alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
OFFICE OFTHE ATTORNEYGENERALOFTEXAS AUSTINBanorable P. L. ldarquos8, Pago 8

p~vi~iona of the above afted Cartifiaate of Title lot:

*Sea. 4. 'rhaterm 

### ~Owner~ lnaludesany person, firm, as8ooiatloa, of oorporation other than a mntiaoturer, Importer,diatrlbutor, or **dealer** clahing title to, or having a right to operate purnuant to a lien on a motor rshlolr after the flnt sale aa herein drflnad, eraopt the Federal Oareraaat aad tny of it8 ageaoIe8, aad tha State of 'kxaa and any gpvsrawatal subdirlrioaor agaaoy thereor not requlrod **by,law** to ragl8t6r or lioenesmotor rehfole8 OW~O$ or u8sd thelrbf la Mli.8

stat*.- "8.0. 60. ml8 pr0r10mu of thi.8 AQt ahall a& apply to 

### motor vshlel.8 nob nq@~red ta bo nglatorsd 

### or lloaaard uadar 

### thaIan8 of thi8 

### Statsthea sffeobiro, aoz to nm)or vehlolrs arm* l d or operatad **by** the haenj, (io*oramat or my 

## ofit8 ageaoi*8, 

## theState 

## ornru8, or 

## 8.wmint01

### E al gorermmt w&888 8ueh 

### motorvehlol~ ir med to a 

### prreoa nqulrad 

### under this Aot to 

### pmow a oertifioato of title, in rhioh emat the provision8 hereof 8hall be fall3 operative a8 to cluoh 

### motor nhiolo.*

A m~atlT0 

### aaawerto gstrrfint pw8tion;st8 W qulrod under the above-quated rtatutoryproridoB8;'

With r*tamaoo to faor woead que8tiaa. tttl8departmeat haa, Ln our "nlaloa l&h O-8999, that 

### motor rohiale8 pwoha8ed at ret& 8alm an4 mmti ana o 

### antadby yaoi*a 

### or lastrumataUtlo8 of th8 lNdere1 B

### omramoat Or br eouatlo8, oitir8, rohool dfetriot8 aad other polltioal 8ubttiifoba8of the 8tate of Tour, would 

## aotbo **8ubjeot** to the tax levied by Art1018 6, liwn Bill no. 0, Aat6, Reg

### ularSc8dc)n,

Fortpreveath Logialature, w~eael~w a 

### aopypi this op$aioa 

### foryour oonvsaienoa and taioraatioa.

Trll8ting

the roregeing lwlly umw8FI) your lnquirlos, we am
#### Miguel Sumba, Plaintiff, v Clermont Park Associates, LLC, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant. Clermont Park Residence LLC, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.

Submitted December 24, 2007;

decided February 7, 2008

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. WATCHMAKERS OF SWITZERLAND INFORMATION CENTER, INC., et al., Defendants.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

March 18, 1960.

See also 25 F.R.D. 347.

Richard B. O’Donnell, Chief, New York Office, Antitrust Div., Mary Gardiner Jones, New York City, W. Louise Florencourt, Boston, Mass., Carl L. Stein-house, Yonkers, N. Y., Attys., Dept, of Justice, for U. S.

*347Goodwin, Danforth, Savage & Whitehead, New York City, for defendants, Longines-Wittnauer Watch Co., Inc. and Wittnauer et Cié, S.A., by Donovan, Leisure, Newton & Irvine, James Y. Hayes, John A. Manning, New York City, of counsel.

CASHIN, District Judge.

Considered herein are objections by defendants, Longines-Wittnauer Watch Co., Inc. and Wittnauer et Cié, S.A., to a request for admission of genuineness of documents made by plaintiff dated January 13, 1960. Three grounds of objections are stated, which will be considered seriatim.

The first ground of objection is that the request does not seek information but a statement of conclusions of law. Suffice it to say that a reading of the request indicates that factual information is sought. The first ground of objection is, therefore, overruled.

The second ground of objection is that the purpose of request can be accomplished more properly and expeditiously at a pre-trial hearing or at trial. This ground is also overruled. An answer to the request will expedite the trial of the action and thus the utilization of Rule 36 is not only proper but desirable.

The third ground of objection appears to be that successive requests served by plaintiff concerning the genuineness of documents are harassing. I find no merit to this contention. This is basically a documentary case where the number of documents are voluminous. Since this is so, successive requests are not burdensome.

The moving defendants also complain because the sworn answer must be executed in Switzerland. While this might cause some difficulty for defendants’ counsel, I cannot see where I have any authority to dispense with the clear provision of the Rule that the responses must be sworn to by the party.

The objections are overruled in their entirety.

It is so ordered.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2723 

To amend title IV of the Budget Control Act of 2011 to protect the Social 

Security and SSI programs from budget cuts under such Act. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

AUGUST 1, 2011 

Ms. WILSON of Florida introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Rules 

A BILL 

To amend title IV of the Budget Control Act of 2011 to 

protect the Social Security and SSI programs from budget cuts under such Act. 

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 ‘‘Social Security Protec5 tion Act of 2011’’. 

6 SEC. 2. NO SOCIAL SECURITY OR SSI CUTS. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Title IV of the Budget Control 

8 Act of 2011 is amended by adding at the end the following 

9 new section: 


tjames on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2723 IH

1 ‘‘SEC. 405. NO SOCIAL SECURITY OR SSI CUTS. 

2 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The joint committee shall not in3 clude in its proposed legislative language submitted pursu4 ant to section 401(b)(3)(B)(iv) any provision that— 

5 ‘‘(1) reduces eligibility, payments, or benefits, 

6 or otherwise reduces outlays, under title II of the 

7 Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) (includ8 ing eligibility, payments, benefits, or outlays with re9 spect to annuities under subsection (a), (c), or (d) 

10 of section 2 of the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974 

11 (45 U.S.C. 231a(a), (c), (d)) or lump sum payments 

12 under section 6(b) of such Act (45 U.S.C. 231e(b))); 

13 or 

14 ‘‘(2) reduces eligibility, payments, or benefits, 

15 or otherwise reduces outlays, under title XVI of the 

16 Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.). 

17 ‘‘(b) NO APPLICATION OF EXPEDITED PROCE18 DURES.—If the joint committee bill includes a provision 

19 that violates subsection (a), the expedited procedures in 

20 section 402 shall not apply to such bill.’’. 

21 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The table of con22 tents in section 1(b) of such Act is amended by inserting 

23 after the item relating to section 404 the following new 

24 item: 

‘‘405. No Social Security or SSI cuts.’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
1 The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, United St ates District Judge for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and r ecommendations of the Honorable Jonathan G. Lebedoff, United States Magistrate J udge for the District of Minnesota, now retired. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 05-3613

___________ Kent Richard Jones, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. John Stuart, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: December 7, 2006 Filed: December 14, 2006

___________ Before SMITH, MAGILL and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Kent Richard Jones appeals the district court’s 1 dismissal with prejudice of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. Having carefu lly reviewed the record, we conclude dismissal of the complaint was proper for th e reasons explained by the district court. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. See8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
#### In re: Reginald P. BURGESS, Debtor, Reginald P. Burgess, Appellant, v. John D. Williams, Appellee.

No. 05-55128.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted: Oct. 11, 2005.*

Decided: Oct. 25, 2005.

Reginald P. Burgess, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.

L’Tanya M. Butler, Esq., Andrea G. Van Leesten, Esq., Law Offices of Andrea G. Van Leesten, Los Angeles, CA, for Appel-lee.

Before: HALL, T.G. NELSON, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Reginald P. Burgess appeals pro se the district court’s judgment affirming a bankruptcy court order dismissing his Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition as a bad faith filing. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 158(d) and 1291. We review for clear error the bankruptcy court’s findings of fact and review de novo its legal conclusions. *Allred v. Kentucky (In re Kennerly),*995 F.2d 145, 146 (9th Cir.1993). We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s denial of a recusal motion. *Jorgensen v. Cassiday,*320 F.3d 906, 911 (9th Cir.2003). We affirm.

The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Burgess’ Chapter *92211 petition because the record indicated he was utilizing bankruptcy petitions as a litigation tactic to interfere with ongoing state court proceedings, he offered no substantial proof that his business existed, and he did not appear to possess any assets with which to reorganize. *See Marsch v. Marsch (In re Marsch),*36 F.3d 825, 828-29 (9th Cir.1994) (per curiam).

Contrary to his assertion, Burgess offers no evidence that the district court judge was biased, and we find no abuse of discretion in the denial of his motion to disqualify. *See Yagman v. Republic Ins.,*987 F.2d 622, 626-27 (9th Cir.1993) (mere speculative assertions of invidious motive are insufficient to show judicial bias).

All remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

No further filings will be accepted in this closed appeal.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 182 (Thursday, September 21, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 44195]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-20189]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4337-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2017-0001]


Florida; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Florida (FEMA-4337-DR), dated September 10, 2017, and 
related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued September 11, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and 
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Florida is hereby amended to include the following 
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by 
the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration 
of September 10, 2017.

    Broward and Palm Beach Counties for Individual Assistance 
(already designated for debris removal and emergency protective 
measures [Categories A and B], including direct federal assistance, 
under the Public Assistance program).

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, 
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis 
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster 
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance 
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and 
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, 
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing 
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially 
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other 
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially 
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Brock Long,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2017-20189 Filed 9-20-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
GTECH  Corporation,  a  Delaware  corporation,  is the  sole  subsidiary
of  the  Company.  The  wholly-owned subsidiaries  of GTECH  Corporation,  and
other entities  affiliated  with GTECH  Corporation,  are set forth below
along with the respective jurisdictions (in parentheses) in which each entity
has been organized.


Dreamport, Inc. (Delaware) (formerly GTECH Gaming sub. 1)

Environmental Paper Products, Inc. (RI)

GameScape, Inc. (RI)

Gaming Systems Corporation (Delaware)

Gana de Mexico S.A. de C.V.

Grand Cards Systems (Shanghai) Ltd. (China)

GRYTEK Co. Ltd. (Poland)

GTECH Argentina S.A. (Argentina)

GTECH Asia Corporation (Delaware)

GTECH Australasia Corporation (Delaware)

GTECH Canada Computer Systems Corporation (Canada)

GTECH Computer Systems Sdn Bhd (Malaysia)

GTECH Corporation (Delaware)

GTECH Corporation (Utah)

GTECH Corporation Chile, S.A. (Chile)

GTECH Czechoslovakia Corporation (Delaware)

GTECH De Mexico S.A. de C.V. (Mexico)

GTECH Eesti A.S. (Estonia)

GTECH Espana Corporation (Delaware)

GTECH Europe S.A. (Belgium)

GTECH Export Corporation (United States Virgin Islands)

GTECH Far East Pte Ltd (Singapore)

GTECH Foreign Holdings Corporation (Delaware)

GTECH Gaming Subsidiary 2 Corporation  (Delaware)
<PAGE>
GTECH Ireland Corporation (Delaware)

GTECH Italy Corporation (Delaware)

GTECH Latin America Corporation (Delaware)

GTECH LIT Corporation (Lithuania)

GTECH Lithuania Corporation (Delaware)

GTECH Management P.I. Corporation (Delaware)

GTECH Nevada Corporation (Delaware)

GTECH Northern Europe Corporation (Delaware)

GTECH Offshore Services Limited (Jersey, Channel Islands)

GTECH South Africa Corporation (Delaware)

GTECH Suffolk Corporation (Delaware)

GTECH Sweden Corporation (Delaware)

GTECH Taiwan Corporation (Delaware)

GTECH Texas Corporation (Delaware)

GTECH U.K. Limited (U.K.)

GTECH U.K. Corporation (Delaware)

GTECH Venezuela Corporation (Delaware)

GTECH Worldserv, Inc. (Delaware)

GTECH Worldserv International, Inc. (Delaware)

GTECH Worldwide Services Corporation (Delaware)

Innovative Environmental Technologies, Inc. (Delaware)

LAC Corporation (Rhode Island)

Loteria Asociada S.A. (Argentina)

Oy GTECH Finland Ab. (Finland)

Technology Risk Management Services, Inc.
<PAGE>
Technology Travel Corporation (Delaware)

Transaction Strategies Inc. (Delaware)

Transactive Corporation (Delaware)
(formerly GTECH Administrative Services Corp.)

Via Video Corporation (Delaware)

Watson Land Company (Rhode Island)


            GTECH Corporation Affiliates

West Greenwich Technology Associates, L.P. (limited partnership)

Lottery Technology Enterprises (D.C.) (joint venture)

Pro-Olimpic S.R.L. (Romania) (joint venture)

GTECH do Brazil Commercial Ltda (Brazil) ("Limitada")

Racimec Information Brasiliera (Brazil) (Minority interest in corporation)

BTN Telecommunicados Ltda (Brazil) ("Limitada")
Exhibit 32.1

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 Quarterly Report of Charles & Colvard, Ltd. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Robert S. Thomas, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  | 
|----------------------- |  | 
|/s/ Robert S. Thomas    |  | 
|Robert S. Thomas        |  | 
|Chief Executive Officer |  | 
|August 6, 2007          |  |
Exhibit 32.1


CERTIFICATION


PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report of Retrospettiva, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2013 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, (the "Report"), I, Borivoje Vukadinovic, the Company’s Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer, 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:





(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 financial condition and results of the Company.








Date:  November 19, 2013








/s/ Borivoje Vukadinovic


Borivoje Vukadinovic,


Principal Executive Officer








/s/ Borivoje Vukadinovic


Borivoje Vukadinovic,


Principal Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.2

                            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 quarterly report of Diner's Acquisition  Corporation (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the quarter  ended  September  30, 2006, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I, Scott  Campbell,  certify to the best of my knowledge,  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 result of  operations of the
Company.


/s/ Scott Campbell
---------------------------
Scott Campbell, President & CFO
November 20, 2006
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 253 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 253

 Welcoming King Felipe VI and Queen Letizia of Spain on their official 
     visit to the United States, including visits to Miami and St. 
                          Augustine, Florida.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 15, 2015

   Mr. Nelson (for himself, Mr. Rubio, and Mr. Kaine) submitted the 
 following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign 
                               Relations

                           September 17, 2015

             Committee discharged; considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Welcoming King Felipe VI and Queen Letizia of Spain on their official 
     visit to the United States, including visits to Miami and St. 
                          Augustine, Florida.

Whereas King Felipe VI and Queen Letizia of Spain are visiting St. Augustine, 
        Florida, to celebrate the 450th Commemoration of the city and to 
        participate in the annual United States-Spain Council forum;
Whereas Spanish explorer Ponce de Leon landed on the east coast of Florida in 
        1513 and named the land he discovered La Florida;
Whereas St. Augustine was founded by Spanish admiral Pedro Menendez de Aviles on 
        September 8, 1565;
Whereas St. Augustine is the oldest continuously occupied European settlement in 
        the United States;
Whereas the United States-Spain Council serves an important purpose in bringing 
        the United States and Spain closer through trade, investment, education, 
        and culture, as well as by fostering military cooperation between the 2 
        countries;
Whereas the United States-Spain Council is holding its annual forum in St. 
        Augustine from September 18-20, 2015;
Whereas the people and Governments of the United States and Spain have both 
        benefitted from strong economic and cultural ties;
Whereas Spain has played a special role in the history and culture of St. 
        Augustine and Florida; and
Whereas King Felipe VI and Queen Letizia met with President Barack Obama on 
        September 15, 2015, for their first official visit to the White House: 
        Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) welcomes King Felipe VI and Queen Letizia of Spain 
        during their visit to the United States; and
            (2) expresses its appreciation for the efforts of King 
        Felipe VI and Queen Letizia to strengthen the bonds between the 
        people and Governments of the United States and Spain.
                                 <all>
```
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, June 08, 2021. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, June 08, 2021 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A21D0347. IN THE INTEREST S. J. R. R., A CHILD (MOTHER) .
Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this order. The Clerk of Juvenile Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.
LC NUMBERS: 2000578
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, in his capacity as an officer of
ACG Holdings, Inc. and American Color Graphics, Inc., (collectively the
"Company"), that the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the fiscal
year ended March 31, 2006 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof fully complies with the requirements of sections 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information
contained in such Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date:    June 28, 2006                           /s/  Stephen M. Dyott
         -                                       ------------------------------
                                                      Stephen M. Dyott
                                                      Chief Executive Officer

Date:    June 28, 2006                           /s/   Patrick W. Kellick
                                                 ------------------------------
                                                       Patrick W. Kellick
                                                       Chief Financial Officer

                                       97