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

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 66

To authorize the printing of ‘‘Capitol Builder: The Shorthand Journals of

Captain Montgomery C. Meigs, 1853–1861’’.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

NOVEMBER 2, 1999

Mr. LOTT (for himself and Mr. DASCHLE) submitted the following concurrent

resolution; which was considered and agreed to

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

To authorize the printing of ‘‘Capitol Builder: The Shorthand

Journals of Captain Montgomery C. Meigs, 1853–1861’’.

Whereas November 17, 2000, will mark the 200th anniversary of the occupation of the United States Capitol by

the Senate and House of Representatives;

Whereas the story of the design and construction of the

United States Capitol deserves wider attention; and

Whereas since 1991, Congress has supported a recently completed project to translate the previously inaccessible and

richly detailed shorthand journals of Captain Montgomery C. Meigs, the mid-nineteenth-century engineer responsible for construction of the Capitol dome and Senate

and House of Representatives extensions: Now, therefore,

be it
2

•SCON 66 ATS

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives

2 concurring),

3 SECTION 1. PRINTING OF ‘‘CAPITOL BUILDER: THE SHORT4 HAND JOURNALS OF CAPTAIN MONTGOMERY

5 C. MEIGS, 1853–1861’’.

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—There shall be printed as a Senate

7 document the book entitled ‘‘Capitol Builder: The Short8 hand Journals of Captain Montgomery C. Meigs, 1853–

9 1861’’, prepared under the direction of the Secretary of

10 the Senate, in consultation with the Clerk of the House

11 of Representatives and the Architect of the Capitol.

12 (b) SPECIFICATIONS.—The Senate document de13 scribed in subsection (a) shall include illustrations and

14 shall be in the style, form, manner, and binding as di15 rected by the Joint Committee on Printing after consulta16 tion with the Secretary of the Senate.

17 (c) NUMBER OF COPIES.—In addition to the usual

18 number of copies, there shall be printed with suitable bind19 ing the lesser of—

20 (1) 1,500 copies for the use of the Senate, the

21 House of Representatives, and the Architect of the

22 Capitol, to be allocated as determined by the Sec23 retary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of

24 Representatives; or
3

•SCON 66 ATS

1 (2) a number of copies that does not have a

2 total production and printing cost of more than

3 $31,500.

Æ
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed August 23, 2023.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

Nos. 3D23-343, 3D23-344, 3D23-345, 3D23-346

Lower Tribunal Nos. 14-355-A-K, 12-168-A-M, 

 19-108-A-K, 15-14-B-M

________________

Whendid Estinfil,

Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida,

Appellee.

Appeals conducted pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 

(1967), from the Circuit Court for Monroe County, Mark H. Jones, Judge.

Whendid Estinfil, in proper person.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before SCALES, HENDON and GORDO, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
50061.

#### JOHNSON v. THE STATE.

Submitted January 6, 1975

Decided March 7, 1975.

W. *J. Stanley,*for appellant.

*Lewis R. Slaton, District Attorney, R. David Pe*
      *210
      *tersen, Thomas W. Hayes, Joseph J. Drolet, Assistant District Attorneys,*for appellee.

*209Bell, Chief Judge.

The defendant was convicted by the trial court, a jury trial having been waived, of two counts of aggravated sodomy. *Held:*

1. The trial court did not err in finding that the victim, a sixteen-year-old male, was a competent witness. The examination of the victim by the court and counsel established that the victim knew the difference between the truth and a lie; and that he could be sent to jail for failing to relate the truth. *Turpin v. State,*121 Ga. App. 294 (173 SE2d 455).

2. The evidence authorized the trial judge to find the defendant guilty of two acts of oral and anal sodomy by force and against the will of the victim. Code Ann. § 26-2002. The credibility of the victim’s testimony was for the trial judge’s determination and his judgment will not be disturbed by a reviewing court where as here there is evidence to support it. *State v. Swift,*232 Ga. 535 (207 SE2d 459).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Webb and Marshall, JJ., concur.*
EXHIBIT 32.1CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, the undersigned officer of BioMed Realty Trust, Inc. (the “Company”) hereby certifies, tosuch officer’s knowledge, that: (i) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly periodended September 30, 2006 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section13(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, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.        Dated: November 7, 2006 /s/ ALAN D. GOLD   Alan D. Gold   Chief Executive Officer        The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company,whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language insuch filing. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been providedto the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, the undersigned officer of BioMed Realty Trust, Inc. (the “Company”) hereby certifies, tosuch officer’s knowledge, that: (i) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly periodended September 30, 2006 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section13(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, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.        Dated: November 7, 2006 /s/ KENT GRIFFIN   Kent Griffin   Chief Financial Officer        The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company,whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language insuch filing. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been providedto the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-1626

BOR-TYNG SHEEN; FANG LUN TSAO; FUNG I. YUAN; TZU-KUAN LIN; 

CHEN-YU WEI; WEN-WANG YANG,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Raleigh. Richard E. Myers, II, Chief District Judge. (5:20-cv-00225-M)

Submitted: January 20, 2022 Decided: January 24, 2022

Before WILKINSON, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bor-Tyng Sheen; Fang Lun Tsao; Fung I. Yuan; Tzu-Kuan Lin; Chen-Yu Wei; Wen-Wang 

Yang, Appellants Pro Se. Asia Jamar Prince, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES 

ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 21-1626 Doc: 8 Filed: 01/24/2022 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Bor-Tyng Sheen, Fang Lun Tsao, Fung I. Yuan, Tzu-Kuan Lin, Chen-Yu Wei, and 

Wen-Wang Yang (“Plaintiffs”) appeal the district court’s order dismissing their civil action 

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Sheen v. United 

States, No. 5:20-cv-00225-M (E.D.N.C. Apr. 15, 2021). We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 21-1626 Doc: 8 Filed: 01/24/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
**EXHIBIT
      23.1**








INDEPENDENT
      REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM’S CONSENT








We
      consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement of
      Simtrol, Inc. and Subsidiaries on Form S-8 File No. 33-44036, Form S-8 File
      No.
      33-44035, Form S-3 File No. 33-55094, Form S-8 File No. 33-56856, Form S-8
      File
      No. 33-72512, Form S-8 File No. 33-81314, Form S-8 File No. 333-18237, Form
      S-8
      File No. 333-18239, Form S-3 File No. 333-44407, Form S-3 Amendment No. 1 File
      No. 333-48635, Form S-8 File No. 333-83035, Form S-3 Amendment No. 3 File No.
      333-87561, Form S-3 File No. 333-35578, Form SB-2 Amendment No. 1 File No.
      333-128420, Form SB-2 Amendment No. 1 File No. 333-120782, and Form S-8 File
      No.
      333-148890 of our report, which includes an explanatory paragraph as to the
      company’s ability to continue as a going concern, dated March 28, 2008, with
      respect to our audits of the consolidated financial statements of Simtrol,
      Inc.
      and Subsidiaries as of December 31, 2007 and for the years ended December 31,
      2007 and 2006, which report is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB
      of
      Simtrol, Inc. and Subsidiaries for the year ended December 31,
      2007.





/s/
      Marcum &
Kliegman LLP





New
      York, New
      York


March
      28,
      2008
50425.

#### HARRELL v. PETEET.

Submitted March 4, 1975

Decided March 7, 1975.

*Louis F. McDonald,*for appellant.

Bell, Chief Judge.

This appeal is from an alleged order holding the appellant in contempt of court. No fine or imprisonment has been imposed. *Held:*

The court in its order stated that if the contemner does not purge himself of the contempt that "... the Receiver is hereby directed to file a Motion supported by Affidavit declaring Defendant’s failure to comply requesting a hearing for the Defendant to show cause why he should not be confined to jail and fined as provided by law for wilful failure to purge himself of said contempt.” Until further action is taken, the contempt proceeding is pending in the court below and the alleged order is not appealable.

*Appeal dismissed.*

*Webb and Marshall, JJ., concur.*
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 14, 2015

No. 04-15-00764-CR

Andrew MENDIOLA,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014CR8633

Honorable Kevin M. O'Connell, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The trial court’s certification in this appeal states, “this criminal case is a plea-bargain 

case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 

25.2(d) provides the record in an appeal brought by a criminal defendant must contain a 

certification of right to appeal. TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d). If the record does not contain a 

certification that shows the defendant has a right of appeal, the appeal must be dismissed. Id. 

It is therefore ORDERED this appeal will be dismissed pursuant to rule 25.2(d) of the 

Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure unless appellant causes an amended trial court certification 

to be filed by December 28, 2015, showing appellant has the right of appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 

25.2(d); 37.1; see also Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); Daniels v. State,

110 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, no pet.). 

All other appellate deadlines are SUSPENDED pending resolution of the certification 

issue.

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 14th day of December, 2015.
___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> UT
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                    2,562,919
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                    822,201
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         569,356
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                       739,926
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,694,402
<COMMON>                                        73,119
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                      928,106
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            869,749
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>               1,499,153<F1>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            3,000
<PREFERRED>                                    225,051<F2>
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                         1,376,121
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                   75,321
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                     37,540
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                22,523
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>               1,455,693
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                4,694,402
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                    1,219,174
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            95,805<F3>
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     938,437
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     938,437
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                        280,737
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                             129,807
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                 410,544
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       115,638<F4>
<NET-INCOME>                                   199,101
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                  199,101
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                       106,959
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                       87,420
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         367,231
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.57
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.54
<FN>
<F1> Includes $(371,821) of Treasury Stock at cost
<F2> Includes $11,895 of Preference Stock
<F3> Non-Operating Expense
<F4> Includes $16,861 of Preferred and Preference Stock Dividends
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### Gary M. BOUGERE, Individually and as Mayor for the City of Harahan v. Thomas B. ANZELMO, Fred Barocco, Karen Ranatza and Tim Walker Aider-man of the City of Harahan, Individually and In Their Official Capacities.

No. 87-0-0723.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 15, 1987.

In re Anzelmo, Thomas B.; Barocco, Fred; Ranatza, Karen; Walker, Tim; applying for motion for expedited hearing and stay; Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court, Div. “G”, No. 340-946.

The appeal and the motion to expedite the appeal are transferred to the Court of Appeal. There is no clear ruling by the district court that the ordinance is unconstitutional.

DIXON, C.J., and DENNIS, J., dissent from the order.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of TAM of Henderson,
Inc. (the "Company"), does hereby certify under the standards set forth and
solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the
Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and information contained in that Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Dated: August 9, 2006                       /s/ Jiangping Jiang
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Jiangping Jiang,
                                            Chairman and Chief Executive 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.
#### Wheeler, Appellant, *v.*Remedial Loan Company of Philadelphia.

Argued Jan. 21,1918.

Appeal, No. 279, Jan. T., 1917, by plaintiff, from judgment of Superior Court, Oct. T., 1916, No. 310, affirming judgment of Municipal Court, Philadelphia County, May T., 1916, No. 268, for defendant in case tried without a jury, in case of William C. Wheeler v. Remedial Loan Company of Philadelphia.

Before Potter, Stewart, Moschzisker, Frazer and Walling, JJ.

Affirmed.

Appeal from Superior Court. See Commonwealth v. Puder, 261 Pa. 129.

Plaintiff brought suit to recover a sum charged by defendant for the use of money in excess of six per cent., alleging that such charge was usurious. Defendant ad*140mitted payment by plaintiff as alleged, but averred that it was a licensed money lender under the Act of June 17, 1915, P. L. 1012; and that the amounts charged were proper under the said statute. The case was tried by a judge without a jury, who found in favor of defendant, upon which judgment was entered. Plaintiff appealed to' the Superior Court, averring that the said Act of 1915 was unconstitutional. The Superior Court affirmed the judgment of the Municipal Court. Plaintiff appealed.

*Error assigned*was the judgment of the Superior Court.

*Edward A. Kelly,*for appellant.

*Thos. Raeburn White,*with him *T. Henry Walnut*and *Harry D. Wesoott,*for appellee.

April 22, 1918:

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Frazer,

In this case plaintiff appeals from a judgment for defendant in an action to recover the difference between the amount defendant charged plaintiff for a loan and the amount due with interest computed at the rate of six per cent. The question raised involves the constitutionality of the Act of June 17,1915, P. L. 1012, and as that question is fully discussed and determined in Commonwealth v.' Puder, nothing additional need be added here.

The judgment is affirmed.
#### Timmy Andrew CHRISTIAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.

No. F-84-8.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

Nov. 6, 1985.

Johnie O’Neil, Asst. Public Defender, Tulsa, for appellant.

Michael C. Turpén, Atty. Gen., Hugh A. Manning, Asst. Atty. Gen., Oklahoma City, for appellee.

OPINION

PARKS, Presiding Judge:

The appellant, Timmy Andrew Christian, was charged with, tried for, and convicted of Robbery with Firearm in the District Court of Tulsa County, Case No. CRF-83-129. The jury set punishment at seven (7) years imprisonment. Judgment and sentence was imposed in accord with the jury’s verdict, and appellant has filed a timely appeal to this Court. We affirm.

Appellant was convicted for the December 4, 1982 robbery of the Git-N-Go convenience store in Tulsa County. According to the facts adduced at trial, appellant and an unknown companion robbed the store clerk, Milton Carl Achterburg, at gunpoint, taking some $75.00 from the store safe.

In his first assignment of error, appellant claims his confession to police should have been suppressed, as the challenged statement was the product of an illegal, warrantless arrest. *Brown v. Illinois,*422 U.S. 590, 95 S.Ct. 2254, 45 L.Ed.2d 416 (1975). However, the record in this case does not support the appellant’s contention that the arrest was unlawfully effected.

The record in this case shows, and appellant concedes, that the arrest took place at the doorway of the appellant’s home. We held in *Finch v. State,*644 P.2d 1378 (Okl.Cr.1982), *cert. denied*459 U.S. 990, 103 S.Ct. 347, 74 L.Ed.2d 386 (1982), that a warrant is not necessary if the arrest is made with probable cause, and is made on the appellant’s doorstep. *Id.*at 1380. In this case, the arrest was made outside the appellant’s home and with sufficient probable cause. This assignment of error is therefore without merit.

Next, appellant claims the trial court erred in allowing Deputy Gary Bloss to testify regarding Mr. Achterberg’s extrajudicial identification of the appellant as one of the robbers. However, appellant made no objection to this evidence at the time it was admitted. In the absence of an objection, we cannot say this error consti*1134tuted reversible error. *See Towning v. State,*521 P.2d 415 (Okl.Cr.1974).

Accordingly, the judgment and sentence of the District Court should be, and the same hereby is, AFFIRMED.

BRETT, and BUSSEY, JJ., concur.
```

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 10 (Thursday, January 15, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 2092]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00443]

========================================================================
Notices
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules 
or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings 
and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings, 
delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency 
statements of organization and functions are examples of documents 
appearing in this section.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 10 / Thursday, January 15, 2015 / 
Notices

[[Page 2092]]

AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Notice of Renewal of Charter of the Advisory Committee on 
Voluntary Foreign Aid

AGENCY: United States Agency for International Development.

ACTION: Notice of charter renewal.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, notice is 
hereby given of the renewal of the Charter of the Advisory Committee on 
Voluntary Foreign Aid.

Purpose of the Committee

    The Advisory Committee on Voluntary Foreign Aid (ACVFA) brings 
together USAID and private voluntary organizations (PVO) officials, 
representatives from universities, international nongovernment 
organizations (NGOs), U.S. businesses, and government, multilateral, 
and private organizations to foster understanding, communication, and 
cooperation in the area of foreign aid.
    The Charter is being renewed for two years effective from the date 
of filing on January 13, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jayne Thomisee, 202-712-5506.

    Dated: January 9, 2015.
Christa White,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2015-00443 Filed 1-13-15; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 6116-02-P
```