

PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that oral argument is requested.

PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that a proposed Order is submitted 

herewith.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Walter F. Timpone__________________

Walter F. Timpone

McELROY, DEUTSCH, MULVANEY & 

CARPENTER, LLP

1300 Mount Kemble Avenue

P.O. Box 2075

Morristown, NJ 07962-2075

Attorneys for Defendant, Dr. Glen Hemstock

 

Dated: September 25, 2015

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 177 Filed 01/22/16 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 5980
Exhibit
32.1


CERTIFICATION





In
connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of CYBRA Corporation. (the
“Company”) for the period ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Harold Brand,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,
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.








Date: May
13,
2009                                                             /s/Harold
Brand


Harold Brand


Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.1


              CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Thian Hoo Tan, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Komag, Incorporated;

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 and 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 officer 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; and

c) 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; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer 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 the registrant's board of
directors:

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; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.


DATE March 5, 2004                             BY: /s/  Thian Hoo Tan
----------------                                   ---------------------
                                                   Thian Hoo Tan
                                                   Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.1





SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION





In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A (Amendment No. 2) of MedPro Safety Products, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, W. Craig Turner, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, in accordance with 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), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and




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




Dated:January 12, 2012By:/s/ W. Craig TurnerW. Craig TurnerChief Executive Officer
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-71,296-02

EX PARTE CLIFTON LAMAR WILLIAMS, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR POST-CONVICTION WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

AND MOTION TO STAY THE EXECUTION IN CAUSE NO. 114-1505-06

IN THE 114 JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

TH

SMITH COUNTY

Per curiam. MEYERS, J., would deny the stay.

O R D E R

This is a subsequent application for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to the

provisions of Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 11.071 § 5 and a motion for a

stay of execution.

In October 2006, a jury found applicant guilty of the offense of capital murder.

The jury answered the special issues submitted pursuant to Texas Code of Criminal

Procedure Article 37.071, and the trial court, accordingly, set applicant’s punishment at

death. This Court affirmed applicant’s conviction and sentence on direct appeal.
Williams - 2

Williams v. State, 270 S.W.3d 112 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). This Court denied relief on

applicant’s initial post-conviction application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Williams, No. WR-71,296-01 (Tex. Crim. App. Mar. 18, 2009)(not designated for

publication).

On July 15, 2015, applicant filed in the trial court this his first subsequent

application for a writ of habeas corpus. After reviewing applicant’s habeas application,

we have determined that the claim raised meets the dictates of Article 11.071 § 5.

Therefore, the application is remanded to the trial court for a review on the merits.

Applicant’s motion to stay his execution is granted pending resolution of his claim.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS THE 16 DAY OF JULY, 2015.

th

Do Not Publish
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-40269

Summary Calendar

 

JAMES BRYAN ORTEZ,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

MICHAEL COMPTON; DAVE PROVENCE, Cooke County

Sheriff’s Department Chief Deputy; COOKE COUNTY

COMMISSIONERS; COUNTY OF COOKE, 

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 4;98-CV-208

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

December 19, 2001

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

James Bryan Ortez ("Ortez") appeals the summary-judgment

dismissal of his pro se, in forma pauperis, 42 U.S.C. § 1983

complaint, in which Ortez contended that the defendants violated

his rights while he was incarcerated in the Cooke County, Texas,

jail. The district court determined that Ortez had failed to

exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing suit, as

required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), and that even if Ortez had

exhausted his administrative remedies he was not entitled to
No. 01-40269

-2-

relief on the merits of his claims. The district court

accordingly dismissed the complaint with prejudice. Ortez

contends that the district court erred in determining that he had

not exhausted his administrative remedies, and erred in rejecting

his claims on the merits.

The district court did not err in determining that Ortez

failed to produce competent summary judgment evidence that he had

exhausted his administrative remedies. Although Ortez offered

the affidavits of other inmates and his own affidavit

conclusionally asserting that he had filed numerous grievances,

he offered no evidence that he filed grievances on the specific

claims in the complaint or that he pursued disputed grievances

through the jail's grievance process. Thus, Ortez failed to meet

his summary-judgment burden on the issue of exhaustion. See

Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994)(en

banc) (nonmovant cannot satisfy summary-judgment burden with

conclusional allegations, unsubstantiated assertions, or only a

scintilla of evidence). Because Ortez did not meet this burden,

dismissal for failure to exhaust is appropriate. See Wendell v.

Asher, 162 F.3d 887, 890-91 (5th Cir. 1998). Because the

district court's judgment may be affirmed on this basis, it is

unnecessary to address Ortez's arguments concerning the merits of

his claims.

AFFIRMED.
[Dkt. Ent. 17, 22]

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

CAMDEN VICINAGE

DAVE DONACHY, et al., 

 Plaintiffs,

v.

INTRAWEST U.S. HOLDINGS,

INC., and PLAYGROUND

DESTINATION PROPERTIES,

INC., 

Defendants.

Civil Action No.

10-4038 (RMB/KMW)

ORDER

THIS MATTER comes before the Court upon the Motion of

Defendants Intrawest U.S. Holdings, Inc. and Playground

Destination Properties, Inc. to Dismiss the Amended Complaint

filed by Plaintiffs Dave and Carol Donachy, Anthony and Susan

DiMeglio, Andrew and Charlene Wingfield, Richard and Suzanne

Kucharski, Vincent and Donna LaRocca and Ali Imtiaz

(“Plaintiffs”), see Dkt. Ent. 17, and the Motion for Leave to

File a Sur Reply filed by Plaintiffs, see Dkt. Ent. 22; and

the Court having considered the moving papers; and for the

reasons expressed in the Opinion issued this date;

IT IS ON THIS 21st day of July 2011, HEREBY ORDERED as

follows:

Defendants’ motion to dismiss on the basis of the forum

selection clause or, in the alternative, on the basis of forum

non conveniens [Dkt. Ent. 17] is DENIED; and

1

Case 1:10-cv-04038-RMB-KMW Document 25 Filed 07/21/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 367
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion to file a

sur-reply [Dkt. Ent. 22] is also DENIED. 

s/Renée Marie Bumb 

RENÉE MARIE BUMB

United States District Judge

2

Case 1:10-cv-04038-RMB-KMW Document 25 Filed 07/21/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 368