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

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 284 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 284

 To authorize testimony, document production, and legal representation 
         in United States of America v. George Patrick Calhoon.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 7, 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 United States of America v. George Patrick Calhoon.

Whereas, in the case of United States of America v. George Patrick Calhoon, Cr. 
        No. H-99-111, pending in the United States District Court for the 
        Southern District of Texas, testimony has been requested from Court 
        Koenning and Patrick McCartney, employees in the office of Senator Phil 
        Gramm;
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 Court Koenning, Patrick McCartney, and any other 
employee of Senator Gramm's office from whom testimony may be required, 
are authorized to testify and produce documents in the case of United 
States of America v. George Patrick Calhoon, except concerning matters 
for which a privilege should be asserted.
    Sec. 2. The Senate Legal Counsel is authorized to represent Court 
Koenning, Patrick McCartney, and any other employee of Senator Gramm's 
office in connection with the testimony and document production 
authorized in section one of this resolution.
                                 <all>
```
cc: Hon. Carolyn Ellsworth, District Judge 

Rayford Carlos Willis 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A e 2
**IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

No. 06-0920

IN RE  ALLSTATE TEXAS LLOYDS AND DAVID RADIGAN

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus

**ORDERED:**

1.Relators’ motion for emergency relief, filed January 9, 2007, is granted.   All trial court proceedings in Cause No. C-821-03-B, styled *Minerva Martinez v. Allstate Texas Lloyds, David Radigan, and VIP Insurance*, in the 93rd District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas, are stayed pending further order of this Court.

2.The petition for writ of mandamus remains pending before this Court.

Done at the City of Austin, this February 09, 2007.

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

Supreme Court of Texas

By Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**I-LINK INCORPORATED**

 

**OFFICER’S CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002(18 U.S.C. 1350)**

 

October 14, 2003

 

 

Theundersigned Gary M. Clifford, duly appointed and incumbent officer of I-LinkIncorporated, a Florida corporation (the “Corporation”), in connection with theCorporation’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the annual period ended December31, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), does hereby represent, warrant and certify pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, as amended, that, to the best ofhis knowledge:

 

1.               TheReport is in full compliance with reporting requirements of Section 13(a) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

2.               Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operation of the Corporation.

 

 
|   |   | /s/ Gary M.  Clifford    |   |
|--------|--------|--------------------------|--------|
|   |   | Gary M.  Clifford        |
|   |   | Chief  Financial Officer |

 

----
1 Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 29, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-60631

Summary Calendar

 

BRIAN F. HOGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

ROBERT L. JOHNSON, COMMISSIONER, MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT Of

CORRECTIONS; EMMITT L. SPARKMAN, Superintendent, Mississippi

State Penitentiary; ETHEL CARLIZE, Disciplinary Chairperson;

GORMILLA, Officer,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 4:02-CV-152-P-A

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

Before JONES, DUHÉ, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:1

Brian F. Hogan, Mississippi prisoner #67383, appeals from the

dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to state a

claim, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Hogan argues

that the district court erred by dismissing his action for failure

to state a claim. He argues that he did not receive due process

and that he did identify a cognizable liberty interest because his
2

disciplinary hearing resulted by operation of prison policy in

additional time being added to the period he already was serving in

administrative segregation.

The Due Process Clause was not implicated by the 30 days’ loss

of privileges Hogan alleged he received as punishment at

his disciplinary hearing. To the extent that any extension of

Hogan’s time in segregation resulting from the disciplinary hearing

might be actionable in Hogan’s challenge to the hearing, there is

no protected liberty interest against segregated confinement.

Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484, 486 (1995). The dismissal of

Hogan’s action for failure to state a claim was not erroneous.

Hogan’s appeal is without arguable merit and is dismissed as

frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983);

5TH CIR. R. 42.2. The district court’s dismissal of Hogan’s action

and this court’s dismissal of his appeal each count as a “strike”

against Hogan for purposes of 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(g). Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir.

1996). This court previously dismissed one of Hogan’s appeals as

frivolous. Hogan v. Nobles, No. 99-60295, 2 (5th Cir. Oct. 17,

2000) (unpublished). Hogan thus has three “strikes” and he may not

proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is

incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under

imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(g). 
3

APPEAL DISMISSED. 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)

SANCTION IMPOSED.
Exhibit 23.1



                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
                       ----------------------------------


We  hereby  consent  to  the  incorporation  by  reference  in  the Registration
Statements  on  Form  S-3 (File Nos. 333-20093, 333-62701, 333-94715, 333-45180,
333-68412  and  333-82158)  and  Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Files Nos.
333-11939,  333-62491,  333-11941  and 333-45208) of LifeCell Corporation of our
report  dated  February  12,  2003,  which  appears  in  this  Form  10-K.


PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Florham Park, NJ
March 26, 2003


<PAGE>
Exhibit 32.1





STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Southern Community Financial Corp. (the Company) for the quarter ended March 31, 2004, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial officer of the Company hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that based on their knowledge and belief: (1) the Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2004 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 Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2004 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the periods presented.











/s/ Thomas W. Winfree

May 14, 2004

Thomas W. Winfree

Date

Chief Executive Officer











/s/ C. Harril Whitehurst, Jr.

May 14, 2004

C. Harril Whitehurst, Jr.

Date

Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.0


                            CORD BLOOD AMERICA, INC.

      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 Cord Blood America, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Matthew L. Schissler, Chief Executive Officer (Principal 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:

         (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 results of operations of the
Company.


Date:   June 17, 2005


                                                  /s/ Matthew L. Schissler
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                  Matthew L. Schissler
                                                  Chief Executive Officer
                                                  (Principal Executive Officer)
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED MARCH 2, 2021

NO. 03

- 20

- 00563

- CV

C. A. C. , Appellant

v.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services , Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 146TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY

BEFORE JUST ICES GOODWIN, TRIANA, AND KELLY

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the tr i a l court on November 3, 2020

. Having

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the C ourt holds that there was no reversible error

in the trial court’s judgment

. Therefore, the C ourt affirms the trial court’s judgment

. Because

appellant is indi gent and u nable to pay costs, no adjudica t i on of costs is made.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 70 Referred in House (RFH)]

  2d Session
S. CON. RES. 70

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 4, 2000

             Referred to the Committee on Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Requesting that the United States Postal Service issue a commemorative 
 postage stamp honoring the national veterans service organizations of 
                           the United States.

Whereas United States service personnel have fought, bled, and died in every 
        war, conflict, police action, and military intervention in which the 
        United States has engaged during this century and throughout the 
        Nation's history;
Whereas throughout history, veterans service organizations have ably represented 
        the interests of veterans in Congress and State legislatures across the 
        Nation, and established networks of trained service officers who, at no 
        charge, have helped millions of veterans and their families secure the 
        education, disability compensation, and health care benefits they are 
        rightfully entitled to receive as a result of the military service 
        performed by those veterans; and
Whereas veterans service organizations have been deeply involved in countless 
        local community service projects and have been constant reminders of the 
        American ideals of duty, honor, and national service: Now, therefore, be 
        it
    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That the Congress requests that--
            (1) the United States Postal Service issue a series of 
        commemorative postage stamps honoring the legacy and the 
        continuing contributions of veterans service organizations to 
        the United States; and
            (2) the Citizens' Stamp Advisory Committee recommend to the 
        Postmaster General that such a series of commemorative postage 
        stamps be issued.

            Passed the Senate October 3 (legislative day, September 
      22), 2000.

            Attest:

                                                    GARY SISCO,

                                                             Secretary.
```
AAM-13-323-E

May 01, 2013

 Exemption No. 10287A

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2011-0600

Mr. Scott Bekken

Director of Operations

Executive Air Taxi Corp.

P.O. Box 2273

Bismarck, ND 58502

Dear Mr. Bekken:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption No. 

10287. It explains the basis for our decision, describes its effect, and lists the conditions and 

limitations.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated April 1, 2013, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on 

behalf of Executive Air Taxi Corporation (EAT) for an exemption from part 120 of Title 14, 

Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) to the extent necessary to allow EAT to cover its 

safety-sensitive employees under one testing program while operating under separate parts of 

the regulation.

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons 

relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any 

delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to EAT.

Our Decision
2

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 10287 

remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the 

authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has 

delegated to me, I grant your petition, subject to the following conditions and limitations.

Conditions and Limitations 

1. Employees of Executive Air Taxi are subject to the drug and alcohol regulations at 

all times while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91.

2. The drug and alcohol program must be implemented under the auspices of the 

Executive Air Taxi part 135 operation, not under part 91.

This exemption terminates on July 31, 2015, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/

James R. Fraser, M.D.

Deputy Federal Air Surgeon
|  | ·   | Registration      Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-60865) pertaining to the Hawk Corporation 1997      Stock Option Plan |
|--|--------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| ·   | Registration      Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-68583) pertaining to the Friction Products      Co.  Profit Sharing Plan; S.K. Wellman Retirement Savings and      Profit Sharing Plan, Helsel,Inc.  Employee’s Retirement Plan;      Helsel, Inc. Employee’s Savings and Investment Plan; Sinterloy Corporation      401(k) plan; Hawk Motors, Inc. Employees’ 401(k) Plan; Hawk Corporation      401(k) Savings and Retirement Plan; and Quarter Master Industries, Inc.      Profit Sharing Plan and Trust |
|--------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| ·   | Registration      Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-47220) pertaining to the Hawk Corporation 2000      Long Term Incentive Plan |
|--------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| ·   | Registration      Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-147832) pertaining to the Hawk Corporation      Deferred Compensation Plan |
|--------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
### UNPUBLISHED



# UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



#  U NITED S TATES OF A MERICA ,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 02-4271



# 
K ORELL E LLIS , Defendant-Appellant. 

# 

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

James C. Fox, Senior District Judge.

(CR-01-93) Submitted: December 6, 2002 Decided: December 27, 2002 Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

COUNSELGeoffrey W. Hosford, HOSFORD & HOSFORD, P.L.L.C., Wilmington, North Carolina, for Appellant. Frank D. Whitney, United States Attorney, Kimberly A. Moore, Assistant United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

OPINION
PER CURIAM:Korell Ellis appeals his conviction and 295-month sentence following his guilty plea to possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2000), and carrying or possessing a firearm during a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) (2000). Ellis claims the Assistant United States Attorney failed to inform his defense counsel regarding the drug quantity attributable to him as relevant conduct during plea negotiations. Ellis further contends that this constituted a breach of the plea agreement. Ellis also claims he relied on the predictions of counsel regarding his likely sentence and that these predictions were based on his counsel’s discussions with the prosecutor. At his Rule 11 hearing, however, Ellis affirmed that no one had promised him what his sentence would be. Moreover, Ellis concedes his plea agreement does not contain any language regarding his guidelines range or promises from the Government as to his guidelines range. During the plea hearing, Ellis was informed of the process by which the relevant conduct determination would be made and the maximum sentence he faced. Ellis told the court that he had not been promised a specific sentence and that no one made any prediction as to what his sentence might be. The court informed Ellis that it would make an independent determination regarding relevant conduct and that a presentence report would be prepared by the probation office. Furthermore, there is no evidence of prosecutorial misconduct. The prosecutor advised the district court that defense counsel was informed that other individuals had been interviewed and "put weight on the defendant." Ellis cites no evidence in the record that these statements were incorrect or that the Government misled defense counsel during plea negotiations. 2 U NITED S TATES v. E LLISAccordingly, we affirm Ellis’ conviction and sentence. 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 3 U NITED S TATES v. E LLIS
III

Calendar No. 278

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 178

Designating the week beginning September 19, 1999, as ‘‘National

Historically Black Colleges and Universities Week’’.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

AUGUST 5, 1999

Mr. THURMOND (for himself, Mr. COCHRAN, Mr. CHAFEE, Mr. SARBANES,

Mr. TORRICELLI, Mr. CLELAND, Mr. HOLLINGS, Mr. ROBB, Mr. FRIST,

Mrs. LINCOLN, Mr. THOMPSON, Mr. MACK, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. ABRAHAM, Mr. LOTT, Mr. SPECTER, Mr. EDWARDS, Mr. COVERDELL, Mr.

NICKLES, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. GRASSLEY, Mr. BROWNBACK, Mr.

ASHCROFT, Mr. DODD, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Mr. CRAIG, Mr. LAUTENBERG,

Mr. DURBIN, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. ALLARD, Mr. BREAUX, Mr. BUNNING,

Mr. BURNS, Mr. CAMPBELL, Mr. CONRAD, Mr. CRAPO, Mr. DEWINE,

Mr. FITZGERALD, Mr. GRAMM, Mr. HELMS, Mr. HUTCHINSON, Ms.

HUTCHISON, Mr. INOUYE, Mr. JEFFORDS, Mr. KERRY, Ms. LANDRIEU,

Mr. MCCONNELL, Mr. ROBERTS, Mr. ROCKEFELLER, Mr. SMITH of New

Hampshire, Mr. SMITH of Oregon, Mr. WELLSTONE, and Mr. WARNER

submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee

on the Judiciary

SEPTEMBER 16, 1999

Reported by Mr. HATCH, without amendment

SEPTEMBER 16, 1999

Considered and agreed to

RESOLUTION

Designating the week beginning September 19, 1999, as
2

SRES 178 RS

‘‘National Historically Black Colleges and Universities

Week’’.

Whereas there are 105 historically black colleges and universities in the United States;

Whereas black colleges and universities provide the quality

education so essential to full participation in a complex,

highly technological society;

Whereas black colleges and universities have a rich heritage

and have played a prominent role in American history;

Whereas black colleges and universities have allowed many

underprivileged students to attain their full potential

through higher education; and

Whereas the achievements and goals of historically black colleges and universities are deserving of national recognition: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved,

2 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF ‘‘NATIONAL HISTORICALLY

3 BLACK COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES WEEK’’.

4 The Senate—

5 (1) designates the week beginning September

6 19, 1999, as ‘‘National Historically Black Colleges

7 and Universities Week’’; and

8 (2) requests that the President of the United

9 States issue a proclamation calling on the people of

10 the United States and interested groups to observe

11 the week with appropriate ceremonies, activities, and
3

SRES 178 RS

1 programs to demonstrate support for historically

2 black colleges and universities in the United States.

Calendar No. 278

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 178

RESOLUTION

Designating the week beginning September 19,

1999, as ‘‘National Historically Black Collegesand Universities Week’’.

SEPTEMBER 16, 1999

Reported without amendment

Considered and agreed to