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

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 727 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 727

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                    September 18, 2014.
    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2) to remove Federal Government obstacles 
to the production of more domestic energy; to ensure transport of that energy 
reliably to businesses, consumers, and other end users; to lower the cost of 
energy to consumers; to enable manufacturers and other businesses to access 
domestically produced energy affordably and reliably in order to create and 
sustain more secure and well-paying American jobs; and for other purposes. All 
points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall be 
considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill are 
waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on 
any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) 
two hours of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources or their respective 
designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.
    Sec. 2.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider 
in the House the bill (H.R. 4) to make revisions to Federal law to improve the 
conditions necessary for economic growth and job creation, and for other 
purposes. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. The 
bill shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the 
bill are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion 
except: (1) two hours of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means or their respective 
designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.
    Sec. 3.  On any legislative day during the period from September 22, 2014, 
through November 11, 2014,--
     (a) the Journal of the proceedings of the previous day shall be considered 
as approved; and
    (b) the Chair may at any time declare the House adjourned to meet at a date 
and time, within the limits of clause 4, section 5, article I of the 
Constitution, to be announced by the Chair in declaring the adjournment.
    Sec. 4.  The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the duties of the Chair 
for the duration of the period addressed by section 3 of this resolution as 
though under clause 8(a) of rule I.
    Sec. 5.  Each day during the period addressed by section 3 of this 
resolution shall not constitute a calendar day for purposes of section 7 of the 
War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1546).
    Sec. 6.  Each day during the period addressed by section 3 of this 
resolution shall not constitute a legislative day for purposes of clause 7 of 
rule XIII.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
#### Mrs. Myra K. EVERETT et al. v. E. O. BERRY, Big Dutchman, Inc., et al.

No. 46106.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Feb. 22, 1971.

Harris Sullivan, Jr., Mendenhall, for appellants.

A. K. Edwards, George G. Williamson, Mendenhall, Forrest B. Jackson, Jackson, Moore & Jones, Hattiesburg, for appel-lees.

JONES, Justice:

This case involves the establishment of a land line. The Everetts were the complainants and Berry et al. were defendants. The suit was filed November 24, 1967. After various proceedings and more than one hearing, at which several different surveys and plats were introduced, the chancellor stopped the hearing and directed that the matter be passed to the file until a later date. The parties were given the option of presenting further evidence. After the chancellor had appointed a surveyor of his own and after the court-appointed surveyor had made his report, the chancellor on November 13, 1969, entered an order dismissing without prejudice the bill of complaint, the temporary injunction and the cross-bill. We can understand the frustration of the chancellor.

From this order dismissing both the bill of complaint and cross-bill without prejudice, all parties appeal and ask this Court either to determine the case or remand it. We are not original triers of fact and for that reason are remanding the case to the court below for its final decision. On the next hearing, the record now before us shall be considered as introduced and shall constitute a part of the record of said new hearing. The case is also to be reopened to permit any party to introduce any further or other evidence that he may have. The chancellor may call upon the parties for any additional evidence that he desires, and may, if he desires, appoint another surveyor or surveyors for the surveying of the land.

The costs of this appeal are taxed, one-half against appellants and one-half against appellees.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

GILLESPIE, P. J., and RODGERS, BRADY and SMITH, JJ., concur.
# C_2023304EN.01002202.xml

| 28.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/22

---

Judgment of the General Court of 29 June 2023 — KF v EIB

(Case T-318/21) (1)

(Civil service - EIB Staff - Invalidity Committee - Refusal to recognise incapacity - Rejection of a request for an administrative review - Lis pendens - Inadmissibility)

(2023/C 304/26)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: KF (represented by L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Investment Bank (represented by: K. Carr, G. Faedo and J. Pawlowicz, acting as Agents, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

By her action under Article 270 TFEU and Article 50a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the applicant seeks, primarily, annulment of the decision of the European Investment Bank (EIB) of 13 October 2020 by which the EIB informed her that she was not incapacitated (‘the decision of 13 October 2020’) and of the EIB’s decision of 9 March 2021 rejecting her request for an administrative review of the decision of 13 October 2020 (‘the decision rejecting the request for administrative review’) and, in the alternative, compensation for the damage that she claims to have suffered as a result of those decisions.

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | The European Investment Bank (EIB) shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The European Investment Bank (EIB) shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 297, 26.7.2021.

---
#### SECURITY INSURANCE GROUP and King Reeves d/b/a King Reeves, Petitioners, v. SPECIAL DISABILITY FUND and the Industrial Relations Commission, Respondents.

No. 40987.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 1, 1971.

Certiorari denied.

CARLTON, Acting C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1





SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

(Chief Executive Officer)





I, Norman E. Corn, Chief Executive Officer of Clacendix, Inc. (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



1.

The Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A (Amendment No. 1) of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2007 (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 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/ Norman E. Corn________

Dated: May 30, 2008

Norman E. Corn

Chief Executive Officer









This certification is being furnished to the SEC with this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of  2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by  such  Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section.







1
SUPREME COURT OF THE S TATE OF NEW YORK 

### Ap p e lla te Div isio n , Fo urth J ud i c i a l De p a rtm e n t

969 CA 12-00420 PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, CARNI, SCONIERS, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

QP, INC., PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,

V ORDER

THE FLANDERS GROUP, INC., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

A decision order having been entered December 28, 2012, affirming an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Kenneth R. Fisher, J.), dated October 5, 2011, in a breach of contract action,
Now, upon the Court’s own motion, with knowledge that a stipulation of discontinuance was filed by the parties in the Monroe County Clerk’s Office on November 29, 2012, without notice to this Court,
It is hereby ORDERED that the decision order entered December 28, 2012, is vacated and the appeal is dismissed as moot.

F rances E. Cafarell

Entered: January 8, 2013 C lerk of the Court
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Rimell Mitchell, Appellant.

[736 NYS2d 269]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Eng, J.), rendered January 5, 2000, convicting him of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Browne, J.), of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress his statements to law enforcement authorities.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the matter should be remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a new suppression hearing as the Justice who presided at the hearing, and who is now deceased, failed to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law sufficient for appellate review *(see,*CPL 710.60 [6]), and the conflicting testimony presented a credibility issue which cannot be resolved on this record. This Court, however, has the authority to make determinations of fact and law where the hearing record is sufficient *(see,*CPL 470.15; *People v Moore,*277 AD2d 254; *People v Leon,*264 AD2d 784). Upon our review of the testimony, the colloquy, and the parties’ closing argu*519merits, we conclude that the hearing court, in denying suppression, necessarily credited the testimony of the People’s witnesses.

The hearing court properly rejected the defendant’s argument that the police did not have probable cause to arrest him, as he was implicated by his codefendant in two armed robberies and a homicide. Furthermore, the defendant’s contention that he was arrested without a warrant in his home in violation of *Payton v New York*(445 US 573) is without merit, as the evidence established that the defendant was lawfully arrested as part of a continuous pursuit by the police which originated in a public place *(see, People v Harris,*193 AD2d 757). “[A] criminal suspect may not thwart an otherwise proper arrest which has been set in motion in a public place by retreating into his residence” *(People v Thomas,*164 AD2d 874).

The evidence also established that the defendant was properly advised of his *Miranda*rights *(see, Miranda v Arizona,*384 US 436) and that his statements to the police were voluntarily made. Suppression, therefore, was properly denied. Santucci, J.P., Florio, O’Brien and Schmidt, JJ., concur.
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Theodore E. MARIAKIS v. TWENTY-FIFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF ST. BERNARD.

No. 53912.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 12, 1973.

In re: Theodore E. Mariakis applying for mandamus and habeas corpus.

Application denied. The Minutes of September 17, 1973 show the petition for habeas corpus was withdrawn by the applicant and dismissed.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Vernon RAMSEY.

No. 60829.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 10, 1978.

L. Howard McCurdy, Orleans Indigent Defender Program, New Orleans, for defendant-appellant.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Harry F. Con-nick, Dist. Atty., William L. Brockman, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND STATEMENTS OF CONSOLIDATED OPERATIONS AND
ACCUMULATED DEFICIT ON PAGES 2 AND 3 OF THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE
QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDING MARCH 31, 1999, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          26,011
<SECURITIES>                                    19,344
<RECEIVABLES>                                      409
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      1,289
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                55,468
<PP&E>                                         199,522
<DEPRECIATION>                                     335
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 277,513
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,482
<BONDS>                                        110,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       225,540
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   277,513
<SALES>                                             90
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   996
<CGS>                                              145
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,207
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,211)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,217)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,104)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.03)
        

</TABLE>
[No. 391-3.

Division Three.

February 10, 1972.]

#### Mary E. Stephens, *Appellant,*v. Travelers Insurance Company, *Respondent.*
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

         CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT


                                                                 August 16, 2002



Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549



         In connection with the Quarterly Report of WebLink Wireless, Inc. (the
"company") on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended March 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), pursuant
to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, N. Ross Buckenham,
Chief Executive Officer of WebLink Wireless, Inc., certify 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 and 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/ N. ROSS BUCKENHAM
                              --------------------------------------------------
                              N. Ross Buckenham
                              President and Chief Executive Officer and Director
                              August 16, 2002
Exhibit 99.1

                           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 Pak Mail Centers of America, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending November 30, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, P.
Evan Lasky, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 of operations of the
Company.

/s/ P. Evan Lasky
-----------------
P. Evan Lasky
Chief Executive Officer
February 28, 2003
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF HARBINGER CORPORATION FOR THE SIX MONTHS
ENDED JUN-30-1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998<F1>
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          67,477
<SECURITIES>                                    37,647
<RECEIVABLES>                                   31,660
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,587
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               148,420
<PP&E>                                          39,309
<DEPRECIATION>                                  18,229
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 187,649
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           47,998
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             4
<OTHER-SE>                                     139,647
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   187,649
<SALES>                                         22,076
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                65,369
<CGS>                                            1,979
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   18,667
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                48,513
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  41
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    767
<INCOME-TAX>                                       145
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                622
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       622
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.01)
        
<FN>
<F1>ALL AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN RETROACTIVELY RESTATED TO REFLECT A THREE-FOR-TWO
STOCK SPLIT IN THE FORM OF A STOCK DIVIDEND PAID ON MAY 15, 1998.
</FN>

</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-51041

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ESTEBAN GUTIERREZ-FELIX,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. EP-91-CR-227-5-P

- - - - - - - - - -

July 13, 1998

Before SMITH, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Esteban Gutierrez-Felix appeals his conviction and sentence

for conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute cocaine. 

His challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is essentially a

challenge to the jury’s credibility and weight of the evidence

determinations. Since the testimony of Detective Majerczyk was

not patently unbelievable or incredible, Gutierrez has failed to

show that a reasonable trier of fact could not have found guilt

beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Lopez, 74 F.3d 575,
No. 97-51041

-2-

578 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1228 (1996); United States

v. Bell, 678 F.2d 547, 549 (5th Cir. 1982) (en banc), aff’d on

other grounds, 462 U.S. 356 (1983). Nor has he established plain

error in the district court’s admission of Detective Majerczyk’s

in-court identification of him. United States v. Rogers, 126

F.3d 655, 657-58 (5th Cir. 1997); United Stated v. Sanchez, 988

F.2d 1384, 1389 (5th Cir. 1993). He has failed to establish

error, plain or otherwise, with respect to the admission at trial

of photocopies of his identification documents found at the scene

of the crime. United States v. Dixon, 132 F.3d 192, 197 (5th

Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 1581 (1998). Finally, the

prosecutor’s closing argument did not affect his substantial

rights. See United States v. Vaccaro, 115 F.3d 1211, 1215-17

(5th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 689 (1998). 

AFFIRMED.
#### Clifford L. KEENER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-1031.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 14, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
No. 00-1063.

#### Missouri on the Mainland *v.*Pirie, Acting Secretary of the Navy, et al.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice: 10464]

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Please contact Franz Zichy at 202-647-5778,                         *zichyfj@state.gov*.                    

Stephan A. Lang,

Acting Director, Multilateral Affairs, Cyber and International Communications and Information Policy, U.S. Department of State.

[FR Doc. 2018-15258 Filed 7-16-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4710-07-P