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

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 167 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 167

    Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on Natural 
              Resources in the One Hundred Tenth Congress.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 15, 2007

    Mr. Rahall (for himself and Mr. Young of Alaska) submitted the 
  following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on House 
                             Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
    Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on Natural 
              Resources in the One Hundred Tenth Congress.

    Resolved,

SECTION 1. AMOUNTS FOR COMMITTEE EXPENSES.

    For the expenses of the Committee on Natural Resources (hereafter 
in this resolution referred to as the ``Committee''), including the 
expenses of all staff salaries, there shall be paid, out of the 
applicable accounts of the House of Representatives for committee 
salaries and expenses, not more than $15,581,951 for the One Hundred 
Tenth Congress.

SEC. 2. SESSION LIMITATIONS.

    Of the amount specified in section 1--
            (1) not more than $7,638,213 shall be available for 
        expenses incurred during the period beginning at noon on 
        January 3, 2007, and ending immediately before noon on January 
        3, 2008; and
            (2) not more than $7,943,738 shall be available for 
        expenses incurred during the period beginning at noon on 
        January 3, 2008, and ending immediately before noon on January 
        3, 2009.

SEC. 3. VOUCHERS.

    Payments under this resolution shall be made on vouchers authorized 
by the Committee, signed by the Chairman of the Committee, and approved 
in the manner directed by the Committee on House Administration.

SEC. 4. REGULATIONS.

    Amounts made available under this resolution shall be expended in 
accordance with regulations prescribed by the Committee on House 
Administration.
                                 <all>
```
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 Annual Report of Continental Resources Group, Inc., (the ‘‘Company’’) on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the ‘‘Report’’), I, David P. Lieberman, Acting 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, to 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: August 12, 2011
 /s/ David P. LiebermanDavid P. Lieberman

Acting Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
September 8, 1960

No. 64487.

Suit 5045.

#### F. H. Paul & Stein Bros., Inc. *v.*United States.

C.D. 2166. (Appeal abandoned dismissed July 6,1960.)
Before the Second Division,

March 26, 1964

No. 68373.

protest 61/8409 (New York).

#### Julius Feist *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the

merchandise consists of map measures similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Kaufman & Vinson Go.*v. *United States*(44 Oust. Ct. 238, C.D. 2180), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         370,184
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   56,286
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               457,929
<PP&E>                                       5,419,708
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,433,032
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,476,899
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          145,818
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,331,081
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,476,899
<SALES>                                      3,059,758
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,124,497
<CGS>                                        2,412,513
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,412,513
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               551,601
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                160,383
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            160,383
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   160,383
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    17.60
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    17.60
        


</TABLE>
```

[House Report 107-619]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

107th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     107-619

======================================================================

 
 WAIVING A REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 6(a) OF RULE XIII WITH RESPECT TO THE 
  SAME DAY CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS REPORTED BY THE RULES 
                               COMMITTEE

                                _______
                                

   July 26 (legislative day, July 25), 2002.--Referred to the House 
                   Calendar and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

   Mr. Reynolds, from the Committee on Rules, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                       [To accompany H. Res. 507]

    The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration 
House Resolution 507, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to 
the House with the recommendation that the resolution be 
adopted.

                SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

    The resolution waives clause 6(a) of rule XIII (requiring a 
two-thirds vote to consider a rule on the same day it is 
reported from the Rules Committee) against certain resolutions 
reported from the Rules Committee. The rule applies the waiver 
to any special rule reported on the legislative day of Friday, 
July 26, 2002, providing for the consideration or disposition 
of conference reports to accompany any of the following bills: 
H.R. 3009, H.R. 3295, H.R. 333.

                                

```
#### Abdol Amir VAHEDI, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

Nos. 03-71413, 04-70425.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 4, 2005.*

Decided Aug. 8, 2005.

Melanie M. Yang, Esq., Rose, Rose & Hammill, LLP, Beverly Hills, CA, for Petitioner.

Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration *&*Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Linda S. Wernery, Esq., Thankful T. Vanderstar, Esq., OIL, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

*628Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

1. Abdol Amir Vahedi’s petition, although filed under the transitional rules of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, “shall be treated as if it had been filed as a petition for review under [8 U.S.C. § 1252].” REAL ID Act, Pub.L. No. 109-13, § 106(d), 119 Stat. 231, 311 (2005). We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary decisions to deny Vahedi’s applications for adjustment for status and for waiver of inadmissibility, *see*8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), except for constitutional claims or questions of law, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D).

2. Vahedi raises one claim over which we have jurisdiction: whether he was required to seek a waiver of admissibility. We decline to decide this issue; the BIA denied Vahedi’s application for adjustment of status as a matter of discretion, regardless of whether a waiver was required.

PETITION DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Exhibit 32.2

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Smith Barney Westport Futures Fund L.P. (the ‘‘Partnership’’) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the ‘‘Report’’), I, Jennifer Magro, Chief Financial Officer and Director of Citigroup Managed Futures LLC, 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 Partnership.

/s/ Jennifer Magro

|
|
|
|

Jennifer Magro
Citigroup Managed Futures LLC
Chief Financial Officer and Director

Date: November 14, 2007

---
From: ckgiles@sbcglobal.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:26:53 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Colleen Giles

Franklin, MI 48025
From: ricclang@sbcglobal.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:36:05 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Richard Lang

Pearland, TX 77584
Exhibit 99.2


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


    In connection  with the Quarterly  Report of Booth Creek Ski Holdings,  Inc.
(the  "Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period ended August 2, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  the
undersigned,  as the President and Chief  Operating  Officer,  hereby  certifies
pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350,  as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

    1.  The Report fully  complies  with the  requirements  of Section  13(a) or
        Section 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.


September 13, 2002


                                       By:       /s/ CHRISTOPHER P. RYMAN
                                       ----------------------------------------
                                                     Christopher P. Ryman
                                           President and Chief Operating Officer
From: ddavis@pccpc.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:17:37 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Darlene Davis

Lakeland, FL 33815
No. 215.

#### Northern Ohio Telephone Co. *v.*Ward.

*Sidney D. Griffith*for petitioner.

*H. Guy Hardy*for respondent.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 68077.

#### Frank P. Dow Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 60/13871 (Seattle).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with oral stipulation of counsel that the merchandise, described on the invoice as “Heat Treated Drive Screw Nails,” *242consists of nails made from iron or steel wire over sixty-five one-thousandths of an inch in diameter and over an inch in length, the elaim of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: Lydia W egman/RTP/USEPA/US

To: nfrey@omb.eop.gov Cc: Joseph
- J Dougherty/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Beth Hassett
- Sipple/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 06/13/2012 10:45 AM Subject: Could you please send me the materials that have been provided by the outside groups with whom

you've met this week? 

### Each of the groups has mentioned documents they've left with you and I'd like to have them for our record and for our review. Also, co uld you please send me a list of the attendees at each of the meetings? I can't always hear the introductions that clearly. Thanks a lot.
From: dsatwork@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:21:03 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

david sexton

San Marcos, CA 92069
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6406

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus FRANKLIN PAUL HUNT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CR-96-27-BR) Submitted: June 20, 2002 Decided: June 26, 2002 Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Franklin Paul Hunt, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Edward Skiver, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Franklin Paul Hunt appeals the district court’s denial of a postjudgment motion filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). The district court dismissed the underlying 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001) motion on its merits on July 20, 1999. In November 2001, Hunt moved for relief from judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). We review denial of a Rule 60(b) motion for abuse of discretion. United States v. Holland , 214 F.3d 523, 527 (4th Cir. 2000). Having reviewed the relevant documents and the district court’s order denying the motion, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the requested relief. Therefore, we affirm the district court’s ruling. 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 the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Nancy Greenberg, Respondent. Sherry-Lehmann, Inc., Appellant; John E. *979Sweeney, as Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

[632 NYS2d 723]

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed December 27, 1994, which ruled that claimant was entitled to receive unemployment insurance benefits.

Claimant worked as an art and design director at SherryLehmann, Inc., a wine and liquor retailer. After the cessation of her working relationship with Sherry-Lehmann, claimant was deemed eligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits. Sherry-Lehmann asserts that claimant is not entitled to receive unemployment insurance benefits because she was retained as an independent contractor. The record, however, reveals that Sherry-Lehmann, among other things, supplied claimant with materials and equipment, provided her with business cards, a desk and access to a telephone, reviewed and imposed time restrictions on claimant’s work and prohibited claimant from working for competitors. In view of this, substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision that claimant was an employee of Sherry-Lehmann.

Mikoll, J. P., Crew III, Casey, Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.