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

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8550 

To provide for the prohibition on the use of United States passports for 

travel to, in, or through the Turks and Caicos Islands. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 23, 2024 

Mr. OGLES (for himself and Mr. DONALDS) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs 

A BILL 

To provide for the prohibition on the use of United States 

passports for travel to, in, or through the Turks and 

Caicos Islands. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Protecting Americans 

5 Against Lawless Foreign Territories Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION. 

7 Beginning 60 days after the date of the enactment 

8 of this Act, and for a period of time not to exceed 90 days, 

9 all United States passports shall be invalid for travel to, 

10 in, or through the Turks and Caicos Islands, unless speVerDate Sep 11 2014 20:03 Jul 10, 2024 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H8550.IH H8550

ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8550 IH

1 cially validated for such travel under the authority of the 

2 Secretary of State. 

3 SEC. 3. RENEWAL OF PROHIBITION. 

4 The Secretary of State shall have the authority to 

5 extend the prohibition described in section 2 for periods 

6 of 90 days, renewable indefinitely. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
#### Richard G. Frost, *Respondent, v.*Mary Hirschberg and others, *Appellants.*

— Order affirmed, with costs. Opinion by Brady, J.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6484

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

PATRICK LEWIS RUDD, a/k/a Louie, a/k/a One-Eyed Louie,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Malcolm J. Howard,

Senior District Judge. (7:97-cr-00063-H-3)

Submitted: July 31, 2008 Decided: August 8, 2008

Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Patrick Lewis Rudd, Appellant Pro Se. J. Frank Bradsher, OFFICE OF

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

PER CURIAM:

Patrick Lewis Rudd appeals from the district court’s

order denying his motion for relief pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

60(b), in which he sought to receive credit on his federal sentence

for time served in state custody before his federal conviction. We

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. United States v. Rudd, No. 7:97-cr-00063-H-3 (E.D.N.C.

Dec. 3, 2007). 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 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER OF

UNIVERSAL CITY DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS, LTD.

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the quarterly report of Universal City Development Partners, Ltd. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending April 2, 2006 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael J. Short, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: May 11, 2006



By:

/s/ MICHAEL J. SHORTMichael J. Short Principal Financial Officer




28
<PAGE>


                                                                    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 Quarterly Report of Great Wall Acquisition
Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2004
(the "Report"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof, I Kin Shing Li, Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and
Secretary of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Sec. 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, as amended; and

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


By: /s/ Kin Shing Li                                        Dated: May 14, 2004
   -------------------------------------------
        Kin Shing Li
        Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer
        and Secretary (Principal Executive and
        Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
December 14, 1977

#### McAvoy v H B Sherman Company, Stricklin v American Chain & Cable Company, Inc, Turner v General Motors Corporation, and Michigan Self-Insurer’s Association v Bureau of Workmen’s *954Compensation.

(Docket Nos. 58845, 58846, 58983, 58855.)

*Kasoff, Young, Gottesman, Kovinsky, Friedman & Walkon, P. C.,*for plaintiff-appellee Ralph McAvoy. *Marston, Sachs, Nunn, Kates, Kadushin & O’Hare, P. C.,*for plaintiff-appellee Wiley Stricklin. *Conklin, Benham, McLeod, Ducey & Ottaway, P. C.,*for defendants-appellants

Rehearing denied. On consideration of defendants-appellants’ motion for clarification, the Court orders that the cases be remanded to the Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board for a determination as to the accuracy of factual statements by defendants-appellants that, while their appeals were pending before this Court, they made 70% interim benefit payments to plaintiffs Ralph McAvoy and Wiley Stricklin. If the appeal board finds such payments were made, as the appellants stated, the appeal board shall reinstate appellants’ appeals to the appeal board because such payments indicate good faith efforts of appellants to comply with 1975 PA 34 after this Court’s orders in these cases of September 21, 1976 and October 27, 1976.

H. B. Sherman Company, American Mutual Liability Insurance Company, American Chain & Cable Company, and American Mutual Liability Insurance Company. Reported at 401 Mich 419.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Javier Caraballo, Appellant.

[634 NYS2d 135]

—Appeal by the *554defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rosenzweig, J.), rendered November 15, 1993, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contentions that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and was also insufficient to establish the Supreme Court’s geographic jurisdiction are unpreserved for appellate review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Moore,*46 NY2d 1; *People v Udzinski,*146 AD2d 245). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]). The evidence presented was also sufficient to establish the Supreme Court’s geographic jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence *(see,*CPL 20.40; *People v Ribowsky,*77 NY2d 284; *People v Moore, supra).*

The Supreme Court properly ordered the closure of the courtroom during the testimony of the undercover police officer. The undercover officer testified at a closed hearing that he still worked undercover in the immediate vicinity of the defendant’s arrest, that he had lost several subjects in the past and had ongoing investigations, that he routinely entered courthouses through a back door to conceal his identity, and that his safety and effectiveness depended on the continued secrecy of his identity as an undercover officer *(see, People v Martinez,*82 NY2d 436; *People v Anderson,*210 AB2d 417; *People v Cepeda,*209 AB2d 631; *People v Mitchell,*209 AB2d 444; *People v Crowder,*207 AB2d 559; *People v James,*207 AB2d 564).

The defendant’s further contention that the Supreme Court failed to give adequate cautionary instructions to the jury concerning note-taking is unpreserved for appellate review *(see, People v Stewart, 179*AB2d 731, *affd*81 NY2d 877; *People v DiLuca,*85 AB2d 439). In any event, any error was harmless *(see, People v Stewart, supra; People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230).

Finally, the defendant’s sentence was not excessive *(see, People v Suitte,*90 AB2d 80). Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, Miller and Florio, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF

THOMAS E. KIRALY

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350

I, Thomas E. Kiraly, of Concentra Operating
Corporation (the Company), hereby certify that the accompanying report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006, and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

I further certify that the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

March
29, 2007



/S/ THOMAS E. KIRALYThomas E. KiralyExecutive Vice President,Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
#### Warren Smith, *Appellant, v.*Israel Smith and others, *Respondents.*

— Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by Pratt, J.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8638 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8638

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 1810 FM 1462 in Rosharon, Texas, as the ``Army Specialist 5th Class 
                Clarence Sasser Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 5, 2024

  Mr. Nehls introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
               Committee on Oversight and Accountability

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 1810 FM 1462 in Rosharon, Texas, as the ``Army Specialist 5th Class 
                Clarence Sasser Post Office Building''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. ARMY SPECIALIST 5TH CLASS CLARENCE SASSER POST OFFICE 
              BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 1810 FM 1462 in Rosharon, Texas, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Army Specialist 5th Class Clarence Sasser Post 
Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Army 
Specialist 5th Class Clarence Sasser Post Office Building''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Ralph Newell, *Appellant, v.*Richard Whigham and others, *Respondents.*

— Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by Boardman, J.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 60 (Thursday, March 29, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 14776]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-5722]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of 
information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 
U.S.C. Chapter 35).
    Agency: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
    Title: NOAA Community-based Restoration Program Progress Reports.
    Form Number(s): None.
    OMB Approval Number: 0648-0329.
    Type of Request: Regular submission.
    Burden Hours: 36.
    Number of Respondents: 6.
    Average Hours per Response: 30 minutes.
    Needs and Uses: The foreign fishing vessels engaged in processing 
and support of U.S. fishing vessels within the internal waters of a 
state, in compliance with the terms and conditions set by the 
authorizing governor, are required to report the tonnage and location 
of fish received from U.S. vessels. This reporting is required by the 
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Weekly 
reports are submitted to the NMFS Regional Administrator to allow 
monitoring of the quantity of fish received by foreign vessels.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations.
    Frequency: Weekly.
    Respondent's Obligation: Manadatory.
    OMB Desk Officer: David Rostker, (202) 395-3897.
    Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained 
by calling or writing Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance 
Officer, (202) 482-0266, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#284c6051464d43684c474b064f475e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c7a38fbea9a2ac87a3a8a4e9a0a8b1">[email protected]</span></a>).
    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information 
collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice 
to David Rostker, OMB Desk Officer, FAX number (202) 395-7285, or 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ebaf8a9d828fb4b984989f808e99ab848689c58e849bc58c849d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="9edaffe8f7fac1ccf1edeaf5fbecdef1f3fcb0fbf1eeb0f9f1e8">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: March 23, 2007.
Gwellnar Banks,
Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
 [FR Doc. E7-5722 Filed 3-28-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### George H. Converse, by *Guardian, etc., Respondent, v.*Artemus B. Walker, *Appellant.*

— Declined to be considered on the ground that the appeal papers are not properly certified and do not contain the statement required by the rules.
#### IN THE MATTER OF LOUIS KRAEMER, ATTORNEY AT LAW.

Argued May 24, 1967.

Decided June 12, 1967.

*401
      *Mr. Frederick C. Vonhof,*for the order.

*Mr. Oharles Danzig*argued the cause for respondent *(Messrs. Biker, Danzig, Scherer &*Brown, attorneys).

The opinion of the court was delivered

Per Curiam.

Respondent pleaded *nolo contendere*in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey to an indictment charging him with embezzlement and.misappropriation of funds belonging to a bankrupt estate. He was sentenced to five years imprisonment; the sentence was suspended and he was placed on probation for five years.

In addition, the Essex County Ethics Committee, after a hearing at which respondent entered no defense, filed a presentment with this Court based upon a finding that, as charged, respondent had drawn four checks to his order in a state receivership proceeding, on which the signature of the countersigning master had been forged. Thereupon this Court issued an order to show cause why Kraemer should not be disciplined and set the matter down for argument. Respondent offered no defense in this Court.

Accordingly, it is ordered that respondent be and he is hereby disbarred, and his name is ordered stricken from the roll of attorneys of this State.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-50881 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JAVIER AMAYA-FONTES, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. EP-00-CR-630-1-DB

- - - - - - - - - - February 15, 2001 Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Javier Amaya-Fontes appeals his sentence following his guilty plea conviction for illegal re-entry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Amaya argues that his sentence should not have exceeded the two-year maximum sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Amaya acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he seeks to preserve the issue for Supreme Court review in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000).No. 00-50881 - 2 - Amaya’s argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres , 523 U.S. at 235. The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that the judgment of the district court be affirmed and that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is granted.
AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
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  Big  Flash   Corporation(the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2001, as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Edward F. Cowle, Principal Accounting Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C.  Sec. 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Sec. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

     (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 of operations of the
     Company.


/s/ Edward F. Cowle
----------------------------------
Edward F. Cowle
Principal Accounting Officer
September 29, 2004

     A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906, or
     other document  authenticating,  acknowledging,  or otherwise  adopting the
     signature that appears in typed form within the electronic  version of this
     written  statement 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.  The foregoing  certifications  are  accompanying  the
     Company's Form 10-KSB solely 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) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-KSB
     or as a separate disclosure document.
#### The People *ex rel.*Patrick Vaughan *et al.,*App’lts, v. The Board of Supervisors of Rensselaer Co., Resp’t.

*James Lansing,*for app’lts; *R. A. Parmenter,*for resp’t.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

All concur, except Ruger, Ch. J., not voting.

Affirming 24 N. Y. State Rep., 371.
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



I, George Polyhronopolous, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
  Report on Form 10-Q of Sunergy, Inc., for the fiscal quarter ended  September 30, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial
condition and results of operations of Sunergy, Inc.



|                         |  |                                                                             
|------------------------ |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date:  November 14, 2008 |  | By:
/s/ George Polyhronopolous                                              
|                         |  | George Polyhronopolous, Secretary, Treasurer and principal financial officer
ORIX (LOGO)

February 18, 2000

PricewaterhouseCoopers
2001 Ross Avenue
Suite 1800
Dallas, Texas 75201-2997

As of and for the year ended December 31, 1999, ORIX Real Estate Capital Markets
("ORECM"),  which was doing business as Bane One Mortgage Capital  Markets,  LLC
until July 12,  1999,  has complied in all  material  respects  with the minimum
servicing  standards set forth in the Mortgage Bankers  Association of America's
Uniform Single  Attestation  Program for Mortgage Bankers ("USAP") (except,  for
commercial loan and multifamily loan servicing,  minimum servicing standards V.4
and VI. 1., which the MBA has interpreted as inapplicable to such servicing.) As
of and for this same period,  ORECM had in effect a fidelity bond and errors and
omissions policy in the amount of $25 million.

The Company has  established  and maintains  custodial  accounts with  federally
insured  depository  institutions  in accordance  with the servicing  agreements
requirement for Eligible Accounts. Custodial balances are invested in accordance
with the servicing agreements requirement for Permitted  Investments.  Permitted
Investments  may include  commercial  paper and money  market  mutual funds with
non-federally  insured  financial  institutions  which meet the  minimum  rating
requirements specified by the applicable servicing agreement.



Edgar L. Smith, II
Chief Operating Officer
No. 46235.

#### Protests 38180-K, etc., of F. Frisch, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following *Bullocks*v. *United States*(6 Cust. Ct. 110, C. D. 441) the merchandise in ques tion was held not subject to countervailing duty.