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

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 325 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 325

  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend and modify the 
                         targeted jobs credit.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 5, 1993

  Mr. Rangel introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend and modify the 
                         targeted jobs credit.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION AND MODIFICATION OF TARGETED JOB CREDIT.

    (a) Extension.--Paragraph (4) of section 51(c) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to termination) is hereby repealed.
    (b) Restoration of Economically Disadvantaged Youth Status to 
Individuals Who Have Not Attained Age 25.--
            (1) In general.--Subparagraph (B) of section 51(d)(3) of 
        such Code is amended by striking ``age 23'' and inserting ``age 
        25''.
            (2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1) 
        shall apply to individuals who begin work for the employer 
        after June 30, 1992.

SEC. 2. CREDIT ELIGIBILITY FOR CERTAIN VETERANS.

    (a) Veterans Designated.--Paragraph (1) of section 51(d) of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to members of targeted groups) 
is amended by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (I), by 
striking the period at the end of subparagraph (J) and inserting ``, 
or'', and by adding at the end thereof the following new subparagraph:
                    ``(K) an economically disadvantaged veteran.''
    (b) Economically Disadvantaged Veteran Defined.--Section 51(d) of 
such Code is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new 
paragraph:
            ``(17) Veteran who is a member of an economically 
        disadvantaged family.--The term `veteran who is a member of an 
        economically disadvantaged family' means any individual who is 
        certified by the designated local agency as--
                    ``(A) having served in the active military, naval, 
                or air services (other than active duty for training) 
                of the United States,
                    ``(B) having been discharged or released from such 
                service under conditions other than dishonorable, and
                    ``(C) being a member of an economically 
                disadvantaged family (determined under paragraph 
                (11)).''
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to individuals who begin work for the employer after June 30, 
1993.

                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>
                                                                    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 Gadzooks Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the period ended February 1, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Gerald R. Szczepanski, certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

         1.   the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
              or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


/s/ Gerald R. Szczepanski
-------------------------
Gerald R. Szczepanski
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
April 29, 2003
EXHIBIT 32.1  SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION  In connection with the quarterly report of Rainbow Coral Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2013 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Patrick Brown, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SS. 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 result of operations of the Company.  August 19, 2013/s/ Patrick BrownPatrick Brown, President,Principal Executive OfficerPrincipal Financial and Accounting officer  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.
#### Thomas Carson, Appellant, *vs.*Wm. Sheldon, Respondent.

1. *Jeofails*— Judgment *on proceedings technically defective*— Oqnnot *he attacked, collaterally.*— In. a collateral proceeding a judgment and sale made thereunder, cannot be set aside or avoided for technical errors.

*Appeal from Henry Circuit Court.*

*Wright and*Wilson, for Appellant.

*McBeth & Price, and Lay & Belch,*for Respondent.

Adams, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This was ejectment, and the judgment of the Circuit Court having been rendered against plaintiff he has appealed to this Court.

It is admitted that this plaintiff was the owner of the land at one time. But the defendant claims by a mesne conveyance under a foreclosure sale of a vendor’s lien, in a suit brought in the Circuit Court of Henry County by Thomas W. Nelson, against said plaintiff, which resulted in a judgment foreclosing the vendor’s lien, and a sheriff’s sale and deed on execution issued on that judgment.

The plaintiff asks us to pronounce the judgment and foreclosure sale void for various reasons growing out of errors in those *437proceedings, such as that the summons did not run in the name of the State, and the Court allowed this to be amended; that the suit commenced in the name of Charles W. Nelson, and the original summons issued in that name. And after-wards the Court permitted the name of the real party, Thomas W. Nelson, to be inserted in the proceedings by way of amendment. Some other similar objections are relied upon as rendering the judgment of foreclosure and sale and deed by the sheriff void.

It is unnecessary for us to decide whether such objections would be sufficient to reverse the judgment of foreclosure on error or other direct proceeding. It is sufficient to say, however, that in a collateral proceeding like this we are not allowed to disturb the foreclosure judgment and sale on account of such alleged errors. The objections are technical rather than substantial, and are not such as to render the foreclosure sale and sheriff’s deed void. Judgment affirmed.

Judge Wagner absent. The other Judges concur.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

,

Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

N ovember 19 , 2019 

# Order

Clerk November 19 , 2019

159205 (59)

CALEB GRIFFIN,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

SC: 159205

v COA: 340480

Genesee CC: 14

- 103977

- NI

SWARTZ AMBULANCE SERVICE,

Defendant

- Appellee,

and

SARAH ELIZABETH AURAND,

Defendant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the C hief Justice , the motion of plaintiff

- appellant to extend the time

for filing his supplemental brief is GRANTED. The supplemental brief submitted on

November 15, 2019, is accepted as timely file d

.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A19D0465. MARK WRIGHT v. THE STATE.

Following a jury trial, Mark Wright was convicted of malice murder, felony

murder, and aggravated assault. The trial court sentenced Wright to life in prison for

malice murder and merged the remaining counts of the indictment with the malice

murder count. The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed his convictions following the

trial court’s denial of his motion for new trial. See Wright v. State, 275 Ga. 427 (569

SE2d 537) (2002), overruled in part by Wilson v. State, 277 Ga. 195 (586 SE2d 669)

(2003).1In March 2018, Wright filed a motion for an out-of-time appeal, seeking an

opportunity to raise ineffectiveness-of-counsel claims. The trial court denied the

motion, and this application for discretionary appeal followed.

Under our Constitution, the Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction over

“[a]ll cases in which a sentence of death was imposed or could be imposed.” Ga.

Const. of 1983, Art. VI, Sec. VI, Par. III (8). Because a penalty of death may be

imposed for the crime of malice murder, jurisdiction over this application appears to

be proper in the Supreme Court. See OCGA § 16-5-1 (a), (e) (1); Neal v. State, 290

Ga. 563, 572 (722 SE2d 765) (2012) (Hunstein, C. J., concurring); see also State v.

Thornton, 253 Ga. 524, 524 (1) (322 SE2d 711) (1984) (directing this Court to

transfer “all casesin which either a sentence of death or of life imprisonment has been

1

In Wilson, the Supreme Court clarified that failure to request an evidentiary

hearing in support of a claim of ineffectiveness of trial counsel raised in a motion for

new trial results only in a waiver of the right to such a hearing, but not in a waiver of

appellate consideration of the claim. 277 Ga. at 198-199 (2).

May 16, 2019
imposed upon conviction of murder”); accord Saxton v. Coastal Dialysis & Med.

Clinic, Inc., 267 Ga. 177, 178 (476 SE2d 587) (1996) (the Supreme Court has the

ultimate responsibilityfor determining appellate jurisdiction). Accordingly,Wright’s

application is hereby TRANSFERRED to the Supreme Court for disposition.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

05/16/2019
Order entered October 23, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-01340-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A.E., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 304th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 13-186-W

ORDER

This is an accelerated appeal in a parental termination case. The reporter’s record was 

due on October 20, 2014. On October 21, 2014, Kelly Pelletier, Official Court Reporter for the 

304th Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas, filed a motion for an extension of time to 

file the reporter’s record. We GRANT the motion and ORDER the reporter’s record be filed by 

OCTOBER 30, 2014. See TEX. R. APP. P. 35.3(c).

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE
#### David Chester GORKO, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 66-717.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

May 23, 1967.

Robert L. Koeppel, Public Defender and James A. Horland, Sp. Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Barry N. Semet, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before PEARSON, CHARLES CARROLL and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was informed against, tried and convicted of the crime of assault with intent to commit rape. On this appeal the only points presented are directed to the sufficiency of the evidence. *133The argument is directed to two elements: criminal intent and lack of consent. The proof is sufficient in each instance. As to criminal intent see: St. Giorge v. State, Fla. 1956, 92 So.2d 612; Gilchrist v. State, Fla. App.1965, 177 So.2d 777. As to resistance necessary to show lack of consent see: Gadsden v. State, 77 Fla. 627, 82 So. 50 (1919); Seely v. State, Fla.App.1966, 191 So.2d 78.

Affirmed.
#### Com. ex rel. Mark *v.*Mark, Appellant.

Argued September 24, 1934.

*182Before Keller, Cunningham:, Baldrige, Stadtfeld and Parker, JJ.

*Wm. A. Carr*of *Carr & Krauss,*for appellant.

*Algernon R. Clapp*of *White, Sehnader, Maris & Clapp,*and with him *C. L. Cushmore, Jr.,*for appellee.

November 22, 1934:

Per Curiam,

This was a writ of habeas corpus issued at the relation of Claire Mark against her husband, Joseph DeRoy Mark, for the custody of their five year old son.

The judge of the municipal court, who heard and decided the matter, based his decision in part “upon information derived by interviewers of our court and the probation officers.” This he had no right to do unless the persons from whom such information was derived were called as witnesses and testified, subject to cross-examination: Com. ex rel. Ritter v. Ritter, 91 Pa. Superior Ct. 563. We said in that case: “In the opinion filed by the learned court in support of the order of revocation, it is stated that the report of the court’s investigator showed that the wife was employed as a hairdresser and earned about twenty dollars a week. But there was no testimony on the subject and the report of the investigator was not evidence. The record before us fails to show that he was *183present at the hearing and was sworn and testified. That is the only way such an investigator can give competent evidence. Counsel has a right to cross-examine him, just as any other witness, and sift his testimony to find out on what basis of fact it rests.”

The “information derived” from the court interviewers and probation officers is not before us. It may be only hearsay, based on hearsay. It does not become competent evidence merely because given by employees of the court; and the court has no right to base its order on anything but the competent evidence in the case.

The Act of July 11, 1917, P. L. 817, requires this court on appeals involving the custody of children to “consider the testimony and make such order upon the merits of the case, either in affirmance, reversal, or modification of the order appealed from, as to right and justice shall belong.”

We cannot do this where the order appealed from is based, even in part, on reports, or information, which were not competent evidence and form no part of the record.

We shall not pass on the merits of the case until we have before us an order based wholly on competent evidence, all of which appears in the record.

The order is reversed at the costs of the relatrix.
Exhibit 23.1
Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No.333-24135) pertaining to the Palm Harbor Homes, Inc. Employee Savings Plan, and in the RegistrationStatements (Form S-3 No. 333-52535 and Form S-3 No. 333-118669) and in the related Prospectuses ofPalm Harbor Homes, Inc. and subsidiaries, of our reports datedMay 20, 2005, with respect to theconsolidated financial statements of Palm Harbor Homes, Inc., Palm Harbor Homes, Inc. management’sassessment of internal control over financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal controlover financial reporting of Palm Harbor Homes, Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) forthe year ended March 25, 2005, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
/s/ Ernst & Young LLP
Dallas, Texas
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION

The undersigned, John W. Chamberlain and Robert F. Barton, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, respectively, of American Assets Trust, Inc. (the Company), pursuant to 18
U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:

(i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011 of the Company (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(ii) the information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



/s/ JOHN W. CHAMBERLAINJohn W. ChamberlainPresident and Chief Executive Officer/s/ ROBERT F. BARTONRobert F. BartonEVP and Chief Financial Officer


Date: May 13, 2011
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

 

**Certification of Chief Executive OfficerPursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

 

In connection with the First Amended Quarterly Report of GreenAutomotive Company (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending June 30, 2014 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Ben Rainwater, Chief Executive Officer, certify, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

 

(i) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents,in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 

/s/  Ben Rainwater

Ben Rainwater

Chief Executive Officer

December 23, 2015
Exhibit 32.1


                          CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
                          CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                          PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

      In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
      of Big Time Acquisition,Inc. for the quarter ended May 28,2012
      I, Scot A. Scheer, Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive
      Officer)and Principal Financial and Accounting Officer of Big Time
      Acquisition,Inc. hereby certify as of the date hereof pursuant to
      Title 18 U.S.C., Chapter 63, Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my
      knowledge and belief, that:

           1.  Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
               May 28,2012 fully complies with the requirements
               of section 13(a) or 15(d)as applicable of the Securities
               Exchange Act of 1934; and

           2.  The information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form
               10-Q for the quarter ended May 28,2012 fairly represents
               in all material respects, the financial condition and results
               of operations of Big Time Acquisition, Inc.

     Dated:  July 17,2012



     Big Time Acquisition, Inc.

     By: /s/ Scot A. Scheer
        ----------------------------
        Chief Executive Officer
       (Principal Executive Officer
        and Principal Financial and
        Accounting Officer)
No. 00-7371.

#### Hankins *v.*Boone, Warden.

C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.
P.1 

OAR Box 1865 

Prepped by Charmelle Mathews 

Document Number: 

20) IV-E-8 

Docket Number: 

A-83-27 

Printed 12/3/2008 9:15:27 AM Sheet 20 of 105 
P.2 

A-83-27 

IV-E-8 

CONTACT REPORT 

0\l I t \°iK Originator MoC^ i 

CONTACT BY: TELEPHONE ^ MEETING D Other 

Date . ~^» . - u. 

NAME, TITLE & ORGANIZATION ^ ^e n .Kk»^J ; Ma r kt ^ M*nay r 

fleeter/"Dorr-Ol . v/er 

ADDRESS & TELEPHONE NUMBER p Q g 0 x ^j f 

PURPOSE OR SUBJECT (Give project number if appropriate) 

Gjroojt^Treats tr> lnsf'fj(i(ma/" Uch.^&l DO\UCS 

SUMMARY 

rvf, ({liAQd sfdfo M Mt 'Vmber ofV^J talerj lVl ^ 

* 10,000 ppU 0*-5 MMtfU) .5 - aoo ^'fi/j^ . Of iUt, 

r^f^^ J fA^S<K^ ^ c?^% for pol^-^ol-^er W 

ACTION CO 

i 

Distribution:
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3727

To require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to conduct a study

of, and report to the Congress on, the feasibility of using biometric

devices to verify the identity of persons applying for or receiving aid

to families with dependent children in order to reduce fraud in the

welfare program.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 25, 1994

Mr. LAZIO (for himself, Mr. KING, Mr. LEVY, Mr. BOEHLERT, Mr. LEWIS of

California, Mr. PETRI, Mr. DORNAN, Mr. BILBRAY, Mr. ZIMMER, Mr.

WALKER, Mr. MCHUGH, Mr. ARMEY, Mr. GINGRICH, Mr. CANADY, Mr.

SHAW, Ms. DUNN, Mr. ALLARD, Mr. DELAY, Mr. HORN, Mrs. FOWLER,

Mr. DUNCAN, and Mr. GEKAS) introduced the following bill; which was

referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To require the Secretary of Health and Human Services

to conduct a study of, and report to the Congress on,

the feasibility of using biometric devices to verify the

identity of persons applying for or receiving aid to families with dependent children in order to reduce fraud

in the welfare program.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 3727 IH

1 SECTION 1. STUDY OF THE FEASIBILITY OF USING BIOMET2 RIC DEVICES TO VERIFY THE IDENTITY OF

3 PERSONS APPLYING FOR OR RECEIVING AID

4 TO FAMILIES WITH DEPENDENT CHILDREN;

5 REPORT TO THE CONGRESS.

6 (a) STUDY.—The Secretary of Health and Human

7 Services shall conduct a study designed to determine—

8 (1) whether it would be feasible to reduce fraud

9 in the receipt of aid to families with dependent chil10 dren under any State plan approved under part A of

11 title IV of the Social Security Act by using biometric

12 devices to measure various physical characteristics of

13 the persons applying for or receiving such aid in

14 order to verify the identity of such persons; and

15 (2) if so, whether it would be appropriate to

16 enter into a contract with a private party or parties

17 to perform such identification.

18 (b) REPORT TO THE CONGRESS.—Not later than 6

19 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the

20 Secretary of Health and Human Services shall submit to

21 the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Rep22 resentatives and the Committee on Finance of the Senate

23 a report on the results of the study required by subsection

24 (a).

Æ
#### John BORCH and Sophie S. Borch, Appellants, v. Spurgeon L. MINICH, Jr., and Dorothy E. Minich, Appellees.

No. 69-512.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Dec. 2, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.