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

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 197 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 197

 Referring S. 1698 entitled ``A bill for the relief of D.W. Jacobson, 
 Ronald Karkala, and Paul Bjorgen of Grand Rapids, Minnesota'' to the 
 chief judge of the United States Court of Federal Claims for a report 
                                thereon.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 6, 1999

Mr. Grams submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Referring S. 1698 entitled ``A bill for the relief of D.W. Jacobson, 
 Ronald Karkala, and Paul Bjorgen of Grand Rapids, Minnesota'' to the 
 chief judge of the United States Court of Federal Claims for a report 
                                thereon.

    Resolved,

SECTION 1. REFERRAL.

    S. 1698 entitled ``A bill for the relief of D.W. Jacobson, Ronald 
Karkala, and Paul Bjorgen of Grand Rapids, Minnesota'' now pending in 
the Senate, together with all the accompanying papers, is referred to 
the chief judge of the United States Court of Federal Claims.

SEC. 2. PROCEEDING AND REPORT.

    The chief judge shall--
            (1) proceed according to the provisions of sections 1492 
        and 2509 of title 28, United States Code; and
            (2) report back to the Senate, at the earliest practicable 
        date, providing--
                    (A) such findings of fact and conclusions that are 
                sufficient to inform the Congress of the nature, 
                extent, and character of the claim for compensation 
                referred to in such bill as a legal or equitable claim 
                against the United States or a gratuity; and
                    (B) the amount, if any, legally or equitably due 
                from the United States to D.W. Jacobson, Ronald 
                Karkala, and Paul Bjorgen of Grand Rapids, Minnesota.
                                 <all>
```
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**1005 KA 14-01971**  PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., CARNI, LINDLEY, CURRAN, AND SCUDDER, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DEVON SCOTT, ALSO KNOWN AS “GHOST”, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (ROBERT L. KEMP OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

MICHAEL J. FLAHERTY, JR., ACTING DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (NICHOLAS T. TEXIDO OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Russell P. Buscaglia, A.J.), rendered August 8, 2013. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of murder in the second degree.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him following a plea of guilty of murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25 [1]), defendant contends that his waiver of the right to appeal is not valid and that Supreme Court erred in refusing to suppress statements he made to the police as well as identification testimony from several witnesses. We reject defendant’s contentions.

Contrary to defendant’s contention, “the waiver of the right to appeal was not rendered invalid based on the court’s failure to require defendant to articulate the waiver in his own words” ( People v Dozier , 59 AD3d 987, 987, lv denied 12 NY3d 815). Moreover, the record establishes that the court “describ[ed] the nature of the right being waived without lumping that right into the panoply of trial rights automatically forfeited upon pleading guilty,” and ensured that defendant’s waiver was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered ( People v Lopez , 6 NY3d 248, 257; see e.g. People v McClain
, 112 AD3d 1334, 1335, lv denied 23 NY3d 965; People v Verse , 61 AD3d 1409, 1409, lv denied 12 NY3d 930). Defendant further contends that the waiver of the right to appeal was not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered based on his mental limitations, including potential learning disabilities. Although the record establishes that defendant “may be learning disabled,” there is no “ ‘indication that defendant was uninformed, confused or incompetent when he’ waived his right to appeal” ( People v DeFazio , 105 AD3d 1438, 1439, lv denied 21**-2- 1005 KA 14-01971** 
NY3d 1015), nor is there any basis to conclude that the court did not adequately mold its colloquy to the “age, experience and background of the accused” ( People v Seaberg , 74 NY2d 1, 11).

The valid waiver of the right to appeal forecloses any challenge by defendant to the court’s suppression rulings ( see People v Kemp , 94 NY2d 831, 833; People v Burley , 136 AD3d 1404, 1404, lv denied 27 NY3d 993).

Entered: November 10, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
*The Honorable James M. Rosenbaum, United States District Judge for the

District of Minnesota, sitting by designation.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 99-3839

___________

Marie Chapman, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Western

* District of Arkansas.

Western Arkansas Anesthesiology *

Associates, P.A.; Irene France, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellants. *

___________

Submitted: April 10, 2000

Filed: April 19, 2000

___________

Before McMILLIAN and FAGG, Circuit Judges, and ROSENBAUM,* District Judge.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Western Arkansas Anesthesiology Associates, P.A. and Irene France

(collectively the appellants) appeal the judgment of the district court entered on a jury

verdict holding them liable in Marie Chapman's medical malpractice action. After

careful consideration of the record and the parties' briefs, we conclude the district court

correctly rejected the appellants' claim that the testimony of Chapman's medical expert
-2-

should have been excluded because the expert was not familiar with the standard of

care for a certified registered nurse anesthetist in the Fort Smith, Arkansas, locality in

which the appellants practice or a similar community. We also conclude that an

extensive discussion would serve no useful precedential purpose in this diversity-based

case. Having concluded the district court's ruling is correct, we thus affirm the

judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
-RmJU. /o.c-0 *SsfG2Z/2LOlS'

~ftO-&Uwz,

ai&jubLZAjl A

y-aw^r

_^_^__sz/

_^ua'/^^--IX-/3:^z4.

nn, RECEIVED IN

.COURT-QF-GRIMINAt-APPEACS_

SEP23 2015

sw-t+a-jgfflg ^tosia.Cteik

CRIMINAL APPEAL

StcP~2j; u^4

Abel Acosta, Clem
witnesses against him, and shall have <^73*^TM?ErLtofagrand favor. No person shall be held to, answe,^.«^-«^'^ %84fll

presentedby counsel mcludes the right toconsult inprivate wun ^u^>

Except as otherwise provided ^f*^^1?^ 8roceedingS have been initiated and requests appointed counsel and ifadversarial judicial piu e

court or the courts' designee receives the defendants
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Joseph C. Jones, Plaintiff-Respondent, <br><br>against<br><br>Greyhound Express Port Authority, Defendant-Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Small Claims Part of the Civil Court of the City of New York (Debra R. Samuels, J.), entered August 21, 2018, after trial, in favor of plaintiff and awarding him damages in the principal sum of $2,500.</p><p>Per Curiam.</p><p>Judgment (Debra R. Samuels, J.), entered August 21, 2018, affirmed, without costs.</p><p>Applying the narrow review standard in this small claims action (<i>see</i> CCA 1807), and giving due deference to the trial court's findings of fact and credibility determinations (<i>see Williams v Roper</i>, 269 AD2d 125, 126 [2000], <i>lv dismissed </i>95 NY2d 898 [2000]), we sustain the judgment awarding plaintiff the reasonable value of his property that was lost by defendant, an interstate common carrier. The evidence, fairly interpreted, supports the finding that defendant failed to adduce evidence establishing that it limited its liability to $1,000 under the Carmack Amendment "by written declaration of the shipper or by a written agreement between the shipper and the carrier" (<i>see</i> 49 USC ยง 11706[c][3]).</p><p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p><br>I concur I concur I concur<br>Decision Date: May 17, 2019<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
Exhibit 99.1

                  Certification Required by 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350
                (Section 906 of the Sarbanes - Oxley Act of 2002)

         In connection with the filing by microwave Stelax Industries Ltd.
(the "Company") of the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ending March
31, 2002 (the "Report"), the undersigned hereby certifies, to the best
of his knowledge:

         1.       The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
                  13(a) and 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/ Harmon S. Hardy, Jr.
--------------------
Harmon S. Hardy, Jr.
President and Chief Financial Officer
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Annual Report of IdentiPHI, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K forthe period ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Steven M. Oyer, 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 therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and 

(2) The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

Date: March 31,2008
#### Carvel HOLLOMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4-86-2583.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Sept. 2, 1987.

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Margaret Good, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Jr., Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Diane E. Leeds, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

We reverse on the authority of *Whitehead v. State,*498 So.2d 863 (Fla.1986), and remand for resentencing so that the trial court may depart from the recommended sentencing guidelines range if it finds valid reasons for departure. *See Morganti v. State,*510 So.2d 1182 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987).

REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.

ANSTEAD, DELL and GUNTHER, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 61 (Thursday, March 29, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19011-19012]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7503]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


Notice of Commission Staff Attendance

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission hereby gives notice that 
members of the Commission's staff may attend the following meeting 
related to the transmission planning activities of the PJM 
Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM):

PJM Regional Transmission Planning Task Force Subgroups--March 23, 
2012, 9 a.m.-12 p.m., Local Time

    The above-referenced meeting will be held over conference call 
only.
    The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.
    Further information may be found at www.pjm.com.
    The discussions at the meeting described above may address matters 
at issue in the following proceedings:
    Docket No. EL05-121, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Docket No. ER06-456, ER06-954, ER06-1271, ER07-424, ER06-880, EL07-
57, ER07-1186, ER08-229, ER08-1065, ER09-497, and ER10-268, PJM 
Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Docket No. ER10-253 and EL10-14, Primary Power, L.L.C.
    Docket No. EL10-52, Central Transmission, LLC v. PJM 
Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Docket No. ER11-4070, RITELine Indiana et al.
    Docket No. ER11-2875 and EL11-20, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Docket No. ER09-1256, Potomac-Appalachian Transmission Highline, 
L.L.C.
    Docket No. ER09-1589, FirstEnergy Service Company.
    Docket No. EL11-56, FirstEnergy Service Company.

[[Page 19012]]

    Docket No. ER11-1844, Midwest Independent Transmission System 
Operator, Inc.
    Docket No. EL12-10, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Docket No. ER12-718, New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Docket No. ER12-1177, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Docket No. ER12-1178, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    For more information, contact Jonathan Fernandez, Office of Energy 
Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (202) 502-
6604 or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#177d787976637f76793971726579767973726d577172657439707861"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="9ef4f1f0ffeaf6fff0b0f8fbecf0fff0fafbe4def8fbecfdb0f9f1e8">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: March 22, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-7503 Filed 3-28-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATIONS OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18 U.S.C 1350)





Each of the undersigned officers of Cole Credit Property Trust , Inc. (the “Company”) hereby certifies, for purposes of Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge:





(i) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended June 30, 2010 (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





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





Cole Credit Property Trust , Inc.By:
/s/ Christopher H. ColeName:
Christopher H. ColeTitle:
Chief Executive Officer, President, and Director (Principal Executive Officer)By:
/s/ D. Kirk McAllaster, Jr.Name:
D. Kirk McAllaster, Jr.Date:
August 12, 2010

Title:
Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, and Director (Principal Financial Officer)





The foregoing certification is being furnished with the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010 pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and it 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 information language in such filing, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates by reference.





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.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 51 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. CON. RES. 51

 Providing for a conditional adjournment or recess of the Senate and a 
        conditional adjournment of the House of Representatives.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             August 5, 1999

   Mr. Lott submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
                        considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
 Providing for a conditional adjournment or recess of the Senate and a 
        conditional adjournment of the House of Representatives.

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That when the Senate recesses or adjourns at the close of business on 
Thursday, August 5, 1999, Friday, August 6, 1999, or Saturday, August 
7, 1999, on a motion offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by 
its Majority Leader or his designee, it stand recessed or adjourned 
until noon on Wednesday, September 8, 1999, or until such time on that 
day as may be specified by its Majority Leader or his designee in the 
motion to recess or adjourn, or until noon on the second day after 
Members are notified to reassemble pursuant to section 2 of this 
concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first; and that when the House 
adjourns on the legislative day of Thursday, August 5, 1999, Friday, 
August 6, 1999, or Saturday, August 7, 1999, on a motion offered 
pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader or his 
designee, it stand adjourned until 10:00 a.m. on Wednesday, September 
8, 1999, or until noon on the second day after Members are notified to 
reassemble pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, 
whichever occurs first.
    Sec. 2. The Majority Leader of the Senate and the Speaker of the 
House, acting jointly after consultation with the Minority Leader of 
the Senate and the Minority Leader of the House, shall notify the 
Members of the Senate and House, respectively, to reassemble whenever, 
in their opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7959
DENNIS E. YARRELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SERGEANT THOMAS; SUPERINTENDENT GINN, sued individually and in their official capacity, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (CA-95-944-5-BO) Submitted: March 21, 1996 Decided: April 12, 1996 Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dennis E. Yarrell, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Acc ordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Yarrell v. Thomas , No. CA-95-944-5-BO (E.D.N.C. Nov. 6, 1995). 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.

AFFIRMED
**EXHIBIT 32.1****CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, theundersigned officer of Xenonics Holdings, Inc (the “Company”) hereby certifies that, to hisknowledge:     (i) The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter ended December31, 2007 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and     (ii) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.        Dated:  February 12, 2008 /s/ Charles W. Hunter   Charles W. Hunter   Chief Executive Officer  
 

 
     **CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, theundersigned officer of Xenonics Holdings, Inc (the “Company”) hereby certifies that, to hisknowledge:     (i) The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter ended December31, 2007 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and     (ii) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.        Dated:  February 12, 2008 /s/ Richard S. Kay   Richard S. Kay
* Pursuant to 5th C I R

. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th C IR

. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-40721 Summary Calendar

ROMAN PERALES,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS, Chief Justice Thomas R. Phillips, Justices Raul A. Gonzalez, Nathan I. Hecht, John Cornyn, Craig Enoch, Rose Spector, Priscilla R. Owen, James A. Baker, Greg Abbott, in their individual and official capacities; DAN MORALES, Attorney General of Texas, individually and in his official capacity; and BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS OF TEXAS, Rachel Martin, Executive Director of Texas Board of Law Examiners, Warlick Carr, Chairman, Texas Board of Law Examiners, individually and in their official capacities,

Defendant-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

(B-96-CV-226)

March 27, 1998

Before JOHNSON, DeMOSS, and JONES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Pro se plaint iff Roman Perales appeals the district court’s

dismissal of his complaint. In his complaint, Perales argued that

the grading formula used in the 1991 Texas Bar Examination violated

the Sherman Act. The district court concluded that because2

Perales’s complaint was “about the way he was treated in the Texas

judicial system[,]” the court did not have subject matter

jurisdiction.

This Court re views a district court’s dismissal for lack of

jurisdiction de novo

. Musselwhite v. State Bar of Texas , 32 F.3d

942, 945 (5th Cir. 1994), cert. denied

, 515 U.S. 1103 (1995).

Under the Rooker/Feldman doctrine, federal courts lack jurisdiction

to entertain collateral attacks on state court judgments. L iedtke

v. State Bar of Texas , 18 F.3d 315, 317 (5th Cir.), cert. denied

,

513 U.S. 1036 (1994). Stripped to its essentials, Perales’s

complaint is an attack on the judgment of the state court.

Therefore, after a careful review of the record and the controlling

authorities, this Court holds that the district court did not err

in dismissing Perales’s complaint for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction. See Musslewhite , 32 F.3d at 945.

Perales also asserts that his right to access to the courts,

due process and equal protection were violated by the district

court’s dismissal of his complaint. A litigant’s right to access

to the courts is implicated where the ability to file suit is

delayed or blocked all together. Foster v. City of Lake Jackson

,
28 F.3d 425, 430 (5th Cir. 1994). The district court’s dismissal

of Perales’s complaint did not abridge his right of access to the

court, his right to due process or his right to equal protection.

This Court does not consider Perales’s argument in support of

mandamus as the issue is moot.3

Therefore, f or the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the

district court is AFFIRMED.