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

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 1 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 1

 Informing the House of Representatives that a quorum of the Senate is 
                               assembled.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 7, 1997

 Mr. Lott submitted the following resolution; which was considered and 
                               agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Informing the House of Representatives that a quorum of the Senate is 
                               assembled.

    Resolved, That the Secretary inform the House of Representatives 
that a quorum of the Senate is assembled and that the Senate is ready 
to proceed to business.
                                 <all>
```
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 Bazaarvoice, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended April 30, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Stephen R. Collins, Chief
Financial Officer and Chief Innovation Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of 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.



|                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Stephen R. Collins                              
|Stephen R. Collins                                  
|Chief Financial Officer and Chief Innovation Officer
|                                                    
|Date: June 11, 2012
| Skip to Content*Release Date: June 5, 2014*Release dates |  Announcements |   Coded tables |  Historical data | Technical Q&AsCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB) |  Data Download Program (DDP)**L.101 Nonfinancial Business 1** |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
III

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. RES. 174

To state the sense of the Senate that Thailand is a key partner and friend

of the United States, has committed itself to executing its responsibilities

under its arrangements with the International Monetary Fund, and that

the United States should be prepared to take appropriate steps to ensure

continued close bilateral relations.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

FEBRUARY 9, 1998

Mr. ROTH (for himself, Mr. BAUCUS, Mr. THOMAS, and Mr. LUGAR) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

RESOLUTION

To state the sense of the Senate that Thailand is a key

partner and friend of the United States, has committed

itself to executing its responsibilities under its arrangements with the International Monetary Fund, and that

the United States should be prepared to take appropriate

steps to ensure continued close bilateral relations.

Whereas the United States maintains a close bilateral partnership with Thailand and has a profound interest in furthering that relationship;

Whereas the friendship between our two countries goes back

farther than that with any other Asian nation dating
2

SRES 174 IS

back to the Treaty of Amity and Commerce and Navigation of 1833;

Whereas the bilateral trade relationship is robust and promises to grow even more so in time;

Whereas the United States security relationship with Thailand is one of our most critical, and it is in both countries’ interest to maintain and strengthen that relationship;

Whereas the new Government in Thailand has committed

itself to making significant structural reforms to its economy in line with the conditions placed upon it by the

International Monetary Fund, including improving financial and economic transparency and cutting its budget;

Whereas the conditions imposed on Thailand by the International Monetary Fund were developed in August of

1997, when the economic environment in Asia was vastly

different from that existing today; and

Whereas an example of those changed circumstances is the

fact that both Korea and Indonesia provided second line

of defense contingency loans to Thailand in August 1997,

amounting to US$500 million each: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that—

2 (1) the United States should be prepared to

3 take appropriate steps to help ensure that Thai4 land’s economic recovery efforts will continue unin5 terrupted and to enhance the close political, eco6 nomic, and security relations between Thailand and

7 the United States; and
3

SRES 174 IS

1 (2) Thailand deserves praise and commendation

2 from the United States for the measures it has im3 plemented to resolve its financial problems.

Æ
|                                                      |             | Exhibit 99(a) 
|----------------------------------------------------- | ----------- | --------------
|HSBC Finance Corporation
HSBC Automotive Trust 2005-1
|                                                      |             |               
|                                                      |             |               
|Original Principal Class A                            |             |               
|Class A-1                                             | 333,600,000 |               
|Class A-2                                             | 251,300,000 |               
|Class A-3                                             | 264,800,000 |               
|Class A-4                                             | 148,182,000 |               
|                                                      |             |               
|Number of Class A Bonds (000's)                       |             |               
|Class A-1                                             | 333,600     |               
|Class A-2                                             | 251,300     |               
|Class A-3                                             | 264,800     |               
|Class A-4                                             | 148,182     |               
|                                                      |             |               
|Distribution Date                                     |             | 2005 Total    
|Days                                                  |             |               
|                                                      |             |               
|CLASS A                                               |             |               
|Class A-1  Principal Distribution                     |             | 306,585,821.61
|Class A-1  Interest Distribution                      |             | 3,537,795.36  
|                                                      |             |               
|Class A-2  Principal Distribution                     |             | 0.00          
|Class A-2  Interest Distribution                      |             | 4,788,661.09  
|                                                      |             |               
|Class A-3  Principal Distribution                     |             | 0.00          
|Class A-3  Interest Distribution                      |             | 5,341,972.24  
|                                                      |             |               
|Class A-4  Principal Distribution                     |             | 0.00          
|Class A-4  Interest Distribution                      |             | 3,133,431.88
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

) CR05-5886FDB

Plaintiff, )

) ORDER TO EXTEND MOTION

) CUT-OFF AND TO CONTINUE

v. ) TRIAL

)

ADBENASSER ENNASSIME, )

TONYA ENNASSIME, )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

ORDER

In consideration of the parties’ joint motion for continuance, and observing that no prior trial

continuances in this matter have been sought, the Court finds and rules as follows:

This Court finds as facts those facts set forth in the above motion to extend the pretrial

motion cut-off date and the trial date submitted on behalf of all the parties. For the reasons set forth,

the motion is GRANTED. The pretrial motion cut-off date shall be March 27, 2006.

Further, the Court finds that given the need by defense counsel to fully review the evidence

and to conduct adequate investigation, the failure to grant the requested trial continuance would

unreasonably deny the defendants effective assistance of counsel and, despite due diligence by all

parties, result in a miscarriage of justice.

Case 3:05-cr-05886-RJB Document 18 Filed 01/27/06 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

Further, the Court finds that given the large number of potential witnesses and the relative

complexity of the case, it is unreasonable to expect either the Government or defense counsel to be

prepared to go to trial within the time allotted.

The Court further finds, for the reasons set forth above, that the ends of justice served by

granting the requested continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendants in a

speedy trial.

The new motion cut-off date shall be March 27, 2006. The new trial date shall be May 22,

2006. The time from the current trial date of February 21, 2006, up to and including the new trial

date of May 22, 2006, shall be, and is, excluded under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. sections 3161

(h)(8)(A), (B)(ii) and (B)(iv).

DATED this 27th day of January, 2006.

A

FRANKLIN D. BURGESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cr-05886-RJB Document 18 Filed 01/27/06 Page 2 of 2
No. 54413.

#### Nozaki Bros., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 40711-K, etc. (Boston, etc.).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

The protests were dismissed.
No. 53326.

protests 105322-K, etc. (New York).

#### Louis Meyers & Son, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Rao, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of knit fabric the same in all material respects as the fabric of which the gloves the subject of *United States*v. *Julius Kayser & Co.*(33 C. C. P. A. 179, C. A. D. 333) were made. The claim of the plaintiff was therefore sustained.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6175

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

RODNEY H. WILLIAMS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District

Judge. (2:01-cr-00231-RAJ; 2:04-cv-00129-RAJ)

Submitted: March 7, 2007 Decided: April 4, 2007

 

Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rodney H. Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Westley Haynie,

Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Rodney H. Williams appeals the district court’s order

denying his motion for transcripts at Government expense. We have

reviewed the record and the district court order and affirm on the

reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Williams,

Nos. 2:01-cr-00231-RAJ; 2:04-cv-00129-RAJ (E.D. Va. Jan. 18, 2007).

We deny Williams’ motion for appointment of counsel. 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
**Exhibit 31.2**

**Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

**Certification**

I, Romolo Santarosa certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of FCB Bancorp for the year ended December 31, 2005; 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for the periods presented in this report; 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation and; 

c. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluationof internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

Date: January 10, 2007
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6417

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

WILKINS MCNAIR, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 14-6426

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

WILKINS MCNAIR, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District 

of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. 

(1:06-cr-00281-CCB-1; 1:11-cv-01902-CCB; 1:09-cr-00320-CCB-1; 

1:12-cv-03546-CCB)

Submitted: July 30, 2014 Decided: August 20, 2014

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
2

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Wilkins McNair, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Jefferson McClure Gray,

Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Wilkins McNair, Jr.

seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on 

his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motions. The orders are not 

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that McNair has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability in No. 14-6417, deny 

McNair’s motion for a certificate of appealability in No. 14-

6426, and dismiss the appeals. We dispense with oral argument 
4

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

in the materials before this court and argument would not aid 

the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

December 21, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice 130031 & (71)(72) Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 130031 COA: 256767 Oakland CC: 01-177766-FC LARRY A. MCGHEE, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, th e motion to file a brief that exceeds the 50-page limit and the motion for immediate consid eration of the motion to file a brief that exceeds the 50

- page limit are considered, and th ey are GRANTED. The appli cation for leave to appeal the November 8, 2005 judgment of the Court of Appeals remains pending.

s1220 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

December 21, 2005

Clerk
No. 60620.

#### Metallizing Engineering Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 273804-K (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of parts of metal-spray gun machines the same in all material respects as those the subject of *Metallizing Engineering Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(36 Oust. Ct. 205, O. D. 1775), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Before the Third Division,

October 31, 1967

No. P67/376.

#### Ross Products, Inc., et al. *v.*United States, protests 64/18764, etc. (New York).

Landis, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items of merchandise marked “T” covered by the foregoing protests consist of cups and saucers similar in all material respects to those the subject of *W. Kay Company, Inc.*v. *United States*(53 Cust. Ct. 130, C.D. 2484), and that the items of merchandise marked “D” covered by the foregoing protests consist of cups and saucers similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *The Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co. a/c United China & Glass Company*(47 CCPA 1, C.A.D. 719), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Transport Transports Canada Canada TP 7245E



# AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE

The following airworth iness directive (AD) may be applicable to an aircraft which our records indicate is registered in your name. ADs are issued pursuant to **Canadian Aviation Regulation**  (CAR) 521 Division X . Pursuant to CAR 605.84 and the further details of CAR Standard 625, Appendix H , the continuing airworthiness of a Canadian registered aircraft is contingent upon compliance with all applicable ADs. Failure to comply with the requirements of an AD may invalidate the flight authorization of the aircraft. Alternative means of compliance shall be applied for in accordance with CAR 605.84 and the above

- referenced Standard

. This AD has been issued by the Continuing Airworthiness Division (AARDG), National Aircraft Certification Branch, Transport C anada, Ottawa, telephone 613 9 52

- 4357. 1 / 1 No

. CF - 201 4 - 13 Issue Date 1 7 April 2014

Number: CF - 2014 - 13 Subject: Horizontal Stab ilizer Trim Actuator (HSTA)

– Incorporation of N ew Certification Maintenance Requirement (CMR) Task
Effective: 1 May 2014 Applicability: Bombardier In c. model CL - 600 - 2B19 aeroplanes equipped with HSTA part number (P/N) 601R92305 - 7 (vendor P/N 8396 - 5)

. Compliance: As indicated below, unless already accomplished

. Background: A revision has been made to Part 2 of the Canadair Regional Jet Maintenance Requirement s Manual (MRM), Appendix A

– Certi fication Maintenance Requirements which introduce s a new task for the HSTA . Failure to comply with the CMR task could lead to an unsafe condition. This AD is issued to ensure that premature wear and crack ing of the affected components are detected and cor rected.
Corrective Actions: Within 30 days from the effective date of this AD, amend the Transport Canada approved maintenance schedule by incorporating the CMR task C 27

- 40

- 103

- 05 , as introduced by Temporary Revision s (TR) 2A

- 58 , dated 31 January 2014.
Th e above referenced task contains phase

- in schedules, as required , for aeroplanes with HSTA that may have already exceed ed the initial task interval. Compliance in accordance with superseding T R or later revisions of the above mentioned task in Airworthines s Limitations Section of the CL

- 600

- 2B19 Maintenance Requirements Manual, approved by T ransport C anada , also satisfies the requirements of this AD

. Authorization: For the Minister of Transport , ORIGINAL SIGNED BY Derek Ferguson Chief, Continuing Airworthiness
Contact: Gor danko Jeremic , Continuing Airworthiness, Ottawa, telephone 613

- 952

- 4357, facsimile 613

- 996

- 9178 or e

- mail AD

- CN@tc.gc.ca or any Transport Canada Centre.

Pursuant to CAR 202.51 the registered owner of a Canadian aircraft shall, within seven days, notify the Minister in writing of any change of his or her name or address. To request a change of address, contact the Civil Aviation Communication s Centre (AARC) at Place de Ville, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0N8 , or 1 - 800 - 305 - 2059 , or www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/communications/centre/ address.asp
24

- 0022 (01

- 2005)