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

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 3424

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide enhanced sentences for

repeat violent offenders.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NOVEMBER 3, 1993

Mr. HOYER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide enhanced

sentences for repeat violent offenders.

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 ‘‘Three-Time Loser Act

5 of 1993’’.

6 SEC. 2. LIFE IMPRISONMENT FOR THREE TIME VIOLENT

7 OFFENDERS.

8 Section 3581 of title 18, United States Code, is

9 amended by adding at the end the following:

10 ‘‘(c) PUNISHMENT OF CERTAIN VIOLENT FELONS.—
2

•HR 3424 IH

1 ‘‘(1) GENERAL RULE.—Notwithstanding any

2 other provision of this title or any other law, in the

3 case of a conviction for a Federal violent felony, the

4 court shall sentence the defendant to prison for life,

5 if the defendant has previously been convicted of two

6 or more other violent felonies, at least two of which

7 occurred during separate criminal episodes.

8 ‘‘(2) DEFINITION.—As used in this section the

9 term ‘violent felony’ is a State or Federal crime of

10 violence (as defined in section 16 of this title)—

11 ‘‘(A) that involves the threatened use, use,

12 or the risk of use of physical force against the

13 person of another;

14 ‘‘(B) for which the maximum authorized

15 imprisonment exceeds one year; and

16 ‘‘(C) which is not designated a mis17 demeanor by the law that defines the offense.

18 ‘‘(3) EFFECT ON DEATH PENALTY.—This sub19 section shall not be construed to prevent the imposi20 tion of the death penalty.’’.

Æ
EXHIBIT 32





SWINGPLANE VENTURES, INC.





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 Swingplane Ventures, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2013 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Carlos de la Torre, Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, hereby 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








Date:  May 20, 2013
By:
/s/Carlos de la TorreName:
Carlos de la TorreTitle:
Principal Executive Officer, Principal Financial and Accounting Officer and Director




A signed original of this written statement required by Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code 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 certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Report pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code and, accordingly, is not being filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission as part of the Report and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made before or after the date of the Report, irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.)
**Exhibit 32.2****Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**In connection with the Annual Report of FelCor Lodging Trust Incorporated (the “Registrant”) onForm 10-K for the three months and year ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report), the undersigned hereby certifies, in thecapacity as indicated below and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and  2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of Registrant.        February 29, 2008 /s/ Andrew J. Welch   Andrew J. Welch   Chief Financial Officer
#### Sylvia ROSENBLATT and Steven Rosenblatt, Appellants, v. Phillip Allen CUCCI, a minor, by and through his father and next friend, Sam Cucci, and Sam Cucci, Individually, Appellees.

No. 67-338.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Feb. 20, 1968.

Rehearing Denied March 11, 1968.

Hawkesworth & Kay, Arthur Newman, Miami, for appellants.

Granat, Rosenblatt & Roemer, Horton & Schwartz, Miami, for appellees.

Before CHARLES CARROLL, C. J., and BARKDULL and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See James v. Keene, Fla.1961, 133 So.2d 297; Copeland v. Perdue, Fla.App.1967, 205 So.2d 537 (Opinion filed December 21, 1967, case no. I-179); Radtke v. Loud, Fla.App.1958, 98 So.2d 891.
Corporate Capital Trust, Inc. 10-Q


EXHIBIT 32.1




CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER




PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned certifies that to the best of his knowledge (1) this Quarterly Report of Corporate Capital Trust, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2013, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (this “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 this Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company as of June 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012 and its results of operations for the period ended June 30, 2013.




Date: August 13, 2013

/s/ Andrew A. HyltinANDREW A. HYLTINChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)Date: August 13, 2013

/s/ Paul S. Saint-PierrePaul S. Saint-PierreChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
#### S. Q. Page, Defendant in Error, *vs.*James R. Arnold, Plaintiff in Error.

1. *Action for Purchase Money*— Special *Verdict*— Specific Performance— *Judgment for, may be corrected, when.*— In suit by the vendor of certain lands, against the vendee thereof for a portion of the purchase money, plaintiff prayed for a decree ordering defendant to pay a portion of the amount to a third party. A special verdict and judgment were rendered accordingly. *Held,*that the suit was purely a legal one and not an action for specific performance. But that the error was an informal one and might be corrected on application to the court, by the substitution in place of the special decree, of a general judgment for the amount ascertained by the verdict.

*Error to Washington Circuit Court.*

*J.*Bush, for Plaintiff in Error.

Adams, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This was a suit for the balance of purchase money for a tract of land sold and conveyed by the plaintiff to the defendant.

The agreement between the parties was that the defendant, in payment of the price for the land, should pay off the plaintiff’s indebtedness to Washington county, which was understood to be three hundred dollars, more or less. There was a mortgage covering one of the notes due to the county, and the other had been left out by mistake.

The defendant denied that he was to pay any but the mortgage debts.

*159The ease was submitted to the court, and the court after hearing all the evidence, found a special verdict in favor of the plaintiff for the amount of the note and interest not included in the mortgage, and found, also, that judgment had been rendered on said last mentioned note in favor of the county against the plaintiff and his securities on the note and for costs. The court upon this finding gave judgment that the defendant should pay the county of Washington the amount of the judgment so recovered by the county. There were no instructions asked or given on either side, and the defendant has brought the case here asking this court to review the evidence and finding of the court below.

Although the plaintiff asked for the specific relief given by the court, yet the court might, under the allegations and proof and on the special verdict, have rendered a general judgment of recovery in favor of the plaintiff for the amount of damages he was entitled to, as ascertained by the verdict.

The action was purely legal aud was not a case for specific performance, and the judgment, therefore, for specific performance was informal.

But it was such an informality as might be corrected on application to the court below, and such as will be corrected by this court, by ordering the entry of such judgment on the verdict as should have been rendered by the Circuit Court.

The verdict is amply supported by the evidence and cannot be disturbed by us. It is therefore ordered that the judgment as rendered be set aside, and that judgment be rendered in this court in favor of the plaintiff against the defendant for the amount found by the special verdict, and for costs in both courts.

Judge Wagner concurs. Judge Bliss absent.
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

Appeal of - )

)

EDR Construction LLC ) ASBCA No. 63552

)

Under Contract No. W912P8-21-P-0045 )

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: W. Lee Kohler, Esq.

 Kohler Construction Law, APLC

 Metairie, LA

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Michael P. Goodman, Esq.

 Engineer Chief Trial Attorney

Dalton B. Hammond, Esq.

 Engineer Trial Attorney

 U.S. Army Engineer District, New Orleans

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice.

Dated: October 25, 2023

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 63552, Appeal of EDR Construction 

LLC, rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter.

Dated: October 25, 2023

JOHN J. THRASHER

Administrative Judge

Chairman

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals

PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS

Recorder, Armed Services

Board of Contract Appeals
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

SECTION 1350CERTIFICATION

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of VeritasDGC Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended July 31, 2006 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, ThierryPilenko, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section1350 of Chapter 6 of Title 18 of the United States Code, that:

1.               The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934;

2.               The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

October 4, 2006
| /s/ THIERRY PILENKO     |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| Thierry Pilenko         |
| Chief Executive Officer |
|                    |

 

This certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed to be a part of the Reportof “filed” for any purpose whatsoever.

1

----
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________ VALEANT INTERNATIONAL BERMUDA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.
ACTAVIS, INC., WATSO N LABORATORIES, INC. - FLORIDA , AND ACTAVIS PHARMA, INC. , Defendants

- Appellants.

______________________
2012

- 1117,

- 1307

______________________ Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida in No. 10

- CV

- 20526.

______________________
JUDGMENT

______________________
T HERESA M. G ILLIS , Mayer Brown LLP , of New York
, New York, argued for plaintiff

- appell ee . With her on the brief w ere J OHN J. M OLENDA

. Of counsel on the brief were T HOMAS W. J ENKINS and E RICK J. P ALMER , of Chicago, Illinois

.
J EFFREY J. T ONEY , Kasowitz, Benson Torres & Frie dman LLP , of Atlanta, Georgia , argued for defendants

appell ant s. With him on the brief were J ONATHAN K. W ALDROP and D ARCEY L. J ONES

. Of counsel on the briefwa s N ORMAN E.B. M INNEAR , of New York, New York. Of counsel was P ARKER C. A NKRUM , of Redwood, California.

______________________
T HIS C AUSE having been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (D YK , O’M ALLEY , and W ALLACH , Circuit Judges ).
AFFIRMED

. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

October 16, 2013 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole Date Daniel E. O’Toole Clerk
#### William S. HOWELL, a/k/a William Schroeder, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-534.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 24, 1972.

Walter N. Colbath, Jr., Public Defender, Charles W. Musgrove and Jeffrey H. Barker, Asst. Public Defenders, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Nelson E. Bailey, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We have reviewed the briefs and record on appeal and heard oral argument. On the basis thereof, we are of the opinion that no reversible error has been demonstrated. The judgment appealed from is, therefore, affirmed. See Stunson v. State, Fla.App. 1969, 228 So.2d 294.

Affirmed.

WALDEN, OWEN, and MAGER, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3339 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3339

To provide that tolls may not be collected solely from vehicles exiting 
  into Richmond County, New York, from a bridge connecting Kings and 
                      Richmond Counties, New York.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 21, 1993

 Mr. Nadler (for himself, Mr. Towns, Ms. Velazquez, and Mrs. Maloney) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                    Public Works and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide that tolls may not be collected solely from vehicles exiting 
  into Richmond County, New York, from a bridge connecting Kings and 
                      Richmond Counties, New York.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That, notwithstanding 
any other provision of law, after the 90th day following the date of 
the enactment of this Act, no bridge connecting Kings and Richmond 
Counties, New York, shall collect tolls solely from those vehicles 
exiting from the bridge into Richmond County.

                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**Certification of CEO 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 on Form 10-Q of NetSpend Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Daniel R. Henry, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his 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/ Daniel R. Henry |                      |
|---------------------|---------------------------|
|                |                      |
| Name:               | Daniel   R. Henry         |
|                |                      |
| Title:              | Chief   Executive Officer |
|                |                      |
|                |                      |
| Date:               | May 16,   2011       |
|                     |                           |  |

 

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 required by Section 906, 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.

 

----
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">The People of the State of New York, Respondent, <br><br>against<br><br>Byron Harkless, Defendant-Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (David Frey, J., at plea; Heidi C. Cesare, J., at sentencing), rendered November 3, 2017, convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of jostling, and imposing sentence.</p><p>Per Curiam.</p><p>Judgment of conviction (David Frey, J., at plea; Heidi C. Cesare, J., at sentencing), rendered November 3, 2017, affirmed. </p><p>The record establishes that defendant's guilty plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary. Defendant confirmed that he was pleading guilty freely and voluntarily, that he was, in fact, guilty, that he had the opportunity to discuss the plea with his attorney, and that he understood that he was giving up the rights to a trial, to remain silent and to confront witnesses (<i>see People v Conceicao</i>, 26 NY3d 375, 383 [2015]). Nothing in the record suggests that defendant's ability to make a voluntary decision to plead guilty was impaired by his use (or "potential" use) of any "substances," and the court was able to view defendant's demeanor and assess his capacity to plead guilty (<i>see People v Alexander</i>, 97 NY2d 482, 486 [2002]).</p><p>In any event, the only relief defendant requests is dismissal of the accusatory instrument, and he expressly requests that this Court affirm his conviction if it does not grant dismissal. Since dismissal is not warranted, we affirm on this basis as well (<a href="../2016/2016_03598.htm" target="_blank"><i>see People v Teron</i>, 139 AD3d 450</a> [2016]).</p><p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p><br>I concur I concur I concur<br>Decision Date: November 18, 2019<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
M otion Granted and Order filed September 2 , 20 2 1

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 21

- 00463

- CV

____________ IN THE IN TEREST OF J.B., AKA J.J.B , a Child

On Appeal from the 313th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial C ourt Cause No. 2020

- 00057J



### O RDER
This is an accelerated appeal from a judgment in a parental ter mination case. The notice of appeal was filed August 23 , 20 2 1 . Appellant has established indigence or is presumed to be indigent. See Tex. R. App. P. 20.1( a). The reporter’s record was due within 10 days after th e notice of appeal was filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.1(b); 28.4(a)(1). On August 25, 2021, a requested ext ension of time to file the reporter ’ s re cord was gra n t ed to September 7, 2021. The officia l

court reporter, Stephanie We lls, was notified no further extensions w o u l d be granted absent exceptional circumstances.On Sep tember 2
, 2021, Stephanie Wells filed a second request to extend

tim e to file the reporter ’ s record, until September 17, 2021

. We GRANT the
motion. Appeals in parental termination cases and child protection cases are to be brought to final disposition within 180 days of the date the notice of appeal is
filed. See Tex. R. Jud. Admin. 6.2(a). The trial and appellate courts are joi ntly responsible for ensuring that the appellate record is timely filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.3(c). The trial court must direct the court reporter to immediately commenc e the preparation of the reporter’s record and must arrange for a substitute report er, if necessary. See Tex. R. App. P. 28.4(b)(1). Accordingly, we further o rd er Stephanie Wells , the official court reporter, to file the record in this appeal on or before Septe mber 17, 2021

. If Stephanie
W e lls does not timely file the record as ordered, the court will issue an order requi ring her to appear at a hearing to show cause why the record has not been timely filed and why she should not be held in contempt of court for failing to file the record as ordered. Contempt of court is punishable by a fine and/or confinement in jail.

P ER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Hassan and Poissant

.
10.4


EXHIBIT 10.4




Service Agreement




Client: Bo Heng

Project: Coding

Date: 6/15/16

Deadline: 6/27/16

Developer: Bylog Group Corp.




This agreement (the “Agreement”) is made on June 15, 2016 by and between Bo Heng (“Client”) and Bylog Group Corp. (“Developer”) in consideration of the mutual agreement made herein, both parties agree as follows:




Work: The Developer agrees to develop HTML5 programming code (the “Work”) for the client’s webpage at the request of the client for fees agrees upon in advance and delivery of the Work by an agreed-upon deadline. Developer agrees that it will be the sole author of the Work, which will be original work and free of plagiarism. Developer will cooperate with Client in editing and otherwise reviewing the Work prior to completion and launch.




Confidentiality: Developer acknowledges that he may receive or have access to information which relates to the Client’s past, present, or future products, vendor lists, creative works, marketing strategies, pending projects/proposals, and other proprietary information. Developer agrees to protect the confidentiality of the Client’s proprietary information and all physical forms thereof, whether disclosed to Developer before this Agreement is signed or afterward. 




Compensation: In consideration of the Work to be performed by Developer, Client shall pay to Developer 100% of the contract price ($2,000) not later then three days after the receiving the Work. The Project pricing includes Developer’s fee only. Any and all outside costs will be billed to Client. Every additional work shall be paid on an hourly basis - $20 for an hour.




Client Approval: Upon acceptance of the Work, Client accepts responsibility for any further processes in which this work is used. Developer is not responsible for errors occurring in this work or projects related to this work after acceptance of the Work by the Client.




Cancellation: Both parties understand that Client or Developer may terminate the service at any time if, for any reason, the relationship is deemed unsatisfactory by either party. Upon written or verbal cancellation, Client is responsible for payment for all expenses incurred and any work done towards the completion of the project based on the percentage of the project completed that is determined by Developer. Should Client cancel the project following its completion, Client is responsible for full payment as per the agreed upon estimate plus all expenses incurred. In the event of cancellation, Developer retains ownership of all copyrights and original work created.




Acceptance of Terms: Client promises to pay for the services rendered by Developer for the Work as agreed upon. By signing below, Client agrees they have read, understood, and are considered legally bonded to these terms.




Client signature & date:




Client: 

/s/ Bo Heng

June 15, 2016




Developer: 

/s/Dmitrii Iaroshenko, President 

June 15, 2016