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

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 374 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 374

 Congratulating and commending Free Comic Book Day as an enjoyable and 
   creative approach to promoting literacy and celebrating a unique 
                           American art form.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 3, 2007

 Mr. Ruppersberger (for himself and Mr. Farr) submitted the following 
   resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and 
                           Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Congratulating and commending Free Comic Book Day as an enjoyable and 
   creative approach to promoting literacy and celebrating a unique 
                           American art form.

Whereas Free Comic Book Day promotes literacy by distributing free reading 
        material on the first Saturday of May;
Whereas Free Comic Book Day is dedicated to increasing awareness of and an 
        interest in comics through an innovative marketing campaign;
Whereas comics have proven to be a wonderful educational tool to help reluctant 
        readers to take an interest in, and develop a life-long love of, 
        reading;
Whereas comic books are a fun and exciting way to introduce kids to reading and 
        help children comprehend storylines;
Whereas a growing number of schools are using comics to teach kids narration, 
        dialogue, and visual design;
Whereas the fastest growing section of public libraries is the comic book 
        ``graphic novel'' section; and
Whereas comics and graphic novels are increasingly being recognized as serious 
        literature: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved,  That the House of Representatives congratulates and 
commends Free Comic Book Day as an enjoyable and creative approach to 
promoting literacy and celebrating a unique American art form.
                                 <all>
```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ruben TINAJERO-RIVERA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-50228.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Aug. 17, 2005.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Philip J. Lynch, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before BENAVIDES, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Ruben Tinajero-Rivera raises arguments that are foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which held that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Case No. 13,502.

#### STOUGHTON v. TAYLOR.

[See Case No. 7,558.]
Case No. 10,213.

#### NEW YORK MAIL STEAMSHIP CO. v. The BALTIC.

[5 Int. Rev. Rec. 3.]

District Court, S. D. New York.

1867.

Wharfage — Libel in Rem — Local Law.

In admiralty.

J. T. Williams, for libelants.

Mann & Parsons, for respondents.

The following is the substance of the opinion of SHIPMAN, District Judge: “This is a suit, in rem. against the steamship Baltic to enforce a claim for wharfage. The libel-ants allege that they are lessees of a dock in the city of New York, and that the Baltic occupied a berth thereat, at various times named, in pursuance of an agreement between her owners and her libelants. The particulars of the agreement are not set out, and the court is not informed whether or not there was a fixed rate of compensation agreed upon between the parties. If the rate of wharfage was specified in the agreement, that would end the case, even if she was a foreign ship, for no lien would attach, and of course no proceeding in rem can he maintained. Ex parte Lewis [Case No. 8,310].”

Judge SHIPMAN then says that the vessel being owned and registered in this port, wharfage, even granting that it is a lien upon the ship on the same ground as other necessaries, does not apply to this vessel. As to the claim that a lien is given by the local laws of this state, that is conceded; but that this lien can and ought to he enforced by this court is denied. After stating that the old rule, which he quotes, giving power to this court to enforce such a lien had been abrogated, and a new rule adopted, Judge SHIPMAN says: “The abject of this alteration was to take away the power to enforce liens in rem, created by the local law, and resting upon that alone. The St. Lawrence, 1 Black [66 U. S.] 522. The libel should therefore be dismissed with costs. Let a decree be entered accordingly.”
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 Xun Energy Inc.  (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended May 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, 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 his 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 operation of the Company.



3.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





Date:   August 30, 2010



By: /s/Dennis T. Kushner

Dennis T. Kushner

Chief Financial Officer
Order filed, December 27, 2018.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-18-01027-CV

____________

RONDA G. NEELY, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE 

OF JANET S. GOEHRING, DECEASED, AND MICHELLE PATRICK, 

INDIVIDUALLY, AND ROYCE GREGORY GOEHRING, 

INDIVIDUALLY, Appellant

V.

UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, Appellee

On Appeal from the 11th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2007-32446-ASB

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due December 06, 2018. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 35.1. On December 11, 2018, this court ordered the court reporter to file 

the record within 10 days. The record has not been filed with the court. Because 

the reporter’s record has not been filed timely, we issue the following order.
We order Mark Miller, the official court reporter, to file the record in this 

appeal within 30 days of the date of this order. No further extension will be 

entertained absent exceptional circumstances. The trial and appellate courts are 

jointly responsible for ensuring that the appellate record is timely filed. See Tex. 

R. App. P. 35.3(c). If Mark Miller does not timely file the record as ordered, we 

may issue an order directing the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine the 

reason for the failure to file the record.

PER CURIAM
From: ccgarza@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:54:19 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,

Rev. Cesar Garza

Sincerely,

Cesar Garza

Austin, TX 78704
From: ghuell@knology.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:40:09 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,

Marliese Huell

Huntsville, AL 35816
From: joanml@verizon.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:50:00 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,

Joan Lucas

Forest, VA 24551
From: homestart1@charter.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:52:07 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,

Charles and Irene Paine

Angier, NC 27501
No. 60188.

protest 215623-K (New York).

#### Lian Bros., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of laces similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 58520, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
#### Nemesio DE LA CRUZ GAMARRA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-72913.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 1, 2005.*

Decided Aug. 15, 2005.

*660Before: O’SCANNLAIN, CALLAHAN and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Nemesio De La Cruz Gamarra, a native and citizen of Peru, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision, which summarily dismissed his appeal of the Immigration Judge’s order denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

We have jurisdiction over Gamarra’s summary dismissal claim under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the BIA’s summary dismissal for an abuse of discretion. *Singh v. Gonzales,*416 F.3d 1006, 1008-09 (9th Cir.2005). We review due process claims de novo. *Barron v. Ashcroft,*358 F.3d 674, 677 (9th Cir.2004).

Gamarra contends that the BIA erred in summarily denying his appeal. We disagree. Gamarra’s Notice of Appeal only contained conclusory statements, and it failed to set forth the specific grounds for his appeal. Therefore, summary dismissal was appropriate. *See Singh v. Ashcroft,*361 F.3d 1152, 1157 (9th Cir.2004); *cf. Garcia-Cortez v. Ashcroft,*366 F.3d 749, 753 (9th Cir.2004). Furthermore, we do not find that there was a due process violation because Gamarra’s counsel’s failure to file a supporting brief as she indicated she would, even after the BIA granted an extension of time, was not caused by any deficiency in the BIA’s notice requirements. *See Rojas-Garcia v. Ashcroft,*339 F.3d 814, 822 (9th Cir.2003).

Gamarra also contends that the case should be remanded to the BIA because of ineffective assistance of counsel. We lack jurisdiction over Gamarra’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim because he did not exhaust his administrative remedies by first raising this claim to the BIA. *See Barron v. Ashcroft,*358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir.2004); *see also Ontiveros-Lopez v. INS,*213 F.3d 1121, 1124 (9th Cir.2000) (holding that the petitioner must exhaust administrative remedies by first presenting ineffective assistance of counsel claim to the BIA).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part and DENIED in part.

**

 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.
Before the Second Division,

January 31, 1958

No. 61516.

#### Charles Garcia & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States

protests 289112-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Forb, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of monofilament fishing lines the same in all material respects as those the subject of Abstract 60183, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
From: marsh12362@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:01:52 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,

Raymond Marsh

Bellevue, WA 98006
From: SWiederwax@marazzitile.com

Sent: 08/14/2008 11:32 AM

To: Jeff Telander/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc:

Subject: ICR

Jeff

Corrected version per our conversation.

Thanks

Steve

Steven T. Wiederwax

Safety and Environmental Manager

American Marazzi Tile/Monarch Ceramic Tile

Tel: 972

- 226

- 0110 x 2222

Fax: 972

- 226

- 0389

(See attached file: American Marazzi Tile Inc. ICR Response N on CBI.xls)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                 EXHIBIT  99


                                CERTIFICATION
          PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
      (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18,
                              United States Code)



The undersigned officer of First National Lincoln Corporation (the "Company")
hereby certifies that the Company's quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2003 (the "Report"), as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company. This certification is provided solely
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not be deemed to be a part of the Report
or "filed" for any purpose whatsoever.


By: /s/ Daniel R. Daigneault
    Daniel R. Daigneault
    President & Chief Executive Officer
    May 15, 2003


The undersigned officer of First National Lincoln Corporation (the "Company")
hereby certifies that the Company's quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2003 (the "Report"), as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company. This certification is provided solely
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not be deemed to be a part of the Report
or "filed" for any purpose whatsoever.


By: /s/ F. Stephen Ward
    F. Stephen Ward
    Treasurer & Chief Financial Officer
    May 15, 2003

------------------------------------------------------------------------------