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

Calendar No. 1 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1 

To create jobs, restore economic growth, and strengthen America’s middle 

class through measures that modernize the nation’s infrastructure, enhance America’s energy independence, expand educational opportunities, 

preserve and improve affordable health care, provide tax relief, and 

protect those in greatest need, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 6, 2009 

Mr. REID (for himself, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. KERRY, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. BEGICH, 

Mrs. BOXER, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr. BINGAMAN, Mr. CASEY, 

Mr. LAUTENBERG, Ms. STABENOW, Mrs. MCCASKILL, Mr. LIEBERMAN, 

Ms. KLOBUCHAR, Mrs. CLINTON, Mr. SCHUMER, and Mr. BROWN) introduced the following bill; which was read the first time 

JANUARY 7, 2009 

Read the second time and placed on the calendar 

A BILL 

To create jobs, restore economic growth, and strengthen 

America’s middle class through measures that modernize 

the nation’s infrastructure, enhance America’s energy 

independence, expand educational opportunities, preserve 

and improve affordable health care, provide tax relief, 

and protect those in greatest need, and for other purposes. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
2 

•S 1 PCS

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 ‘‘American Recovery 

5 and Reinvestment Act of 2009’’. 

6 SEC. 2. JOB CREATION, ECONOMIC GROWTH, AND A 

7 STRONG MIDDLE CLASS. 

8 It is the sense of Congress that Congress should 

9 enact, and the President should sign, legislation to create 

10 jobs, restore economic growth, and strengthen America’s 

11 middle class through measures that— 

12 (1) modernize the nation’s infrastructure; 

13 (2) enhance America’s energy independence; 

14 (3) expand educational opportunities; 

15 (4) preserve and improve affordable health care; 

16 (5) provide tax relief; and 

17 (6) protect those in greatest need. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
Calendar No. 1 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1 

A BILL 

To create jobs, restore economic growth, and 

poses. protect those in greatest need, and for other puraffordable health care, provide tax relief, and educational opportunities, preserve and improve enhance America’s energy independence, expand ures that modernize the nation’s infrastructure, strengthen America’s middle class through measJANUARY 7, 2009 

Read the second time and placed on the calendar 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
**Exhibit 32****Residential Capital, LLC****Certification of Principal Executive Officer and PrincipalFinancial Officer****Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350**In connection with the Quarterly Report of Residential Capital,LLC (the Company) onForm 10-Q for theperiod ending September 30, 2007, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (theReport), each of the undersigned officers of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuantto §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 results of    operations of the Company./s/ James G. Jones James G. JonesChief Executive OfficerNovember 7, 2007/s/ Sanjiv Khattri Sanjiv KhattriChief Financial OfficerNovember 7, 2007
#### Mark Alan HART, Appellant, v. STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.

No. F-85-588.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

Jan. 29, 1988.

Terry J. Hull, Asst. Appellate Public Defender, Norman, for appellant.

Robert H. Henry, Atty. Gen., Tomilou Gentry Liddell, Asst. Atty. Gen., Oklahoma City, for appellee.

*571OPINION

BUSSEY, Judge:

The appellant, Mark Allan Hart, was tried and convicted in the District Court of Muskogee County for the crime of Second Degree Burglary in Case No. CRF-83-574 and was sentenced to seven (7) years imprisonment, and he appeals.

Briefly stated the facts are that on September 28, 1983, appellant pried open the back door of a fashion store in Muskogee, Oklahoma and entered the store. Subsequently, while appellant was ransacking the store, three police officers arrived and arrested appellant.

In his sole assignment of error appellant contends that improper prosecutorial comments caused the jury to impose an excessive sentence. We disagree.

The first alleged error occurred during the State’s direct examination of the store owner; however, we note that appellant’s objection to the erroneous line of questioning was sustained, and the jury was admonished to disregard it. We find that the admonishment cured any error. *See Wimberli v. State,*536 P.2d 945 (Okl.Cr.1975).

Appellant also alleges that the State elicited irrelevant testimony from the store owner concerning the value of property in the dress shop. After reviewing the transcript, we note that the trial court sustained defense counsel’s timely objection, and the witness never answered the prosecutor’s question. Consequently, appellant was not harmed or prejudiced in any way.

Appellant finally urges that the most egregious commentary occurred during the State’s closing argument when the prosecutor repeatedly referred to him as a sophisticated criminal. Initially, we observe that defense counsel interposed timely objections to the complained of comments which were overruled by the trial court. In overruling the objections the trial court stated, “The jury will decide, based upon the evidence and the law. In the meantime, he may argue his inferences that are properly derived from the evidence.” We agree with the trial court’s ruling and further find that the remarks are not grossly improper or unwarranted. *See Frazier v. State,*607 P.2d 709 (Okl.Cr.1980).

Therefore, having found that none of the prosecutor’s remarks resulted in prejudice to appellant, and since the sentence imposed is within the statutory limits, we cannot say that the sentence imposed shocks the conscience of this Court. *Kiser v. State,*541 P.2d 208 (Okl.Cr.1975). We decline to disturb the jury’s verdict.

The judgment and sentence is AFFIRMED.

BRETT, P.J., and PARKS, J., concur.
**Exhibit
      32.1**





CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


18
      U.S.C.
      SECTION 1350,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of AgFeed Industries, Inc.
      (the “Company”) for the quarter ending September 30, 2008 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Xiong
      Junhong, 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.





Dated:
                November 13, 2008
            By:
            /s/
                Xiong JunhongXiong
                JunhongChief
                Executive Officer





This
      certification accompanies each Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002 and shall not, 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.





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.
**Exhibit 32****Residential Capital Corporation****Certification of Principal Executive Officer and PrincipalFinancial Officer****Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350**In connection with the Quarterly Report of Residential CapitalCorporation (the Company) onForm 10-Q for theperiod ending March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each ofthe undersigned officers of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.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) 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/ Bruce J. Paradis Bruce J. ParadisChief Executive OfficerMay 5, 2006/s/ Davee L. Olson Davee L. OlsonChief Financial OfficerMay 5, 2006
<PAGE>   1
Exhibit 10.2

Mr. Conley's Employment Agreement with the Company is substantially the same as
the Employment Agreement with Company in Exhibit 10.1, which is incorporated
herein by reference except as to: (i) the name of the signatory, which is David
P. Conley; (ii) the signatory for Company, which is David F. Holland; (iii) the
position in Section 1, which is Executive Vice President, Assistant Treasurer
and Assistant Secretary; and (iv) the amount of the base salary in Section 3(a),
which is $210,000.

Mr. Conley's Employment Agreement with BFS is substantially the same as the
Employment Agreement with BFS in Exhibit 10.1, which is incorporated herein by
reference except as to: (i) the name of the signatory, which is David P. Conley;
(ii) the signatory for BFS, which is David F. Holland; (iii) the position in
Section 1, which is President; and (iv) the amount of the base salary in Section
3(a), which is $210,000.
Exhibit
        32.1
  **SECTION
        906 CERTIFICATION**
  In
        connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of State National Bancshares,
        Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2006, as filed
        with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
        I, Tom C. Nichols, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, do hereby certify,
        in
        accordance with 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),
                as
                applicable, 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
                Company.  STATE
                  NATIONAL BANCSHARES, INC.Dated:
                November 10, 2006
              By:
              /s/ Tom C. NicholsTom
                  C. Nichols
                Chief
                  Executive Officer
 
 A
        signed
        original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
        Act of 2002 (“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 State National Bancshares, Inc. and will be retained by State
        National Bancshares, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
        Commission or its staff upon request.
June 24, 2015

Mr. Dustin Breau 570 Grinding Circle Kaysville, UT 84037

Dear Mr. Breau:

This is in response to your February 9, letter sent to the docket (No. FAA-2015-0314) petitioning the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for an exemption from Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). You requested to conduct aerial photography and film making using an unmanned aerial system.

The information you submitted did not comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 11.81. On March 24, the FAA sent you a letter stating that we were unable to process your request without further information. Specifically, we asked you to provide the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief and the extent of the relief you seek.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

On April 28, the FAA received additional information. The FAA has reviewed the information and finds that you did not provide why granting the request would be in the public interest.2

Because your petition lacks sufficient information to proceed, the FAA has closed your exemption request. Should you wish to provide the additional information please resubmit your petition for exemption to the public docket.

Sincerely,

/s/ Brenda D. Courtney Acting Director Office of Rulemaking
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Hector Maya, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul Bookson, J.), rendered May 22, 1989, convicting defendant after a jury trial of robbery in the first degree and two counts of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent indeterminate terms of imprisonment of *IV2*to 15 years and two terms of 4 to 8 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

On September 7, 1986, while driving home from celebrating the birth of his son, off-duty Police Officer Lamontanaro was pulled out of his car, which was stopped at a traffic light, by three assailants and brutally beaten and robbed. The assailants fled after the robbery.

Detective Wilform was assigned to the case the day after the attack. On October 12, 1986 an informant supplied information relating to defendant and his co-defendant. The names and photos of the two defendants were given to Detective Wilform. Photo arrays were conducted at which Lamontanaro positively identified the two assailants. Detective Wilform attempted to locate defendant, to no avail. Wilform was also assigned to several homicide cases which occupied much of his time. On June 27, 1987, Detective Brosnan was assigned to the case. It was discovered that defendant was in prison. Brosnan first searched for the other defendant, who was not incarcerated, and found him in August 1987. In October, Brosnan interviewed defendant in prison and on November 19, 1987, a line-up was conducted in which Lamontanaro identified defendant.

Defendant moved to dismiss the indictment, asserting that the delay between the victim’s photo identification and the arraignment prejudiced him. *(See, People v Singer,*44 NY2d 241.) The court, after a hearing, denied the motion. While defendant challenges this ruling, the evidence reveals that the pre-arrest delay was not unduly long. Moreover, any delay in locating defendant was reasonable and clearly was not a deliberate tactic by the prosecution. *(See, United States v*
      *328
      *Lovasco,*431 US 783, 795, *reh denied*434 US 881.) Finally, defendant’s assertion that he was prejudiced as a result of the delay, since he could have received a prison sentence to run concurrently with the one he was already serving, is speculative.

The court also ruled, at a suppression hearing, that while the line-up identification must be suppressed since defense counsel was not present, there was an independent basis for the victim’s identification of defendant. We agree. Indeed, not only was there no suggestiveness to the photo identification and line-up identification at which Lamontanaro positively identified defendant, the evidence demonstrates that during the attack Lamontanaro was able to observe defendant under good lighting for several minutes. Moreover, as a police officer, Lamontanaro was trained to observe criminal activity and make accurate identifications. *(See, People v King,*146 AD2d 714, 715, *lv denied*73 NY2d 979.)

We have considered all other claims and find them to be meritless. Concur—Carro, J. P., Milonas, Rosénberger and Kupferman, JJ.
#### The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. KYU HO YI, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 86CA1679.

Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. II.

July 23, 1987.

*1265Duane Woodard, Atty. Gen., Charles B. Howe, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen., Richard H. Forman, Sol. Gen., Clement P. Engle, Cynthia D. Jones, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for plaintiff-appellee.

David F. Vela, Colorado State Public Defender, Jaydee K. Bachman, Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, for defendant-appellant.

METZGER, Judge.

Defendant, Kyu Ho Yi, has filed a motion for bail pending appeal. We remand the matter to the trial court with directions to conduct a hearing to determine defendant’s motion.

Defendant was convicted of second degree kidnapping and of committing a crime of violence, and was originally sentenced to a term of incarceration of 16 years and 1 day. Pursuant to a Crim.P. 35(b) motion, defendant was subsequently resentenced to a reduced term of 4 years. Upon the filing of his notice of appeal, defendant filed a motion for bail pending appeal in the trial court. Without holding a hearing, the trial court summarily denied defendant’s motion by a minute order which is devoid of any findings. Defendant has now filed a motion for bail pending appeal in this court, seeking review of the trial court’s minute order denying him an appeal bond.

Appellate review of a trial court’s order ruling on a motion for an appeal bond is governed by § 16-4-204, C.R.S. (1986 Repl. Vol. 8A), Crim.P. 46 and C.A.R. 8.1(c). Under § 16-4-204(2), C.R.S. (1986 Repl. Vol. 8A), the party seeking such appellate review “shall have appended” to his petition for such review “a transcript of the hearing held” in the trial court on the motion for an appeal bond. In addition, § 16-4-202, C.R.S. (1986 Repl. Vol. 8A) sets forth the factors to be considered by the trial court in the “appeal bond hearing.”

Although these provisions do not expressly require that a hearing be held on a motion for an appeal bond, such a requirement is strongly implied. Moreover, since § 16-4-204(3), C.R.S. (1986 Repl. Vol. 8A) authorizes an appellate court, among other things, to order the trial court to modify the terms and conditions of bail or appeal bond, the practical necessity of a record upon which to base that determination is manifest. Further, this result is required by C.A.R. 8.1(c).

Therefore, we hold that a trial court must conduct a hearing and make findings on a defendant’s motion for appeal bond. This hearing, in the trial court’s discretion, may be held contemporaneously with the sentencing hearing or separately.

Since no hearing was held on the appeal bond request here, the matter must be remanded for such to be accomplished. *See*§ 16-4-204(3)(a), C.R.S. (1986 Repl. Vol. 8A).

The cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to hold a hearing on defendant’s motion for bail pending appeal on or before 30 days from the date of this order. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court shall enter findings and its ruling and *1266shall then recertify this case to this court forthwith by forwarding a certified copy of its order.

SMITH and STERNBERG, JJ., concur.
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 12

- 00432

- CR

Ricky Lynn Appelt

v.

The State of Texas §

§

§

§

§ From the 396th District Court

o f Tarrant County (122 9847 D )

October 17, 2013

Opinion by Justice Gabriel

(nfp)



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By

_________________________________ Justice Lee Gabriel
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Carl Hunter, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Beal, J., at trial; Leslie Crocker Snyder, J., on denial of motion for *Wade*hearing), rendered July 11, 1989, convicting defendant after jury trial of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree, and sentencing him to an indeterminate prison term of from 15 years to life imprisonment, unanimously affirmed.

An undercover police officer, as part of an ongoing narcotics investigation, purchased four ounces of cocaine from defendant on June 16, 1988., So as to avoid compromising the investigation no arrests were made at that time. One week later, on June 23, 1988, the same undercover officer observed defendant emerge from a grocery store located in the vicinity of the prior sale. The officer alerted his backup team which placed defendant under arrest. Minutes later, the officer drove to a pre-arranged location and confirmed his identification of defendant.

*322The initial viewing of the defendant, as he emerged from the grocery store, was not a "police-arranged” identification procedure, but was a spontaneous identification made by the officer, for which CPL 710.30 notice was not required. *(Cf., People v Newball,*76 NY2d 587.) A spontaneous identification, either by a police officer or a civilian witness, does not generally suffer from the suggestiveness which necessitates that a *Wade*hearing be held. *(People v Logan,*25 NY2d 184, 193, *cert denied*396 US 1020.) Nor was the lapse of one week between the drug sale and the subsequent viewing of the defendant a significant passage of time giving rise to "special circumstances” warranting a *Wade*hearing *(People v Newball, supra,*at 592). The subsequent "confirmatory” identification was exempt from the requirement of a *Wade*hearing pursuant to *People v Wharton*(74 NY2d 921). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Ellerin, Ross and Rubin, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2038 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2038

         To extend the duty suspension on Allyl isosulfocynate.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 2009

 Mr. Menendez introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
         To extend the duty suspension on Allyl isosulfocynate.

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

SECTION 1. ALLYL ISOSULFOCYNATE.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.01.41 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to Allyl isosulfocynate) is 
amended by striking ``12/31/2009'' and inserting ``12/31/2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```