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

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Wednesday, March 15, 1995 (45), Para 45.38 Additional Sponsors]
[Pages 393-394]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.45.38  additional sponsors

  Under clause 4 of rule XXII, sponsors were added to public bills and 
resolutions as follows:
       H.R. 26: Mr. Vento, Mr. Stupak, and Mr. Cramer.
       H.R. 70: Mr. Roberts, Mr. Sam Johnson, and Mr. Watts of 
     Oklahoma.
       H.R. 120: Mr. Cardin.
       H.R. 359: Mr. Weldon of Florida and Ms. Danner.
       H.R. 399: Mr. Williams and Mrs. Lowey.
       H.R. 501: Mr. Parker and Mr. Watts of Oklahoma.
       H.R. 548: Mr. Fattah.
       H.R. 549: Mr. Foley.
       H.R. 580: Mr. Parker and Mr. Saxton.
       H.R. 588: Mr. Dellums, Mr. Solomon, and Mr. Torkildsen.
       H.R. 609: Mr. Williams and Ms. Norton.
       H.R. 619: Mr. Lewis of Georgia.
       H.R. 620: Mr. Lewis of Georgia.
       H.R. 660: Mr. Mica.
       H.R. 682: Mrs. Mink of Hawaii, Mr. Weldon of Florida, and 
     Mr. Houghton.
       H.R. 699: Mr. Skeen and Mr. Young of Alaska.

[[Page 394]]

       H.R. 733: Mr. Hoke.
       H.R. 734: Mr. Hoke.
       H.R. 757: Mr. Upton.
       H.R. 791: Mr. Hoekstra.
       H.R. 800: Mr. Whitfield.
       H.R. 801: Mr. Canady, Mr. LaHood, Mr. McInnis, Mr. 
     Bilirakis, Mr. Bryant of Tennessee, Mr. Calvert, Mr. McHugh, 
     Mr. Largent, Mr. Johnston of Florida, Mr. Wamp, Mr. Coburn, 
     Mr. Watts of Oklahoma, Mr. Barrett of Wisconsin, and Mr. 
     Forbes.
       H.R. 804: Mr. Metcalf.
       H.R. 805: Mr. Bonior, Ms. Waters, Ms. McKinney, and Mr. 
     Lewis of Georgia.
       H.R. 820: Mr. Bryant of Tennessee and Mr. Bevill.
       H.R. 867: Mr. Gutierrez, Mr. Nadler, and Mr. Owens.
       H.R. 928: Mr. Wicker.
       H.R. 1023: Mr. Reynolds and Ms. Pryce.
       H.R. 1047: Mr. Bryant of Tennessee  and Mr. Goodlatte.
       H.R. 1094: Mr. Lipinski, Mr. Barrett of Wisconsin, Ms. 
     Danner, Mr. Gene Green of Texas, Mrs. Kelly, and Mr. Romero-
     Barcelo.
       H.R. 1169: Mr. Boucher, Mr. Goodlatte, Mr. Yates, and Mr. 
     Davis.
       H.J. Res. 8: Ms. Pryce.
       H.J. Res. 76: Mr. Inglis of South Carolina, Mr. Forbes, Mr. 
     English of Pennsylvania, Mr. Souder, Mr. Goss, Mr. LaHood, 
     and Mr. Armey.
       H. Con. Res. 12: Mr. Bateman, Mr. Boehlert, and Mr. 
     Calvert.
       H. Con. Res. 25: Ms. Pryce.
       H. Res. 28: Mr. Deal of Georgia, Mr. Schiff, Mr. Baker of 
     Louisiana, and Mr. Herger.
```
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND ACTING CHIEF ACCOUNTING OFFICER OF
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated Medical Management, Inc. pursuant to Section 906 of the
--------------------------------------------------------------------
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 1992 AND SECTION 1350 OF 18 U.S.C. 63.
------------------------------------------------------------

I, Timothy G. Byrd, Sr., the Chief Executive Officer and Acting Chief
PersonNameAccounting Officer of Consolidated Medical Management, Inc. hereby
certify that to my knowledge, Consolidated Medical Management's periodic report
on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2006, fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and that information contained in the periodic report on Form 10-QSB and the
financial statements contained therein fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of the operations of Consolidated
Medical Management, Inc.



     Date:  August 20,  2006       /s/Timothy G. Byrd, Sr.
                                   --------------------------
                                   Timothy G. Byrd, Sr.,
                                   Acting Chief Accounting Officer of
                                   Consolidated Medical Management, Inc.
§ 71.05-10 Conditions of permit. ( a ) The permit will state upon its face the conditions under which it is issued and whether or not the vessel is permitted to carry freight or passengers. Passengers may not be carried if the certificate of inspection has expired, except as provided under § 71.01-20.
( b ) [Reserved]
ADINO
ENERGY CORPORATION





Pursuant to Montana Code Section
35-1-432, the directors of Adino Energy Corporation (the “Company”) hereby take
the following corporate action, which shall have the same force and effect as if
the same were taken at a duly called meeting of the Board of Directors of the
Company.  The directors signing this consent certify that they have
waived notice of meeting.





WHEREAS,
the Company desires to compensate members of the Board of Directors for their
service with 250,000 shares of restricted common stock per year.





THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED that the Company will issue the shares authorized at the earlier
of December 31 or the members date of resignation for each year, beginning
January 1, 2009.




WHEREFORE,
THE FOREGOING CORPORATE ACTS ARE HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AS OF
THE LATEST DATE WRITTEN BELOW.





_/s/___________________________


Sonny Wooley


Chairman of the Board of
Directors


Date:  3/26/2009





_/s/___________________________


Timothy G. Byrd, Sr.


Director


Date:  3/26/2009





_/s/___________________________


Peggy Behrens


Director


Date:  3/26/2009
#### William W. Hare, *Appellant, v.*Henry Scofield, *Respondent.*

Motion for reargnment denied, with ten dollars costs.
1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 15-cr-20309 

 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

v. 

MICHAEL PIAR, 

 Defendant. 

__________________________________________________________________/ 

ORDER DIRECTING ATTORNEY CLAUDE CHAPMAN 

TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF 

 On May 21, 2020, Defendant Michael Piar submitted a pro se letter to this 

Court requesting compassionate release. (See Letter, ECF No. 43.) On October 5, 

2020, the Court appointed counsel for Piar. (See Order, ECF No. 47.) On October 

10, 2020, attorney Claude Chapman filed an Appearance on Piar’s behalf. (See

Appearance, ECF No. 48.) The Court directs Chapman to file a supplemental brief 

in support of Piar’s request for compassionate release by January 11, 2021. The 

Government may respond by January 25, 2021. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

       s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: December 17, 2020 

Case 2:15-cr-20309-MFL-EAS ECF No. 49, PageID.243 Filed 12/17/20 Page 1 of 2
2 

 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the 

parties and/or counsel of record on December 17, 2020, by electronic means and/or 

ordinary mail. 

 s/Holly A. Monda 

 Case Manager 

 (810) 341-9764

Case 2:15-cr-20309-MFL-EAS ECF No. 49, PageID.244 Filed 12/17/20 Page 2 of 2
§ 503.41 Procedure when testimony or production of documents is sought. The Commission shall follow the procedures set forth in this part. ( a ) If oral testimony is sought by a demand in any case or matter in which the United States is not a party, an affidavit, or, if that is not feasible, a statement by the party seeking the testimony or by his attorney, setting forth a summary of the testimony sought and its relevance to the proceeding, must be furnished to the Commission. Any authorization for testimony by a present or former employee of the Commission shall be limited to the scope of the demand as summarized in such statement.
( b ) When information other than oral testimony is sought by a demand, the Commission shall request a summary of the information sought and its relevance to the proceeding.
( c ) Permission to testify or to release documents in all cases will be limited to matters outlined in the affidavit or declaration described in § 503.41(a) and (b), or to such matters as deemed appropriate by the Commission. If the Commission, in considering the factors in § 503.39, allows the release of documents or testimony to be given by an employee, arrangements shall be made for the taking of testimony or receipt of documents by the method least disruptive to the employee's official duties. Testimony may, for example, be provided by affidavits, answers to interrogatories, written depositions, or depositions transcribed, recorded, or preserved by any other means allowable by law.
( d ) Upon issuance of a final determination to not authorize testimony or release of Commission information by the Commission, the party or the party's counsel seeking testimony or documents may consult or negotiate with the Commission to refine and limit the demand.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

LEDELL HAMMOND,

Plaintiff, No. 15-12051

v. District Judge Paul D. Borman

Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen

CITY OF TROY, ET AL.,

Defendants.

 /

ORDER 

On June 5, 2015, Plaintiff Ledell Hammon filed a pro se civil complaint against

Defendants Troy Police Department, 52-4 District Court, and A&M Service Center &

Towing. Plaintiff has moved for the appointment of counsel [Doc. #25]. 1

Unlike criminal cases, there is no constitutional or statutory right to the

appointment of counsel in civil cases. Rather, the Court requests members of the bar to

assist in appropriate cases. In Lavado v. Keohane, 992 F.2d 601, 605-606 (6 Cir. 1993), th

the Sixth Circuit noted that “[a]ppointment of counsel in a civil case is not a

constitutional right. It is a privilege that is justified only by exceptional circumstances.”

(Internal quotations and citations omitted).

 A&M Service Center has not been served. 1

a

2:15-cv-12051-PDB-RSW Doc # 46 Filed 10/08/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 304
It is the practice of this Court to defer any attempt to obtain counsel for pro se civil

rights Plaintiffs until after motions to dismiss or motions for summary judgment have

been denied. At this stage of the proceedings, Plaintiffs’ request for counsel is premature.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Appoint Counsel [Docket #25] is DENIED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 s/R. Steven Whalen 

R. STEVEN WHALEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Dated: October 8, 2015

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of record on

October 8, 2015, electronically and/or by U.S. mail.

s/C. Ciesla 

Case Manager 

b

2:15-cv-12051-PDB-RSW Doc # 46 Filed 10/08/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 305
#### § 30.10-27 Flashpoint—TB/ALL.

The term *flashpoint* indicates the temperature in degrees Fahrenheit at which a liquid gives off a flammable vapor when heated in an open-cup tester. For the purpose of the regulations in this subchapter, flashpoints determined by other testing methods will be equivalent to those determined with an open-cup tester, as follows:

| Open-cup tester | Tag closed-cup tester (A.S.T.M.) | Pensky-Martens closed tester (A.S.T.M.) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 80 | 75 | |
| 150 | | 140 |

Table 30.10-27—Equivalent Flashpoints

[In degrees Fahrenheit]

[CGFR 65-50, 30 FR 16657, Dec. 30, 1965, as amended by USCG-2014-0688, 79 FR 58279, Sept. 29, 2014]
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 5
Federal Reserve Bank of: Richmond

## Filings received during the week ending November 15, 2008

|Filer                          | Filing Type    | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       | End of Comment Period                                  
|------------------------------ | -------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------
|HAMPTON ROADS BANKSHARES, INC. | * 3A5          | Hampton Roads Bankshares, Inc., Norfolk, Virginia, to acquire 100% of the voting securities of Gateway Financial Holdings, Inc., Virginia Beach, Virginia, and thereby indirectly acquire Gateway Bank and Trust Co., Elizabeth City, North Carolina. | Newspaper:12/13/2008Federal Register:12/12/2008        
|Newspaper:                     | 12/13/2008    
|Federal Register:              | 12/12/2008    
|VBB Finacial Corporation       | 3A1            | VBB Financial Corporation, Richmond, Virginia, to become a bank holding company through the acquisition of 100% of Virginia Business Bank, Richmond, Virginia.                                                                                        | Newspaper:Not applicableFederal Register:Not applicable
|Newspaper:                     | Not applicable
|Federal Register:              | Not applicable

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

* Subject to the provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
# C_2014421EN.01000201.xml

| 24.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 421/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 421/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — ‘Valimar’ OOD v Nachalnik na Mitnitsa Varna

(Case C-374/12) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Dumping - Iron or steel ropes and cables originating in Russia - Regulation (EC) No 384/96 - Articles 2(8) and (9) and 11(2), (3), (9) and (10) - Interim review - Expiry review of the anti-dumping measures - Validity of Regulation (EC) No 1279/2007 - Determination of the export price on the basis of sales to third countries - Reliability of export prices - Taking into consideration of price undertakings - Change in circumstances - Application of a methodology which is different from that used at the time of the original investigation))

2014/C 421/02

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Referring court

Varhoven administrativen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant:‘Valimar’ OOD

Appellant:

Respondent: Nachalnik na Mitnitsa Varna

Respondent:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Consideration of the questions referred has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Council Regulation (EC) No 1279/2007 of 30 October 2007 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on certain iron or steel ropes and cables originating in the Russian Federation, and repealing the anti-dumping measures on imports of certain iron or steel ropes and cables originating in Thailand and Turkey.

---

(1)  OJ C 311, 13.10.2012.

1

---
##### 



Exhibit 32.2 THERMA-WAVE, INC.
CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, L. Ray Christie, in my capacity as Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of
Therma-Wave, Inc., a Delaware corporation (Therma-Wave), and in connection with the annual report
on Form 10-K filed by Therma-Wave with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 27, 2005 (the
Report), hereby 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. 2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Therma-Wave. 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 Therma-Wave and will be retained by Therma-Wave and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the 27th day of June
2005. /s/ L. Ray ChristieL. Ray ChristieSenior Vice President,Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
 The foregoing certification shall not be deemed filed by Therma-Wave as part of the report or as a
separate disclosure document for purposes of Section 18 or any other provision of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
EXHIBIT 11.1
                                
                INTERSTATE BAKERIES CORPORATION
     STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                                

                                  (In Thousands, Except Per Share Data)
                                  52 Weeks       52 Weeks       52 Weeks
                                    Ended          Ended          Ended
                                   May 30,        May 31,        June 1, 
                                    1998           1997           1996
                                  --------       --------       --------
Net income                        $127,924        $97,177        $24,463
                                  ========        =======        =======

Basic weighted average common
 shares outstanding                 73,512         74,928         69,202
Effect of dilutive stock 
 compensation                        1,333          1,272            766
                                  --------        -------        -------
Diluted weighted average common
 shares outstanding                 74,845         76,200         69,968
                                  ========        =======        =======

Earnings per share:
  Basic                           $   1.74        $  1.30        $   .35
                                  ========        =======        =======
 
  Diluted                         $   1.71        $  1.28        $   .35
                                  ========        =======        =======
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 09**  **- 5084** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. MOREY BERNAL CHAMPION , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Easte rn District of North Carolina , at New Bern . Louise W. Flanagan, Chief District Judge. ( 5:08

- cr - 00381

- FL

- 1 )

Submitted : June 17, 2010 Decided: June 23, 2010

Before MOTZ and KING , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge

Affirmed by un p ublished per curiam opinion
.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Eric J. Brignac, Research and Writing Specialist, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. George E. B. Holding, United States At torney, Anne M. Hayes, Jennifer P. May

- Parker, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: A federal grand jury indicted Morey Bernal Champion fo r possession of a firearm after having previously been convicted of a crime punishable by a term of imprisonment exceeding one year, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (1) (2006) . Champion filed a motion to dismiss the indictment that the district court de nied. Champion then entered a guilty plea to the charge , reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss. The court sentenced Champion to fifty

- one months of imprisonment and Champion now appeals. Finding no error, we affirm. On appe al, Champion argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the indictment. We review a district court’s denial of a motion to dismiss an indictment de novo
. United States v. Brandon , 298 F.3d 307 , 310 (4th Cir. 2002 ) (citation omi tted) ; see United States v. Thornton , 554 F.3d 443, 445 (4th Cir. 2009) (reviewing whether state felony offense is a crime of violence de novo ). Champion argues that he was legally innocent of violating § 922(g)(1) because his prior conviction for
poss ession wi th intent to distribute marijuana was not punishable by a term of imprisonment exceeding one year. While Champion’s argument is concededly foreclosed by United States v. Harp , 406 F.3d 242, 246

- 47 (4th Cir. 2005), he argues that the3 subsequent de cisions in United States v. Rodriguez , 553 U.S. 337 (2008), and United States v. Pruitt , 545 F.3d 416 (6th Cir. 2008) , have undermined this court’s holding in Harp . We have thoroughly reviewed the record and the relevant legal authorities and conclude tha t our holding in Harp is consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in Rodriguez . Further, to the
extent Pruitt may be inconsistent with Harp , decisions by our sister circuits are simply not binding upon this court. We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid in the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED