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

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 46 Referred in House (RFH)]

  1st Session
S. CON. RES. 46

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 21, 1999

             Referred to the Committee on Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
     Expressing the sense of Congress that the July 20, 1999, 30th 
 anniversary of the first lunar landing should be a day of celebration 
      and reflection on the Apollo-11 mission to the Moon and the 
accomplishments of the Apollo program throughout the 1960's and 1970's.

Whereas the Apollo-11 mission successfully landed a manned spacecraft on the 
        Moon on July 20, 1969, marking the first time in history that humans 
        have walked on the surface of the Moon or any other planet;
Whereas the 6 Apollo missions successfully departed Earth aboard a Saturn V 
        Rocket, the largest and most powerful American rocket ever produced, en 
        route to the Moon;
Whereas 12 Americans successfully landed on the surface of the Moon where they 
        performed various experiments and collected samples for study, and 
        planted the flag of the United States of America in the lunar soil 
        achieving a milestone in American and human history;
Whereas the contributions of other Americans who made up the thousands of 
        contractors and Government employees who worked on the Apollo program 
        are recognized; and
Whereas the events of the Apollo missions are examples of the great achievements 
        of the American space program reflecting the explorer's spirit of the 
        American people: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That it is the sense of Congress that the 30th anniversary of the first 
lunar landing should be a day of celebration and reflection on the 
Apollo-11 mission to the Moon and the accomplishments of the Apollo 
program throughout the 1960's and 1970's.

            Passed the Senate July 20, 1999.

            Attest:

                                                    GARY SISCO,

                                                             Secretary.
```
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of the Chief Executive 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 American Apparel, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2009 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Dov Charney, President and Chief Executive 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:

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

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the period covered by the Report.



|                      |  |     |  |                                                                    
|--------------------- |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: August 17, 2009 |  | By: |  | /s/ DOV CHARNEY                                                    
|                      |  |     |  | Dov Charney                                                        
|                      |  |     |  | President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)



51
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 20 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. J. RES. 20

 Concerning the deployment of United States Armed Forces to the Kosovo 
                         region in Yugoslavia.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 20, 1999

   Mr. McCain (for himself, Mr. Biden, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. 
 Cochran, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Lugar, Mr. Robb, and Mr. Kerry) introduced the 
 following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the 
                     Committee on Foreign Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
 Concerning the deployment of United States Armed Forces to the Kosovo 
                         region in Yugoslavia.

Whereas the United States and its allies in the North Atlantic Treaty 
        Organization are conducting large-scale military operations against the 
        Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro); and
Whereas the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) has refused 
        to comply with NATO demands that it withdraw its military, paramilitary 
        and security forces from the province of Kosovo, allow the return of 
        ethnic Albanian refugees to their homes, and permit the establishment of 
        a NATO-led peacekeeping force in Kosovo: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the President is 
authorized to use all necessary force and other means, in concert with 
United States allies, to accomplish United States and North Atlantic 
Treaty Organization objectives in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia 
(Serbia and Montenegro).
                                 <all>
```
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No.
33-80466, No. 33-61215 and No. 33-39337 of Presstek, Inc. on Forms S-8 and in
Registration Statements No. 33-48342 and No. 333-2299 of Presstek, Inc. on Form
S-3 of our report dated March 15, 1995, appearing in this Annual Report on Form
10-K of Presstek, Inc. for the year ended December 28, 1996.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Bedford, New Hampshire
March 26, 1997
EXHIBIT
      32.2


CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


18
      U.S.C.
      1350,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of FUEGO ENTERTAINMENT, INC. (the
      "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended November 30, 2006, as filed
      with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
      Hugo M. Cancio, Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
      to
      18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
      of
      2002, that:





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





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





Date: January
                19, 2007
            By:
            /s/ Hugo
                M. CancioHugo
                M. CancioTitle:
                Principal Financial Officer
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

J.C. Pace, LTD., * From the County Court at Law

of Nolan County,

 Trial Court No. 2014.

Vs. No. 11-13-00133-CV * February 12, 2015

Odilia Sanchez, * Memorandum Opinion by Bailey, J.

 (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

 Willson, J., and Bailey, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there 

is error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s 

opinion, we reverse that portion of the trial court’s judgment in which it 

awarded sanctions and render judgment that Odilia Sanchez take nothing on 

her sanctions claim. In all other respects, the judgment of the trial court is 

affirmed. The costs incurred by reason of this appeal are taxed against Odilia 

Sanchez.
[Cite as State v. Young, 2012-Ohio-1732.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO 

HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO 

STATE OF OHIO, 

 Respondent-Appellee, 

 vs. 

AARON E. YOUNG, 

 Petitioner-Appellant. 

:

: 

: 

: 

: 

APPEAL NO. C-110274 

TRIAL NO. B-0701436 

O P I N I O N.

 

 

Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas 

 

Appeal Dismissed 

Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: April 20, 2012 

Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Paula E. Adams, 

Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Respondent-Appellee, 

Aaron E. Young, pro se. 

Please note: We have removed this case from the accelerated calendar. 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

 2

Per Curiam. 

{¶1} Petitioner-appellant Aaron E. Young presents on appeal a single 

assignment of error challenging the Hamilton County Common Pleas Court’s judgment 

denying his petition for postconviction relief. We dismiss the appeal because, without 

findings of fact and conclusions of law, the entry denying his postconviction petition is 

not a final appealable order. 

{¶2} Young was convicted upon guilty pleas to multiple counts of aggravated 

robbery and intimidation. In his direct appeal to this court, we affirmed his 

convictions. See State v. Young, 1st Dist. No. C-100065 (Nov. 17, 2010). 

{¶3} Young also challenged his convictions in a timely filed R.C. 2953.21 

petition for postconviction relief. The common pleas court denied the petition, and this 

appeal followed. 

{¶4} When dismissing or denying a timely filed postconviction petition, a 

common pleas court must make and file findings of fact and conclusions of law. See

R.C. 2953.21(C) and (G); State v. Lester, 41 Ohio St.2d 51, 322 N.E.2d 656 (1975), 

paragraph two of the syllabus. An entry dismissing or denying a postconviction petition 

“is incomplete and, thus, does not commence the running of the period for filing an 

appeal therefrom” if the entry does not contain findings of fact and conclusions of law, 

or if it does not otherwise apprise the petitioner of the basis for the decision or permit 

meaningful appellate review. State v. Mapson, 1 Ohio St.3d 217, 218, 438 N.E.2d 910 

(1982); see State ex rel. Carrion v. Harris, 40 Ohio St.3d 19, 19-20, 530 N.E.2d 1330 

(1988). Accord State v. Gholston, 1st Dist. No. C-010789, 2002-Ohio-3674. 

{¶5} The entry denying Young’s postconviction petition did not include 

findings of fact and conclusions of law. Nor does the entry otherwise apprise Young of 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

 3

the basis for the court’s decision or permit meaningful appellate review. Therefore, the 

entry is not a final appealable order. Accordingly, we dismiss Young’s appeal. 

Appeal dismissed.

HILDEBRANDT, P.J., DINKELACKER and FISCHER, JJ. 

Please note: 

 The court has recorded its own entry on the date of the release of this opinion.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-1184

MARIE A. BECTON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION; ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner 

of Social Security,

Defendants - Appellees.

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

Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:20-cv-00394-D)

Submitted: May 20, 2021 Decided: May 25, 2021

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marie Becton, Appellant Pro Se. Wanda Denise Mason, SOCIAL SECURITY 

ADMINISTRATION, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Marie A. Becton seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting Defendants’ first 

motion for an extension of time in which to file the administrative record and answer her 

complaint.

*

 This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, 

and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); 

Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The order Becton

seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. 

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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.

DISMISSED

* Becton states in her informal brief that she is also seeking to appeal the district 

court’s order denying her motion for default judgment. We conclude that Becton’s 

informal brief may not serve as a notice of appeal of that order because Becton filed her

brief outside the 60-day appeal period. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B); Smith v. Barry, 

502 U.S. 244, 248-49 (1992) (holding that appellate brief may serve as notice of appeal 

provided it otherwise complies with rules governing proper timing and substance).
#### Susan Guilliams WHEAT v. John Raymond WHEAT.

No. 87-CC-2514.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 18. 1987.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 8, 1988.

PER CURIAM.

Granted. The judgment of the trial court maintaining the exception of lack of venue to the habeas corpus petition and the exception of lis pendens in the custody action is set aside. La.C.C.P. art. 3822 (providing for venue in habeas corpus proceedings) is not applicable when the habeas corpus is ancillary to another suit. See Official Revision Comment (c). Moreover, venue in the custody matter is proper only in Jefferson Parish. The exceptions are overruled, and the case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings, with instructions to proceed summarily with the habeas corpus proceeding.
I

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 961

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 27, 2000

Referred to the Committee on Agriculture

AN ACT

To amend the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development

Act to improve shared appreciation arrangements.

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

S 961 RFH

1 SECTION 1. SHARED APPRECIATION ARRANGEMENTS.

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 353(e) of the Consoli3 dated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C.

4 2001(e)) is amended by striking paragraph (2) and insert5 ing the following:

6 ‘‘(2) TERMS.—A shared appreciation agreement

7 entered into by a borrower under this subsection

8 shall—

9 ‘‘(A) have a term not to exceed 10 years;

10 ‘‘(B) provide for recapture based on the

11 difference between—

12 ‘‘(i) the appraised value of the real se13 curity property at the time of restruc14 turing; and

15 ‘‘(ii) that value at the time of recap16 ture, except that that value shall not in17 clude the value of any capital improve18 ments made to the real security property

19 by the borrower after the time of restruc20 turing; and

21 ‘‘(C) allow the borrower to obtain a loan,

22 in addition to any other outstanding loans

23 under this title, to pay any amounts due on a

24 shared appreciation agreement, at a rate of in25 terest that is not greater than the rate of inter26 est on outstanding marketable obligations of
3

S 961 RFH

1 the United States of a maturity comparable to

2 that of the loan.’’.

3 (b) APPLICATION.—The amendment made by sub4 section (a) shall apply to a shared appreciation arrange5 ment entered into under section 353(e) of the Consoli6 dated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C.

7 2001(e)) that matures on or after the date of enactment

8 of this Act.

Passed the Senate November 19, 1999.

Attest: GARY SISCO,

Secretary.
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2116 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Polycaprolactone Diol #2. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

Mr. BUNNING introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Polycaprolactone Diol 

#2. 

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

3 SECTION 1. POLYCAPROLACTONE DIOL #2. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Caprolactone-neopentylglycol 

copolymer (CAS No. 69089– 

45–8) (provided for in subheading 3907.99.01) ............. Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2011 ’’. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2116 IS

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to articles entered, or withdrawn 

3 from warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day 

4 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

Decemb er 14, 2015

N o. 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. T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 25.2(d). If the record does not contain a

certification that shows the defendant has a right of appeal

, t he appeal must be dismissed. Id

. It is therefore ORDERED thi s 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 T EX

. R. A PP

. 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
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7825
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MARCUS OWEN WHITE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:01-cr-00091-HCM; 2:05-cv-378) Submitted: February 22, 2007 Decided: March 5, 2007 Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Marcus Owen White, Appellant Pro Se. Lisa Rae McKeel, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Marcus Owen White seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that White has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
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 June 30, 2006 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) orSection 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: August 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 June 30, 2006 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) orSection 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: August 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.
106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 90

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives

2 concurring),

3 SECTION 1. USE OF THE ROTUNDA OF THE CAPITOL.

4 The rotunda of the United States Capitol is author5 ized to be used on January 20, 2001, by the Joint Con6 gressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies in connec7 tion with the proceedings and ceremonies conducted for

8 the inauguration of the President-elect and the Vice Presi9 dent-elect of the United States.

Passed the Senate March 2, 2000.

Attest:

Secretary.
106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 90

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

To authorize the use of the rotunda of the Capitol

by the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies in connection with the proceedings and ceremonies conducted for the inauguration of the President-elect and the VicePresident-elect of the United States.