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

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3355 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3355

      To prohibit funding for the Preparatory Commission for the 
  Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization in the event the 
United Nations Security Council adopts a resolution that obligates the 
United States or affirms a purported obligation of the United States to 
 refrain from actions that would run counter to the object and purpose 
             of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 20, 2016

   Mr. Cotton (for himself, Mr. Rubio, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Hatch, Mr. 
Tillis, Mrs. Fischer, Mr. Moran, Mr. Cruz, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Daines, Mr. 
Lankford, and Mr. Inhofe) introduced the following bill; which was read 
        twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To prohibit funding for the Preparatory Commission for the 
  Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization in the event the 
United Nations Security Council adopts a resolution that obligates the 
United States or affirms a purported obligation of the United States to 
 refrain from actions that would run counter to the object and purpose 
             of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty.

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

SECTION 1. RESTRICTION ON FUNDING FOR THE PREPARATORY COMMISSION FOR 
              THE COMPREHENSIVE NUCLEAR-TEST-BAN TREATY ORGANIZATION.

    No United States funds may be made available to the Preparatory 
Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization 
if, on or after September 16, 2016, the United Nations Security Council 
adopts a resolution that obligates the United States or affirms a 
purported obligation of the United States to refrain from actions that 
would run counter to the object and purpose of the Comprehensive 
Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32

                      OFFICERS' SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS

         The  undersigned  officers of  CabelTel  International  Corporation,  a
Nevada  corporation  (the  "Company"),  hereby  certifies that (i) the Company's
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended  December 31, 2004 fully  complies
with the  requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934,
and (ii) the information  contained in the Company's  Annual Report on Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 2004 fairly presents,  in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company, at and for the
periods indicated.

         Dated: April 14, 2005.

                                        /s/ Ronald C. Finley
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Ronald C. Finley, Chief Executive Officer



                                        /s/ Gene S. Bertcher
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Gene S. Bertcher, President and
                                       Chief Financial Officer
#### WILSON v. HOYT et al.

No. 7907.

United States District Court W. D. Missouri, W. D.

Jan. 16, 1953.

Daniel L. Brenner, Kansas City, Mo., Errol Joyce, Brookfield, Mo., for plaintiff.

Paul C. Sprinkle, Kansas City, Mo., for defendant Buell Hoyt.

David R. Hardy, Kansas City, Mo., for defendant Mid-American Truck Lines.

Randall R. Kitt, Chillicothe, Mo., for defendant Robert Powell, Jr.

REEVES, Chief Judge.

It appears from the motion that heretofore the above plaintiff had filed a suit against some of the same parties in a state court. The suit was dismissed by him at his costs, but without prejudice.

It is provided by paragraph (d) of Rule 41, Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C., that:

> “If a plaintiff who has once dismissed an action in any court commences an action based upon or including the same claim against the same defendant, the court may make such order for the payment of costs of the action previously dismissed as it may deem proper and may stay the proceedings in the action until the plaintiff has complied with the order.”

It will be noticed that this rule applies where another suit is brought “including the same claim against the same defendant.” This action is not brought against the “same defendant” but includes the defendants against whom a suit previously was brought. In opposing the motion counsel for plaintiff details a state of facts which would clearly justify the court in denying the motion. Two grounds are alleged: (a) The misfortune and poverty of the plaintiff, and (b) the fact that he is now a nonresident and there was prejudice against him at the place where the suit was filed. Accordingly, the motion to stay should be and will be denied.
#### Ronald F. MARTINEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. L.E. SCRIBNER, Warden, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 11-56737.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 19, 2012.*

Filed Jan. 8, 2013.

Ronald F. Martinez, Soledad, CA, pro se.

Neah Huynh, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, Sylvie Snyder, Esquire, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, San Diego, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously condudes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Ronald F. Martinez, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants violated his procedural due process, equal protection, and First Amendment rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, and may affirm on any ground supported by the record. *Corales v. Bennett,*567 F.3d 554, 562 (9th Cir.2009). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Martinez’s due process claim because Martinez’s retention in administrative segregation after he served his 15-month term in the Segregated Housing Unit did not impose an “atypical and significant hardship on [him] in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.” *Sandin v. Conner,*515 U.S. 472, 484, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Martinez’s equal pro-*551teetion claim because Martinez failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he was “intentionally treated differently from others similarly situated and [whether] there [was] no rational basis for the difference in treatment.” *Vill. of Willowbrook v. Olech,*528 U.S. 562, 564, 120 S.Ct. 1073, 145 L.Ed.2d 1060 (2000) (per curiam).

Even though the district court applied an incorrect subjective standard, summary judgment was nonetheless proper as to Martinez’s First Amendment retaliation claim because Martinez failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants’ actions “ “would chill or silence a person of ordinary firmness from future First Amendment activities.’ ” *Brodheim v. Cry,*584 F.3d 1262, 1271 (9th Cir.2009) (emphasis and citation omitted).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
No. 950.

#### National Labor Relations Board *v.*A. J. Tower Co.

May 6, 1946.

*Solicitor General McGrath*for petitioner.

*Malcolm Donald*for respondent.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit granted.
**EXHIBIT 13.2**

**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 PetroChina Company Limited (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the periodending December 31, 2016, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, CHAI Shouping, hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge: 

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

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

 

Date: April 27, 2017
<PAGE>   1
                                                                     EXHIBIT 3.4


                            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
                                       OF
                        THE CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF
                         SALIVA DIAGNOSTIC SYSTEMS, INC.
          - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                    Adopted in accordance with the provisions
                    of Section 242 of the General Corporation
                          Law of the State of Delaware
          - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

           I, Kenneth J. McLachlan, President of SALIVA DIAGNOSTIC SYSTEMS,
INC., a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of
Delaware, do hereby affirm under penalties of perjury as follows:

           FIRST, that the Certificate of Incorporation of said corporation be
amended as follows:

1.    By adding an additional paragraph to ARTICLE FOURTH, as it now exists, 
reading as follows:

                    "The corporation hereby declares that each ten
               outstanding shares of the corporation's Common
               Stock, par value $.01 per share, as of the date of
               filing of this Certificate of Amendment, be
               converted and reconstituted into one share of
               Common Stock, par value $.01 per share. No
               fractional shares shall be issued upon such
               conversion and reconstitution, and the number of
               shares of Common Stock to be issued shall be
               rounded to the nearest whole share. If a
               fractional interest in a share of Common Stock
               would, except for the provisions of the preceding
               sentence, be deliverable upon such conversion and
               reconstitution, the corporation shall pay an
               amount in cash equal to the fair market value of
               such fractional interest, as determined by the
               corporation's Board of Directors, to each holder
               of shares of Common Stock to whom such fractional
               interest would have been deliverable."

           SECOND, that such amendment has been duly adopted in accordance with
the provisions of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware by the
vote of not less than a majority of the outstanding stock entitled to vote at a
special meeting of the stockholders and that valid notice of the special meeting
was given to the stockholders, all in accordance with the provisions of Sections
222 and 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.


<PAGE>   2

           IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed this certificate this 31st day of
July, 1998.

                                /s/ Kenneth J. McLachlan
                                -------------------------------
                                Kenneth J. McLachlan, President
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                      10,831,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               25,803,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                (1,069,000)
<INVENTORY>                                    503,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            40,718,000
<PP&E>                                      17,228,000
<DEPRECIATION>                             (11,253,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              58,354,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       20,680,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        92,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  35,033,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                58,354,000
<SALES>                                     38,764,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            38,764,000
<CGS>                                       25,862,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               25,862,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            11,859,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               464,932
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (314,000)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,343,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,078,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,265,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,265,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    $0.14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    $0.14
        

</TABLE>
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-16-00586-CV

NINJA JUMP, INC.,

Appellant

v.

Luz LOBO and Jorge Lobo, Individually, and as next friend of Aaron Joshua Lobo, a minor,

Appellees

From the 438th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014-CI-04073

Honorable Michael E. Mery, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

Delivered and Filed: December 13, 2017

DISMISSED

The parties have filed a joint motion to dismiss this appeal, stating that the parties have 

reached an agreement that resolves this dispute. The motion is granted, and this appeal is 

dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1); Caballero v. Heart of Tex. Pizza, LLC, 70 S.W.3d 180, 

181 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2001, no pet.). 

PER CURIAM
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Special Emphasis Panel; Multi-Site Investigator-Initiated Clinical Trials AIDS Applications.                    

*Date:*                         September 7, 2017.                    

*Time:*                         2:30 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 7190, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Keary A Cope, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Scientific Review/DERA, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 7190, Bethesda, MD 20892-7924, 301-827-7912,                         *copeka@mail.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.233, National Center for Sleep Disorders Research; 93.837, Heart and Vascular Diseases Research; 93.838, Lung Diseases Research; 93.839, Blood Diseases and Resources Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: August 8, 2017.

Michelle Trout, 

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2017-17038 Filed 8-11-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
DISMISS and DENY; and Opinion Filed December 18 , 2015 . 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05
- 15
- 01529
- CV No. 05
- 15
- 01530
- CV No. 05
- 15
- 01531
- CV IN RE ANDREW PETE , Relator Original Proceeding from the 292nd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial C ourt Cause No. F12
- 33559
- V, F12
- 33560
- V , F12
- 33561
- V 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Lang, Fillmore, and Brown Opinion by Justice Brown In this petition for writ of mandamus relator contends that the trial court erred when , after granting his motion for mistrial, it ordered a new trial as to punishment only. Relator requests that the Court order the trial court to vacate the jury verdicts in his criminal cases, reinstate his bond, release him from custody, and proceed with a new trial on his guilt or innocence of the offenses with which he was charged. As an initial matter, we note that this Court has no original habeas corpus jurisdiction in criminal pr oceedings. T EX
. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN
. § 22.221 (West 2004). Thus, we may not grant relief that requires relator’s release from custody. We also may not grant the other forms of relief relator seeks. Mandamus relief is appropriate in a criminal case only when a relator establishes (1) that he has no adequate remedy at law to redre ss the alleged harm, and (2) that what he seeks to compel is a ministerial act, not a discretionary or– 2

– judicial decision. In re Allen , 462 S.W.3d 47, 49 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (orig. proceeding). Relator has not met these requirements. We dismiss the petition for want of jurisdiction to the extent it seeks relator’s release from custody. We deny the balance of the petition.

151529F.P05 /Ada Brown/ ADA BROWN JUSTICE
IV 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 354

Encouraging nonprofit organizations to increase the number of women and 

minorities on their governing boards and encouraging Americans to enrich their lives and serve their communities by volunteering to serve 

on the governing boards of nonprofit organizations. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 3, 2003

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas submitted the following resolution; 

which was referred to the Committee on Government Reform 

RESOLUTION

Encouraging nonprofit organizations to increase the number 

of women and minorities on their governing boards and 

encouraging Americans to enrich their lives and serve 

their communities by volunteering to serve on the governing boards of nonprofit organizations.

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives encour2 ages nonprofit organizations to increase the number of 

3 women and minorities on their governing boards and en4 courages Americans to enrich their lives and serve their 

5 communities by volunteering to serve on the governing 

6 boards of nonprofit organizations.

Æ
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 10, 2022

No. 04-22-00330-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF L.G.D. AND R.O.B, Children,

From the 288th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2021-PA-00769

Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

On May 13, 2022, the trial court signed a final judgment terminating the parental rights 

of appellants J.B. and N.D. Because this is an accelerated appeal, the notice of appeal was due to 

be filed on June 2, 2022. See TEX. R. APP. P. 4.1(a), 26.1(b), 28.4; TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 

263.405(a). A motion for extension of time to file the notice of appeal was due to be filed on 

June 17, 2022. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3. J.B. timely filed a notice of appeal, but to date, N.D. 

has not filed a notice of appeal. N.D., however, filed a motion for extension of time to file her 

brief on July 6, 2022, and she filed a brief on August 4, 2022. In her statement of the case in her 

brief, N.D. states that she filed a notice of appeal, but the record cite given is to J.B.’s notice of 

appeal.

The timely filing of a notice of appeal is jurisdictional, and absent a timely filed notice of 

appeal or a timely filed request for an extension of time, we generally must dismiss the appeal.

See id. R. P. 25.1(b); In re K.M.Z., 178 S.W.3d 432, 433 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2005, no pet.). 

It is therefore ORDERED that N.D. file, within seven days from the date of this order, a 

response explaining how this court has jurisdiction over her appeal. If N.D. fails to respond 

within the time provided, this appeal will be dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c).

It is so ORDERED August 10, 2022.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:__________________________

 MICHAEL A. CRUZ, 

 CLERK OF COURT
H. Res. 229

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

May 15, 2003.

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule

XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the

Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of

the bill (H.R. 1527) to amend title 49, United States Code

to authorize appropriations for the National Transportation

Safety Board for fiscal years 2003 through 2006, and for

other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. General debate shall be confined to the bill and

shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by

the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee

on Transportation and Infrastructure. After general debate

the bill shall be considered for amendment under the fiveminute rule. Each section of the bill shall be considered as

read. During consideration of the bill for amendment, the

Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority

in recognition on the basis of whether the Member offering

an amendment has caused it to be printed in the portion of
2

•HRES 229 EH

the Congressional Record designated for that purpose in

clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill

for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill

to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on

the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Attest:

Clerk.