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

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 279

Recognizing the service of the crew members of the USS Enterprise Battle

Group during its extended deployment for the war effort in Afghanistan.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NOVEMBER 27, 2001

Mr. SCHROCK (for himself, Mr. CRENSHAW, Mr. SIMMONS, Mr. LARSEN of

Washington, Mr. HOLT, Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia, Mr. FORBES,

and Mr. SCOTT) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was

referred to the Committee on Armed Services

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Recognizing the service of the crew members of the USS

Enterprise Battle Group during its extended deployment

for the war effort in Afghanistan.

Whereas the USS Enterprise Battle Group was completing

its deployment to the Persian Gulf in support of Operation Southern Watch over Iraq, and was en route back

to the United States when the terrorist attacks occurred

on September 11, 2001;

Whereas USS Enterprise promptly changed course and returned to remain in the region of its deployment to await

orders from the National Command Authority;

Whereas the USS Enterprise Battle Group, consisting of

USS Enterprise, USS Philippine Sea, USS Gettysburg,
2

•HCON 279 IH

USS Arctic, USS Providence, USS Jacksonville, USS

McFaul, USS Gonzalez, USS Stout, USS Thorn, USS

Nicholson, and USS Nicholas, and aircraft from Airwing

Eight, consisting of the VF14 Tophatters, the VF41

Black Aces, the VFA15 Valions, the VFA 87 Golden

Warriors, the VAW 124 Bear Aces, the VAQ 141

Shadowhawks, the VS 24 Scouts, and the HS 3 Tridents,

were involved in the first attack on Afghanistan in the

war against terrorism;

Whereas the deployment of these ships and their crews was

extended by several weeks in support of the war effort;

Whereas the families of the USS Enterprise Battle Group relied on each other for strength and support, while keeping faith in their loved ones to defend the freedoms and

ideals of the United States; and

Whereas USS Enterprise returned to the naval base in Norfolk, Virginia, on November 10, 2001: Now, therefore, be

it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That the Congress recognizes the service of

3 the crew members of the USS Enterprise Battle Group

4 during its extended deployment for the war effort in Af5 ghanistan.

Æ
III

107TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 338

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 6, 2002

Received and referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Authorizing the printing as a House document of a collection

of memorial tributes made in honor of the late Gerald

Solomon.

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring),
2

HCON 338 RFS

1 SECTION 1. AUTHORIZING PRINTING OF COLLECTION OF

2 STATEMENTS IN TRIBUTE TO GERALD SOL3 OMON.

4 A collection of statements made in tribute to the late

5 Gerald Solomon, together with related materials, shall be

6 printed as a House document under the direction of the

7 Joint Committee on Printing, with illustrations and suit8 able binding.

9 SEC. 2. NUMBER OF COPIES.

10 The number of copies of the document printed under

11 section 1 shall be the lesser of—

12 (1) 114 casebound copies, of which 50 copies

13 shall be provided to the family of the late Gerald

14 Solomon, 1 copy shall be provided to each Senator

15 from the State of New York, and 2 copies shall be

16 provided to each Member of the House of Represent17 atives from the State of New York; or

18 (2) such number of casebound copies as does

19 not exceed a total production and printing cost of
3

HCON 338 RFS

1 $25,525, with distribution to be allocated in the

2 same proportion as described in paragraph (1).

Passed the House of Representatives March 5,

2002.

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL,

Clerk.
[No. 14157-8-III.

Division Three.

July 30, 1996.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Ronald Alan Hall, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Stevens County, No. 94-1-00036-0, Larry M. Kristianson, J., entered July 1, 1994. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Sweeney, C.J., concurred in by Munson and Schul-theis, JJ.
H. Con. Res. 292 Agreed to December 20, 2001

One Hundred Seventh Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the third day of January, two thousand and one

Concurrent Resolution

Whereas the study of fossils has shown that the rose has been

a native wild flower in North America for over 35,000,000 years;

Whereas the rose is grown today in every State in the United

States;

Whereas the rose has long been used to symbolize love, friendship,

beauty, peace, and the devotion of the people of the United

States to their Nation;

Whereas the rose has been cultivated and grown in gardens for

over 5,000 years, and is referred to in both the Old and New

Testaments;

Whereas the rose has for many years captivated the affection of

humankind and it has been revered in art, music, and literature;

Whereas George Washington was a breeder of roses and one of

his varieties, named after his mother, is still grown today;

Whereas in 1986 the rose was designated as the national floral

emblem of the United States; and

Whereas the American Rose Society has designated 2002 as the

Year of the Rose: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That the Congress—

(1) supports the goals of the Year of the Rose; and
H. Con. Res. 292—2

(2) encourages the President to issue a proclamation calling

on the people of the United States to observe the year with

appropriate ceremonies and activities.

Attest:

Clerk of the House of Representatives.

Attest:

Secretary of the Senate.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, May 14, 2021. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, May 14, 2021 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A21A1174. BEN HET, LLC v. CAMELOT CLUB CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC.
Upon consideration of the APPELLANT'S motion FOR PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW THE APPEAL in the above styled case, it is ordered that the motion the hereby GRANTED, and jurisdiction is released back to the trial court upon receipt of this order.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, David M. Engert,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of NightHawk Radiology Holdings, Inc. for the quarter ended September 30, 2010
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and
results of operations of NightHawk Radiology Holdings, Inc.



|                       |  |  |  |        |  |                                                                    
|---------------------- |  |  |  | ------ |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: November 3, 2010 |  |  |  | By:    |  | /s/    DAVID M.
ENGERT                                             
|                       |  |  |  | Name:  |  | David M. Engert                                                    
|                       |  |  |  | Title: |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
**Exhibit 32.1**

** **

**INTERLINEBRANDS, INC.**

** **

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

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

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Interline Brands, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ended September 26, 2008 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael J. Grebe,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; 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/  MICHAEL J. GREBE                              |   |
|----------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Michael J. Grebe                                   |   |
| Chairman of the Board  and Chief Executive Officer |   |
| November 5,  2008                             |   |

 

----
#### Clifford McGHEE v. MID-STATE HOMES, INC., et al.

85-1442.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Feb. 27, 1987.

Keith A. Howard of Howard, Dunn, Howard & Howard, Wetumpka, for appellant.

Richard H. Gill of Copeland, Franco, Screws & Gill, Montgomery, for appellees Mid-State Homes, Inc., and Jim Walter Homes, Inc.

R.A. Norred, Birmingham, for appellee Jim Hamlin.

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff, Clifford McGhee, appeals from a summary judgment for the defendants, which was made final pursuant to Rule 54(b), A.R.Civ.P.

Because of our reversal of the summary judgment as to the plaintiff’s claims for wrongful foreclosure and for an accounting by defendant Mid-State Homes only,1 a detailed recital of the evidence offered in *280support of, and in opposition to, the motion for summary judgment would serve no useful purpose. Suffice it to say that the plaintiffs evidence is insufficient to raise a factual issue on any of his claims against any of the defendants except for his wrongful foreclosure claim against Mid-State Homes and his claim for an accounting by that defendant. As to those other claims, the summary judgment is affirmed.

This evidence, however, raised multiple factual issues, which the trial court necessarily determined in favor of Mid-State in order to grant its motion for summary judgment with respect to the plaintiffs claim for wrongful foreclosure. Because there were factual issues to be determined, summary judgment was improper. Rule 56(c), A.R.Civ.P. See *Cooper v. Elba Exchange Bank,*496 So.2d 41 (Ala.1986) (this case is instructive only to the extent of its holding that summary judgment was not appropriate as to the claim there asserted — wrongful foreclosure).

While, under the instant circumstances, the criminal conduct of Mid-State’s employee (misappropriation of corporate funds) is not imputable to the employer with respect to the plaintiffs claims based on misrepresentation, conspiracy, and the tort of outrage, whether Mid-State’s subsequent act of foreclosure is an actionable wrong is dependent, at least in part, upon the fact-finder’s determination of the status of the plaintiff’s mortgage payments.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED.

TORBERT, C.J., and JONES, SHORES, ADAMS and STEAGALL, JJ., concur.

1

. The trial court denied Mid-State’s motion for summary judgment on the plaintiffs claim for an accounting.
BOBBY JINDAL GOVERNOR HAROLD LEGGETT, PH.D. SECRETARY

## ~tate 

# of Jiouisiana
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 

### OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY December 14, 2009
Alfredo Armendariz, PhD. Administrator - 6RA US EPA Region 6 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200 Dallas, TX 75202-2733 RE: Finding ofAttainment for the 1997 8-hour Ozone Standard Baton Rouge Nonattainment Area Dear Dr. Armendariz: 

### m CO

I am pleased to report that in 2008 the five-parish Baton Rouge Ozone Nonattainment Area monitored attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). Based on ambient ozone monitoring data for the three-year period 2006-2008, the state of Louisiana requests that EPA make a finding of attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard under the Clean Air Act. The Baton Rouge ozone nonattainment area includes the parishes of Ascension, East Baton Rouge, Iberville, Livingston and West Baton Rouge. I have attached a copy of the 2008 Ozone Data Certification that was submitted to the US EPA Region 6 Air Quality Analysis Section. The submission of this data certifies that the Baton Rouge Ozone Nonattainment Area has met the criteria established in the EPA's Clean Data Policy reflected in the May 10, 1995, memorandum from John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, entitled "Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment Demonstration, and Related Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas Meeting the Ozone Ambient Air Quality Standard." Achievement ofthis milestone can be attributed to the implementation of many air control provisions of both state and federal law and to the diligent efforts through the years of state and local government, business and industry, environmental organizations and the citizens of the area. We will continue to build on this progress in order to further improve air quality.
Ifyou have any questions, please contact Michael Vince, Administrator of the Air Quality Assessment Division at 225-219-3488. Sine ely,

c: Thomas H. Diggs Guy Donaldson

Post Office Box 4301 • Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70821-4301 • Phone 225-219-3953 • Fax 225-219-3971 www:.deq.louisiana.gov
* 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

December 12, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-40585

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ERASMO ESPINOZA-GARCIA,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:04-CR-1774-ALL

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

Before KING, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Erasmo Espinoza-Garcia (Espinoza) appeals his guilty-plea

conviction of, and sentence for, violating 8 U.S.C. § 1326 by

being found in the United States without permission after

deportation. He argues, in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530

U.S. 466 (2000), that the 48-month term of imprisonment imposed

in his case exceeds the statutory maximum sentence allowed for

the § 1326(a) offense charged in his indictment. He challenges
No. 05-40585

-2-

the constitutionality of § 1326(b)’s treatment of prior felony

and aggravated felony convictions as sentencing factors rather

than elements of the offense that must be found by a jury. 

Espinoza’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). 

Although he contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly

decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule

Almendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi, we have repeatedly

rejected such arguments on the basis that Almendarez-Torres

remains binding. See United States v. Garza-Lopez, 410 F.3d 268,

276 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 298 (2005). Espinoza

properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of

Almendarez-Torres and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to

preserve it for further review. 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
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 Ameriprint International Ltd. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended July 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Kevin Moe, 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; and

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

Dated this 14th day of September, 2005.



| | /s/ Kevin Moe                                      
| | ---------------------------------------------------
| | Kevin Moe                                          
| | Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer















---
III

107TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 378

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

APRIL 24, 2002

Received and referred to the Committee on Armed Services

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Commending the District of Columbia National Guard, the

National Guard Bureau, and the entire Department of

Defense for the assistance provided to the United States

Capitol Police and the entire Congressional community

in response to the terrorist and anthrax attacks of September and October 2001.

Whereas the terrorist and anthrax attacks of September and

October 2001 required Congress and the entire Congressional community to respond to a heightened state of

emergency;

Whereas the men and women of the United States Capitol

Police were required to shoulder the greatest burden of

this emergency response by working tremendously
2

HCON 378 RFS

increased hours under difficult conditions, requiring great

sacrifices by them and their families;

Whereas the District of Columbia National Guard responded

to the call of the Capitol Police Board and provided National Guard troops to assist the United States Capitol

Police in protecting the Capitol complex, providing great

relief to the members of the United States Capitol Police;

and

Whereas the combined efforts of the United States Capitol

Police and the District of Columbia National Guard have

made the Capitol complex secure for Members of Congress, Congressional employees, and visitors, and thereby

have enabled Congress to continue to discharge its constitutional duties on behalf of the American people: Now,

therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That Congress commends the District of Co3 lumbia National Guard, the National Guard Bureau, and

4 the entire Department of Defense for the assistance pro5 vided to the United States Capitol Police and the entire

6 Congressional community in response to the terrorist and

7 anthrax attacks of September and October 2001.

Passed the House of Representatives April 23, 2002.

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL,

Clerk.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### International Trade Commission

          - [Investigation No. 731-TA-472 (Third Review)]

## Determination

                    On the basis of the record [1]                                          developed in the subject five-year review, the United States International Trade Commission (Commission) determines, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)), that revocation of the antidumping duty order on silicon metal from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.[2] 

## Background

The Commission instituted this review on November 1, 2011 (76 FR 67476) and determined on February 6, 2012 that it would conduct an expedited review (77 FR 10774, February 23, 2012).

                    The Commission transmitted its determination in this review to the Secretary of Commerce on March 30, 2012. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 4312 (March 2012), entitled                     *Silicon Metal from China: Investigation No. 731-TA-472**(Third Review).*

By order of the Commission.

Issued: March 30, 2012.

James R. Holbein,

Secretary to the Commission.

# Footnotes

1.                             The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)).                    
        Back to Citation      

2.                             Chairman Deanna Tanner Okun did not participate in this review.                    
        Back to Citation      

[FR Doc. 2012-8148 Filed 4-4-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7020-02-P