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

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 64 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 64

   To designate the week of May 4, 1997, as ``National Correctional 
                     Officers and Employees Week''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 18, 1997

   Mr. Robb (for himself, Mr. Abraham, Mr. Conrad, Mr. D'Amato, Mr. 
Domenici, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Faircloth, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Feingold, Mr. 
Helms, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Kempthorne, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Levin, 
  Mr. Smith of New Hampshire, Mr. Warner, Mr. Biden, Mr. Bumpers, Mr. 
Cochran, Mr. Craig, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Glenn, Mr. Lugar, Mr. Moynihan, Mr. 
 Thurmond, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Bingaman, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Bryan, 
 Mr. Byrd, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Cleland, 
  Mr. Ford, Mr. Graham, Mr. Kerrey, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. 
  Leahy, Mr. Lieberman, Ms. Moseley-Braun, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Reed, Mr. 
Reid, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Torricelli, Mr. Wellstone, Mr. 
 Allard, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Bond, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Burns, Mr. Chafee, 
 Mr. Coats, Mr. Collins, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Frist, Mr. Grams, Mr. Grassley, 
 Mr. Gregg, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Hutchinson, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. McCain, Mr. 
   Murkowski, Mr. Nickles, Mr. Roberts, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Specter, Mr. 
     Thomas, Mr. Gorton, and Ms. Mikulski) submitted the following 
    resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

                              May 1, 1997

             Committee discharged; considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   To designate the week of May 4, 1997, as ``National Correctional 
                     Officers and Employees Week''.

Whereas the operation of correctional facilities represents a crucial component 
        of our criminal justice system;
Whereas correctional personnel play a vital role in protecting the rights of the 
        public to be safeguarded from criminal activity;
Whereas correctional personnel are responsible for the care, custody and dignity 
        of the human beings charged to their care; and
Whereas correctional personnel work under demanding circumstances and face 
        danger in their daily work lives: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate designate the week of May 4, 1997, as 
``National Correctional Officers and Employees Week.'' The President is 
authorized and requested to issue a proclamation calling upon the 
people of the United States to observe such week with appropriate 
ceremonies and activities.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 32.1**

**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 CBRE Realty Finance, Inc. (the“Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Kenneth J. Witkin, President and Chief Executive Officer ofthe Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result ofoperations of the Company. 

 

Date: March 17, 2008
From: lmhawks@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:44:11 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,

Laurence McMahon

Tucson, AZ 85739
No. 69325.

#### Ignaz Strauss & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 64/15757, 64/22336, and 64/22337 (New York).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items marked “A” consist of miniature coffee or tea sets similar in all material respects to those the subject of *B. Shackman & Co.*and *S. Stern Henry & Co.*v. *United States*(28 Cust. 298, C.D. 1426), and that the items marked “B” consist of toy furniture sets the same as those the subject of *J. M. Bernard & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(34 Cust. Ct. 145, C.D. 1695), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
III

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 90

Authorizing the printing of the publication entitled ‘‘Dedication and Unveiling

of the Statue of Richard Brevard Russell, Jr.’’.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 23, 1997

Mr. BYRD (for himself, Mr. COVERDELL, and Mr. CLELAND) submitted the

following resolution; which was considered and agreed to

RESOLUTION

Authorizing the printing of the publication entitled ‘‘Dedication and Unveiling of the Statue of Richard Brevard

Russell, Jr.’’.

1 Resolved,

2 SECTION 1. PRINTING OF THE PUBLICATION ENTITLED

3 ‘‘DEDICATION AND UNVEILING OF THE STAT4 UE OF RICHARD BREVARD RUSSELL, JR.’’.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—There shall be printed as a Senate

6 document the publication entitled ‘‘Dedication and Unveil7 ing of the Statue of Richard Brevard Russell, Jr.’’, pre8 pared by the Office of Senate Curator under the super9 vision of the Secretary of the Senate, with the concurrence

10 of the United States Senate Commission on Art.
2

•SRES 90 ATS

1 (b) SPECIFICATIONS.—The Senate document de2 scribed in subsection (a) shall include illustrations and

3 shall be in the style, form, manner, and binding as di4 rected by the Joint Committee on Printing after consulta5 tion with the Secretary of the Senate.

6 (c) NUMBER OF COPIES.—In addition to the usual

7 number of copies, there shall be printed with suitable bind8 ing the lesser of—

9 (1) 1,000 copies for the use of the Senate, to

10 be allocated as determined by the Secretary of the

11 Senate; or

12 (2) a number of copies that does not have a

13 total production and printing cost of more than

14 $1,200.

Æ
No. 68538.

protest 62/16740 (New York).

#### Ciba Pharmaceutical Products, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Bao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel to the effect that the merchandise consists of pocket diaries with inserts; that said pocket diaries are printed wholly in a language other than English; and that said inserts, which are entirely in the English language, are books of *hona fide*foreign authorship, the claims of the plaintiff were sustained.
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

MAURICE DALTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

SERGEANT PAUL ESTES, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C05-5820RJB

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF

TIME

This Civil Rights action has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to

Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Before the court is plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to

reply to a pending motion for summary judgment (Dkt. # 53).

Defendants filed the motion for summary judgment on January 17, 2007. The defendants

gave plaintiff just over five weeks to file a response. On the day the motion was noted to be heard,

the court received the motion for an extension of time (Dkt. # 53). The motion is not timely. 

Further, there is a pending motion to dismiss the action based on plaintiff’s failure to comply with a

court order that he pay a portion of the costs for a deposition he refused to attend. That motion is

also now ripe for review and is dispositive of this action. The motion for an extension of time is

DENIED.

The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order to plaintiff and counsel for defendants.

DATED this 22, day of March, 2007.

/S/ J. Kelley Arnold

J. Kelley Arnold

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-05820-RJB Document 57 Filed 03/23/07 Page 1 of 1
Before the Third Division,

August 12, 1954

No. 58327.

protests 136423-K, etc. (New York).

#### The Fan Co. and National Carloading Corp. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the articles in question consist of silent butlers, smoothing irons, and trays the same in all material respects as those involved in *Ignaz Strauss & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 342, C. D. 710), *The Fan Co.*v. *United States*(25 Cust. Ct. 42, C. D. 1261), and *Ignaz Strauss & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(28 Cust. Ct.. 280, C. D. 1423), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Case 2:05-cv-01801-JPD Document 102-3 Filed 08/15/06 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:05-cv-01801-JPD Document 102-3 Filed 08/15/06 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 55 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 55

   Expressing the sense of the Senate regarding the need to address 
                immediately the decline in milk prices.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 13, 1997

  Mr. Specter (for himself, Mr. Santorum, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Kohl, Mr. 
  Jeffords, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Wellstone, Ms. Snowe, Ms. Collins, and Mr. 
  Grams) submitted the following resolution which was considered and 
                               agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Expressing the sense of the Senate regarding the need to address 
                immediately the decline in milk prices.

Whereas, during the last few months farm milk prices have experienced 
        substantial volatility, dropping precipitously from $15.37 per 
        hundredweight in September, 1996 to $11.34 per hundredweight in 
        December, 1996;
Whereas the price of cheese at the National Cheese Exchange in Green Bay, 
        Wisconsin, influences milk prices paid to farmers because of its use in 
        the Department of Agriculture's Basic Formula Price under Federal Milk 
        Marketing Orders;
Whereas less than 1 percent of the cheese produced in the United States is sold 
        on the National Cheese Exchange and the Exchange acts as a reference 
        price for as much as 95 percent of the commercial bulk cheese sales in 
        the nation: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That it is the Sense of the Senate of the United States 
that the Secretary of Agriculture should consider acting immediately 
pursuant to his legal authority to modify the Basic Formula Price for 
dairy by replacing the National Cheese Exchange as a factor to be 
considered in setting the Basic Formula Price.
                                 <all>
```
September 29, 1960

No. 64620.

Suit 5013.

#### John V. Carr & Son, Inc. *v.*United States.

Abstract 63200 affirmed June 8, 1960. C.A.D. 747.
Case 2:05-cv-02035-TSZ Document 11 Filed 03/15/06 Page 1 of 6
Case 2:05-cv-02035-TSZ Document 11 Filed 03/15/06 Page 2 of 6
Case 2:05-cv-02035-TSZ Document 11 Filed 03/15/06 Page 3 of 6
Case 2:05-cv-02035-TSZ Document 11 Filed 03/15/06 Page 4 of 6
Case 2:05-cv-02035-TSZ Document 11 Filed 03/15/06 Page 5 of 6
Case 2:05-cv-02035-TSZ Document 11 Filed 03/15/06 Page 6 of 6
#### Antonio Rogerio ALVARADO, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.

No. 00-70197.

INS No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 10, 2001 *.

Decided July 13, 2001.

*692Before CANBY, HAWKINS and RONALD M. GOULD, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel finds this case appropriate for submission without oral argument pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Alvarado was not denied due process by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). The BIA can adopt or cross-reference the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision, provided it is clear that it gave individualized consideration to the case. *Alaelua v. INS,*45 F.3d 1379, 1382 (9th Cir.1995). The BIA’s opinion, which includes facts not specifically mentioned by the IJ and discusses petitioner’s testimony at the immigration hearing, clearly shows the BIA undertook an independent review of the record. Alvarado thus cannot overcome the presumption that the BIA reviews “all relevant materials in the record,” and cannot establish a due process violation. *Larita-Martinez v. INS,*220 F.3d 1092, 1095-96 (9th Cir.2000).

Although Alvarado notes that neither the IJ nor the BIA discuss his credibility, neither bases its decision on Alvarado’s credibility. Rather, the BIA determined that the facts described by Alvarado did not rise to the level of past persecution, and that Alvarado had not established a well-founded fear of future persecution. Moreover, there is substantial evidence to support both findings. The incidents described by Alvarado (none of which involved him personally) do not establish past persecution on account of one of the enumerated statutory grounds. *See Fisher v. INS,*79 F.3d 955, 961 (9th Cir.1996) (en banc). Even assuming Alvarado has a genuine subjective fear of persecution, he did not establish an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution. *See Prasad v. INS,*47 F.3d 336, 338 (9th Cir.1995).

PETITION DENIED.

**

 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.
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

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION FOR RENOTE - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

_______________________________________)

ALFRED NEWBERRY, )

) No. C06-742RSL

Plaintiff, ) 

v. )

) ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

FIBERGLASS STRUCTURAL ) MOTION FOR RENOTE

ENGINEERING, INC., and RANDY )

RAPOZA, )

)

Defendants. )

_______________________________________)

This matter comes before the Court on defendants’ motion to renote their motion to

dismiss (Dkt. #14). The motion to dismiss was originally noted for December 8, 2006 and

defendant now requests that the Court renote the motion for December 15, 2006. Plaintiff has

not yet responded to the motion, therefore the Court GRANTS defendants’ motion for renote. 

The Clerk of Court is directed to renote “Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss” (Dkt. #10) on the

Court’s calendar for Friday, December 15, 2006. Any opposition is due no later than Monday,

December 11, 2006, and any reply is due no later than December 15, 2006. See LR 7(d)(3). 

DATED this 4th day of December, 2006.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge 

Case 2:06-cv-00742-RSL Document 15 Filed 12/04/06 Page 1 of 1
Year,Household net worth1,Total,Growth of dom Households,estic nonfinanc Businesses,ial debt2 State and local gov’ts,Federal government
2005,61789,8.6,10.6,8.1,5.8,6.6
2006,66067,8.4,10.5,9.8,3.9,3.9
2007,66522,8.1,7.2,12.4,5.5,4.7
2008,56133,5.7,-0.1,5.8,0.6,21.4
2009,58067,3.4,0.3,-4.3,4.0,20.4
2010,62247,4.3,-0.6,-0.9,2.3,18.5
2011,63404,3.5,-0.5,3.0,-1.7,10.8
2012,69569,5.0,2.0,4.8,-0.2,10.1
2013,79369,4.0,1.8,5.1,-1.3,6.7
2014,84134,4.4,3.1,6.2,-0.5,5.4
2013Q3,76852,3.2,3.3,7.4,-3.0,0.9
2013Q4,79369,6.1,1.5,4.2,-2.8,14.4
2014Q1,80940,4.1,1.9,6.1,-1.7,5.7
2014Q2,82627,4.2,5.2,5.1,0.1,3.5
2014Q3,82799,4.5,3.0,6.0,-1.7,6.0
2014Q4,84134,4.7,2.2,7.0,1.5,5.9
2015Q1,85789,2.5,1.8,7.2,4.3,-1.1
2015Q2,86413,4.6,4.2,8.4,1.0,2.4
2015Q3,85182,2.0,1.5,4.7,1.7,0.2
DC Civil Construction, 

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 22, 2015

No. 04-15-00362-CV

Javan P. SMITH,

Appellant

v.

DC CIVIL CONSTRUCTION, LLC,

Appellee

From the County Court At Law No. 10, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015-CV-1978

Honorable Martha Tanner, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The clerk’s record has been filed in this appeal without payment of costs by appellant. 

The reporter’s record was originally due on September 21, 2015. On September 30, 2015, Ms. 

Kay Counseller, the reporter responsible for preparing, certifying, and filing the reporter’s record 

in this appeal, filed a Notification of Late Record stating the reporter’s record has not been filed 

because appellant has failed to pay or make arrangements to pay the reporter’s fee for preparing 

the record and appellant is not entitled to appeal without paying the fee. On October 14, 2015, 

we ordered appellant to designate the reporter’s record and provide proof that either (1) the 

reporter’s fee has been paid or arrangements have been made to pay the reporter’s fee; or (2) 

appellant is entitled to appeal without paying the reporter’s fee. 

Appellant filed an affidavit of indigence; therefore, we ORDER the clerk of this court to 

send copies of appellant’s affidavit and this order to Ms. Counseller and all parties. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 20.1(d)(2).

We ORDER the deadline for filing a contest to appellant’s affidavit of indigence is no 

later than November 2, 2015. Any contest must be filed in this court. See TEX. R. APP. P.

20.1(e)(1).

Appellant is reminded that if he desires a reporter’s record, and has not already done so, 

he must (1) request in writing that a reporter’s record be prepared and (2) designate in writing the 

exhibits and those portions of the record to be included in the reporter’s record. Appellant must

file a copy of the request with both the trial court clerk and this court.
_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 22nd day of October, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
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

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

NEIL GRENNING,

Plaintiff,

v.

EILEEN W. BISON, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C05-5298RJB

ORDER DENYING SECOND

MOTION TO APPOINT

COUNSEL

The Court, having reviewed Plaintiff's request for appointment of counsel, which was submitted at

the same time of his application to proceed in forma pauperis, and the balance of the record, does hereby

find and ORDER:

(1) There is no right to have counsel appointed in cases brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Although the court, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), can request counsel to represent a party proceeding in

forma pauperis, the court may do so only in exceptional circumstances. Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d

1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1236 (9th Cir. 1984); Aldabe v. Aldabe,

616 F.2d 1089 (9th Cir. 1980). A finding of exceptional circumstances requires an evaluation of both the

likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of

the complexity of the legal issues involved. Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331.

Plaintiff has demonstrated an adequate ability to articulate his claims pro se. Moreover, it appears

that this case does not involve exceptional circumstances which warrant appointment of counsel.

Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel is DENIED.

DATED this 18th day of December, 2006.

/s/ J. Kelley Arnold 

J. Kelley Arnold

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05298-RJB Document 28 Filed 12/22/06 Page 1 of 1