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

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 867

For the relief of Durreshahwar Durreshahwar, Nida Hasan, Asna Hasan, 

Anum Hasan, and Iqra Hasan. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 13, 2003

Mr. HOLT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on the Judiciary 

A BILL

For the relief of Durreshahwar Durreshahwar, Nida Hasan, 

Asna Hasan, Anum Hasan, and Iqra Hasan.

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

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR 

4 DURRESHAHWAR DURRESHAHWAR, NIDA 

5 HASAN, ASNA HASAN, ANUM HASAN, AND 

6 IQRA HASAN. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding subsections (a) 

8 and (b) of section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality 

9 Act, Durreshahwar Durreshahwar, Nida Hasan, Asna 

10 Hasan, Anum Hasan, and Iqra Hasan shall each be eligi-
2

•HR 867 IH 

1 ble for issuance of an immigrant visa or for adjustment 

2 of status to that of an alien lawfully admitted for perma3 nent residence upon filing an application for issuance of 

4 an immigrant visa under section 204 of such Act or for 

5 adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident. 

6 (b) ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.—If Durreshahwar 

7 Durreshahwar, Nida Hasan, Asna Hasan, Anum Hasan, 

8 or Iqra Hasan enters the United States before the filing 

9 deadline specified in subsection (c), she shall be considered 

10 to have entered and remained lawfully and shall, if other11 wise eligible, be eligible for adjustment of status under 

12 section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act as of 

13 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

14 (c) DEADLINE FOR APPLICATION AND PAYMENT OF

15 FEES.—Subsections (a) and (b) shall apply only if the ap16 plication for issuance of an immigrant visa or the applica17 tion for adjustment of status is filed with appropriate fees 

18 within 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

19 (d) REDUCTION OF IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBER.—

20 Upon the granting of an immigrant visa or permanent res21 idence to Durreshahwar Durreshahwar, Nida Hasan, 

22 Asna Hasan, Anum Hasan, and Iqra Hasan, the Secretary 

23 of State shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by 5, 

24 during the current or next following fiscal year, the total 

25 number of immigrant visas that are made available to na-
3

•HR 867 IH 

1 tives of the country of the aliens‘‘ birth under section 

2 203(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act or, if appli3 cable, the total number of immigrant visas that are made 

4 available to natives of the country of the aliens’’ birth 

5 under section 202(e) of such Act. 

6 (e) DENIAL OF PREFERENTIAL IMMIGRATION

7 TREATMENT FOR CERTAIN RELATIVES.—The natural 

8 parents, brothers, and sisters of Durreshahwar 

9 Durreshahwar, Nida Hasan, Asna Hasan, Anum Hasan, 

10 and Iqra Hasan shall not, by virtue of such relationship, 

11 be accorded any right, privilege, or status under the Immi12 gration and Nationality Act.

Æ
#### James J. Frank, Appellant, v Fortuna Energy, Inc., et al., Respondents.

[856 NYS2d 322]

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action pursuant to RPAPL article 15 seeking a determination that he is the lawful owner of subsurface oil and gas on his property. Fortuna Energy, Inc., Richard Uhl, David L. Manning and Allen E Uhl (defendants) moved to dismiss the complaint against them or, alternatively, for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3211 (c). Supreme Court treated the motion as one for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3211 (c) and granted the motion. We affirm. Defendants met their initial burden by establishing that, when Joseph E. Uhl and Florence E Uhl conveyed the property in question to defendants’ predecessors in title, they reserved to themselves and their heirs title to all of the subsurface minerals, including oil and gas. That reservation of title constitutes a fee simple interest in the subsurface minerals, which includes both title to the minerals and the right to use any reasonable means to extract them *(see generally Marvin v Brewster Iron Mining Co.,*55 NY 538, 548-550 [1874], *reh denied*56 NY 671 [1874]; *Miles v Home Gas Co.,*35 AD2d 1042, 1043 [1970]). Contrary to the contention of plaintiff, he did not gain title of the subsurface minerals through adverse possession based on the long-standing residential use of the surface of the property *(see Marvin,*55 NY at 555-556). Plaintiff failed to raise a triable *1295issue of fact sufficient to defeat the motion *(see generally Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). Present— Scudder, P.J., Centra, Lunn, Fahey and Green, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Vernell Smiley, Appellant.

[856 NYS2d 321]

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting *1300him, upon his plea of guilty, of rape in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.35 [1]). Defendant’s sole contention on appeal is that County Court erred in denying that part of defendant’s omnibus motion seeking to suppress the identification testimony of two witnesses on the ground that the photo array used in the pretrial identification procedures was unduly suggestive. That contention is without merit. “A photo array is unduly suggestive ‘where some characteristic of one picture draws the viewer’s attention to it, indicating that the police have made a particular selection’ ” *(People v Diggs,*19 AD3d 1098, 1098 [2005], *lv denied*5 NY3d 787 [2005], *rearg granted and order amended*21 AD3d 1438 [2005], quoting *People v Robert,*184 AD2d 597, 598 [1992], *lv denied*80 NY2d 933 [1992]). Here, “[t]he composition and presentation of the photo array were such that there was no reasonable possibility that the attention of the witnesses] would be drawn to defendant as the suspect chosen by the police” *(People v Sylvester,*32 AD3d 1226, 1227 [2006], *lv denied*7 NY3d 929 [2006]; *see People v Dean,*28 AD3d 1118 [2006], *lv denied*7 NY3d 787 [2006]; *see generally People v Chipp,*75 NY2d 327, 335-336 [1990], *cert denied*498 US 833 [1990]). Contrary to defendant’s contention, the differences in skin tone and head size of the individuals depicted in the photo array were not so great as to indicate that the police were urging a particular selection *(see People v Quinones,*5 AD3d 1093, 1093-1094 [2004], *lv denied*3 NY3d 646 [2004]; *People v Boria,*279 AD2d 585, 586 [2001], *lv denied*96 NY2d 781 [2001]). Present—Martoche, J.P., Smith, Feradotto, Fine and Gorski, JJ.
----

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, David M. Jeffs, the Chief Executive Officer and Treasurer of Live Current Media, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

(i) the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of the Company, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, and to which this certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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

 

|   | By:    | */s/ David M. Jeffs*                                                                                                       |
|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                                                                       |
|   | Name:  | DAVID M. JEFFS                                                                                                             |
|   |   |                                                                                                                       |
|   | Title: | Chief Executive Officer, President, Treasurer and Secretary

(Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer) |
|   | Date:  | January 15, 2020                                                                                                           |

 

*A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 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.*

*This certification accompanies the Form 10-K to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-K), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.*

----
**EXHIBIT 31.1**



**CERTIFICATION**

**Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,**

**As adopted pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**



I, Todd Michaels, certify that:





|1. | I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Correlate Energy Corp. (the “registrant”); and
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------







|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.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





Date: November 27, 2023





|       | */s/ Todd Michaels*                                       | 
|------ | --------------------------------------------------------- | 
|Name:  | **Todd Michaels**                                         | 
|Title: | **Chief Executive Officer** (Principal Executive Officer) |
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

 MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS

NEWARK DATE: November 20, 2012 

 

JUDGE: Susan D. Wigenton

 

COURT REPORTER: Carmen Liloia

 

DEPUTY CLERK: Antigone Owens-Krefski

OTHER: ______________

Title of Case: Docket # 11cr470 

 

USA v. ANDREW AUERNHEIMER 

 

Appearances:

Zach Intrater, AUSA and Michael Martinez, AUSA for the Gov’t

Tor Ekeland, Esq. and Mark Jaffe, Esq. for the Dft 

 

Nature of proceedings: Jury Trial

Jury charged.

Zach Intrater Closed for the Gov’t

Tor Ekeland Closed for the Dft

Michael Martinez Rebuttal closing for the Gov’t

CSO Napolitano sworn.

Jury deliberations begun.

Lunch ordered from Hobby’s, Newark NJ

Jury verdict reached and placed on the record.

Jury trial concluded.

Time Commenced 9:30 a.m.

Time Adjourned 4:30 p.m.

cc: chambers Antigone Owens-Krefski

 Deputy Clerk

Case 2:11-cr-00470-SDW Document 79 Filed 11/20/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 1004
Case 2:11-cr-00470-SDW Document 79 Filed 11/20/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 1005
Unassociated Document


 



PROMISSORY NOTE


 







 



	
Principal:

	
USD $50,000








	
DATED:

	
February 26, 2013







 


FOR VALUE RECEIVED, Universal Tech Corp (the “Maker”) does hereby unconditionally promise to pay to or to the order of Bay Capital Ltd. (the “Holder”), ON DEMAND the sum of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000) of lawful money of the United States of American (the “Principal”) on the following terms and conditions:


 


Payment of Principal:  The Principal shall be payable on DEMAND.


 


Interest:  Interest shall accrue on the unpaid portion of the Principal at the rate of 16% per annum, calculated and payable monthly, until repaid.


 


Prepayment: The Maker shall have the right at any time to pay all, or any portion of, the Principal outstanding as at the date of such payment without notice, bonus or penalty.


 


Assignment:  This Promissory Note is assignable by the Holder with written notice of that assignment to the Maker.


 


Waiver: The Maker waives presentment for payment, protest, notice of protest, notice of dishonor, notice of non-payment and all other notices and demands in connection with the delivery, acceptance, performance, default or enforcement of this Promissory Note.


 


Governing Law: This Promissory Note shall be governed by, and construed and enforced in accordance with, the laws of Switzerland.


 


DATED at Palm Beach, Florida U.S.A., on the day and year first above written.


 







 


SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED by


James Davidson on behalf of Universal


Tech Corp. in the presence of the following witness:


 







 


/s/ James Davidson                                                    


James Davidson


 







 



	
Witness

	
/s/ Laurie A. Galler








	
  

	
Laurie A. Galler
#### WM. ROPES & CO. v. UNITED STATES.

(Circuit Court, S. D. New York.

May 19, 1900.)

No. 2,834.

1. Customs Duties—Classification—Albolene—Products of Petroleum.

The article known as “albolene,” consisting of a mechanical combination of paraffin, a petroleum product, and ceresia, a fossil wax, the paraffin constituting 80 per cent, of the article by weight, but only four-elevenths of its value, is not a product of petroleum, within the meaning of paragraph 626, Free List, § 2, c. 11, Tariff Act July 24, 1897, 30 Stat. 199 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1685), providing for a countervailing duty on “products of petroleum produced in any country which imposes a duty on petroleum or its products exported from the United States,” but is dutiable under paragraph 448, Schedule N, § 1, c. 11, Act July 24, 1897, 30 Stat. 193 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1677), as a manufacture of wax.

Appeal by the importers from a decision of the board of general appraisers which affirmed the decision of the collector of customs with' regard to the merchandise in question when imported at the port of New York.

Albert Comstock, for the importers.

Charles D. Baker, Asst. U. S. Atty.

TOWNSEND, District Judge

(orally). The merchandise in question is a mechanical combination of paraffin, which is a product of petroleum, and of ceresia, which is a fossil wax. Eighty per cent, in weight consists of paraffin, and 20 per cent, in weight of ceresia. Seven-elevenths of its value is wax, and four-elevenths is a product of petroleum. Its chief value, therefore, is wax; and, when thus combined with the petroleum product or paraffin, it constitutes a man*991ufacture of wax, which is known and sold as “albolene.” The substance is imported from St. Petersburg. This manufacture of wax was assessed for duty at 1.70 rubles per pood, under the reciprocity proviso in paragraph 626, Free List, § 2, c. 11, Tariff Act July 24, 1897, 30 Stat. 199 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1685), which provides that on “products of crude petroleum produced in any country which imposes a duty on petroleum or its products exported from the United States,” the duty here collected should be equal to the duty imposed by such country. There is no question that the duty is the same as that collected in Russia on products of crude petroleum imported from this country. The importer claims that the article is dutiable at 25 per cent, ad valorem, as a manufacture of wax, under paragraph 448, Schedule N, § 1, c. 11, Act July 24, 1897, 30 Stat. 193 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1677). The decision of Judge Lacombe in Re Rosenstein (C. C.) 56 Fed. 624, affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals in U. S. v. Rosenstein, 8 C. C. A. 474, 60 Fed. 74, supports the contention of the importers. It is clear that this manufactured article is not a product of petroleum, when only one-third of its value consists of a product of petroleum, and the rest consists of wax.

The decision of the board of general appraisers is reversed.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 856 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 856

   To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to revise a repayment 
   contract with the Tom Green County Water Control and Improvement 
   District No. 1, San Angelo project, Texas, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 13, 2003

 Mr. Stenholm introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                         Committee on Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to revise a repayment 
   contract with the Tom Green County Water Control and Improvement 
   District No. 1, San Angelo project, Texas, 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. TOM GREEN COUNTY WATER CONTROL AND IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 
              1; REPAYMENT PERIOD EXTENDED.

    The Secretary of the Interior may revise the repayment contract 
with the Tom Green County Water Control and Improvement District No. 1 
numbered 14-06-500-369, by extending the period authorized for 
repayment of reimbursable constructions costs of the San Angelo project 
from 40 years to 50 years.
                                 <all>
```
#### Salvatore S. Curiale et al., Appellants, v Maurice L. Reissman et al., Respondents.

[609 NYS2d 777]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered July 7, 1993, unanimously affirmed for the reasons stated by Shainswit, J., without costs and without disbursements. No opinion. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Kupferman, Rubin and Tom, JJ.
#### CASTRO v. CUFARI et al.

Civ. A. No. 3761.

United States District Court D. Connecticut.

April 10, 1953.

John Hodgson, of Alcorn, Bakewell & Alcorn, Hartford, Conn., for plaintiff.

C. Duane Blinn, of Day, Berry & Howard, Dennis P. O’Connor, Emilio Q. Daddario, Hartford, Conn., for defendants.

SMITH, District Judge.

Plaintiff moves under Rule 39(b), Fed. Rules Civ.Proc. 28 U.S.C.A. for trial by jury in a motor vehicle negligence case, in spite of her failure to serve and file a timely demand for trial by jury under Rule 38.

All defendants in this case vigorously oppose the motion partly because of the probability that claimed illegal, activities of some of the defendants, while not relevant to the issues of negligence, contributory negligence, or damages, may reach the trier on questions of credibility and might prejudice the defendants before 'a jury.

The principal ground for plaintiff’s motion is the assertion that plaintiff’s counsel were unfamiliar with the requirements of the Federal Rules.

In view of the length of time that the Rules have been in effect and the wide experience of counsel representing plaintiff, including successful opposition to a similar motion in MacDonald v. Central Vermont Railway, Inc., D.C.Conn.1940, 31 F.Supp. 298, Judge Hincks, the excuse put forward is insufficient. Cf. Gora v. Jenkins Bros., D.C., 8 F.R.D. 32; Arnold v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co., D.C., 7 F.R.D. 678.

The motion for trial by jury is denied.
Exhibit 99.1

                      LETTERHEAD OF OLYMPIC RESOURCES LTD.

                            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 on Form 10-KSB for fiscal year ended
February 28, 2003 of Olympic Resources Ltd., a Wyoming corporation (the
"Company"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Annual Report"), I, Daryl Pollock, President and Chief Executive
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 Annual Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
          13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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


Dated: June 26, 2003                            /s/  Daryl Pollock
                                                Daryl Pollock, President, CEO
                                                and Director
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 110 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 110

    Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on Homeland 
              Security in the One Hundred Eighth Congress.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 27, 2003

 Mr. Cox submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 
                   Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
    Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on Homeland 
              Security in the One Hundred Eighth Congress.

    Resolved, 

SECTION 1. AMOUNTS FOR COMMITTEE EXPENSES.

    For the expenses of the Committee on Homeland Security (hereafter 
in this resolution referred to as the ``Committee''), including the 
expenses of all staff salaries, there shall be paid, out of the 
applicable accounts of the House of Representatives for committee 
salaries and expenses, not more than $11,028,787 for the One Hundred 
Eighth Congress.

SEC. 2. SESSION LIMITATIONS.

    Of the amount specified in section 1--
            (1) not more than $5,657,656 shall be available for 
        expenses incurred during the period beginning at noon on 
        January 3, 2003, and ending immediately before noon on January 
        3, 2004; and
            (2) not more than $5,371,131 shall be available for 
        expenses incurred during the period beginning at noon on 
        January 3, 2004, and ending immediately before noon on January 
        3, 2005.

SEC. 3. VOUCHERS.

    Payments under this resolution shall be made on vouchers authorized 
by the Committee, signed by the Chairman of the Committee, and approved 
in the manner directed by the Committee on House Administration.

SEC. 4. REGULATIONS.

    Amounts made available under this resolution shall be expended in 
accordance with regulations prescribed by the Committee on House 
Administration.
                                 <all>
```
# 19SNR01_00