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

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 677 

To prohibit the application of certain restrictive eligibility requirements to 

foreign nongovernmental organizations with respect to the provision of 

assistance under part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 9, 2015 

Mrs. BOXER (for herself, Ms. COLLINS, Mrs. SHAHEEN, Mr. DURBIN, Mrs. 

MURRAY, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. MARKEY, Mrs. GILLIBRAND, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, Mr. BLUMENTHAL, Ms. WARREN, Mr. MURPHY, Mr. COONS, Mr. 

SANDERS, Mr. WYDEN, Mr. SCHATZ, and Mr. CARDIN) introduced the 

following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 

Foreign Relations 

A BILL 

To prohibit the application of certain restrictive eligibility 

requirements to foreign nongovernmental organizations 

with respect to the provision of assistance under part 

I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Global Democracy Pro5 motion Act’’. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 677 IS

1 SEC. 2. ASSISTANCE FOR FOREIGN NONGOVERNMENTAL 

2 ORGANIZATIONS UNDER PART I OF THE FOR3 EIGN ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1961. 

4 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, regula5 tion, or policy, in determining eligibility for assistance au6 thorized under part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 

7 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151 et seq.), foreign nongovernmental 

8 organizations— 

9 (1) shall not be ineligible for such assistance 

10 solely on the basis of health or medical services, in11 cluding counseling and referral services, provided by 

12 such organizations with non-United States Govern13 ment funds if such services do not violate the laws 

14 of the country in which they are being provided and 

15 would not violate United States Federal law if pro16 vided in the United States; and 

17 (2) shall not be subject to requirements relating 

18 to the use of non-United States Government funds 

19 for advocacy and lobbying activities other than those 

20 that apply to United States nongovernmental organi21 zations receiving assistance under part I of such 

22 Act. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

DONNA J. WIRS,

Appellant,

v.

JEFFREY D. WIRS,

Appellee.

No. 4D20-259

[December 17, 2020]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Dale Cohen, Judge; L.T. Case No. FMCE05-3343.

Steven R. Brenners, Coral Springs, for appellant.

Meaghan K. Marro of Marro Law, P.A., Plantation, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

LEVINE, C.J., MAY and ARTAU, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Harith Rajogapalan, certify that:

1.	I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10‐K of Fractyl Health, Inc.;

2.	Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

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

4.	The registrant’s other certifying 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)	[omitted];

(c)	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

(d)	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 (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)	All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; 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: April 1, 2024 | By: | /s/ Harith RajogapalanHarith Rajogapalan, M.D., Ph.D.Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer) |

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

----
#### Ian Orville AIKEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dick CLARK, Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 06-56414.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 20, 2007.*

Filed Dec. 28, 2007.

Ian Orville Aiken, Coleman, FL, pro se.

Office of the U.S. Attorney Civil & Tax Divisions, Los Angeles, CA, John E. Nor-din, II, Esq., for Defendant-Appellee.

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

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Federal prisoner Ian Orville Aken appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing as untimely his action brought under *Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics,*403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, *Papa v. United States,*281 F.3d 1004, 1009 (9th Cir.2002), and we affirm.

Aiken contends the district court erred by concluding that his cause of action accrued in 1998 because he did not discover the basis for his claim until 2001. This contention fails because the allegations in Aiken’s complaint show that he knew or had reason to know of his alleged injury in 1998. *See Papa,*281 F.3d at 1009 (explaining a claim accrues when the plaintiff knows, or should know, of the injury which is the basis of the cause of action).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 12

- 1488 Filed July 30, 2014

STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

vs. BRIAN MICHAEL KENNEDY , Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Des Moines County, Michael G.
Diet e rich, District Associate Judge.

Brian Kennedy appeals his conviction for driving while revoked.
AFFIRMED.

R. A. Bartolomei of Bartolomei & Lange, P.L.C., Des Moines, for appellant. Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kyle P. Hanson, Assistant Attorney General, Patrick C. Jackson, County Attorney, and Lisa Schaefer, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.

C onsidered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Tabor and Bower, JJ.2

VAITHESWARAN, P.J.
B rian Kennedy appeals his conviction for driving while revoked arising from a stop on June 26, 2011. He contends:

The district court erred in permitting the admission of the c ertified abstract of driving record and all the attachments including affidavits of mail service of the required notices of revocation, without requiring the State to produce the attesting witnesses from the office of driver services to testify and be subj ect to cross

examination as required under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amend m ent to the United States Constitution, and under Article 1, Section 10 of the Iowa Constitution. Kennedy concedes “the issue in this case is identical to the issue in S tate v. Kennedy , Court No. 11

- 1685 , ” a separate appeal from a prior driving

- while

revoked conviction. The Iowa Supreme Court recently resolved th at appeal. See State v. Kennedy , 846 N.W.2d 517 (Iowa 2014). T he court held the admission of the certified abstract of Kennedy’s driving record did not violate the Confrontation Clauses of the United States or Iowa Constitutions. Id. at 525. This holding controls the disposition of Kennedy’s present appeal, to the extent he chal lenges the admission of the certified driving record. With respect to Kennedy’s challenge to the admission of affidavits of mailing, no affidavits were attached to the certified driving record admitted in this case. Accordingly, we need not address the issue. We affirm Kennedy’s judgment and sentence for driving while revoked.
AFFIRMED.
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.                  

###### Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

*Notice is hereby given*                     that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) as Receiver for Washington First Intl Bank, Seattle, Washington (“the Receiver”) intends to terminate its receivership for said institution. The FDIC was appointed Receiver of Washington First Intl Bank on June 11, 2010. The liquidation of the receivership assets has been completed. To the extent permitted by available funds and in accordance with law, the Receiver will be making a final dividend payment to proven creditors.                

Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date of this notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the termination of the receivership, such comment must be made in writing and sent within thirty days of the date of this notice to: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Department 34.6, 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201.

No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be considered which are not sent within this time frame.

Dated: August 23, 2017.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

Robert E. Feldman,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2017-18153 Filed 8-25-17; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Nicolas LANDIN-BANDA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-40943

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Jan. 30, 2008.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

*659Before REAVLEY, BENAVIDES, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Nicolas Landin-Banda raises arguments that are foreclosed by *AlmendarezTorres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. *United States v. Pineda-Arrellano,*492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir.2007), *cert. denied,*— U.S.-, 128 S.Ct. 872, 169 L.Ed.2d 737 (2008). The appellant’s motion for summary disposition is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 82 

To suspend sales of petroleum products from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve 

until certain conditions are met. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 7, 2015 

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

to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To suspend sales of petroleum products from the Strategic 

Petroleum Reserve until certain conditions are met. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Strategic Petroleum 

5 Supplies Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON SALES FROM THE STRATEGIC PE7 TROLEUM RESERVE. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subsection 

9 (b), the Administration shall not authorize a sale of petro10 leum products from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve esVerDate Sep 11 2014 23:34 Jan 13, 2015 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S82.IS S82

smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 82 IS

1 tablished under part B of title I of the Energy Policy and 

2 Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6231 et seq.) until the date 

3 on which all permits necessary under Executive Order 

4 13337 (3 U.S.C. 301 note; relating to issuance of permits 

5 with respect to certain energy-related facilities and land 

6 transportation crossings on the international boundaries 

7 of the United States) for the Keystone XL pipeline project 

8 application filed on September 19, 2008 (including amend9 ments), have been issued. 

10 (b) EXCEPTION.—Subsection (a) shall not affect any 

11 obligations of the United States under the international 

12 energy program. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Filed 2/16/17 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2017 ND 12

Marcus Orlando Chatman, Petitioner and Appellant

v.

State of North Dakota, Respondent and Appellee

No. 20160295

Appeal from the District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, the Honorable David E. Reich, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Scott O. Diamond, 3523 45th Street South, Suite 100, Fargo, N.D. 58104, for petitioner and appellant; submitted on brief.

Tessa M. Vaagen, Assistant State’s Attorney, 514 East Thayer Avenue, Bismarck, N.D. 58501, for respondent and appellee; submitted on brief.

Chatman v. State

No. 20160295

Per Curiam.

[¶1]Marcus Chatman appeals from a district court order summarily dismissing his application for post-conviction relief.  A jury found Chatman guilty of possession of heroin with intent to deliver, possession of cocaine, and possession of marijuana by a driver, and his convictions were affirmed in State v. Chatman, 2015 ND 296, 872 N.W.2d 595.  Chatman applied for post-conviction relief, claiming he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel, the State knowingly failed to correct false testimony, and the State failed to provide him with exculpatory evidence.  The State answered Chatman’s application and moved for summary disposition, claiming his application did not raise an issue of material fact.  Chatman responded with a brief addressing his ineffective assistance of counsel claim, but he did not submit any affidavits or other comparable documentation identifying the claimed false testimony or exculpatory evidence. The district court summarily dismissed Chatman’s application, ruling he failed to establish he was prejudiced by counsel’s claimed deficient performance.  

[¶2]We conclude Chatman failed to provide competent admissible evidence by affidavit or other comparable means raising a factual dispute that he was prejudiced by trial counsel’s claimed deficient performance, that the State knowingly failed to correct false testimony, or that the State failed to provide him with exculpatory evidence.  See Henke v. State, 2009 ND 117, ¶ 11, 767 N.W.2d 881 (applicant for post-conviction relief resisting motion for summary disposition may not rely on pleadings or unsupported, conclusory allegations, but must present competent admissible evidence by affidavit or other comparable means raising issue of material fact).  We affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(6).

[¶3]Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Carol Ronning Kapsner

Lisa Fair McEvers

Daniel J. Crothers

Jerod E. Tufte
**Exhibit 13.1**

----

**Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350****As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F of **Unilever N.V.**, a corporation organized under the laws of The Netherlands (the “Company”) for the period ending **December 31, 2005** as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned officers 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 results of operations of the Company.

| Dated: 29 March 2006                       |   |
|--------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                       |   |
|                                       |   |
| /s/ Patrick Jean-Pierre Cescau             |   |
|                                            |   |
| Patrick Jean-Pierre Cescau                 |   |
| Group Chief Executive                      |   |
|                                       |   |
|                                       |   |
| Dated: 29 March 2006                       |   |
|                                       |   |
|                                       |   |
| /s/ Rudolph Harold Peter Markham           |   |
|                                            |   |
| Rudolph Harold Peter Markham               |   |
| Financial Director/Chief Financial Officer |   |
|                                       |   |

----
MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-12-00432-CR

Christopher DELACRUZ,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 6, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 304638

Honorable Wayne A. Christian, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Steven C. Hilbig, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Delivered and Filed: October 17, 2012

DISMISSED

Pro se appellant Christopher Delacruz has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. The 

motion is granted and this appeal is dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a).

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 10, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

133848 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 133848 

 COA: 266514 

Wayne CC: 04-012441-01

ARBEN KALAJ,

 Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 29, 2007 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

l0830 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

September 10, 2007 

 Clerk
Share Transfer Agreement between Hui liu and Zhikuan Guan



 Exhibit 10.26 
 English Translation of Chinese Language Agreement 
 Share Transfer Agreement 

PARTIES: 
 Transferor: Hui Liu 
 Transferee: Zhikuan Guan 
 As used in this Share Transfer Agreement
(the “Agreement”), each of the Transferor and the Transferee is a “Party” and they are collectively referred to as the “Parties.” 
 RECITALS: 
 WHEREAS, on September 1, 2008 Beijing Feijie Investment Co., Ltd. (the “Company”)
held a shareholders’ meeting at Room 203, South Wing of the Main Building, Building 15, Zhongli, Cuiwei Community, Haidian District, Beijing, the People’s Republic of China. 
 THEREFORE, pursuant to the shareholder’s resolutions passed at such shareholders’ meeting, the Parties have agreed to the following with respect to the transfer of the equity interests in the Company:

 Article 1 The Transferor desires to transfer its equity interests in the Company to the Transferee in proportion to the
Transferor’s contribution to the registered capital of the Company, i.e. RMB 5,000,000 in cash. 
 Article 2 The Transferee
desires to accept the Transferor’s equity interests in the Company in proportion to the Transferor’s contribution to the registered capital of the Company, i.e. RMB 5,000,000 in cash. 
 Article 3 After the date on which the aforementioned equity transfer is completed, the Transferor shall have no further rights, interests or
obligations with respect to such transferred equity interests and the Transferee shall assume all of the rights, interests and obligations with respect to such transferred equity interests. 
 Article 4 This Agreement has two (2) counterparts, one counterpart for each Party, and all counterparts shall have the same legal force. This
Agreement will become effective after being duly signed and/or affixed with a seal by the Parties. 







 Signature page to the Share Transfer Agreement 
  

			
	Transferor:	 	Hui Liu
	Signature:	 	 /s/    Hui Liu

		
	Transferee:	 	Zhikuan Guan
	Signature:	 	 /s/    Zhikuan Guan


 Date: September 1, 2008