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

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 533 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 533

    To correct the boundaries of the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 
          Resources System Unit L06, Topsail, North Carolina.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 12, 2013

  Mrs. Hagan introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To correct the boundaries of the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 
          Resources System Unit L06, Topsail, North Carolina.

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

SECTION 1. REPLACEMENT OF JOHN H. CHAFEE COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES 
              SYSTEM MAP.

    (a) In General.--The map included in the set of maps entitled 
``Coastal Barrier Resources System'' referred to in section 4(a) of the 
Coastal Barrier Resources Act (16 U.S.C. 3503(a)) and relating to Unit 
L06 in North Carolina is hereby replaced by another map relating to the 
same unit entitled ``John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System 
Corrected Unit L06'' and dated ______.
    (b) Availability.--The Secretary of the Interior shall keep the 
replacement map referred to in subsection (a) on file and available for 
inspection in accordance with section 4(b) of the Coastal Barrier 
Resources Act (16 U.S.C. 3503(b)).
                                 <all>
```
NO. SCWC-11-0000595

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

CHEYNE DE LA GARZA,

Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant,

vs.

STATE OF HAWAI#I,

Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(CR NO. 08-0421(4); S.P.P. No. 10-1-0021(4))

ORDER ACCEPTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, McKenna, and Pollack, JJ.)

Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant Cheyne De La Garza’s

application for writ of certiorari, filed on September 10, 2012,

is hereby accepted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that no oral argument will be

heard in this case. Any party may, within ten (10) days and

pursuant to Rule 34(c) of the Hawai#i Rules of Appellate

Procedure, move for retention of oral argument.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, October 19, 2012.

Cheyne De La Garza, /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

petitioner pro se

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

John D. Kim and

Artemio C. Baxa, /s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr.

for respondent

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCWC-11-0000595

19-OCT-2012

10:10 AM
Exhibit 32.1 Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2017 (the Report) of GSV Capital Corp. (the Registrant), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Mark Klein, the Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, 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 results of operations of the Registrant. /s/ Mark KleinName: Mark KleinDate:  November 9, 2017
**Exhibit 99.1**

**CERTIFICATION OF CEO ANDCFO PURSUANT TO****18 U.S.C. § 1350,****AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO****§ 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Form 10-K of SNB Bancshares, Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ending December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report)”,H. Averett Walker, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and James R. McLemore, Jr., Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, to the best of his/her knowledge that:

(1)      The Reportfully 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 operation of the Company.

 

|   |   |   |                                                              |
|--------|--------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|
|        |   |   | /s/ H. Averett Walker                                             |
|   |   |   |                                                                   |
|   |   |   | **H. AVERETT WALKER****Chief Executive Officer**February 27, 2003 |

 

|   |   |   |                                                              |
|--------|--------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|
|        |   |   | /s/ James R. McLemore                                             |
|   |   |   |                                                                   |
|   |   |   | **JAMES R. McLEMORE****Chief Financial Officer**February 27, 2003 |

 

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shallnot, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of § 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: In re Baybrook Mall, LLC

Appellate case number: 01-14-00382-CV

Trial court case number: 2013-48336

Trial court: 125th District Court of Harris County

On May 12, 2014, relator Baybrook Mall, LLC filed a petition for writ of mandamus. The 

Court requests a response to the petition for writ of mandamus from real party in interest Harris 

County Appraisal District. The response, if any, is due to be filed with the Court no later than 

June 3, 2014.

The trial court’s May 5, 2014 order requiring relator “to produce the documents requested 

by Defendant, and supplement complete answers to Defendant’s interrogatories as marked on 

[the March 27, 2014] order” on or before 5:00 p.m. on May 15, 2014, is stayed. See TEX. R. APP. 

P. 52.10. The stay is effective until disposition of relator’s petition for writ of mandamus or 

further order of this Court. 

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Terry Jennings

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: May 13, 2014
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

No. 81858 F LED 1 

NOV 1 7 2021 

Eumirrii A. BROW+1 

a

c

y

:Kds7UPREME COURT 

DEPUTYRK 

No. 83744 

DEXIN FRANK LIN, 

Appellant, 

vs. 

ANNA LIN, 

Res • ondent. 

DEXIN FRANK LIN, 

Appellant, 

vs. 

ANNA LIN, 

Res • ondent. 

ORDER ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSING APPEAL IN DOCKET NO. 

83744 AND TRANSFERRING DOCUMENTS TO DOCKET NO. 81858 

The notice of appeal documents in Docket No. 83744 indicate 

that appellant is attempting to appeal the order of affirmance issued by the 

Court of Appeals in Docket No. 81858-COA on October 22, 2021. The proper 

procedure for challenging a decision issued by the Court of Appeals is to file 

a petition for review in the Nevada Supreme Court pursuant to NRAP 40B. 

NRAP 40B(a). Accordingly, the notice of appeal filed in Docket No. 83744 

is construed as a petition for review. The clerk of this court shall 

administratively close the appeal in Docket No. 83744 and transfer the 

documents filed in Docket No. 83744 to the appeal in Docket No. 81858. In 

light of this order, appellant may disregard the notice directing him to pay 

the filing fee in Docket No. 83744. 

It is so ORDERED. 

, C.J. 

Hardesty 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

I447A 0400 011 - 33 o g 
cc: Hon. Charles J. Hoskin, District Judge, Family Court Division 

Dexin Frank Lin 

The Law Offices of Frank J. Toti, Esq. 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

fo) 194/A ctigPir, 

2 

799.1TPITf7TAX-' 

, 

• ;11'it. • 4!..•=422,a4t.iii.4.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jeffrey Amato, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Cowhey, J.), rendered December 6, 1988, convicting him of assault in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered. No questions of fact have been raised or considered.

We find that, under the circumstances presented here, the court erred in proceeding with the trial in the defendant’s absence. The defendant was present in the courtroom during the jury selection but failed to appear on the first day of his trial. Defense counsel informed the court that he had contacted the defendant’s mother and was told that the defendant was on his way and "should be here momentarily”. The defense counsel consented to proceeding with the court’s preliminary instructions and opening statements in the defendant’s absence. The defendant had not appeared when the trial recessed for lunch.

The defendant was present for the afternoon session although the parties dispute whether the court permitted the complaining witness to begin testifying prior to the defendant’s arrival. The following morning, the defendant was not present in court at the time the trial was scheduled to resume. The defense counsel informed the court that the defendant "is on his way” and consented to proceed in his absence. The defendant arrived in court after the testimony of the complaining witness’s physician was completed.

A defendant who deliberately absents himself from the courtroom after the trial has begun forfeits his right to be present *(see, People v Sanchez,*65 NY2d 436). However, before proceeding in the defendant’s absence, the court has an obligation to inquire into the surrounding circumstances to determine if the defendant’s absence is deliberate and to recite on the record the reasons for its finding. The failure to conduct such an inquiry constitutes reversible error *(see, People v Brooks,*75 NY2d 898). Here the court made only a cursory inquiry as to the defendant’s whereabouts, and the defense counsel’s responses did not indicate that the defendant was deliberately absent. The defendant’s right to be present at these particular stages of the trial was not waived by defense *546counsel’s consent to proceed, and there is no evidence that the defendant ratified his counsel’s purported waiver *(see, People v Lopez,*156 AD2d 476; *cf., People v Windley,*134 AD2d 386).

In view of our determination, we do not reach the defendant’s remaining contentions. Thompson, J. P., Eiber, Balletta and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
#### STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Ricky PALMER, Defendant and Appellant.

No. 890583-CA.

Court of Appeals of Utah.

Nov. 27, 1990.

James C. Bradshaw, Joan C. Watt, Salt Lake Legal Defender Asso., Salt Lake City, for defendant and appellant.

R. Paul Van Dam, Atty. Gen., David B. Thompson, Judy Atherton, Asst. Attys. Gen., for plaintiff and appellee.

Before BENCH, BILLINGS and ORME, JJ.

ORDER

This matter is before the Court upon appellant’s motion to stay issuance of the remittitur filed 20 November 1990.

Appellant seeks to stay the remittitur pending disposition of appellant’s petition for rehearing. Rule 36(a), Utah R.App.P., provides that a remittitur shall not issue until five days after entry of an order disposing of a timely rehearing petition. By Order filed 23 November 1990, the Court granted appellant an extension of time to 19 December 1990 to file the petition for rehearing. The Order automatically stayed issuance of the remittitur by virtue of Rule 36(a). Appellant’s request to stay the remittitur pending disposition of the rehearing petition is therefore unnecessary.

Appellant also seeks to stay the remit-titur pending resolution of a petition for writ of certiorari, in the event that appellant files said petition in the Utah Supreme Court. Rule 36(b), Utah R.App.P., provides that a stay of the remittitur may be granted pending application for review. Appellant seeks a stay of the remittitur “in the event Petitioner’s Petition for Rehearing is denied, until Appellant’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the Utah Supreme Court is resolved.” Appellant’s motion to stay the remittitur pending disposition of a potential petition for certiorari is premature, but may be renewed after entry of the order disposing of the petition for rehearing. Upon receipt of such a motion within the five-day period contemplated in Rule 36(a), the clerk of the court, consistent with her usual practice, will defer remittitur until such time as the motion is acted upon by the court.

Now therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion is denied.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

NORBERTO BARRERA; SANDRA

PATRICIA CARDONA PINEROS;

DAVID BARRERA CARDONA,

 Petitioners,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 07-72169

Agency Nos. A079-101-930

 A079-101-931

 A079-101-932

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 29, 2010** 

Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

Norberto Barrera and his family, natives and citizens of Colombia, petition

for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal

from an immigration judge’s decision denying their application for asylum,

FILED

JUL 15 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 07-72169

withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture

(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial

evidence adverse credibility findings, Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 962 (9th Cir.

2004), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination

based on the discrepancies between Barrera’s testimony and his sworn statement

during the airport interview as to why he came to the United States and whether he

suffered or feared harm in Colombia. See id. at 962-63 (discrepancy between

testimony and sworn airport interview constituted substantial evidence where

petitioner gave entirely different reasons for arrival in United States). Substantial

evidence also supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on the

omission from Barrera’s asylum application that the guerrillas forced him to

remain face down on the ground without moving for 48 hours. See id. at 963

(reasonable for IJ to consider that, if truthful, petitioner would have mentioned

allegation of serious mistreatment in asylum application). Accordingly, in the

absence of credible testimony, petitioners’ asylum claim and Barrera’s withholding

of removal claim fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

Because Barrera’s CAT claim is based on the testimony the agency found

not credible, and there is no evidence in the record that compels a finding that it is
3 07-72169

more likely than not he would be tortured if returned to Colombia, his CAT claim

also fails. See id. at 1156-57.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
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 this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Point Capital, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended June
30, 2017 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Adam Wasserman, Chief Financial Officer
of the Company, 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 result of operations
of the Company.



Date:
August 14, 2017



|By:    | /s/
    Adam Wasserman                                                  | 
|------ | ----------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|Name:  | Adam Wasserman                                                          | 
|Title: | Chief Financial Officer 
    (principal financial & accounting officer) | 



A
signed original 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.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLAImages

# DLA Images

Search

Search

                                  - All Images 
                                  - Other 

                                  - Upload Date
                                  - Photo Date
                                  - Title

Share

----

Download Image: Small ()Medium ()Full Size (0.07 MB)

Tags:DLA Distribution, Defense Logistics Agency Distribution, DLA Distribution Headquarters, Usher Syndrome, Rochester Institute of Technology’s National Technical Institute for the Deaf, dla, Defense Logistics Agency

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
<PAGE>
 
                                                                     EXHIBIT 3.7

                             ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT

                                       OF

                       RESTATED ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION

                                       OF

                               WEEKS CORPORATION

                                       I.

     The name of the corporation is Weeks Corporation (the "Corporation").

                                      II.

     The amendment (the "Amendment") is to delete paragraph (ii) of Section
2.2.1 in its entirety and replace it with the following:


     "(ii)     NUMBER.  The maximum number of authorized shares of the Series A
Preferred Stock shall be 7,400,000."

                                      III.

     This Amendment was adopted by the Board of Directors on October 30, 1998.

                                      IV.

     This Amendment was duly adopted by the Board of Directors without
shareholder approval, as such approval was not required.
<PAGE>
 
     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Weeks Corporation has caused these Articles of
Amendment to be executed and sealed by its duly authorized officers this ____
day of November, 1998.

                              WEEKS CORPORATION


                              By:_______________________________
                                 A. R. Weeks, Jr.
                                 Chairman and Chief Executive Officer



Attest:

By:______________________________
Name:  Elizabeth C. Belden
Title: Vice President and Secretary

                                      -2-
Exhibit 32.2





Certification of Principal Financial Officer


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 WRASP 34, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Anthony C. Pintsopoulos, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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.





/s/ Anthony C. PintsopoulosAnthony C. PintsopoulosPrincipal Financial OfficerMay 11, 2011
wofa_ex101.htm

EXHIBIT 10.1
 

 
	 
	1

	

	 


	 
	2

	

	 

 
 
	 
	3

	

	 



 
	 
	4

	

	 



 
	 
	5

	

	 



 
	 
	6

	

	 



 
	 
	7

	

	 



 
	 
	8

	

	 



 
	 
	9

	

	 


 
	 
	10

	

	 



 
	 
	11

	

	 



 
	 
	12

	

	 



 
	 
	13

	

	 



 
	 
	14

	

	 



 
	 
	15

	

	 



 
	 
	16

	

	 



 
	 
	17

	

	 



 
18