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

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 222

Expressing the sense of Congress regarding the inherent right of self-defense.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 10, 2001

Mr. SAXTON (for himself, Mr. ADERHOLT, Mr. PLATTS, and Mr. SMITH of

New Jersey) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on International Relations

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of Congress regarding the inherent

right of self-defense.

Whereas it is a recognized right of all sovereign nations to

act in their self-defense;

Whereas Article 51 of the United Nations Charter guarantees

the inherent right of all nations to act in their self-defense;

Whereas Israel is an ally of the United States with strong

cultural, scientific, educational, and religious ties to the

United States;

Whereas Israel is presently facing an enormous upsurge of

terrorist attacks aimed at disrupting normal life and instilling terror in the Israeli population, including the

June 2001 disco bombing in Tel Aviv where 20 were
2

•HCON 222 IH

killed and over 90 wounded as well as the August 9,

2001, restaurant bombing where 19 were killed and over

100 wounded;

Whereas according to the Mitchell Report’s recommendations,

Yassir Arafat, Chairman of the Palestinian Authority,

was urged to rearrest terrorists that were released from

prison, cease incitement, and take steps to prevent further terrorist activities;

Whereas Yassir Arafat and the Palestinian Authority have refused to arrest known terrorist leaders whose identity

and whereabouts are known or have been provided by

Israel;

Whereas because of the serious demonstrated threat of terrorism, Israel has been forced to act preemptively against

known terrorist leaders;

Whereas by preemptively preventing planned terrorist attacks

on its population, Israel is seeking to limit civilian casualties and diminish the need for wider military operations

more likely to result in even greater numbers of casualties; and

Whereas the internationally accepted inherent right of self-defense and the limited right of anticipatory self-defense

permit Israel to carry out preemptive, limited military actions to suppress the ability of terrorists or other armed

actors to carry out planned attacks against its people or

sovereign territory: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That Congress—

3 (1) reaffirms the inherent right of self-defense

4 against armed attack, as embodied in Article 51 of
3

•HCON 222 IH

1 the United Nations Charter, for all nations, includ2 ing Israel;

3 (2) recognizes that preemptive measures used

4 to prevent terrorist attacks on civilian populations

5 are a recognized and legitimate use of state power

6 in conformance with the inherent right of self-de7 fense of all nations including Israel; and

8 (3) supports Israel in its legitimate exercise of

9 internationally recognized rights of self-defense.

Æ
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 63 (Monday, April 2, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 19672]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7756]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2011-D-0618]


Draft Guidances Relating to the Development of Biosimilar 
Products; Public Hearing; Request for Comments; Correction

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of public hearing; request for comments; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is correcting a notice 
that appeared in the Federal Register of March 2, 2012 (77 FR 12853). 
The document announced a public hearing entitled ``Draft Guidances 
Related to the Development of Biosimilar Products; Public Hearing; 
Request for Comments'' to obtain input on recently issued draft 
guidances relating to the development of biosimilar products. The 
document published with an incorrect date for submission of electronic 
and written comments. This document corrects that error.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sandra J. Benton, Center for Drug 
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New 
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6340, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-
796-1042, Fax: 301-847-3529, email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4a28232539232723262b38393a3f28262329273e2d0a2c2e2b64222239642d253c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ee8c87819d878387828f9c9d9e9b8c82878d839a89ae888a8fc086869dc0898198">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In FR Doc. 2012-5070, appearing on page 
12853, in the Federal Register of Friday, March 2, 2012, the following 
correction is made:
    On page 12853, in the second column, in the DATES section, the last 
sentence is corrected to read: ``Electronic or written comments will be 
accepted after the public hearing until May 25, 2012.''

    Dated: March 26, 2012.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-7756 Filed 3-30-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


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

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 259 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  1st Session

                            H. CON. RES. 259

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

     Expressing the sense of Congress regarding the relief efforts 
  undertaken by charitable organizations and the people of the United 
  States in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks against the United 
              States that occurred on September 11, 2001.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 259

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Whereas the people of the United States have a long and honorable tradition of 
        assisting individuals, families, and communities in need;
Whereas charitable organizations play a vital role in delivering services to 
        individuals and families that are in need of relief;
Whereas charitable organizations are providing relief to the victims of the 
        terrorist attacks against the United States that occurred on September 
        11, 2001, and their families;
Whereas the people of the United States have been extremely generous in 
        contributing to charitable organizations that provide relief to the 
        victims of the terrorist attacks and their families; and
Whereas more than $1,000,000,000 has been collected for charitable work related 
        to the terrorist attacks: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That Congress--
            (1) praises the people of the United States for their 
        patriotism and generosity in donating their money, time, and 
        blood to support the victims of the terrorist attacks against 
        the United States that occurred on September 11, 2001, and 
        their families;
            (2) commends charitable organizations for their hard work 
        in providing needed assistance to the individuals and families 
        who have been affected by the terrorist attacks;
            (3) urges charitable organizations to use the money 
        collected from the people of the United States for the purposes 
        for which the money was donated, and to limit the extent to 
        which such money is used for administrative costs; and
            (4) condemns individuals and groups that fraudulently use 
        contributions for objectives unrelated to the purpose for which 
        the contributions were made.

            Passed the House of Representatives December 11, 2001.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATION**I, Stephen J. Hawrysz, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Eagle Test Systems, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:     (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;     (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, 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 registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):     (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’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 havea significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: August 11, 2006                     /s/ Stephen J. Hawrysz   Stephen J. Hawrysz   *Chief Financial Officer*
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 40 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.J.Res.40

                       One Hundred Sixth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

           Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday,
             the twenty-fourth day of January, two thousand

                            Joint Resolution

 
 Providing for the appointment of Alan G. Spoon as a citizen regent of 
          the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That, in accordance with 
section 5581 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (20 U.S.C. 
43), the vacancy on the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian 
Institution, in the class other than Members of Congress, occurring by 
reason of resignation of Louis Gerstner of New York, is filled by the 
appointment of Alan G. Spoon of Maryland. The appointment is for a term 
of 6 years and shall take effect on the date of enactment of this joint 
resolution.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PAUL E. JOZWIAK,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

RAYTHEON MISSILE SYSTEMS; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 20

- 17361

D.C. No. 4:20

- cv

- 00039

- DCB

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona David C. Bury, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 17, 2021 * *

Before: SILVERMAN, CHRISTEN, and LEE, Circuit Judges.

Paul E. Jozwiak appeals pro se from the district court ’ s judgment dismissing

his action alleging federal claims arising from the termination of his employment

and benefits

. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an

abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to serve the summons and complaint

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

AUG 26 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 20

- 17361

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). Oyama v. Sheehan ( In re Sheehan ),

253 F.3d 507, 511 (9th Cir. 2001). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Jozwiak’s action

because Jozwiak failed to effect proper service of the summons and amended

complain t after being given notice and repeated opportunit ies and directives to do

so. See Fed. R. Ci v. P. 4(m) (outlining requirements for proper service and

explaining that a district court may dismiss for failure to serve after providing

notice and absent a showing of good cause for failure to serve); Ariz. R. Civ. P.

4.1

- 4.2 (outlining requirements fo r proper service); In re Sheehan , 253 F.3d at 512

-

13 (discussing good cause and district court ’s broad discretion to dismiss an

action ).

The district court properly dismissed Jozwiak’s original complaint with

leave to amend for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2).

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (pleading must contain “a short and plain statement of

the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief”); McHenry v. Renne , 84

F.3d 1172, 1179

- 80 (9th Cir. 1996) (affirmin g dismissal of complaint that failed to

set forth simple, concise and direct averments); see also Barren v. Harrington , 152

F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is reviewed de novo ) ; Dominguez v. Miller ( In re Dominguez ),

51 F.3d 1502, 1508 n.5 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 is3 20

- 17361

reviewed de novo).

We reject as without merit Jozwiak’s contentions that the district court was

biased

.

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

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 **

|   | (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                Registrant. |
|--------|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                                                                          |                                                                |                           |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------|
| Dated                this 13th                day                of October, 2007.  | By:                                                       | /s/                Liang Zhang |
|                                                                                          | Liang                Zhang Chief                  Executive Officer |

----
107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 295

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That when the House adjourns on the legisla3 tive day of Thursday, December 20, 2001, or Friday, De4 cember 21, 2001, on a motion offered pursuant to this

5 concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader or his des-
2

•HCON 295 EH

1 ignee, it stand adjourned sine die, or until Members are

2 notified to reassemble pursuant to section 2 of this concur3 rent resolution, whichever occurs first; and that when the

4 Senate adjourns at the close of business on Thursday, De5 cember 20, 2001, or Friday, December 21, 2001, on a

6 motion offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by

7 its Majority Leader or his designee, it stand adjourned

8 sine die, or until Members are notified to reassemble pur9 suant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever

10 occurs first.

11 SEC. 2. The Speaker of the House and the Majority

12 Leader of the Senate, acting jointly after consultation with

13 the Minority Leader of the House and the Minority Lead14 er of the Senate, shall notify the Members of the House

15 and the Senate, respectively, to reassemble at such place

16 and time as they may designate whenever, in their opinion,

17 the public interest shall warrant it.

Passed the House of Representatives December 20,

2001.

Attest:

Clerk.
107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 295

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Providing for the sine die adjournment of the first

session of the One Hundred Seventh Congress.
IV

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 208

Providing for a conditional adjournment of the House of Representatives

and a conditional recess or adjournment of the Senate.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

AUGUST 2, 2001

Mr. ARMEY submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was

considered and agreed to

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Providing for a conditional adjournment of the House of

Representatives and a conditional recess or adjournment

of the Senate.

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That when the House adjourns on the legisla3 tive day of Thursday, August 2, 2001, or Friday, August

4 3, 2001, on a motion offered pursuant to this concurrent

5 resolution by its Majority Leader or his designee, it stand

6 adjourned until 2 p.m. on Wednesday, September 5, 2001,

7 or until noon on the second day after Members are notified

8 to reassemble pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent res9 olution, whichever occurs first; and that when the Senate

10 recesses or adjourns at the close of business on any day
2

HCON 208 ATH

1 from Thursday, August 2, 2001 through Saturday, Au2 gust 4, 2001, or from Monday, August 6, 2001, through

3 Saturday, August 11, 2001, on a motion offered pursuant

4 to this concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader or his

5 designee, it stand recessed or adjourned until noon on

6 Tuesday, September 4, 2001, or until such time on that

7 day as may be specified by its Majority Leader or his des8 ignee in the motion to recess or adjourn, or until noon

9 on the second day after Members are notified to reassem10 ble pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution,

11 whichever occurs first.

12 SEC. 2. The Speaker of the House and the Majority

13 Leader of the Senate, acting jointly after consultation with

14 the Minority Leader of the House and the Minority Lead15 er of the Senate, shall notify the Members of the House

16 and the Senate, respectively, to reassemble whenever, in

17 their opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.

Æ
#### Clarence WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Alaska, Appellee.

No. 6248.

Court of Appeals of Alaska.

Nov. 26, 1982.

*780Robert B. Downes, Cole & Downes, Fairbanks, for appellant.

Harry L. Davis, Dist. Atty., Fairbanks, and Wilson L. Condon, Atty. Gen., Juneau, for appellee.

Before BRYNER, C.J., and COATS and SINGLETON, JJ.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Clarence Williams was charged with the first degree murder of his wife, Nancy, AS 11.41.100(a)(1). The state alleged that Williams paid Lawrence Hoover to kill Nancy Williams. The facts regarding the murder are set out in our opinion in *Hoover v. State,*641 P.2d 1263 (Alaska App.1982) and will not be repeated here. Williams pled *nolo contendere*and thereafter filed a motion to withdraw his plea. The trial court denied the motion and Williams appeals. He argues that under our decision in *Love v. State,*630 P.2d 21 (Alaska App.1981), he was entitled to withdraw his plea. We have carefully reviewed the record and hold that the trial court was not clearly mistaken in concluding (1) that withdrawal was not necessary to prevent a “manifest injustice” and (2) that allowing Williams to withdraw his plea would subject the prosecution to “substantial prejudice.”1 Given these fact findings supported by evidence in the record, it is not necessary for us to determine whether Williams established “any fair and just reason” for withdrawing his plea. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Williams relief.

Williams also argued that a ninety-nine year sentence imposed for first degree murder was clearly excessive. We rejected a similar argument by Williams’ co-defendant in *Hoover v. State,*641 P.2d 1263 (Alaska App.1982). Williams argues that he should have received a lesser sentence than Hoover since the state believed that Hoover pulled the trigger. Assuming *arguendo*that Williams is correct that Hoover fired the fatal shots, we do not believe this fact standing alone entitles him to more lenient treatment. There was substantial evidence that Williams masterminded the killing and sought out Hoover for that purpose. The trial court carefully considered the evidence in light of the standards set out in *State v. Chaney,*477 P.2d 441 (Alaska 1970) and reached a result that was not clearly mistaken. *See McClain v. State,*519 P.2d 811 (Alaska 1974).

The judgment of conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.

1

. The state showed that in reliance on the plea, it had released a number of material witnesses who were either clearly unavailable or whose availability was in substantial doubt. Judge Blair found that Williams was attempting to manipulate the court by entering a plea and then withdrawing it in the hope that the state’s case would be damaged by this tactic. This finding is supported by substantial evidence.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Bruce BAINES.

No. 86-KK-2567.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 30, 1987.

In re Baines, Bruce; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 18823-KW; Parish of Madison, 6th Judicial District Court, Div. “B”, No. 49705.

Denied.