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

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 999 

Expressing agreement with the statements of the Speaker of the House 

of Representatives made on July 16, 2018, regarding Russian Federation 

interference in the 2016 United States elections and related matters. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 17, 2018 

Mr. ENGEL submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Foreign Affairs 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing agreement with the statements of the Speaker 

of the House of Representatives made on July 16, 2018, 

regarding Russian Federation interference in the 2016 

United States elections and related matters. 

Whereas, on July 16, 2018, the Speaker of the House of 

Representatives stated that there is no question that the 

Russian Federation interfered in the 2016 United States 

elections and continues attempts to undermine democracy 

in the United States and around the world; 

Whereas the Speaker further stated that is not just the finding of the United States intelligence community but also 

the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the 

House of Representatives; 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 999 IH 

Whereas the Speaker further stated that the President must 

appreciate that Russia is not an ally of the United 

States; 

Whereas the Speaker further stated that there is no moral 

equivalence between the United States and Russia, which 

remains hostile to our most basic values and ideals; and 

Whereas the Speaker further stated that the United States 

must be focused on holding Russia accountable and putting an end to its vile attacks on democracy: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives ex2 presses its agreement with the statements of the Speaker 

3 of the House of Representatives made on July 16, 2018, 

4 regarding Russian Federation interference in the 2016 

5 United States elections and related matters. 

Æ 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 32.2

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

The undersigned  hereby certifies in her capacity as Chief Financial  Officer of
Belair Capital Fund LLC (the Fund), that based on her knowledge:

(a)  the  Quarterly  Report of the Fund on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March
     31, 2004 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
     of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(b)  the information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in all material
     respects, the financial condition and the results of operations of the Fund
     for such period.



Date:  May 10, 2004


                                       /s/ Michelle A. Alexander
                                       -------------------------
                                       Michelle A. Alexander
                                       Chief Financial Officer
J-S82002-17

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. **Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Appellee

v.

JAVON HART, Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 1173 WDA 2016

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence June 23, 2016

in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-02-CR-0013855-2015

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Appellee

v.

JAVON HART,

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 1601 WDA 2016

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence September 22, 2016

in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-02-CR-0013855-2015

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., STEVENS, P.J.E.,* and STRASSBURGER, J.** DISSENTING MEMORANDUM BY STRASSBURGER, J.: FILED JUNE 04, 2018

Because Appellant is entitled to a new trial, I respectfully dissent and

offer the following analysis.

As to Appellant’s first issue, regarding whether the trial court erred in

sustaining the Commonwealth’s objections to testimony offered by

Appellant’s mother, I would first conclude that counsel for Appellant
J-S82002-17

- 2 -

responded as best he could to the Commonwealth’s objections and the trial

court’s quick sustaining of those objections. See N.T., 3/23/2016, at 122- 24. Counsel had to walk a fine line during trial, and this Court does not

require counsel to offer a treatise on the rules of hearsay in order to

preserve an issue for appeal. Furthermore, we have held that evidence

concerning the relationship between an appellant and a victim is both

relevant and admissible under similar circumstances. See Commonwealth

v. Sneeringer, 668 A.2d 1167 (Pa. Super. 1995). Finally, because

credibility was the crucial issue in the case, this could not be harmless error.

Thus, Appellant is entitled to a new trial.1

1

I join the Majority with respect to the other two issues raised by Appellant

on appeal.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 6182** 

SHERWIN MCFADDEN , Petitioner

- Appellant ,
v. ROBERT M. STEVENSON , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of S outh Carolina , at Florence
. Terry L. Wooten , District Judge. ( 4:08

- cv - 03365

- TLW )

Submitted : March 29, 2011 Decided: April 11, 2011

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Sherwin McFadde n, Appellant Pro Se. James Anthony Mabry, Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Sherwin Mc Fadden seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appeal ability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006)
. 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) (2006)
. 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 petition 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 McFadden has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts

a nd legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials3 before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. DISMISSED
Before the Second Division,

February 11, 1948

No. 52168.

protests 49095-K, etc. (New York).

#### Cluett Peabody & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
No. 58455.

protest 148770-K (Los Angeles).

#### Charmfit of Hollywood and Frank P. Dow., Inc. *v.*United States,

*400Opinion by

Ford, J.

The record not indicating any opposition to the motion to dismiss, same was granted, and the case was dismissed.
June 14, 1945

No. 50356.

#### Protest 35522-K of T. A. Desmond & Co., Inc.

Plaintiff’s application for rehearing granted.
#### Gladden, sheriff, *vs.*Cobb *et al.*

All the points made in this record were decided when the case was formerly before this court. A rule *nisi*having been issued, calling on the sheriff to show cause why he should not pay the original judgment against him and the damages assessed by this court, an answer which set out no fact in addition to what had been set up before judgment, except that the plaintiffs had proved their debt in the bankrupt court, a transcript of the bankrupt pro- ' ceedings being set forth, which fact could have been ascertained and pleaded on the original trial by the use of the proper diligence, was not sufficient to authorize the judgment to be set aside and the case reopened; and there was no error in sustaining a demurrer thereto.

March 3, 1888.

*Bes adjudicata.*Sheriffs. Before Judge Bower. Calhoun superior court. June term, 1887.

Reported in the decision.

D. A Yason and J. J. Beck, for plaintiff in error,

C. B. Wooten and Arthur Hood, *contra.*

Simmons, Justice.

All the points made in this record were decided by this court when the case was here before. See 73 *Ga.*236. *12When the case was returned from this court to the court below, another rule *nisi*was issued against Gladden, calling upon him to show cause why he should not pay the original judgment and the damages assessed by this court. In his answer thereto, the only additional fact set up was that the plaintiffs had proved their debt in the bankrupt court, and the transcript from the bankrupt court in the case of W. S. Ansley was set out in the answer. This part of the answer was demurred to by the plaintiffs, upon the ground that the additional fact set up could have been set up by the defendant to the previous rule against him. The demurrer was sustained by the court, and the rule was made absolute, requiring the sheriff to pay the judgment. We see no error in the judgment of the court sustaining this demurrer. The fact set up in the last answer of the sheriff could have been ascertained by him on the other trial, by proper diligence, and we think, with the court below, that it was not sufficient to authorize the judgment to be set aside and the case reopened. The judgment is therefore affirmed.
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 China Nuvo Solar Energy, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended July 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Henry Fong, Principal Executive Officer, 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 results of operations of the Company, as of, and for the periods presented in the Report.





/s/ Henry FongHenry FongPrincipal Executive OfficerNovember 10, 2010




A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to China Nuvo Solar Energy, Inc. and will be retained by China Nuvo Solar Energy, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JODY LEVONCHUK, Individually : CIVIL ACTION

and as Administratrix of the Estate of :

JOSEPH CUSATO, Deceased :

:

 v. : No. 04-3577

:

WAMPLER FOODS, a wholly owned :

subsidiary of PILGRIM’S PRIDE :

CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation, :

and JACK LAMBERSKY POULTRY :

COMPANY, INC., a New Jersey :

Corporation d/b/a J. L. FOODS CO., INC. :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 8th day of June, 2006, it having been reported that the issues

between the parties in this action have been settled and upon Order of the Court pursuant

to the provisions of Rule 41.1(b) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure, it is ORDERED that

this action is DISMISSED with prejudice, without costs, pursuant to agreement of counsel.

/s/ Timothy J. Savage 

TIMOTHY J. SAVAGE, J.

Case 2:04-cv-03577-RB Document 47 Filed 06/08/06 Page 1 of 1
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-12-00084-CV

Mamoon N. Alahmad

v.

Ismail “Sam” Abukhdair

§

§

§

§

From the 342nd District Court

of Tarrant County (342-226602-07)

January 30, 2014

Opinion by Justice Walker

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of 

the trial court is affirmed.

It is further ordered that appellant Mamoon N. Alahmad shall pay all of the 

costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By __/s/ Sue Walker _______________

 Justice Sue Walker
20 Leading Occupations of Employed Women 

2008 Annual Averages 

(employment in thousands) 

 Total Women’s 

 Total Employed Median 

 Employed (Men and Percent Weekly 

Occupation Women Women) Women Earnings

Total, 16 years and older 

(all employed women) 67,876 145,362 46.7 $638 

Secretaries and administrative assistants 3,168 3,296 96.1 614 

Registered Nurses 2,548 2,778 91.7 1,011 

Elementary and middle school teachers 2,403 2,958 81.2 871 

Cashiers 2,287 3,031 75.5 349 

Retail salespersons 1,783 3,416 52.2 440 

Nursing, psychiatric, and 

 home health aides 1,675 1,889 88.7 424 

First-line supervisors/managers 

 of retail sales workers 1,505 3,471 43.3 556 

Waiters and waitresses 1,471 2,010 73.2 367 

Receptionists and information clerks 1,323 1,413 93.6 502 

Bookkeeping, accounting, and 

 auditing clerks 1,311 1,434 91.4 603 

Customer service representatives 1,302 1,908 68.3 568 

Maids and housekeeping cleaners 1,287 1,434 89.7 371 

Childcare workers 1,256 1,314 95.6 393 

Managers, all others 1,244 3,473 35.8 1,010 

First-line supervisors/managers of 

 office and administrative support 1,169 1,641 71.2 688 

Accountants and auditors 1,077 1,762 61.1 908 

Office clerks, general 993 1,176 84.4 582 

Teacher assistants 936 1,020 91.8 413 

Cooks 801 1,997 40.1 363 

Personal and home care aides 744 871 85.4 404 

Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Annual Averages 2008.
**Exhibit 12.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Michael Diekmann, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Allianz SE; 

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 the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

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

4. The company’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the company and have: 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the company, 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) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under oursupervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles; 

(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the company’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the company’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,the company’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

5. The company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the company’s auditors and the audit committee of the company’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 are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the company’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 company’s internal control over financial reporting. 

Date: March 31, 2009
EXHIBIT 31.1 CERTIFICATIONS I, A. Daniel Moran, certify that: 1.     I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of World Gaming plc (the registrant); 2.     Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact
necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report; 3.     Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all
material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report; 4.     The registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for 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 our supervision,  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 annual report is being prepared;
 b.


evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by
this annual report based on such evaluation; and
 c.

disclosed in this annual report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,
the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.     The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): a.


all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably 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 controls over financial reporting.
 Date: June 29, 2006
    
    /s/ A. Daniel MoranA. Daniel Moran Chief Executive Officer (principal executive officer)
FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT May 21, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 07- 1284 8

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 06-61100 CV -PCH SA RA EV AN S, DO NA LD AL EXEV AN S, on b eh al f of

E m ily E vans, ac hil d and J ac ob Ev a n s , ac h i l d , i n d i v i du a l l y, Pl ai nti ff s- Appe llants , Cr oss -Appe lle es , ve rs us UNKNOW

N AGENT S OF THE DEPARTMENT O F CHILDREN AN D F AMI LI ES , individu ally as agents of the D CF, De fendant-Appellee, M.D. JOHN WRIGHT, i n d i v i du a l l y a s an a g e n to f th e C h i l dP r o t e c t i o n T e a m, M.D. JASON SC HULMAN, i n d i v i du a l l y a s an a g e n to f th e C h i l dP r o t e c t i o n T e a m, MARS HA CHRISTIE, i n d i v i du a l l y a s an a g e n to f th e C h i l dP r o t e c t i o n T e a m, D ef en dants -Appe lle es , Cr oss -Appe llants
.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeals fr om

the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (M ay 2 1, 200 8)All pendingmotions are denie d. 1 2 Be fo re A N D E RS O N , H U L L and S IL E R, * C ir cu it Judg es . PE R CU RIA M: A ft er or al arg um en t and c ar ef

ul c onsi de ratio n, w e co nc lud e that the j udgm en t of

the dis tr ic t c ourt i s du e to b e af fi rm ed , a lth oughon g ro unds dif fe re nt fr om tho se r el ie d up on b y

the dis tr ic t c ourt. W e ne ed not a ddr es s w he the r or

not , o r t o wh a te x t e n t , an y o f

th e d e f e n d a n t s a r e p r o t e c t e db y a b s o l u t e i mm

u n i t y, be ca use w e co nc lud e that a ll de fe ndants a re e nti tle d to qua lif ie d im m uni ty
. T he allegations of the com

plaint set ou t am

ple j ustification for the actions taken byeach of the de fe ndants
. T o th e ex te nt tha t the c om pla int a lle ge s a ct ion s w hic h m igh t ha ve be ena ct ion ab le – e . g. , the a lle ga tio ns o f re lianc e uponf al se e vid en ce – the al le gatio ns o f the c om

pla int are pur el y

c onc lus or

y , w ith out

a ny sup port i n sp ec if

ic fa ct ua l a lle ga tio ns. A cc or din gly , w e co nc lud e that no ne of the de fe ndants
co m m itt ed any c onst itu tio na l vi olatio n, a nd w e re ad ily c onc lud e that a ll of

the d e f e n d an t s ar e p r o t e c t e d

b y qu a l i f i e di mm u n i t y. AFFIR MED. 1

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ * H o n o r a b l e E u g e n e S i l e r , J r . , U n i t e d S t at e s C i r c u i tJ u d g e f

o r th e S i x thC i r c u i t , s i t t i n gb y desig nation
.