alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 59802.

#### C. S. Emery & Company v. United States,

protest 176741-K (St. Albans).

Opinion by

Donlon, *J.*

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of beef similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Swift & Company et al.*v. *United States*(33 Cust. Ct. 212, C. D. 1655), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
III

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 146

Establishing an advisory role for the Senate in the selection of Supreme

Court Justices.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

NOVEMBER 7, 1997

Mr. SPECTER (for himself and Mr. BYRD) submitted the following resolution;

which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

RESOLUTION

Establishing an advisory role for the Senate in the selection

of Supreme Court Justices.

Whereas article II, section 2 of the United States Constitution authorizes the President to appoint Judges of the

Supreme Court ‘‘by and with the Advice and Consent of

the Senate’’;

Whereas the Senate has exercised its ‘‘Consent’’ function

with due diligence through extensive hearings and deliberation prior to voting on nominees to the Court;

Whereas the Senate has not historically exercised its ‘‘Advice’’ function with the exception of a limited consultation

with the President on the selection of a nominee in advance of the President making such a nomination;
2

SRES 146 IS

Whereas there is no systematic method for selecting Supreme

Court nominees, with the President having historically

proceeded on an ad hoc basis to consider a limited number of individuals before making his nomination;

Whereas there is an enormous pool of legal talent who could

become Supreme Court nominees;

Whereas in one case where the Senate exercised influence on

the selection of a nominee, it was to replace Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes with Justice Benjamin Cardozo;

Whereas the importance of having the best and brightest

judges is reflected in the fact that the Supreme Court

has decided numerous significant cases by a one-vote

margin; and

Whereas it would be useful to create a pool of recognized candidates of superior quality for consideration by the President; Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Senate should better fulfill its ‘‘Advice’’ function under article II, section 2 by having the Senate

Committee on the Judiciary establish a pool of possible Supreme Court nominees for the President to consider, based on

suggestions from Federal and State judges, distinguished

lawyers and law professors, and others with a similar level of

insight into the suitability of individuals considered for appointment to the Supreme Court.

Æ
Exhibit 32.4

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

In connection with the Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Quest Resource Holding Corporation (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2016, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Laurie L. Latham, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, to the best of my knowledge and belief, 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 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| /s/ Laurie L. Latham                              |
|---------------------------------------------------|
| Laurie L. Latham                                  |
| Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
| (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)      |

Date: May 1, 2017 

This certification accompanies the Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K/A to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of Quest Resource Holding Corporation under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K/A), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
III

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 152

To direct the Senate Legal Counsel to appear as amicus curiae in the

name of the Senate in City of New York, et al. v. William Clinton,

et al., and related cases.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

NOVEMBER 9, 1997

Mr. LOTT (for himself and Mr. DASCHLE) submitted the following resolution;

which was considered and agreed to

RESOLUTION

To direct the Senate Legal Counsel to appear as amicus

curiae in the name of the Senate in City of New York,

et al. v. William Clinton, et al., and related cases.

Whereas, in the cases of City of New York, et al. v. William

Clinton, et al., Civ. No. 97–2393, National Treasury Employees Union, et al., v. United States, et al., Civ. No.

97–2399, and Snake River Potato Growers, Inc., et al.,

v. Robert Rubin, Civ. No. 97–2463, all pending in the

United States District Court for the District of Columbia, the constitutionality of the Line Item Veto Act, Public Law No. 104–130, 110 Stat. 1200 (1996), has been

placed in issue; and

Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(c), 706(a), and 713(a) of

the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, 2 U.S.C. 288b(c),
2

SRES 152 ATS

288e(a), and 2881(a), the Senate may direct its counsel

to appear as amicus curiae in the name of the Senate in

any legal action in which the powers and responsibilities

of Congress under the Constitution are placed in issue:

Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Senate Legal Counsel is directed to

appear as amicus curiae on behalf of the Senate in the cases

of City of New York, et al. v. William Clinton, et al.; National Treasury Employees Union, et al., v. United States, et

al.; and Snake River Potato Growers, Inc., et al., v. Robert

Rubin, to defend the constitutionality of the Line Item Veto

Act.

SEC. 2. That while the Senate is adjourned the Senate

Legal Counsel is authorized to appear as amicus curiae on

behalf of the Senate in other cases in which the constitutionality of the Line Item Veto Act is placed in issue: Provided, That the Joint Leadership Group authorizes the Senate Legal Counsel to appear as amicus curiae on behalf of

the Senate in such other cases.

Æ
EXHIBIT 32.0
 SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF THE
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
  (1)
    
    The Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010
(the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. Sections 78m(a) or 78o(d); 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: March 28, 2011
    By:
    /s/ A. Peyton Bush, IIIA. Peyton Bush, IIIPresident and Chief Executive OfficerDate: March 28, 2011
    By:
    /s/ Donna T. GuerraDonna T. GuerraAssistant Secretary and Chief Financial
Officer Note:
    
    A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act has been provided to Hibernia Homestead Bancorp, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
  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.
  By:
    /s/ Jason Nanchun JiangName:
    Jason Nanchun JiangTitle:
    Chief Executive Officer 
 *
    
    A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 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.
July 20, 2015

Mr. Phillip Madison

2 08 Anita Drive

Paducah, KY 42003

Dear Mr. Madison :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It expla ins why we can not process your

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can No t Process Your Request

We entered your May 26 , 2015 exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA

- 2015

-

1921 ), but we are unab le to process your request any further. The information you sent does

no t comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request

any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would

benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed e ffective date of the exemption.

If We Do No t Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267

- 9677.2

Sincerely,

/s/

B rittany Newton

Program Analyst , Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER – 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

ARDELL JOSHUA SHAW,

Petitioner,

v.

KENNETH QUINN,

Respondent.

CASE NO. C06-424JLR

ORDER

This matter comes before the court on Mr. Shaw’s motion for a certificate of

appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (Dkt. # 32). Mr. Shaw seeks to appeal the

court’s April 25, 2007 order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition (Dkt.

# 25). For the reasons stated below, the court GRANTS the motion. 

Among the substantial changes to federal habeas corpus procedure in the

Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 is a rule that a habeas petitioner

can appeal the denial of a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition only after obtaining a “certificate of

appealability.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). Although the statute is ambiguous, the Ninth

Circuit has held that a United States District Court may issue a certificate of

appealability. United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1269 (9th Cir. 1997). A court may

issue a certificate of appealability only if the “applicant has made a substantial showing

of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The Supreme Court has

Case 2:06-cv-00424-JLR Document 33 Filed 06/07/07 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER – 2

elaborated that a petitioner must show that “reasonable jurists could debate whether . . .

the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented

were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529

U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (quotations omitted). 

Here, Mr. Shaw has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right. The court’s dismissal of Mr. Shaw’s habeas corpus petition warrants a certificate

of appealability with respect to the following issue: whether the prosecutor’s failure to

disclose evidence regarding forensic scientist Michael Hoover constituted a violation of

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). 

DATED this 7th day of June, 2007.

A JAMES L. ROBART

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-00424-JLR Document 33 Filed 06/07/07 Page 2 of 2
No. 58732.

protest 231764-K (San Francisco).

#### Juillard Fancy Foods Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the articles herein are similar in all material respects to the mustard jars the subject of *Julliard Fancy Foods Co.*v. *United States*(33 Cust. Ct. 1, C. D. 1625), the claim of the plaintiff was. sustained.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 767 Laid on Table in House (LTH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 767

           Raising a question of the privileges of the House.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 23, 2007

 Mr. Boehner submitted the following resolution; which was laid on the 
                                 table

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
           Raising a question of the privileges of the House.

Whereas United States soldiers and personnel in Iraq are fighting to protect 
        innocent Americans from being attacked by al-Qaeda and radical jihadists 
        who are determined to kill the American people;
Whereas on October 18, 2007, in debate on H.R. 976, Children's Health Insurance 
        Program Reauthorization Act, the Member from California, Mr. Stark, 
        stated: ``You don't have money to fund the war or children. But you're 
        going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids 
        to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off 
        for the President's amusement.'';
Whereas, on October 18, 2007, in a press release, Rep. Pete Stark is quoted as 
        saying: ``I respect neither the Commander-in-Chief who keeps them in 
        harms way nor the chickenhawks in Congress.'';
Whereas the Member from California, Mr. Stark, engaged in personally abusive 
        language toward the President and Members of the House, including the 
        use of language that impugns their motives;
Whereas the Member from California, Mr. Stark, dishonors not only the Commander-
        in-Chief, but the thousands of courageous men and women of America's 
        Armed Forces who believe in their mission and are putting their lives on 
        the line for our freedom and security; and
Whereas the Member from California, Mr. Stark, has failed to retract his 
        statement and apologize to the Members of the House, our Commander-in-
        Chief, and the families of our soldiers and commanders fighting terror 
        overseas: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Member from California, Mr. Stark, by his 
despicable conduct, has dishonored himself and brought discredit to the 
House and merits the censure of the House for the same.
    Resolved,  That the Member from California, Mr. Stark, is hereby so 
censured.
                                 <all>
```
Case No. 7,678.

#### KELSEY v. DALLON.

[7 Int. Rev. Rec. 86.]

Circuit Court, E. D. New York.

1868.

Removal of Causes — Süjt against Marshal— Color of Office.

[On a petition by a United States marshal to have a case against himself removed from state to federal court, it must be shown that he is sued on account of some act done by him under color of his office.]

In the case of Charles Kelsey against Francis L. Dallon, the plaintiff sued defendant in the state courts for rent of premises from May, 18G7, in which the defendant held the appurtenances of a distillery he had seized therein the previous month of April, the ease having expired on the above date, and the marshal holding over in possession of such premises. The defendant, by writ of certiorari, removed the ease to the United States court, E. D. N. Y., affirming in his petition for the writ, that pursuant to section 67 of the act of congress, passed July 13, 1866 [14 Stat. 171], he was entitled to have cause so removed, said action having been commenced against him on account of acts done by him under color of his office as marshal of the United States in and for the Eastern district of New York, to which plaintiff demurred that the cause shown was not sufficient in law to maintain the certiorari, the said defendant not being sued in his official capacity.

On argument upon the demurrer, Richard Rowland, Esq., plaintiff’s counsel, moved that the action be referred back to the state courts on the ground that the marshal had no authority to seize or hold the property of the plaintiff, and should have removed the effects seized on the expiration of the tenant’s lease, and no notice had been given to plaintiff that his property had been seized or attached, nor was the defendant authorized to seize or -attach the plaintiff’s property and the holding of the premises was not under color of his office as claimed.

John S. Allen, Asst. Dist. Atty., for defendant, in support of the certiorari.

BENEDICT, District Judge,

held that the petition and papers in the case did not show that the action was brought on account of any act done by the defendant under color of his office, and granted plaintiff’s motion to quash the proceedings, and remanded the cause to the state courts.
IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 70 

Congratulating the University of California at Santa Barbara men’s soccer 

team, the 2006 National Collegiate Athletic Association Champions. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 17, 2007 

Mrs. CAPPS (for herself and Mr. GALLEGLY) submitted the following 

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Education and Labor 

RESOLUTION 

Congratulating the University of California at Santa Barbara 

men’s soccer team, the 2006 National Collegiate Athletic 

Association Champions. 

Whereas the University of California at Santa Barbara 

(UCSB) Gauchos claimed the 2006 NCAA Championship, 2–1, over the University of California at Los Angeles Bruins at Robert R. Hermann Stadium at Saint 

Louis University in St. Louis, Missouri, on December 3, 

2006; 

Whereas the UCSB Gauchos, in their 2006 season, had an 

overall record of 18–7–0, and a perfect 6–0 mark in the 

National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) tournament; 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 70 IH 

Whereas the UCSB Gauchos won a Division 1 title for the 

second time ever in school history and first time ever in 

men’s soccer; 

Whereas the UCSB Gauchos have reached the NCAA finals 

twice in the past three years; 

Whereas Nick Perera was named the tournament’s offensive 

Most Valuable Player and Andy Iro was named the defensive Most Valuable Player; and 

Whereas the 2006 NCAA championship soccer team members 

are Kyle Reynish; Jeff Murphy; David Walker; Andy Iro; 

Jon Curry; Greg Curry; Bryan Byrne; Paul Kierstead; 

Tino Nunez; Tyler Rosenlund; Alfonso Motagalvan; Eric 

Frimpong; Chris Pontius; Nick Perera; Eric Avila; Evan 

Patterson; Brennan Tennelle; Kyle Kaveny; Andrew 

Proctor; Bongomin Otii; Bryant Rueckner; Tony 

Chinakwe; Jason Badger; Jordan Kaplan; Drew Gleason; 

C.J. Cintas; and Guillermo Jalomo: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives con2 gratulates the University of California at Santa Barbara 

3 men’s soccer team, the Gauchos, and Coaches Tim Vom 

4 Steeg, Greg Wilson, Erick Foss, and Neil Jones on an out5 standing championship season, a season that set the Gau6 chos among the elite in collegiate soccer. 

Æ 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with BILLS
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. This archiveassures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access to publicationsin the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging and locatorservices, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications (CGP). Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event that publicationsare no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:Veterans group life insurance (VGLI) news
** 
V 1 | V 2 | V 3 |V 4 | V 5 | V 6 | V 7 | V 8 | V 9 | V 10
 
SuDoc:VA1.46/3:
Item Number:0983-A-15 (online)
CGP systemNumber: 000729611
 
April 10, 2024
 ****
**EXHIBIT 32.1****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Medwave, Inc. (the “Company”) for thequarterly period ended June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate below (the “Report”), the undersigned, in the capacities and as of the date listed below,hereby certifies that: (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), asapplicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.This Certification is provided solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and Item 601(b)(32) ofRegulation S-K promulgated under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and shall not be deemedpart of the Report or “filed” for any purpose whatsoever, nor shall it be deemed incorporated byreference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.Date: August 14, 2007         By:                                       /s/ Frank A. Katarow    Frank A. Katarow    Chief Executive Officer (Interim)
Case 2:06-cv-00225-JLR Document 1 Filed 02/15/06 Page 1 of 15
Case 2:06-cv-00225-JLR Document 1 Filed 02/15/06 Page 2 of 15
Case 2:06-cv-00225-JLR Document 1 Filed 02/15/06 Page 3 of 15
Case 2:06-cv-00225-JLR Document 1 Filed 02/15/06 Page 4 of 15
Case 2:06-cv-00225-JLR Document 1 Filed 02/15/06 Page 5 of 15
Case 2:06-cv-00225-JLR Document 1 Filed 02/15/06 Page 6 of 15
Case 2:06-cv-00225-JLR Document 1 Filed 02/15/06 Page 7 of 15
Case 2:06-cv-00225-JLR Document 1 Filed 02/15/06 Page 8 of 15
Case 2:06-cv-00225-JLR Document 1 Filed 02/15/06 Page 9 of 15
Case 2:06-cv-00225-JLR Document 1 Filed 02/15/06 Page 10 of 15
Case 2:06-cv-00225-JLR Document 1 Filed 02/15/06 Page 11 of 15
Case 2:06-cv-00225-JLR Document 1 Filed 02/15/06 Page 12 of 15
Case 2:06-cv-00225-JLR Document 1 Filed 02/15/06 Page 13 of 15
Case 2:06-cv-00225-JLR Document 1 Filed 02/15/06 Page 14 of 15
Case 2:06-cv-00225-JLR Document 1 Filed 02/15/06 Page 15 of 15