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

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 288 

Commemorating October 22, 2015, as the 50th anniversary of the enactment 

of the Highway Beautification Act of 1965. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 19, 2015 

Mr. ALEXANDER (for himself and Mr. UDALL) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Environment and Public 

Works 

OCTOBER 22, 2015 

Committee discharged; considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Commemorating October 22, 2015, as the 50th anniversary 

of the enactment of the Highway Beautification Act of 1965. 

Whereas, on October 22, 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson 

signed the Highway Beautification Act of 1965 (Public 

Law 89–285; 79 Stat. 1028), also known as ‘‘Lady 

Bird’s Bill’’, ‘‘to protect the public investment in [public] 

highways, to promote the safety and recreational value of 

public travel, and to preserve natural beauty’’; 

Whereas, earlier in 1965, President Johnson convened a 

White House Conference on Natural Beauty that recommended, among other things, certain highway beautification actions; 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

SRES 288 ATS 

Whereas, at the signing of the Highway Beautification Act of 

1965 (Public Law 89–285; 79 Stat. 1028), President 

Johnson stated: ‘‘This bill does not represent everything 

that we wanted. It does not represent what we need. It 

does not represent what the national interest requires. 

But it is a first step, and there will be other steps. For 

though we must crawl before we walk, we are going to 

walk.’’; 

Whereas, since inception, the National Highway System has 

expanded to, as of October 2015, over 220,000 miles 

stretching across the United States; and 

Whereas the national vision led by President Johnson and 

Lady Bird Johnson for a more beautiful highway system 

should be remembered and renewed: Now, therefore, be 

it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) recognizes the legacy and vision of Presi3 dent Lyndon B. Johnson and Lady Bird Johnson on 

4 the 50th anniversary of the enactment of the High5 way Beautification Act of 1965 (Public Law 89– 

6 285; 79 Stat. 1028); 

7 (2) commends the organizations, volunteers, 

8 and businesses that work to support the vision of a 

9 more beautiful United States; 

10 (3) recognizes that beautiful highways and sce11 nic byways— 

12 (A) promote— 

13 (i) economic development; and 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

SRES 288 ATS 

1 (ii) national and international tour2 ism; and 

3 (B) reflect the best of the United States; 

4 and 

5 (4) renews the previous commitment of the Sen6 ate to— 

7 (A) protect the public investment in public 

8 highways; 

9 (B) promote the safety and recreational 

10 value of public travel; and 

11 (C) preserve the natural beauty of the 

12 United States. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Dismissed and Opinion Filed October 26, 2016 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-16-01064-CV 

BILL E. LEAVELL AND BARBARA J. LEAVELL, Appellants 

V. 

INMAN A PLUS GUTTERS, PAINTING & SHEET METAL, INC., Appellee 

On Appeal from the 59th Judicial District Court 

Grayson County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. CV-14-1513 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Chief Justice Wright, Justice Lang-Miers, and Justice Stoddart 

Opinion by Chief Justice Wright 

The Court has before it appellants’ and appellee’s agreed motion for non-suit. The 

parties represent that they have reached a “full and final settlement of all issues” pending on 

appeal. 

We GRANT the motion and DISMISS the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(2). 

161064F.P05 

 

/Carolyn Wright/ 

CAROLYN WRIGHT 

CHIEF JUSTICE 
 –2– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

BILL E. LEAVELL AND BARBARA J. 

LEAVELL, Appellants 

No. 05-16-01064-CV V. 

INMAN A PLUS GUTTERS, PAINTING & 

SHEET METAL, INC., Appellee 

 On Appeal from the 59th Judicial District 

Court, Grayson County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. CV-14-1513. 

Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright. 

Justices Lang-Miers and Stoddart 

participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED. 

 Pursuant to their agreement, each party shall bear their costs incurred in this appeal. 

Judgment entered October 26, 2016.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. ZoAnn BROWN, Appellant.

No. 07-2136.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 2, 2008.

Filed: Feb. 4, 2008.

Kevin Craig Fletcher I, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Sioux City, IA, for Appellee.

Pamela Ann Wingert, Wingert Law Office, Spirit Lake, IA, for Appellant.

ZoAnn Brown, Primghar, IA, pro se.

Before MURPHY, SMITH, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

ZoAnn Brown appeals the 292-month prison sentence the district court1 imposed after she pleaded guilty to possessing with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of a methamphetamine mixture containing 50 grams or more of actual methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A). In a brief filed under *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Brown’s counsel seeks permission to withdraw.

We conclude that Brown’s within-Guidelines-range sentence is not unreasonable because nothing in the record indicates the court overlooked a relevant factor, gave significant weight to an improper factor, or, in weighing the appropriate factors, made a clear error of judgment. *See Rita v. United States,*— U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2462-68, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007) (appellate presumption of reasonableness); *United States v. Haack,*403 F.3d 997, 1003-04 (8th Cir.2005) (reasonableness factors).

After reviewing the record independently under *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel leave to withdraw, conditioned on counsel informing appellant about the procedures for filing a petition for rehearing for certiorari, and we affirm the district court’s judgment.

1

. The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa.
Exhibit 32



CERTIFICATION



Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, for the purposes of section 1350 of chapter 63 of title 18 of the United States Code, in his capacity as an
officer of SRI/Surgical Express, Inc. (SRI), that, to his knowledge, the Quarterly Report of SRI on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2005, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that
the information contained in this report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of SRI.



|                      |  |     |  |                           
|--------------------- |  | --- |  | --------------------------
|Date: August 12, 2005 |  | By: |  | /s/ Christopher S. Carlton
|                      |  |     |  | Christopher S. Carlton    
|                      |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer   
|                      |  |    
|Date: August 12, 2005 |  | By: |  | /s/ Wallace D. Ruiz       
|                      |  |     |  | Wallace D. Ruiz           
|                      |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 175 (Tuesday, September 12, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 42861]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-19269]


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

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of notice required under 39 U.S.C. 3642(d)(1): September 
12, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
September 6, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Priority Mail 
Contract 348 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at 
www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2017-184, CP2017-285.

Elizabeth A. Reed,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2017-19269 Filed 9-11-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
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(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
consolidated financial condition and results of operations of the Corporation and its
subsidiary.
 /s/ Steven C. Futrell
    
    /s/ Kendall W. RiemanSteven C. Futrell, President and CEO
    
    Kendall W. Rieman, Treasurer(Principal Executive Officer)
    
    (Principal Financial Officer)Date: October 30, 2009
    
    Date: October 30, 2009
 
 *
    
    This certification is being furnished as required by Rule 13a-14(b) under the Securities Exchange
Act of
1934, as amended (the Exchange Act) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United
States Code, and shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act or
otherwise subject to the liability of that Section. This certification shall not be deemed to be
incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the
Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Corporation specifically incorporates this
certification by reference.
#### Western Star Lodge, No. 2, *v.*Schminke, Postmaster.

*(Circuit Court, D. Nebraska.*

January, 1883.)

1. Postmasters—Removal op Post-Oppices—Postmaster General.

A postmaster is a subordinate officer of the post-office department, and hound to obey the orders of the postmaster general.

2. Same.

The power to remove the post-office in certain towns from one building to another is vested by law in the postmaster general, and can he exercised by him at his discretion.

3. Same.

A claim for rent of premises occupied, or leased to he occupied, by the government as a post-office, should be sued for in the court of claims.

4. Same.

The circuit court has no jurisdiction to grant relief against the government.

In Equity. On exceptions to answer.

MoCrary, J.

This is a bill in equity brought for the purpose of restraining the respondent, who is postmaster at Nebraska City, Nebraska, from obeying an order of the postmaster general of the United States, directing him to remove the post-office in that city from one building to another. This relief is sought upon the ground that a removal of the office, as proposed, would be in violation of a lease executed by the late postmaster general, Horace Maynard, whereby certain premises, in which the complainants have an interest, were leased for use as a post-office for a period of four years.

The relief sought cannot be granted for several reasons: (1) The respondent-is a subordinate officer of the post-office department, and bound to obey the order of the postmaster general. (2) The postmaster general is not made a party, and cannot, therefore, be enjoined in this proceeding, even if it were within the power of the court to control his action in the matter of locating and removing post-offices. (3) The power to remove the post-office at Nebraska City from one place within the city to another, is vested by law in *411the postmaster general, and can be exercised by him at his discretion. (4) If the lease executed by the late postmaster general to complainant is a valid contract, the complainant is entitled to the stipulated rent for the entire term, and may recover the same by suit in the court of claims; but I know of no other remedy. The law does not authorize the postmaster general to bind the United States by an agreement that a post-office shall not be removed from a particular building during a period of four years, or any other period. Besides, the lease in question does not show that the late postmaster general undertook to make such a contract, and the answer avers that the lease expresses the whole contract. (5) The contract, such as it is, is with the “United States, by Horace Maynard, postmaster general,” and this court has no jurisdiction to grant any relief upon it or against the government.

The exceptions to the answer are overruled.
#### Teresa Figueroa OCAMPO, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-74047.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 20, 2007 *.

Filed Dec. 28, 2007.

Teresa Figueroa Ocampo, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.

CAC-District, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Kurt B. Larson, Esq., Stacy S. Paddack, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

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 **

Teresa Figueroa Ocampo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings. We dismiss the petition for review. In the underlying proceedings, the agency denied Figueroa’s application for cancellation of removal on that ground that she failed to establish exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to her U.S. citizen children. In the motion to reopen, Figueroa presented evidence that she had given birth to another child, but did not claim that the new child had any medical or other problems.

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary determination that the evidence would not alter its prior discretionary determination that Figueroa failed to establish the requisite hardship. *See Fernandez v. Gonzales,*439 F.3d 592, 600 (9th Cir.2006) (holding that 8 U.S.C. *68§ 1252(a)(2)(B)® bars this court from reviewing the denial of a motion to reopen where “the only question presented is whether [the] new evidence altered the prior, underlying discretionary determination that [the petitioner] had not met the hardship standard.”) (internal quotations and brackets omitted).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
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 Accounting Standards Advisory Board

# AGENCY:

Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board.

# ACTION:

Notice.

*Board Action:*                     Pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3511(d), the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), as amended, and the FASAB Rules Of Procedure, as amended in October 2010, notice is hereby given that the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) has issued an exposure draft of a proposed Technical Bulletin entitled                     *Intragovernmental Exchange Transactions.*

                    The exposure draft is available on the FASAB Web site at                     *http://www.fasab.gov/​documents-for-comment/​.*                     Copies can be obtained by contacting FASAB at (202) 512-7350.                

                    Respondents are encouraged to comment on any part of the exposure draft. Written comments are requested by October 5, 2017, and should be sent to                     *fasab@fasab.gov*                     or Wendy M. Payne,                           ( print page 42552)                        Executive Director, Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board, 441 G Street NW., Suite 6814, Mailstop 6H19, Washington, DC 20548.                

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. Wendy M. Payne, Executive Director, 441 G Street NW., Mailstop 6H19, Washington, DC 20548, or call (202) 512-7350.

Authority:Federal Advisory Committee Act, Pub. L. 92-463.

Dated: September 5, 2017.

Wendy M. Payne,

Executive Director.

[FR Doc. 2017-19062 Filed 9-7-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 1610-02-P
**Exhibit
      32.1**





CERTIFICATION
      OF PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT
      TO 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of ATSI Communications, Inc. on Form 10-QSB
      for the period ending January 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Arthur L. Smith, President and Chief
      Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C, ss. 1350,
      as
      adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that,





1)  the
      Report complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





2)  the
      information in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
      financial condition and result of operations of the Company.





By
      /s/
      Arthur L. Smith


Arthur
      L.
      Smith


President
      and


Chief
      Executive Officer


March
      19,
      2007
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF DAISYTEK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES FOR
NINE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          33,693
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  168,842
<ALLOWANCES>                                     6,017
<INVENTORY>                                    104,443
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               309,107
<PP&E>                                          52,901
<DEPRECIATION>                                  25,510
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 383,129
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          117,129
<BONDS>                                         52,101
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           173
<OTHER-SE>                                     204,135
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   383,129
<SALES>                                        763,013
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               763,013
<CGS>                                          686,432
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  686,432
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 6,706
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,222
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,061
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,313
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,236
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,236
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.13


</TABLE>
exh10-22.htm


 










Exhibit 10.22


Stock Transfer Agreement







(Translation)







Party A: Korea Stevia Co, Ltd.


Authorized Representative: Jeong Ill-hwan, Kim Ee Youp


Address: Jeopji-ri, Ibam-myeon Jeongeup-si Jeollabuk-do 538-12 Korea







Party B: Qufu Shengwang Stevia Biology and Science Co., Ltd.


Authorized Representative: Laiwang Zhang


Address: 6 Shengwang Avenue, Shuyuan Industrial Park, Qufu, Shandong Province







After negotiation, both parties have agreed on the transfer of the equity interest of Qufu Shengwang Stevia Biology and Science Co., Ltd. owned by the parties pursuant to the following terms:








	
  

	
1.

	
Pursuant to the resolution of the board meeting held by Qufu Shengwang Stevia Biology and Science Co., Ltd. on September 30, 2011, Party B agrees to pay Party A with a lump sum of RMB4,000,000 to exchange all the historical investments made by Party A in Party B which are composed of cash contribution of RMB4,181,800 and current inventory with the book value of RMB2,480,990. The payment shall wire to Qingdao Tounong Organic Fertilizer Co., Ltd. owned by Korea Stevia Co, Ltd.








	
  

	
2.

	
Once the buyout is executed, Party A agrees to transfer its 40% equity interest of Qufu Shengwang Stevia Biology and Science Co., Ltd. to Party B. After the transfer, Party A shall not have any right or interest in the joint venture.








	
  

	
3.

	
This Agreement takes effect with the signatures of authorized representatives (or entrusted agents) of both parties.








	
  

	
4.

	
This Agreement has two identical copies. Each party shall hold one copy. Both copies have the same legal force.












Party A Signature: /s/ Jeong Ill-hwan,


Jeong Ill-hwan


/s/ Kim Ee Youp


Kim Ee Youp


Party B Signature: /s/ Laiwang Zhang


Laiwang Zhang


/s/Fanjun Wu


Fanjun Wu


/s/Dongdong Lin


Dongdong Lin












                                                                                                September 30, 2011