alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(No. 34144.

#### Marshall C. Foreen *et al.,*Appellants, *vs.*William G. Stratton *et al.,*Appellees.

*Opinion filed November 26, 1956.*

*619Frederic D. Houghtering, F. Raymond Marks, Jr., Wirriam F. Price, and John B. Worfe, all of Chicago, for appellants.

Latham Castre, Attorney General, of Springfield, (Wirriam C. Wines, Raymond S. Sarnow, and A. Zora Groves, of counsel,) for certain appellees, and John F. Tyrrerr, and Eucrid Louis Tayror, both of Chicago, for other appellees.

Mr. Justice Schaefer

delivered the opinion of the court:

In each of two cases the plaintiffs sought declaratory judgments that section 8 — 13 and related sections of the Election Code, (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1955, chap. 46, par. 8 — 13,) are unconstitutional. Each complaint alleged that the Representative Committees of the Republican and Democratic parties had adopted resolutions limiting the number of candidates to be nominated for the office of Representative in the General Assembly so that in the two representative districts involved only three candidates, one of the Republican party and two of the Democratic party, would appear on the ballot at the November election. The complaints alleged that the Election Code, in so far as it authorized this action, *620violates sections 1 and 7 of article IV, and section 18 of article II of the constitution of Illinois.

The cases were consolidated in the trial court. Upon motion the complaints were dismissed, and plaintiffs appeal.

While the issue presented, in so far as it relates to the particular election involved, has become moot, we have considered the question on the authority of *People ex rel. Lindstrand*v. *Emmerson,*333 Ill. 606. That case, which was reaffirmed in *People ex rel. Baird*v. *Small,*335 Ill. 283, also disposes of plaintiffs’ contentions on the merits. Plaintiffs’ suggestions of alternative methods of dealing with the problem which arose when the direct primary was superimposed upon the constitutional provision for minority representation in the House of Representatives of the General Assembly (article IV, sec. 7,) are matters to be considered by the legislature rather than by this court. Since the *Pindstrand case*was decided in 1929, section 7 of article IV of the constitution has been substantially revised, but no change was made in the provision dealing with minority representation.

The judgment of the circuit court of Cook County is affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*
### **CHAPTER 21—NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE**

Sec.
3301.
Repealed.

#### SUBCHAPTER I—APPROVAL OF, AND GENERAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO, NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT

3311 to 3317. Repealed.

#### SUBCHAPTER II—CUSTOMS PROVISIONS

3331, 3332.
Repealed.
3333.
Repealed or Transferred.
3334, 3335.
Repealed.

#### SUBCHAPTER III—APPLICATION OF AGREEMENT TO SECTORS AND SERVICES

#### Part A—Safeguards

#### subpart 1—relief from imports benefiting from agreement

3351 to 3358. Repealed.

#### subpart 2—relief from imports from all countries

3371, 3372.
Transferred.

#### subpart 3—general provisions

3381, 3382.
Repealed.

#### Part B—Agriculture

3391.
Repealed.

#### Part C—Temporary Entry of Business Persons

3401.
Transferred.

#### Part D—Standards

#### subpart 1—standards and measures

3411.
Repealed.

#### subpart 2—agricultural standards

3421.
Repealed.

#### SUBCHAPTER IV—DISPUTE SETTLEMENT IN ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY CASES

#### Part A—Organizational, Administrative, and Procedural Provisions Regarding Implementation of Chapter 19 of Agreement

3431 to 3438. Transferred.

#### Part B—General Provisions

3451.
Repealed.

#### SUBCHAPTER V—MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

#### Part A—Provisions Relating to Performance Under Agreement

3461 to 3463. Repealed.

#### Part B—Implementation of NAFTA Supplemental Agreements

3471.
Repealed.
3472.
Agreement on Environmental Cooperation.
3473.
Agreement on Border Environment Cooperation Commission.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY HIGH

 903

 879

 812

 922

 852

 741

 812

 777

 784

 861

 914

 951

 968

 714

 561

 709

 685

 749

 718

 781

 765

 797

 706

 1,040

 1,054

 1,046

 909

 849

 745

 723

 718

 375

 377

 379

 404

 405

 403

 476

 479

 425

 405

 375

 362

 377

 405

 446

 488

 504

 565

 462

 656

 477

 617

 546

 717

 860

 813

 699

 556

 512

 470

 440

 647

 587

 618

 609

 533

 512

 605

 628

 612

 586

 553

 603

 664

 595

 471

 649

 557

 675

 524

 730

 632

 716

 634

 838

 974

 960

 821

 725

 651

 570

 546

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

MARCH 2008 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: April 8, 2008

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

TDS

 416

 379

 398

 392

 345

 332

 390

 404

 394

 378

 358

 389

 426

 384

 307

 417

 360

 433

 340

 467

 407

 458

 408

 534

 618

 609

 523

 464

 418

 368

 353

TOTAL 20,025

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

DELTA MENDOTA CANAL AT CHECK 21
# United States Court of Appeals **For the Eighth Circuit**

___________________________ No. 16-3214

___________________________ Iris Jaibal-Ayala lllllllllllllllllllll Petitioner
v. Jefferson B. Sessions, III, 1 Attorney General of the United States lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent

____________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

____________ Submitted: June 16, 2017 Filed: June 21, 2017 [Unpublished]

____________ Before LOKEN, ARNOLD, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM.

1 Jefferson B. Sessions, III has been appointed to serve as Attorney General of the United States, and is substituted as respondent pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c).After Guatemalan citizen Iris Jaibal-A yala sought asylum and withholding of removal based on her membership in the particular social group of Guatemalan women, an immigration judge (IJ) denied re lief and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) upheld the decision. This petition for review followed. Because the BIA adopted and affirmed the IJ’s decision, and added its own reasoning, we have reviewed both decisions together, see Alavez-Hernandez v. Holder , 714 F.3d 1063, 1066 (8th Cir. 2013), and we conclude thatsubstantial evidence supports the denial of relief, see id. (standard of review). In par ticular, Ms. Jaibal-Ayala failed to establish past persecution based on her te stimony that, for some two months, gang members threatened to harm her family if one of the daughters was not turned over to the gang for prostitution: though disturbing, the threats were neve r fulfilled, and were not so menacing as to, without more, constitute past persecution. See Malonga v. Mukasey , 546 F.3d 546, 551 (8th Cir. 2008) (withholding-of-removal standard); see also Lemus-Arita v. Sessions , 854 F.3d 476, 481 (8th Cir. 2017) (discussing unfulfilled threats); Alavez-Hernandez , 714 F.3d at 1067 (persecution is extreme concept). Further, insuffici ent evidence connected these events, or the murder of one of Ms. Jaibal-Ayala’s brothers years later, to her proposed social group. Because the record does not compel the conclusion thatMs. Jaibal-Ayala qualified for withholding of removal, see Alavez-Hernandez , 714 F.3d at 1066, we deny her petition for review. 2

______________________________

2 We do not consider those claims or i ssues that were not administratively exhausted, see Camishi v. Holder , 616 F.3d 883, 886 (8th Cir. 2010), or that have been waived, see Wanyama v. Holder , 698 F.3d 1032, 1035 n.1 (8th Cir. 2012). -2-
(No. 6978

#### Texaco, Inc., Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Department of Transportation, Respondent.

*Opinion filed November 1, 1973.*

Texaco, Inc., Claimant, pro se.

William J. Scott, Attorney General; William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.
EXHIBIT 32


                          SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS

                  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 ICrystal,  Inc. (the "Company")
on Form  10-QSB  for the  period  ended  September  30,  2003 as filed  with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Larry
J. Hrabi, CEO, Chairman and CFO 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 based on my knowledge:

     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.


Date: November 19, 2003


/s/ LARRY J. HRABI
______________________________________
Larry J. Hrabi
CEO,
Chairman and CFO





A SIGNED  ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN  STATEMENT  REQUIRED BY SECTION 906, OR OTHER
DOCUMENT AUTHENTICATING, ACKNOWLEDGING, OR OTHERWISE ADOPTING THE SIGNATURE THAT
APPEARS IN TYPED FORM WITHIN THE  ELECTRONIC  VERSION OF THIS WRITTEN  STATEMENT
REQUIRED  BY  SECTION  906,  HAS BEEN  PROVIDED  TO  (Company  Name) AND WILL BE
RETAINED  BY  (Company  Name)  AND  FURNISHED  TO THE  SECURITIES  AND  EXCHANGE
COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.
#### Frank CASSEL, Appellant, v. Winfred OVERHOLSER, Superintendent, St. Elizabeths Hospital, Appellee.

No. 12218.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Submitted March 25, 1955.

Decided April 28, 1955.

*322Mr. Frank Cassel filed a brief pro se.

Mr. Leo A. Rover, U. S. Atty., and Messrs. Lewis Carroll, Edward O. Fennell, and Samuel J. L’Hommedieu, Jr., Asst. U. S. Attys., filed a brief for appellee.

Before PRETTYMAN, WILBUR K. MILLER and DANAHER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Cassel was indicted for first degree murder in 1932, adjudicated insane, and admitted to St. Elizabeths Hospital, where he has been ever since. He has not been tried on the indictment. In 1953 he filed in the District Court a petition for a writ of *habeas corpus,*
      *1*
      **and the writ issued. In his return and answer the respondent Superintendent of the Hospital asserted the insanity of appellant and that he would be dangerous if discharged. The court ordered an inquisition by the Commission on Mental Health, which investigated and reported that appellant suffers from schizophrenia, paranoid type, and requires strict supervision in a mental hospital for the safety of others. The District Court held a. hearing, at which appellant appeared and testified. He was represented by counsel. The court made findings of fact and conclusions of law, one of the findings being that appellant is of unsound mind, in need of further care and treatment. The court discharged the writ. We find no error,

Affirmed.

. Apparently the tenth such since he has been confined.
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA

- Directorate Identifier:

- AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If they do not, click (or Tab) into and then ou t of the changed cell

.

**Estimated Costs:**

Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Do not include on

condition costs here Costs per **Product** (e.g., aircraft, engine,

propeller, appliance) Work

- hours (include access, testing, and close

- up) Labor

cost (@$8 5 / h our) Parts Cost Total Costs (labor + parts) Number of

**U.S. Registered**  **Products** Total Cost

for U.S. Fleet



### REPL ACEMENT 14.0 $ 1,190.0 0 $0 $ 1,190.00 

### 400 $ 476,000.00
$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.0 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0. 00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00



### The known number of products in com pliance: Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 476,000 

### Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $

**On**

**- Condi**  **tion Costs:**

Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Work

- hours

(include access, testing, and close

up) Labor cost

(@$85/hour) Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00



### Special considerations for Economic Analysis ( Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs) 

### :

### Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES * NO

* Explanation: **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:**

Is the AD significant?

YES * NO

* Explanation: **Regulatory Fle xibility Act:**  Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? E xplain for

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO Explanation:

**Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:**
This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it a ppropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES * NO



### * Explanation 

### :
### §3105. Persons authorized to serve search warrant

A search warrant may in all cases be served by any of the officers mentioned in its direction or by an officer authorized by law to serve such warrant, but by no other person, except in aid of the officer on his requiring it, he being present and acting in its execution.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 819.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §617 (June 15, 1917, ch. 30, title XI, §7, 40 Stat. 229).

Minor change was made in phraseology.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

DAY HIGH

 751

 740

 804

 820

 796

 755

 623

 346

 242

 264

 276

 292

 284

 270

 246

 259

 265

 277

 314

 342

 371

 353

 358

 356

 382

 411

 428

 439

 416

 413

 687

 646

 715

 718

 750

 619

 375

 227

 208

 204

 238

 236

 230

 217

 216

 237

 233

 230

 236

 251

 263

 247

 231

 245

 295

 267

 256

 292

 288

 288

 719

 690

 764

 802

 779

 704

 524

 248

 225

 237

 259

 262

 252

 243

 232

 248

 246

 251

 276

 297

 326

 309

 289

 308

 359

 355

 329

 366

 349

 350

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

JUNE 2005 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: July 11, 2005

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

TDS

 460

 442

 488

 512

 497

 451

 340

 169

 155

 162

 176

 178

 172

 166

 159

 169

 168

 171

 187

 200

 217

 207

 195

 206

 238

 235

 219

 242

 232

 232

TOTAL 11,598

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

DELTA MENDOTA CANAL AT CHECK 20
**EXHIBIT 32.2**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002I, John Horan, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Ablest Inc. (the “Company”),hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:(1) Amendment No. 2 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of the Company for theperiod ended December 31, 2006 (the “Report”), which this certification accompanies,fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.          /s/  John Horan   John Horan   Vice President and Chief Financial Officer   April 25, 2007
### §1320. Repealed. Aug. 8, 1953, ch. 397, §6(b), 67 Stat. 510

Section, act June 17, 1930, ch. 497, title III, §320, 46 Stat. 696, related to reciprocal agreements covering advertising matter.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of Repeal; Savings Provision

Repeal effective on and after thirtieth day following Aug. 8, 1953, and savings provision, see notes set out under section 1304 of this title.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

DAY HIGH

 144

 144

 143

 151

 155

 150

 142

 150

 146

 154

 133

 137

 149

 183

 163

 165

 177

 190

 170

 161

 169

 168

 171

 171

 191

 189

 244

 346

 515

 562

 132

 128

 130

 130

 126

 124

 125

 126

 126

 125

 125

 125

 127

 129

 132

 134

 136

 138

 138

 139

 140

 140

 144

 143

 144

 145

 150

 155

 158

 155

 136

 135

 135

 137

 132

 130

 130

 131

 131

 130

 127

 128

 132

 138

 140

 144

 148

 154

 149

 149

 149

 147

 149

 149

 152

 161

 181

 221

 249

 256

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

JUNE 2003 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: July 2, 2003

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

14 DAY

ACCUM

MEAN

14 DAY

AVG

MEAN

 1,899

 1,892

 1,886

 1,885

 1,880

 1,874

 1,869

 1,867

 1,868

 1,868

 1,863

 1,856

 1,851

 1,852

 1,856

 1,865

 1,878

 1,895

 1,912

 1,931

 1,950

 1,966

 1,984

 2,003

 2,028

 2,061

 2,110

 2,193

 2,302

 2,414

 136

 135

 135

 135

 134

 134

 134

 133

 133

 133

 133

 133

 132

 132

 133

 133

 134

 135

 137

 138

 139

 140

 142

 143

 145

 147

 151

 157

 164

 172

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

EMMATON BOTTOM ON THE SACRAMENTO RIVER
Exhibit
32





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 American Dairy, Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-K (the “Company”) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and President, and the Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 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 American Dairy,
Inc.





Date:  April
      15, 2009
                By:
                /s/
      Leng You-BinLeng
      You-BinChief
      Executive Officer and President(Principal
      Executive Officer)By:
                /s/
      Jonathan H. ChouJonathan
      H. ChouChief
      Financial Officer(Principal
      Accounting and Financial
Officer)





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
by Section 906, has been provided to American Dairy, Inc. and will be retained
by American Dairy, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

November 18, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
125250 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: 125250 COA: 242050 Oakland CC: 2001-177534-FC NICHOLAS JAMES JACKSON, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, leave to appeal was granted, 472 Mich 884 (2005), and the briefs and oral argument of the parties have been considered by th is Court. It now appears to this Cour t that the cases of Davis v Washington , __ US __; __ S Ct __; __ L Ed 2d __; 74 USLW 3272; 2005 WL 1671669 ; 2005 US LEXIS 7859 (October 31, 2005), and Hammon v Indiana , __ US __; __ S Ct __; __ L Ed 2d __; 74 USLW 3272; 2005 WL 1914510; 20 05 US LEXIS 7860 (October 31, 2005), are pending before the United States Supreme Court and that the deci sions in those cases may resolve an issue raised in this case. We ORDER that this case be held in ABEYANCE pending the decisions in those cases.

t1114 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

November 18, 2005

Clerk
EXHIBIT 32.2



CALIFORNIA PIZZA KITCHEN, INC



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 California Pizza Kitchen, Inc (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31,
2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Larry S. Flax, Co-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.



March 14, 2007



By:

/s/    LARRY S.
FLAXLarry S. Flax Co-Chief Executive Officer










---

|* |  | This certificate accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
|- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#### § 373.20 What are the matching requirements?

The Secretary may make grants to pay all or part of the cost of activities covered under this program. If the Secretary determines that the grantee is required to pay part of the costs, the amount of grantee participation is specified in the application notice, and the Secretary will not require grantee participation to be more than 10 percent of the total cost of the project.

(Authority: Sections 12(c) and 303(b)(1) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended; 29 U.S.C. 709(c) and 773(b)(1))