alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION { CONVENEDJANUARY3,2001 

SECOND SESSION { 

EXECUTIVE CALENDAR 

Wednesday, October 3, 2001 

PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF JERI THOMSON, 

SECRETARY OF THE SENATE 

By Michelle Haynes, Executive Clerk 
1 

RESOLUTIONS 

CALENDAR Ex.REs REPORTED 

No. No. SUBJECT BY 
CALEII!DAR TREATY 

No Doc No 

2 

TREATIES 

Sti!JM 1 REPORTED 

BY 
3 

NOMINATIONS 

CALENDAR MESSAGE REPORTED 

No. No. NOMINEE, OFFICE, AND PREDECESSOR BY 

INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION, 

~TEDSTATESANDCANADA 

* 403 851 Dennis L. Schornack, of Michigan, to be Sep 25,2001 Reported by Mr. 

Commissioner on the part of the United States Biden, Committee on Foreign 

on the International Joint Commission, United Relations, without printed report. 

States and Canada, vice Thomas L. Baldini. 

*Signifies nominee's commitment to respond to requests to appear and testify before any duly constttuted commtttee of the Senate 
4 

NOMINATIONS PLACED ON THE SECRETARY'S DESK
#### Miller, appellant, v. Hunt.

*Married women*— *wife’s separate estate*— *eontraets of husband as agent.*

A person did work and furnished materials for the repair of a house on the separate estate of a married woman : *Held,*that he had an action against her therefor, if the work and materials were ordered by her, even if the creditor did not know who was the principal.

Where a married woman knowing that repairs were being made upon a house owned by her, and that her separate estate was benefited thereby, pilently permitted her husband to make them, as her agent. *Held,*that she was liable for the debts contracted by him in making such repairs.

Appeal from a judgment of the county court of Orange county, reversing the judgment of a justice of the peace.

The action before the justice was brought by George A. Miller against Catharine M. Hunt, to recover the value of a walnut stair rail, newel and balusters, furnished by the plaintiff to the defendant, a married woman, for a house owned and occupied by her.

The plaintiff recovered a judgment for $52.95, damages and costs, before the justice, which the county court reversed on appeal.

*Groo & Wiggins,*for appellant.

*J. V. D. Benedict,*for respondent.

*763Barnard, P. J.

The head-note states the only points passed upon m the opinion. The judgment of the county court was reversed and that of the justice affirmed.

*Judgment accordingly.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                           8,529
<SECURITIES>                                     8,880
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,510
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,404
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                20,093
<PP&E>                                          11,348
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,683
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  51,400
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,274
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      31,613
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    51,400
<SALES>                                         60,168
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                60,168
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   58,256
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,912
<INCOME-TAX>                                       784
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,128
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .15


</TABLE>
Exhibit 35.2

                    SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (Item 1123)

                               GMAC Mortgage, LLC

                RAMP Series 2006-RZ3 Trust (the "Issuing Entity")

The undersigned,  a duly authorized  officer of GMAC Mortgage,  LLC, as servicer
(the "Servicer")  pursuant to the applicable  servicing  agreement,  does hereby
certify that:

1. A review of the  Servicer's  activities  during  the  period  covered  by the
Issuing Entity's report on Form 10-K and of the Servicer's performance under the
applicable servicing agreement has been made under my supervision.

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled
all of its obligations under the applicable  servicing agreement in all material
respects throughout such period.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 26th
day of March 2007.

By:    /s/ Anthony N. Renzi
Name:  Anthony N. Renzi
Title: Executive Vice President
---

---

Exhibit 32.1

# CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Defense Industries International, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2009 as filed with the
SEC on the date hereof (the Report), I, Baruch Tosh, 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 result of operations of the Company.

|/s/ Baruch Tosh
Baruch ToshChief Executive Officer
|----------------------------------------------------------------

August 14, 2009



---

---
#### § 1800.9 Disclosure of record to a person other than the individual to whom the record pertains.

The Foundation will not disclose a record to any individual other than to the individual to whom the record pertains without receiving the prior written consent of the individual to whom the record pertains, unless the disclosure has been listed as a “routine use” in the Foundation's notices of its systems of records.
Charies Hallett 

<cehallett@comcast.net> 

Sent by: 

chuck.cehallett@gmall.com 

05/22/2012 08:05 PM 

To sdot^ler@fec.gov 

cc 

bcc 

Subject Re: Draft Final Audit Report 

f History: ^ This message has been replied to and forwarded. 

^^^z:(zm^^zZm ' 

-'{if ll^V^ifl l^'m 

Scott 

Nice hearing from you and I apologize for not getting back to you sooner.. 

Unless I missed something (feel free to telephone me), it appears that the audit confirmed 

"inexperienced staff and volunteers" and I am not aware of any reason to object or to have a 

hearing. 

It appeared to me that the bookkeeping and clerical errors were unfortunate, but defmitely 

unintentional. I was surprised that CMDI made certain oversights (carry over balance of cash, 

etc.). 

Bottom line, it appears the FEC identified these differences. Between Pat Shortridge and CMDI 

the differences were all explained and/or corrected, and, there are no penalties or fines that 

appear to warrant the campaign appealing your findings. Is that correct? In other words, I cannot 

see a "downside" by accepting your report. 

Please thank your staff for their efforts and I wish you all the best. As you know, this was my 

first experience with the FEC. Please let me know if l misunderstood anything in the response. 

All the best. 

Charles £. (Chuck) Hallett, CPA, CGMA
** **

**Exhibit 99.6**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

 

18 U.S.C. §1350,

 

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

 

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACTOF 2002

 

In connection with the annual report of Westport InnovationsInc. (the “Company”) on Form 40-F/A for the year ended December 31, 2014 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, David R. Demers, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)             TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)              Theinformation contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operationsof the Company.

 

 

This certification accompanies this annual report on Form 40-F/Apursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemedfiled by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”).Such certification will 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 Company specifically incorporates it by reference.
BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

In the Matter of 

Audit Division Recommendation 

Memorandum on the Conservative 

Campaign Committee (CCC) 

) 

) AJ3-15 

) 

) 

) 

CERTIFICATION 

I, Shawn Woodhead Werth, Secretary and Clerk of the Federal Election 

Commission, do hereby certify that on October 24, 2016, the Commission 

decided by a vote of 6-0 to approve the Audit Division Recommendation 

Memorandum on the Conservative Campaign Committee (CCC), as 

recommended in the Memorandum from the Chief Compliance Officer and the 

Audit Division dated October 4, 2016. 

Commissioners Goodman, Hunter, Petersen, Ravel, Walther, and Weintraub 

voted affirmatively for the decision. 

f&f»b{( .%,JD{~ 

Date 

Attest: 

Shawn Woodhead Werth 

Secretary and Clerk of the Co
§ 2506.4 What types of debts are excluded from these regulations? The following types of debts are excluded: ( a ) Debts or claims arising under the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. 1 *et seq.*) or the tariff laws of the United States, or the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 301 *et seq.*); except as provided under sections 204(f) and 1631 (42 U.S.C. 404(f) and 1383(b)(4)(A)).
( b ) Any case to which the Contract Disputes Act (41 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.*) applies;
( c ) Any case where collection of a debt is explicitly provided for or provided by another statute, *e.g.,* travel advances under 5 U.S.C. 5705 and employee training expenses under 5 U.S.C. 4108, or, as provided for by title 11 of the United States Code, when the claims involve bankruptcy;
( d ) Any debt based in whole or in part on conduct in violation of the antitrust laws or involving fraud, the presentation of a false claim, or misrepresentation on the part of the debtor or any party having an interest in the claim, as described in the FCCS, unless DOJ authorizes the Corporation to handle the collection;
( e ) Claims between Federal agencies;
( f ) Unless otherwise provided by law, administrative offset of payments under the authority of 31 U.S.C. 3716 to collect a debt may not be initiated more than 10 years after the Government's right to collect the debt first accrued. (Exception: The 10-year limit does not apply if facts material to the Federal Government's right to collect the debt were not known and could not reasonably have been known by the official or officials of the Government who were charged with the responsibility to discover and collect such debts.) The 10-year limitation also does not apply to debts reduced to a judgment; and
( g ) Unless otherwise stated, debts which have been transferred to the Treasury or referred to the DOJ will be collected in accordance with the procedures of those agencies.
#### Fisk, administratrix, *et al.*v. Fisk, appellant.

Appeal from an order denying a motion for a new trial and from a judgment upon a verdict for plaintiff. The action was brought by Charlotte A. Fisk and Elijah Gray, as administratrix and administrator of the estate of Thomas J. Fisk, deceased, against Henry 0. Fisk, upon a due bill made by defendant in favor of plaintiffs’ intestate.

*George F. Danforth,*for appellant.

*W. F. Cogswell,*for respondents.

Mullin, P. J.

The judgment was affirmed on the ground that the verdict of the jury on conflicting evidence would not be interfered with.

*Judgment affirmed.*
No. 01-14-00072-CR

No. 01-14-00073-CR

In the 

Court of Appeals

for the 

First District of Texas

At Houston 



No. 1233998 

No. 1401120

In the 185

th District Court 

Of Harris County, Texas 



LARRY RICHARD 

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Appellee 



STATE’S THIRD MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 

IN WHICH TO FILE AN APPELLATE BRIEF 



TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS:

COMES NOW THE STATE OF TEXAS, in accordance with Rules 

10.5(b)(1) and 38.6(d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, and files this 

ACCEPTED

01-14-00072-CR

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

1/26/2015 9:13:56 AM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

 FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 1/26/2015 9:13:56 AM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
motion for an extension of time in which to file the State’s brief in this cause, and, 

in support thereof, presents the following:

1. Appellant was convicted of the felony offense of aggravated assault. 

2. The State’s brief was due on January 26, 2015.

4. An extension of time in which to file the State’s brief is requested until 

February 25, 2015. 

5. The following facts are relied upon to show good cause for the requested 

extension:

i. The attorney previously assigned to this appeal is no longer 

with the Harris County District Attorney’s Office. The 

undersigned attorney was assigned to this appeal on January 26, 

2015. 

ii. The undersigned attorney has been engaged in the preparation 

of the State’s Brief in Cause No. 14-14-00139-CR, Isaac Smith, 

Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee.

iii. The undersigned attorney has been engaged in the preparation 

of the State’s Brief in Cause No. 01-12-01175-CR, Mark 

Rascoe, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee.

iv. The undersigned attorney has been engaged in the preparation 

of the State’s Brief in Cause No. 01-12-00422-CR, Benjamin 

Maurine Sadler, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee. 

WHEREFORE, the State prays that this Court will grant an additional 

extension of time until February 25, 2015 in which to file the State’s brief in this 

cause.
Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Heather A. Hudson

HEATHER A. HUDSON

Assistant District Attorney

Harris County, Texas

1201 Franklin, Suite 600

Houston, Texas 77002

(713) 755-5826

State Bar No. 24058991

hudson_heather@dao.hctx.net

curry_alan@dao.hctx.net

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing instrument has been submitted 

for service by e-filing to the following address:

Deborah Summers

P11210 Steeplecrest, Ste. 120

Houston, Texas 77065

Tel: (281) 897-9600

summerspc@sbcglobal.net

/s/ Heather A. Hudson

HEATHER A. HUDSON

Assistant District Attorney

Harris County, Texas

1201 Franklin, Suite 600

Houston, Texas 77002

(713) 755-5826

State Bar No. 24058991

Date: January 26, 2015
BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

In the Matter of ) 

) A17-05 

Audit Division Recommendation ) Agenda Document No. 18-30-A 

Memorandum on Kelly for Congress ) 

(KFC) ) 

CERTIFICATION 

I, Dayna C. Brown, recording secretary of the Federal Election Commission open meeting on 

June 07,2018 do hereby certify that the Commission took the following actions in the abovecaptioned matter: 

1. Failed by a vote of 2-2 to: 

Approve the Audit Division Recommendation Memorandum on Kelly for Congress 

(ICFC), as set forth in Agenda Document No. 18-30-A. 

Commissioners Walther and Weintraub voted affirmatively for the motion. 

Commissioners Hunter and Petersen dissented. 

2. Decided by a vote of 4-0 to: 

a. Approve Finding 2. 

b. Place Finding 1 in Additional Issues. 

Commissioners Hunter, Petersen, Walther, and Weintraub voted affirmatively for the 

decision. 

Attest: 

Clunt ItZoif C. j 

Date Dayna C.Brown < 

Secretary and Clerk of the Commission
NUMBER 13-07-00638-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

______________________________________________________________

JEFFREY J. WEBB, Appellant,

v.

BRANDEE N. WEBB, Appellee.

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 156th District Court

of San Patricio County, Texas.

______________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Garza and Benavides

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

The appellant's brief in the above cause was due on December 17, 2007. On

January 30, 2008, the Clerk of the Court notified appellant that the brief had not been

timely filed and that the appeal was subject to dismissal for want of prosecution under

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.8(a)(1), unless within ten days from the date of

receipt of this letter, appellant reasonably explained the failure and the appellee was not
2

significantly injured by the appellant's failure to timely file a brief. Appellant has not

responded to this notice. Appellant has failed to either reasonably explain his failure to file

a brief, file a motion for extension of time to file his brief, or file his brief. 

The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant’s failure to file

his brief, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a), 42.3(b). 

PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered and 

filed this the 17th day of April, 2008.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1653 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1653

     To provide for nuclear disarmament and economic conversion in 
 accordance with District of Columbia Initiative Measure Number 37 of 
                                 1992.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 19, 2009

  Ms. Norton introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
   Committee on Armed Services, and in addition to the Committee on 
  Foreign Affairs, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 
  Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall 
           within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To provide for nuclear disarmament and economic conversion in 
 accordance with District of Columbia Initiative Measure Number 37 of 
                                 1992.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Nuclear Disarmament and Economic 
Conversion Act of 2009''.

SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT FOR NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT AND ECONOMIC CONVERSION.

    The United States Government shall--
            (1) disable and dismantle all its nuclear weapons and 
        refrain from replacing them at any time with any weapons of 
        mass destruction;
            (2) redirect resources that are currently being used for 
        nuclear weapons programs to use--
                    (A) in converting all nuclear weapons industry 
                employees, processes, plants, and programs smoothly to 
                constructive, ecologically beneficial peacetime 
                activities during the 3 years following the effective 
                date of this Act, and
                    (B) in addressing human and infrastructure needs 
                such as housing, health care, education, agriculture, 
                and environmental restoration, including alternative 
                fuel sources;
            (3) undertake vigorous good faith efforts to eliminate war, 
        armed conflict, and all military operations; and
            (4) actively promote policies to induce all other countries 
        to join in these commitments for world peace and security.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    This Act shall take effect when the President certifies to the 
Congress that all foreign countries possessing nuclear weapons have 
established legal requirements comparable to those set forth in section 
2 and those requirements have taken effect.
                                 <all>
```
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 40812 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v. JOSE ANTONIO GONZALEZ

- OCHOA , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:14

- CR

- 1710

- 1

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Jose Antonio Gonzalez

- Ochoa raises an argument that is foreclosed by United States v. Martinez

- Lugo , 782 F. 3d 198, 204

- 05 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 136 S. Ct. 533 (2015)

. In Martinez

Lugo , 782 F.3d at 204

- 05, w e held that an enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i) for a prior felony conviction of a drug trafficking offense is warranted regardless whether the conviction for the prior offense required

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances se t forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED February 17, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-40812 Document: 00513383613 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/17/2016No. 15

- 40812

2 proof of remuneration or commercial activity

. According ly, the motion for
summary disposition is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Case: 15-40812 Document: 00513383613 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/17/2016
Exhibit 32.2
 
 Certification of the Chief Financial Officer 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 MetroCorp Bancshares, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, David C. Choi, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 
 1.
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 2.
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and operating results of the Company.
 
 /s/ David C. ChoiDavid C. ChoiChief Financial Officer
 August 10, 2009