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

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 282 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 282

Congratulating the Huskies of the University of Connecticut for winning 
               the 2000 Women's Basketball Championship.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 5, 2000

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Congratulating the Huskies of the University of Connecticut for winning 
               the 2000 Women's Basketball Championship.

Whereas the University of Connecticut women's basketball team won its second 
        national championship in 5 years by defeating the University of 
        Tennessee by the score of 71-52;
Whereas the University of Connecticut Huskies entered the 2000 NCAA Tournament 
        with a perfect 15-0 record in the Big East Conference and with just one 
        loss during the regular season;
Whereas National Coach of the Year Geno Auriemma's team began the season ranked 
        number one in the Nation and will finish the season ranked number one in 
        the Nation;
Whereas the University of Connecticut Women Huskies brought the State of 
        Connecticut its second straight NCAA Basketball Title, following the 
        1999 championship of the University of Connecticut Men's team;
Whereas both Shea Ralph and Svetlana Abrosimova were chosen consensus All-
        Americans; Ralph was selected the NCAA tournament's Most Outstanding 
        Player; Kelly Schumacher set a championship-game record for blocked 
        shots with 9; and Ralph, Abrosimova, Sue Bird, and Asjha Jones were 
        named to the All-Tournament team;
Whereas the Huskies dominated March Madness, averaging 91.3 points and a 19-
        point margin of victory in the tournament;
Whereas University of Connecticut's 19-point win over Tennessee, the other 
        powerhouse of women's collegiate basketball, was the second largest 
        margin of victory ever in a championship game;
Whereas the high caliber of the University of Connecticut Women Huskies in both 
        athletics and academics has again advanced the sport of women's 
        basketball and provided inspiration for future generations of young 
        female athletes; and
Whereas the Huskies' season of accomplishment rallied Connecticut residents of 
        all ages, from Stamford to Storrs, from Norwalk to Norwich, behind a 
        common purpose and inspired a wave of euphoria across the State: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate commends the Huskies of the University of 
Connecticut for completing the 1999-2000 season with a 36-1 record and 
winning the 2000 NCAA Women's Basketball Championship.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 10(a)


 


August
9, 2005


 


Via Telecopy


 


JP Morgan Chase Bank

Loan and Agency Services Group

One Chase Manhattan Plaza, 8th Floor

New York, New York  10081

Attn: Agency Services

Telecopy No. (212) 552-2261


 


Mr. Scott Harvey

JP Morgan Chase Bank

2200 Ross Ave.

Dallas, TX  75201

Telecopy No. (214) 965-3849


 


Re:                     Second Amended and Restated Credit Agreement
dated as of June 13, 2002, as amended (the “Agreement”)


 


Dear Scott:


 


Pursuant to Section 2.4(a) of the Agreement,
Haggar is hereby notifying JP Morgan Chase Bank, as Agent, that we are reducing
the Commitments by $41,000,000 from $111,000,000 to $70,000,000 as of September
6, 2005.


 


Please confirm receipt and acceptance of this
request by signing and returning a copy of this letter to me by telecopy at 214-956-4561.


 


	
   

  	
  Sincerely,

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  /s/ John W. Feray

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  John W. Feray

  
	
   

  	
  SVP, Chief Accounting
  Officer

  
	
   

  
	
  Received and Accepted

  JP Morgan Chase Bank

  
	
  By:

  	
    /s/ D. Scott
  Harvey

  	
   

  
	
  Name and Title:

  	
     D. Scott
  Harvey, Vice President
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

July 25, 2011 

y0718 

Order 

 

July 25, 2011 

142530 & (20) 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 142530 

 COA: 297804 

Wayne CC: 93-005642-FH 

ARDENDOYLE ARMY, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the motion for stay is DENIED. The application for leave 

to appeal the December 28, 2010 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is 

DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement 

to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 62 (Friday, March 30, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19153-19154]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7684]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

20 CFR Parts 404 and 416

[Docket No. SSA 2006-0173]
RIN 0960-AG12


Nonpayment of Benefits to Fugitive Felons and Probation or Parole 
Violators

AGENCY: Social Security Administration.

ACTION: Proposed rules; withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: We are withdrawing the proposed rules we published in the 
Federal Register on December 5, 2005.

DATES: The proposed rules identified in this document are withdrawn as 
of March 30, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Rudick, Social Insurance 
Specialist, Office of Regulations, Social Security Administration, 6401 
Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, (410) 965-7102. For 
information on eligibility or filing for benefits, call our national 
toll-free number, 1-800-772-1213 or TTY 1-800-325-0778, or visit our 
Internet site, Social Security Online, at http://www.socialsecurity.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    On December 5, 2005, we published in the Federal Register a notice 
of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled ``Nonpayment of Benefits to 
Fugitive Felons and Probation and Parole Violators'' (70 FR 72411). We 
have decided not to pursue final rules based

[[Page 19154]]

on this NPRM at this time. Therefore, we are withdrawing this NPRM.

Michael J. Astrue,
Commissioner of Social Security.
[FR Doc. 2012-7684 Filed 3-29-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4191-02-P
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 September 30, 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: November 13, 2006                             /s/ Michael Carroll
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                  Michael Carroll
                                                  Principal Executive Officer
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 6841** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. ORRIS L. AVENT, a/k/a Junie Red , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Newport News . Arenda Wright Allen , District Judge. ( 4:99

- cr - 00055

- AWA

- 5 )

Submitted : July 19, 2012 Decided: July 26, 2012

Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Orris L. Avent, Appellant Pro Se. Timothy Richard Murphy, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this c ircuit.2 PER CURIAM: Orris L. Avent seeks to appeal the district court’s order treating his motion to dismiss the indictment as a successive 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 ( West Supp. 2012 ) motion, and dismissing it on that basis. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (2006) . 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) (2006)
. Wh en the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a deba table claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Avent has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the ap peal. Additionally, we construe Avent’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive3 § 2255 motion. United States v. Winestock , 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to file a successi ve § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on either: (1) newly discovered evidence, not previously discoverable by due diligence, that would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no rea sonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense; or (2) a new rule of constitutional law, previously unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on collateral review. 28 U.S.C. A. § 22 55(h ) (West Supp. 2012)
. Avent’s c laims do not satisfy either of these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to fi le a successive § 2255 motion. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argum ent would not aid the decisional
process.

DISMISSED
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-2405

In re: WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR.,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:14-cr-00240-BR-1; 5:18-cv-00238-BR)

Submitted: April 4, 2019 Decided: April 8, 2019

Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Scott Davis, Jr., Petitioner Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

William Scott Davis, Jr., petitions for a writ of mandamus directing several district 

court judges to recuse themselves from various cases involving Davis. Mandamus relief 

is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. U.S. 

Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); United States v. Moussaoui, 333 F.3d 509, 516-17 

(4th Cir. 2003). Further, mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a 

clear right to the relief sought. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 

(4th Cir. 1988).

We have reviewed Davis’ petition and conclude that he has not established the 

existence of extraordinary circumstances warranting mandamus relief. Davis’ allegations 

fall far short of those necessary to warrant recusal, In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 827 (4th 

Cir. 1987), and mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal, In re Lockheed 

Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). Accordingly, although we grant leave 

to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. 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.

PETITION DENIED
EXHIBIT 31.1



Certification



I, Stephen E. Carley, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this amended quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of El Pollo Loco, Inc. (the Company);



2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement
of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements and other financial
information included in this report fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4. The Companys other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Company and have:



(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the
Companys disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



(c) Disclosed in this report any change in
the Companys internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Companys most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Companys internal control over
financial reporting; and



5. The Companys other
certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Companys auditors and the audit committee of the Companys board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent functions):



(a) All significant
deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Companys ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;
and



(b) Any fraud, whether or not material,
that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Companys internal control over financial reporting.



|                     |  |  |  |  |  |                          |  |                                          
|-------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | ------------------------ |  | -----------------------------------------
|                     |  |  | 
|Date: August 4, 2004 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/    Stephen E. Carley
|                     |  |  |  |  |  |                          |  | Stephen E. Carley Chief Executive
Officer
III

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 116

Condemning the arrest and detention of 13 Iranian Jews accused of

espionage.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 10, 1999

Mr. FITZGERALD submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on Foreign Relations

RESOLUTION

Condemning the arrest and detention of 13 Iranian Jews

accused of espionage.

Whereas 13 Iranian Jews were arrested on accusation of espionage, and have been detained since April, 1999;

Whereas the United States and Israel have dismissed the

charges as false, denying any connection to the detainees;

Whereas Germany, as the current president of the European

Union, has expressed its deep concern at the arrest of the

13 Iranian Jews, and Joschka Fischer, German Foreign

Minister, has expressed his deep skepticism over the

charges, and has called for the release of the 13 detainees;
2

SRES 116 IS

Whereas the 13 detainees are rabbis and religious teachers,

living in a Jewish community in a southern province of

Iran, with no apparent ties to any type of espionage;

Whereas more than half the Iranian Jews have been forced

to leave the country, and five Jews have been executed

by Iranian authorities over the past five years, without

receiving a trial;

Whereas Iran hanged two people convicted of spying for

Israel and the U.S. in 1997, which implies impending

danger for these 13 prisoners; and

Whereas espionage is punishable by death in Iran: Now,

therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the Senate—

2 (1) condemns the arrest and detention of 13

3 Iranian Jews accused of spying for the United

4 States and Israel; and

5 (2) calls upon the Iranian authorities to release

6 these individuals immediately and without harm.

7 (3) calls upon the Iranian authorities to provide

8 internationally accepted legal protections to all its

9 citizens, regardless of their status or position.

Æ
Exhibit
32.1




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Macquarie Infrastructure Company LLC
(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2010,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), I, James Hooke, 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, to the best of my
knowledge and belief:





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





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




/s/ James
      HookeJames
      HookeChief
      Executive OfficerMay
      5, 2010




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.
#### STATE ex rel. Joe STANDLEY v. N. Burl CAIN, Warden, Dixon Correctional Institution.

No. 86-KH-2542.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 25, 1987.

In re Standley, Joe; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review, supervisory writ; Parish of St. Bernard, 34th Judicial District Court, Div. “C”, No. 79-504.

Denied.
<TABLE>
                                                                                                  Exhibit 11.01

                                          Elantec Semiconductor, Inc.

                                 Statement Re Computation of Per Share Earnings


<CAPTION>
                                                                                      September 30,
                                                                                 1997     1996     1995
                                                                                ------------------------
                                                                         (in thousands, except per share data)

<S>                                                                             <C>      <C>      <C>   
Net income                                                                      $  566   $4,389   $2,713
                                                                                ========================

Common and common equivalent shares outstanding:
   Common stock                                                                  8,881    8,505    1,858
   Convertible preferred stock                                                    --       --      4,937
   Common stock options                                                            442      827    1,055
                                                                                ------------------------
                                                                                 9,323    9,332    7,850
   Common and common  equivalent  shares  related to stock
     and option  issuances in accordance with SAB Nos. 55,
     64, and 83                                                                   --       --         24
                                                                                ------------------------

Common and common  equivalent shares used in computing per
   share amounts                                                                 9,323    9,332    7,874
                                                                                ========================
Net income per share                                                            $ 0.06   $ 0.47   $ 0.34
                                                                                ========================

</TABLE>
                                                       45
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with this quarterly report on
Form 10-Q of Atlantic Broadband Finance, LLC (the Company) for the quarter ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David J. Keefe, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|(i) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) 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 Atlantic Broadband Finance, LLC.
|---- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: November 12, 2009



/s/ David J. KeefeDavid J. KeefeChief Executive Officer and Director(Principal Executive Officer)


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
and is not being filed as part of this Report.