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

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 320 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 320

   To authorize testimony by Senate employee in state administrative 
                              proceeding.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              June 9, 2000

    Mr. Lott (for himself and Mr. Daschle) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   To authorize testimony by Senate employee in state administrative 
                              proceeding.

Whereas, in the Inquiry Relative to the Claim for Benefits of Yolanda Nock, 
        pending before the Department of Labor, in the County of Sussex, State 
        of Delaware, a subpoena for testimony has been issued to Elinor Hughes, 
        an employee of the Senate on the staff of Senator William V. Roth, Jr.;
Whereas, by the privileges of the Senate of the United States and rule XI of the 
        Standing Rules of the Senate, no evidence under the control or in the 
        possession of the Senate may, by the judicial or administrative process, 
        be taken from such control or possession but by permission of the 
        Senate; and
Whereas, when it appears that evidence under the control or in the possession of 
        the Senate may promote the administration of justice, the Senate will 
        take such action as will promote the ends of justice consistently with 
        the privileges of the Senate: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That Elinor Hughes is authorized to testify in the 
Inquiry Relative to the Claim for Benefits of Yolanda Nock, except 
concerning matters for which a privilege should be asserted.
                                 <all>
```
#### H.E. MILLS v. Julius P. MARTIN d/b/a RM Body Repair and Frame Center, Inc., Doris Moore Martin.

No. 87-C-1082.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 12, 1987.

In re Mills, H.E.; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of *70Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 86-CA-0649; Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court, Div. *“G”,*No. 310-287.

Prior report: La.App., 506 So.2d 117.

Denied. The result is correct.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2358 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2358

 To suspend temporarily the duty on certain warp knit open-work fabric.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 2009

  Mr. Voinovich (for himself and Mr. Brown) introduced the following 
  bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To suspend temporarily the duty on certain warp knit open-work fabric.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN WARP KNIT OPEN-WORK FABRIC.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00      Certain warp knit   Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                        open-work fabric                                                   31/2011.......
                        (provided for in
                        subheading
                        6005.31.00)......

    (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>
```
P.1 

OAR Box 1865 

Prepped by Charmelle Mathews 

Document Number: 

45) IV-E-33 

Docket Number: 

A-83-27 

Printed 12/3/2008 9:15:28 AM Sheet 45 of 105 
P.2 

RADIAN A-83-27 

CORPORATIO N 

IV-E-33 

TELEPHONE CALL REPORT - INDUSTRIAL BOILER: S02 ADDITIONAL ANALYSES 

DATE: April 7, 1987 

TO: Jim Coulthard 

Riley Stoker Corporation 

Post Office Box 547 

Worcester, MA 01613 

(617) 852-7100 

FROM: J.A. Elliott 

SUBJECT: Information on Riley Stoker FBC Unit at the University of 

Missouri 

Mr. Coulthard provided the following information: 

o University of Missouri (Columbia, MO) 

- One unit at 200,000 pph , 

- Projected to start up in September 1987 

- Circulating bed 

- Will burn bituminous coal with 4% sulfur content 

- Designed for 83% S0« removal 

- Design Ca/S ratio is about 1.5 to 2.0 

- Subject to 1.2 lb S02/MMBtu emission limit 

Progress Center/3200 E. Chapel Hill Rd./Nelson Hwy./P.O. Box 13000/Research Triangle Park. N.C. 27709/(919)541-9100 
P.3 

RiklY RILEY STOKER 

CORPORATION 

POST OFFICE BOX $tr* 204 0 

WORCESTER. MASSACHUSETTS 01613-2040 

C6175 852-7100 TELEX 920426 

July 14, 198? 

J. Thomas Waddell 

Radian Corporation 

Progress Center 

3200 E. Chapel Hill Rd./Nelson Hwy. 

P.O. Box 13000 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 

RE: Your letter of June 29, 1987 

Dear Mr. Waddell: 

Please find enclosed copies of the telephone call reports that 

you sent to me. The information pertaining to our University of 

Missouri contract is confirmed as being correct. I have annotated 

the information pertaining to our General Motors contract to bring 

it up to date and provide missing data. 

Please contact me should you need any further information. 

- j: c^JJtL^i 

Sincerely, 

RILEY STOKER CORPORATION 

Jim Coulthard 

JC/kaj 

Enclosures 

An Ashland Technology Company
EXHIBIT 32.1

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


         In connection with the Quarterly Report of The Flooring Zone, Inc. on
Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned,
Jimmy Lee, Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of
                  operations of the Company.




Date: October 2, 2006                         By:  /s/  Michael Carroll
                                                 -------------------------------
                                                 Michael Carroll, Principal
                                                 Executive Officer
<PAGE>





                                                                    EXHIBIT 21

                          SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY


                                                               Jurisdiction of
Entity                                                         Incorporation
------                                                         -------------

Atwood Convention Publishing Inc.                              Missouri
Atwood Publishing, LLC                                         Delaware
Casino Executive, LLC                                          Nevada
Casino Publishing Co.                                          Missouri
CORSEARCH, Inc.                                                Delaware
Crimesearch, Inc.                                              Oklahoma
Expo Magazine, Inc.                                            Kansas
EXPO Magazine, LLC                                             Delaware
FocalPoint Entertaining, Inc                                   Maryland
Galaxy Design & Printing, Inc.                                 Maryland
Galaxy Expocard Europe B.V.                                    Netherlands
Galaxy Information Services, LLC                               Delaware
Galaxy Registration, Inc.                                      Maryland
G.E.M. Communications, Inc.                                    Oklahoma
GEM Communications, LLC                                        Delaware
GEM Nevada, LLC                                                Delaware
Transportation Communications Services, Inc.                   Oklahoma
Total Information Services, Inc.                               Oklahoma
T/SF Europe, Inc.                                              Oklahoma
T/SF Investment Co.                                            Delaware
T/SF of Nevada, Inc.                                           Nevada
T/SF Holdings, LLC                                             Delaware
T/SF Operating LLC                                             Delaware
1 Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-31036 Summary Calendar

__________________

ARMANDO BATISTA-LEVYA, JR., Petitioner-Appellant,

versus
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 95-CV-122

- - - - - - - - - - April 15, 1996 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHÉ, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 1 Armando Batista-Levya appeals the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, in which he
challenged the Board of Immigration Appeals' decisi on dismissing
his appeal from the immigration judge's order of exclusion. Batista-Levya argues that he was denied due process of law at his
exclusion hearing due to lack of representation by counsel. An
excludable alien is not entitled to appointed counsel at government

expense at an exclusion hearing. S ee 8 U.S.C. § 1362; P richard-Ciriza v. I.N.S. , 978 F.2d 219, 222 (5th Cir. 1992). His assertion

that the immigration judg e violated certain sections of the Immigration Act is not considered f or failure to brief it

ade quately. S ee Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir.
1993). Batista-Levya also requests appointment of counsel and an evidentiary hearing. The motion for appointment of counsel is

DENIED. S ee Fifth Circuit Plan § 2; Santana v. Chandler , 961 F.2d
514, 516 (5th Cir. 1992). The motion for an evidentiary hearing is
DENIED as unnecessary.

AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 249 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 249

 To authorize testimony, document production, and legal representation 
             in Thomas Dwyer v. City of Pittsburgh, et al.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 31, 2000

    Mr. Lott (for himself and Mr. Daschle) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 To authorize testimony, document production, and legal representation 
             in Thomas Dwyer v. City of Pittsburgh, et al.

Whereas, in the case of Thomas Dwyer v. City of Pittsburgh, et al., pending in 
        the United States District Court for the Western District of 
        Pennsylvania, testimony has been requested from Emmet Mahon, an employee 
        in the office of Senator Rick Santorum;
Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 704(a)(2) of the Ethics in Government 
        Act of 1978, 2 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 288b(a) and 288c(a)(2), the Senate may 
        direct its counsel to represent employees of the Senate with respect to 
        any subpoena, order, or request for testimony relating to their official 
        responsibilities;
Whereas, by the privileges of the Senate of the United States and rule XI of the 
        Standing Rules of the Senate, no evidence under the control or in the 
        possession of the Senate may, by the judicial or administrative process, 
        be taken from such control or possession but by permission of the 
        Senate; and
Whereas, when it appears that evidence under the control or in the possession of 
        the Senate may promote the administration of justice, the Senate will 
        take such action as will promote the ends of justice consistently with 
        the privileges of the Senate: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That Emmet Mahon is authorized to testify and produce 
documents in the case of Thomas Dwyer v. City of Pittsburgh, et al., 
except concerning matters for which a privilege should be asserted.
    Sec. 2. The Senate Legal Counsel is authorized to represent Emmet 
Mahon in connection with the testimony and document production 
authorized in section one of this resolution.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Cogent, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Paul Kim, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

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

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

This
certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Dated: August 7, 2008



|                                                     
|-----------------------------------------------------
|/s/ PAUL KIM                                         
|Paul Kim                                             
|Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)
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 March 31, 2008 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: May 16, 2008 |  | By: |  | /s/    DOV
CHARNEY                   
|                   |  |     |  | Dov Charney                          
|                   |  |     |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
|                   |  |     |  | (Principal Executive Officer)
III

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. RES. 358

Relative to the Death of Murray Zweben, Parliamentarian Emeritus of the

United States Senate.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

SEPTEMBER 18, 2000

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

which was considered and agreed to

RESOLUTION

Relative to the Death of Murray Zweben, Parliamentarian

Emeritus of the United States Senate.

Whereas Murray Zweben served the Senate with honor and

distinction as its third Parliamentarian from 1974 to

1981;

Whereas Murray Zweben was Assistant Senate Parliamentarian from 1963 to 1974;

Whereas Murray Zweben served the Senate for more than 20

years;

Wheras Murray Zweben performed his Senate duties in an

impartial and professional manner;

Whereas Murray Zweben was honored by the Senate with the

title Parliamentarian Emeritus; and
2

SRES 358 ATS

Whereas Murray Zweben served his country as an officer in

the United States Navy from 1953 to 1956: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the Senate has heard with profound

2 sorrow and deep regret the announcement of the death

3 of the Honorable Murray Zweben, Parliamentarian Emer4 itus of the United States Senate; be it further

5 Resolved, That the Secretary of the Senate commu6 nicate these resolutions to the House of Representatives

7 and transmit an enrolled copy thereof to the family of the

8 deceased; and be it further

9 Resolved, That when the Senate adjourns today, it

10 stand adjourned as a further mark of respect to the mem11 ory of the Honorable Murray Zweben.

Æ
From: <Alicea.Jezebele@epamail.epa.gov>

To: "Keith Stephens" <Keith.Stephens@powersouth.com>

Date: 7/7/2010 2:31 PM

Subject: Re: PowerSouth Energy Cooperative Extension Request

Attachments: pic10968.jpg; ICR extension request.pdf

Greetings,

This e-mail is a confirmation that your extension request for the steam

electric effluent guidelines questionnaire was received. Extension

requests will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Please be aware that

submittal of an extension request to EPA does not alter the due date of

your questionnaire unless and until EPA agrees to the extension and

establishes a new date.

Sincerely,

(Embedded image moved to file: pic10968.jpg)
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 18-1164

___________________________

Courtney Bernard Clark

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

v.

Commissioner Tom Roy; Nanette Larson; Dr. Derek J. Schmidt; Centurion of

Minnesota; Dr. Stephen Craane; Kathy Reid; David Reishus; Katherine Powers

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court

for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis

 ____________

 Submitted: December 2, 2019

Filed: December 5, 2019

[Unpublished]

____________

Before GRUENDER, WOLLMAN, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.
Minnesota inmate CourtneyClark appealsthe district court’s

1

adverse grant of

summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Having carefully reviewed the

record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, see Marsh v. Phelps Cty., 902 F.3d 745,

751 (8th Cir. 2018) (de novo review of grant of summary judgment), we find no basis

for reversal. 

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We also deny

Clark’s appellate motions. 

______________________________

1The Honorable Susan Richard Nelson, United States District Judge for the

District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable

Hildy Bowbeer, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.

-2-
III

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 164

Congratulating the Black Bears of the University of Maine for winning

the 1999 NCAA hockey championship.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 27, 1999

Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Ms. COLLINS) submitted the following resolution;

which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

RESOLUTION

Congratulating the Black Bears of the University of Maine

for winning the 1999 NCAA hockey championship.

Whereas the Black Bears of the University of Maine defeated

the Wildcats of the University of New Hampshire by a

score of 3 to 2 in overtime in Anaheim, California, on

April 3, 1999, to win the 1999 NCAA hockey championship;

Whereas the Maine Black Bears finished their season with an

impressive record of 31–6–4, losing only 1 game at home;

Whereas the Maine Black Bears have brought the NCAA

hockey championship home to Maine for the 2d time this

decade;

Whereas the Maine Black Bears coaching staff and players

displayed outstanding dedication, teamwork, and sports-
2

•SRES 164 IS

manship throughout the season to achieve collegiate

hockey’s highest honor; and

Whereas the Maine Black Bears have brought pride and

honor to the State of Maine: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the Senate congratulates the Black

2 Bears of the University of Maine for winning the 1999

3 NCAA hockey championship.

4 SEC. 2. The Secretary of the Senate shall transmit

5 a copy of this resolution to the president of the University

6 of Maine.

Æ
#### Joseph Palia, Respondent, *v.*Harvey Ethridge, Appellant.

County Court, Niagara County,

March 31, 1959.

*Allan E. Disinger*for appellant.

*H. David Abbott*for respondent.

Frank J. Kronenberg, J.

Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Lockport City Court. Judgment was entered in that court on December 12, 1958 and notice of appeal was served on the Clerk of the City Court and on plaintiff’s attorney January 5, 1959.

Section 352 of the Charter of the City of Lockport provides that an appeal from a Lockport City Court judgment (as distinguished from an order granting a new trial) is to be taken in the same manner and with like effect as an appeal from a judgment entered in Justice’s Court.

Section 428 of the Justice Court Act requires that an appeal be taken within 20 days after entry of the judgment by serving a notice of appeal upon the justice and the respondent. *‘ ‘*A strict compliance with the statute is required ”. *(Kemack*v. *Coon;*143 Misc. 25, 27, also noting that “ The County Court *1077has no power to extend the time within which a party may appeal ”.)

In the instant ease judgment was entered December 12 and defendant’s time to appeal expired January 1, 1959, but was extended through Friday, January 2 by section 25-a of the General Construction Law, which provides that when a period of time ends on a public holiday, the period is deemed to include the next succeeding business day.

Defendant alleges that he failed to serve the notice of appeal on January 2 because the city offices, including City Court, were closed that day pursuant to permission granted by the Common Council of the city. He further states that he did not serve the notice on January 3 because that was Saturday and the City Court office was closed also on Saturday.

However, the action of the Common Council in granting permission to close on January 2 cannot be deemed to amend or extend section 25-a of the General Construction Law, nor does that section grant any extension of time when a period ends on Saturday. Under the circumstances here present, defendant’s proper procedure was to serve notice by mail pursuant to sections 430, 431 and 432. of the Justice Court Act.

Defendant also comments that he was not notified of the entry of judgment until December 16, 1958. This however, is immaterial.

“ It is unfortunate that appellant did not learn of the entry of judgment in time to perfect an appeal. But the procedure in the Justice’s Court, in effect, requires the attorney to watch the docket if he is desirous of appealing. The time to appeal runs from the date of the entry of judgment in the docket book of the justice. There is no procedure requiring notice of entry of judgment, and the justice is under no duty to notify the attorneys.” *(Bieser*v. *Weiner,*144 Misc. 94.) To the same effect see *Van Orsdale*v. *Genesee Val.*Garage (150 Misc. 655).

There being no legal excuse presented for failure to take a timely appeal, the motion to dismiss the appeal is granted.