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

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 35 

Expressing support for prayer at school board meetings. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 22, 2007 

Mr. VITTER (for himself and Mr. GRASSLEY) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, 

and Pensions 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing support for prayer at school board meetings. 

Whereas the freedom to practice religion and to express religious thought is acknowledged to be a fundamental and 

unalienable right belonging to all individuals; 

Whereas the United States was founded on the principle of 

freedom of religion and not freedom from religion; 

Whereas the framers intended that the first amendment to 

the Constitution would prohibit the Federal Government 

from enacting any law that favors one religious denomination over another, not prohibit any mention of religion 

or reference to God in civic dialogue; 

Whereas in 1983, the Supreme Court held in Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783, that the practice of opening legislative sessions with prayer has become part of the fabric 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
2 

•SRES 35 IS 

of our society and invoking divine guidance on a public 

body entrusted with making the laws is not a violation 

of the Establishment Clause of the first amendment, but 

rather is simply a tolerable acknowledgment of beliefs 

widely held among the people of the Nation; 

Whereas voluntary prayer in elected bodies should not be limited to prayer in State legislatures and Congress; 

Whereas school boards are deliberative bodies of adults similar to a legislature in that they are elected by the people, 

act in the public interest, and hold sessions that are open 

to the public for voluntary attendance; and 

Whereas voluntary prayer by an elected body should be protected under law and encouraged in society because voluntary prayer has become a part of the fabric of our society, voluntary prayer acknowledges beliefs widely held 

among the people of the Nation, and the Supreme Court 

has held that it is not a violation of the Establishment 

Clause for a public body to invoke divine guidance: Now, 

therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) recognizes that prayer before school board 

3 meetings is a protected act in accordance with the 

4 fundamental principles upon which the Nation was 

5 founded; and 

6 (2) expresses support for the practice of prayer 

7 at the beginning of school board meetings. 

Æ 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 326 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 326

 Supporting the goals and ideals of a National Day of Remembrance for 
                            Murder Victims.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 24, 2007

  Mr. Cornyn (for himself, Mrs. Feinstein, and Mr. Kyl) submitted the 
   following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the 
                               Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Supporting the goals and ideals of a National Day of Remembrance for 
                            Murder Victims.

Whereas the death of a loved one is a devastating experience, and the murder of 
        a loved one is exceptionally difficult;
Whereas the friends and families of murder victims cope with grief through a 
        variety of support services, including counseling, crisis intervention, 
        professional referrals, and assistance in dealing with the criminal 
        justice system; and
Whereas the designation of a National Day of Remembrance for Murder Victims on 
        September 25 of each year provides an opportunity for the people of the 
        United States to honor the memories of murder victims and to recognize 
        the impact on surviving family members: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) supports the goals and ideals of a National Day of 
        Remembrance for Murder Victims; and
            (2) recognizes the significant benefits offered by the 
        organizations that provide services to the loved ones of murder 
        victims.
                                 <all>
```
#### § 95.16 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.

Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (Pub. L. 94-580 codified at 42 U.S.C. 6962), any State agency or agency of a political subdivision of a State which is using appropriated Federal funds must comply with Section 6002. Section 6002 requires that preference be given in procurement programs to the purchase of specific products containing recycled materials identified in guidelines developed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (40 CFR parts 247-254). Accordingly, State and local institutions of higher education, hospitals, and non-profit organizations that receive direct Federal awards or other Federal funds shall give preference in their procurement programs funded with Federal funds to the purchase of recycled products pursuant to the EPA guidelines.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                  EXHIBIT (11.1)

              THE MEAD CORPORATION AND CONSOLIDATED SUBSIDIARIES

  CALCULATION OF PRIMARY NET EARNINGS PER COMMON AND COMMON EQUIVALENT SHARE
             (All amounts in thousands, except per share amounts)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
 
 
                                                           Year Ended December 31
                                                        ----------------------------
                                                          1996      1995      1994
                                                        --------  --------  --------
<S>                                                     <C>       <C>       <C>

NET EARNINGS APPLICABLE TO COMMON AND COMMON
 EQUIVALENT SHARES                                      $195,344  $349,972  $695,725

ADJUSTMENT FOR OTHER POTENTIALLY DILUTIVE
 SECURITIES - Interest Savings (net of tax) on
 Convertible Subordinated Debentures as if converted
 at the beginning of the period                                                5,661
                                                        --------  --------  --------
NET EARNINGS APPLICABLE TO COMMON AND COMMON
 EQUIVALENT SHARES                                      $195,344  $349,972  $701,386
                                                        ========  ========  ========

AVERAGE NUMBER OF COMMON AND COMMON EQUIVALENT
 SHARES OUTSTANDING:
  Average number of common shares outstanding             52,421    54,380    59,333

  Dilutive effect of stock options after
   application of treasury stock method                      748       913       621

  Adjustment of other potentially dilutive
   securities - Dilutive effect of Convertible
   Subordinated Debentures as if converted at the
   beginning of the year                                                       2,601
                                                        --------  --------  --------
AVERAGE NUMBER OF COMMON AND COMMON
 EQUIVALENT SHARES OUTSTANDING                            53,169    55,293    62,555
                                                        ========  ========  ========
PRIMARY NET EARNINGS PER COMMON
 AND COMMON EQUIVALENT SHARE                               $3.67     $6.33  $  11.21
                                                        ========  ========  ========
 
</TABLE>

                                      65
#### § 458.54 Complaints alleging violations of § 458.2, Bill of rights of members of labor organization, or § 458.37, prohibition of certain discipline.

Any member of a labor organization whose rights under the provisions of § 458.2 or § 458.37 are alleged to have been infringed or violated, may file a complaint in accordance with § 458.53: *Provided, however,* That such member may be required to exhaust reasonable hearing procedures (but not to exceed a 4-month lapse of time) within such organization.

[45 FR 15158, Mar. 7, 1980; 45 FR 28322, Apr. 29, 1980. Redesignated at 50 FR 31311, Aug. 1, 1985]
---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---
Hillsborough

No. 6629

#### State of New Hampshire v. Normand Perreault

October 31, 1973

*Warren B. Rudman,*attorney general, and *Mr. John C. Boeckeler,*assistant attorney general *(Mr. Boeckeler*orally), for the State.

*William H.*Kelley, by brief and orally, for the defendant.

Per curiam.

This is an action to have the defendant declared to be an habitual offender under RSA ch. 262-B (Supp. 1972). During the course of the show cause hear*589ing, the defendant moved to dismiss on the grounds that the State had not filed the information within one year of the most recent conviction relied upon by the State. This motion was reserved and transferred by *Dunfey,*J.

The defendant argues that the show cause hearing provided by RSA 262-B:5 (Supp. 1972) is in fact a criminal proceeding rather than civil, since the habitual offender is not allowed to operate a motor vehicle for four years, and that such a severe restriction constitutes punishment similar to the sanctions which may be imposed upon one who commits a misdemeanor. Accordingly the defendant moved to dismiss on the ground that the State had not filed the habitual offender information within one year of the defendant’s final conviction relying upon RSA 603:1 (Supp. 1972), which requires that misdemeanor prosecutions be brought within one year.

This case is governed by *State v. Bowles,*113 N.H. 571, 311 A.2d 300 (1973), decided this day, holding that proceedings pursuant to RSA ch. 262-B (Supp. 1972) are civil in nature and are not criminal prosecutions. Hence the statute of limitations relied upon in this case is not applicable.

*Motion denied; remanded.*
#### § 780.1001 General explanatory statement.

Workers in rural areas sometimes engage, as a family unit, around the Christmas holidays, in gathering evergreens and making them into wreaths in their homes. Such workers, under well-settled interpretations by the Department of Labor and the courts, have been held to be employees of the firm which purchases the wreaths and furnishes the workers with wire used in making such wreaths.
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports.

Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum

opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain

computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of

Appeals and does not include the filing date. 

1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 STATE OF NEW MEXICO,

3 Plaintiff-Appellee,

4 v. No. 35,308

5 GUSTAVO R. ROMERO,

6 Defendant-Appellant.

7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY

8 Michael E. Martinez, District Judge

9 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General 

10 Santa Fe, NM

11 for Appellee

12 Jeffrey Romero

13 Albuquerque, NM

14 for Appellant

15 MEMORANDUM OPINION

16 BUSTAMANTE, Judge.
2

1 {1} Summary dismissal was proposed for the reasons stated in the notice of

2 proposed disposition. No memorandum opposing summary dismissal has been filed,

3 and the time for doing so has expired. 

4 {2} Dismissed.

5 {3} IT IS SO ORDERED.

6 

7 _______________________________________

8 MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge

9 WE CONCUR:

10 

11 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Chief Judge

12 

13 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge
<PAGE>
                                                                   Exhibit 10.32

                     FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
                     ---------------------------------------


     THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (the "Amendment") entered into
at Beachwood, Ohio, this 1st day of August, 2001 by and between EMPYREAN
BIOSCIENCE, INC. (the "Company") and BENNETT S. RUBIN ("Employee") amends the
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") dated September 7, 1999 between the
parties.

     The following Section 4.3 shall be added to the Agreement as follows:

     4.3 Notwithstanding the foregoing, for any termination without cause in
Employee's employment resulting from a change in control, Employee shall be paid
a separation fee equal to three times his annual compensation in addition to
receiving the severance and benefits and payments provided in paragraph 4.2. The
separation fee shall be payable in a lump sum immediately upon Employee's
termination without cause. Annual compensation shall be defined as Employee's
base salary plus the maximum amount of incentive compensation that Employee was
eligible to earn during the current fiscal year.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment in
multiple counterparts at the place and as of the date and year first above
written.

                                 EMPYREAN BIOSCIENCE, INC.  (Company)



                                 By: ___________________________________
                                        Lawrence D. Bain, Chairman



                                 _______________________________________
                                 Bennett S. Rubin         (Employee)
Opinion issued August 2, 2012.

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

____________

NO. 01-11-00612-CV

____________

PRSI TRADING COMPANY LP, Appellant

V.

ASTRA OIL TRADING NV, Appellee

On Appeal from the 270th District Court 

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2009-25450A

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is an appeal from a judgment signed June 29, 2011. On July 2, 2012, the 

parties filed a joint motion which states that they have settled the case and executed 

the necessary settlement documents. The motion requests that this Court dismiss 
2

the appeal, vacate the trial court’s judgment, dismiss the case with prejudice, and 

release the supersedeas bond and rider filed with the Harris County District Clerk. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1. No opinion has issued.

The motion is granted, the trial court’s judgment is vacated, all claims and 

counterclaims are dismissed with prejudice, and the appeal is dismissed. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(2)(A), 43.2(e), (f). We dismiss any other pending motions as 

moot. In accordance with the parties’ agreement, the Harris County District Clerk 

shall release the supersedeas bond and rider filed by appellant. Pursuant to the 

agreement of the parties, Supersedeas Bond Number 8216-83-60 is hereby fully and 

unconditionally discharged and released, and Federal Insurance Company, its 

parents, affiliates and subsidiaries are hereby released from any and all past, present 

and future liability under said bond. Costs of the appeal are taxed against the 

parties who incurred them, in accordance with the parties’ agreement. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 42.1(d). The Clerk is directed to issue the mandate upon issuance of this 

opinion, in accordance with the parties’ agreement. See TEX. R. APP. P. 18.1(c).

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Bland, Massengale, and Brown.
III 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 153 

Making temporary appointments to the Select Committee on Ethics. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 17, 2007 

Mr. REID submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed 

to 

RESOLUTION 

Making temporary appointments to the Select Committee 

on Ethics. 

1 Resolved, That (a) for matters before the Select Com2 mittee on Ethics involving the preliminary inquiry arising 

3 in connection with alleged communications by persons 

4 within the committee’s jurisdiction with and concerning 

5 David C. Iglesias, then United States Attorney for the 

6 District of New Mexico, and subsequent action by the 

7 committee with respect to that matter, if any, the Senator 

8 from Colorado (Mr. Salazar) shall be replaced by the Sen9 ator from Ohio (Mr. Brown). 

10 (b) The membership of the Select Committee on Eth11 ics shall be unchanged with respect to all matters before 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with BILLS
2 

•SRES 153 ATS 

1 that committee other than the matter referred to in sub2 section (a). 

Æ 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with BILLS
**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 **

|   | • | the                Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended                March                31, 2006, (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section                13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|---------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | • | the                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Company. |
|--------|---------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/                DAVID M. BUCKLEY    |
|----------------------------------------|
| David                M. Buckley        |
| Chief                Executive Officer |

----
#### ANNIE DEIERMANN, Respondent, v. BEMIS BROTHERS BAG COMPANY, Appellant.

St. Louis Court of Appeals,

February 6, 1912.

The opinion of tlie Springfield Court of Appeals in this ease (144 Mo. App. 474) is adopted as tlie opinion of tlie court.

Appeal from St. Lonis City Circuit Court. — Ho». *James E. Withrow,*Judge.

Affirmed.

*Beddon $ Holland*for appellant.

*A. B. Taylor*for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The appeal in this case was prosecuted to this court, but was thereafter transferred by it to the Springfield Court of Appeals under the provisions of the act of the Legislature, approved June 12, 1909. [See Laws of Missouri 1909, p. 396; see, also, sec. 3939, R. S. 1909.] In due time the cause was disposed of by the Springfield Court of Appeals through an opinion prepared by Judge Gray of that court, as will appear by reference to Deiermann v. Bemis Brothers Bag Co., 144 Mo. App. 474, 129 S. W. 229. Subsequently, the Supreme Court declared the said legislative act, which purported to authorize the transfer of cases from this court to the Springfield Court, to be unconstitutional. The cause was thereafter transferred by the Springfield Court of Appeals to this court on the theory that the jurisdiction of the appeal continued to reside here and the proceedings had in the Springfield Court with reference thereto were *coram non judice.*

The case has been argued and submitted here and duly considered. Upon reading the record and con*523sidering the arguments, we are persuaded that the opinion of the Springfield Court, above referred to, properly disposes of the controversy, and it is adopted as the opinion of this court. For the reason given in that opinion the judgment should be affirmed. It is so ordered.

All concur.
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 Annual Report of Lufkin Industries, Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, R.D. Leslie, Chief
Financial 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), as
      applicable, 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/ R. D.
Leslie





R.D.
Leslie


Chief
Financial Officer


February
29, 2008





This
certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. §1350, and not for any
other purpose.
[Cite as State v. Smalls

- Miller , 2024

- Ohio

- 3355.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

CLERMONT COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO

,

Appellee,

- vs

-

TREVOR A. SMALLS

- MILLER,

Appellant

. :

:

:

:

:

: CASE NO. CA 2024

- 03

- 020

D E C I S I O N

9/3/2024

CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM CLERMONT COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

Case No. 2022

- CR

- 01005

Mark J. Tekulve, Clermont County Prosecuting Attorney, and Ni ck Horton, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

Christopher Bazeley, for appellant.

Per Curiam

.

{¶1} This cause came on to be considered upon a notice of appeal filed by

appellant, Trevor A. Smalls

- Miller , the transcript of the docke t and journal entries, the

tran script of proceedings and original papers from the Clermont County Court of Common

Pleas, and upon the brief filed by appellant's counsel.

{¶2} Appellant's counsel has filed a brief with this court pursuant to Anders v.

California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967)

, which (1) indicates that a careful review of the recordClermont CA20 24

- 0 3

- 0 2 0

- 2

- from the proceedings below fails to disclose any errors by the trial court prejudicial to the

rights of appellant upon which an assignment of error may be predicated; (2) lists one

potential error "that might arguably support the appeal," Anders at 744; (3) requests that

this court review the record independently t o determine whether the proceed ings are free

from prejudicial error and without infringement of appellant's constitutional rights; (4)

requests permission to withdraw as counsel for appellant on t he basis that the appeal is

wholly frivolous; and (5) certifies that a copy of both the brief and motion to withdraw have

been served upon appellant.

{¶3} Having allowed appellant sufficient time to respond, and no response

having been received, we have accordingly examined the record and find no error

prejudicial to appellant's rights in the proceedings in the trial court. The motion of counsel

for appella nt requesting to withdraw as counsel is granted, and this appeal is dismissed

for the reason that it is wholly frivolous.

HENDRICKSON , P.J., PIPER and M. POWELL

, JJ., concur.[Cite as State v. Smalls

- Miller , 2024

- Ohio

- 3355.]