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

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 588 

Expressing the sense of the Senate regarding the need for transparency 

regarding meetings between President Donald J. Trump and Russian 

President Vladimir Putin. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 24, 2018 

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

Committee on Foreign Relations 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the Senate regarding the need for 

transparency regarding meetings between President Donald J. Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin. 

Whereas it is the unanimous conclusion of the United States 

intelligence community that the Government of the Russian Federation interfered in the 2016 Presidential election, at the direction of Russian President Vladimir 

Putin, to advance the candidacy of then-candidate Donald J. Trump; 

Whereas President Trump has repeatedly cast doubt on intelligence community conclusions regarding Russia’s attacks 

during the 2016 election and suggested at his Helsinki 

press conference, as he has in previous statements, that 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 588 IS 

he believes President Putin’s denials despite evidence to 

the contrary; 

Whereas President Trump and individuals associated with his 

2016 Presidential campaign remain subjects of an ongoing investigation led by Special Counsel Robert S. 

Mueller III relating to Russia’s efforts to interfere in the 

2016 United States Presidential election, an investigation 

which has yielded 32 indictments and 5 guilty pleas to 

date; 

Whereas President Trump reportedly personally requested 

that his meeting at the July 16, 2018, Helsinki Summit 

with President Putin be one-on-one and excluded other 

United States officials; and 

Whereas, since the Helsinki Summit, President Trump and 

President Putin alluded to oral agreements they made, 

the specifics of which have not been made known publicly: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that— 

2 (1) President Trump should not meet with 

3 President Putin or any official of the Russian Fed4 eration without another senior United States official 

5 present; and 

6 (2) the President, or a designee of the Presi7 dent, should within 7 days report to Congress, in the 

8 appropriate setting, on the substance of President 

9 Trump’s meeting with President Putin, including 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
3 

•SRES 588 IS 

1 any agreements or commitments made on behalf of 

2 the United States. 

Æ 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
#### Thomas Nisbet, Plaintiff in Error, v. E. E. Ropes, Defendant in Error.

(Supreme Court of Florida, Division A,

May 31, 1905.

Writ of Error to Circuit Court, Volusia county; Minor S. Jones, Judge.

*Geo. U. Walker,*for Plaintiff in Error.

*E.. E. Ropes in pro per.*

Per Curiam.

This action was brought by the defendant in error against the plaintiff in error. There was jujdgment for the plaintiff and the defendant takes writ of error. The judgment is affirmed.

Decision
#### Mary R. McAVOY, Individually and as Tutrix of the Minor Child, Kerry Lane Couvillon v. The Succession of Curtis Wayne SMITH, Data Chem, Inc., ABC Insurance Company, Harvey Canal Seaplane Service, Inc. and XYZ Insurance Company.

Nos. 86-CA-397, 86-CA-398.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fifth Circuit.

April 1, 1987.

Stephen P. Hall, Phelps, Dunbar, Marks, Claverie & Sims, New Orleans, for defendant-appellee Data Chem, Inc.

Edward D. Markle, Martin A. Stern, Adams & Reese, New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellant Mary R. McAvoy.

Joseph I. Montgomery, Newman, Drolla, Mathis, Brady *&*Wakefield, Metairie, for plaintiff-appellant Elaine Vincent McAvoy.

Before GAUDIN, DUFRESNE and GOTHARD, JJ.

GAUDIN, Judge.

This is an appeal from the granting of a partial summary judgment dismissing tort claims filed by the surviving widow and children of a passenger (Donnie McAvoy) killed in a seaplane crash. We affirm.

McAvoy and a fellow employee, Curtis W. Smith, a pilot, were authorized by their employer, Data Chem, Inc., to rent a Cessna 180 seaplane and to call on inland water clients.

Attempting to fly to Lafitte, Louisiana, the seaplane crashed, killing McAvoy and Smith. A toxicology report on Smith indicates that the pilot’s blood/alcohol level exceeded legal limits.

In granting the motion for partial summary judgment, the trial judge concluded that the provisions of LSA-R.S. 23:1032 limited petitioners to workmen’s compensation benefits inasmuch as (1) there was no *intentional*tort and (2) both McAvoy and Smith *were*within the course and scope of their employment when the accident occurred. The fact that the pilot was intoxi*131cated does not lessen the employer’s immunity protection under R.S. 23:1032, as the trial judge rightly found.

Appellants argue that LSA-R.S. 23:1081 provides, in part, that an employee’s intoxication at the time of an accident places the event outside “course and scope.” However, the possible availability of an affirmative defense to a worker’s claim does not detract from an employer’s statutory immunity.

We find the language of R.S. 23:1032 controlling and therefore affirm the judgment rendered in the district court on April 2, 1986. We have not been provided with any jurisprudence substantiating appellants’ legal or procedural position and we are unaware of any.

Appellants are to bear costs of this appeal.

AFFIRMED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-4008

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

KENNETH DUNCAN, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District 

Judge. (2:06-cr-01208-PMD-4) 

Submitted: November 12, 2008 Decided: November 26, 2008 

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Russell W. Mace, III, THE MACE FIRM, Myrtle Beach, South 

Carolina, for Appellant. Alston Calhoun Badger, Jr., Assistant 

United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

 Kenneth Lee Duncan appeals his conviction and 

sentence. Duncan pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to 

manufacture, possess with intent to distribute, and distribution 

of a mixture or substance containing fifty grams or more of 

methamphetamine. Duncan’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there 

are no meritorious issues for appeal but raising several issues 

regarding Duncan’s sentence. Duncan has filed a pro se 

supplemental brief. The Government has declined to file a 

brief. Finding no meritorious issues, we affirm. 

 Counsel asserts on Duncan’s behalf that the district 

court erred in finding Duncan culpable for over 500 grams of 

methamphetamine, in applying a two level enhancement for 

possession of a weapon, and in declining to grant Duncan a 

reduction for acceptance of responsibility. We have thoroughly 

reviewed the record and find no error in Duncan’s sentence. See

United States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449, 456 (4th Cir.), cert.

denied, 547 U.S. 1156 (2006). In addition, we have considered 

the issues raised by Duncan in his pro se supplemental brief and 

find the arguments to be without merit. 

 In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire 

record in this case and found no meritorious issues for appeal. 

We therefore affirm Duncan’s conviction and sentence. This 

2 
3 

court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of 

his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for 

further review. If the client requests that a petition be 

filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be 

frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to 

withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that 

a copy thereof was served on the client. Finally, 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
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. Section 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report ofLaycor Ventures Inc.(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Robert Wayne Morgan, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

| | (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 14thday of February, 2008.

ROBERT WAYNE MORGANRobert Wayne MorganChief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer




































---
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 Solo Cup Company (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended April 2, 2006 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert L. Hulseman, as Chief Executive 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, 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Robert L. Hulseman 
|Robert L. Hulseman     
|Chief Executive Officer
|May 16, 2006
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


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


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


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





I,
      Jibin
      Zhang, the Chief Financial Officer of Synutra International, Inc (the
“Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:





(a) The
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 of the
      Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(b) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(b) Information
      contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the
      financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Dated:
                November 10, 2006/s/
                Jibin Zhang
              Jibin
                Zhang
              Chief
                Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORTS

I, Patrick H. McGarey, Chief Financial Officer of Baseline Oil & Gas
Corp., a Nevada corporation (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) the Quarterly
Report on Form 10-QSB for the three months ended September 30, 2007 (the Report) which this statement accompanies fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and

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



|                         |  |                        
|------------------------ |  | -----------------------
|Dated: November 14, 2007 |  |                        
|                         | 
|                         |  | /s/ Patrick H. McGarey 
|                         |  | Patrick H. McGarey     
|                         |  | Chief Financial Officer

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.
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-04-091-CR

MODADA CLARKE	APPELLANT

	V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS	STATE

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

	FROM THE 396TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

	On April 14, 2000, pursuant to a plea bargain, appellant Modada Clarke pleaded guilty to the offense of aggravated sexual assault of a child under fourteen years of age.  Following the plea bargain agreement, the trial court deferred adjudication and placed appellant on eight years' community supervision.  On January 29, 2004, the State petitioned to proceed to adjudication and revoke appellant's community supervision.  Appellant pleaded true regarding a number of the violations alleged by the State.  The trial court revoked appellant's community supervision, adjudicated him guilty, and sentenced him to eight years' imprisonment.

	In his sole point on appeal, appellant challenges the legal sufficiency of the evidence to support the trial court's judgment revoking his community supervision.  Article 42.12, section 5 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure prohibits an appellant from raising error in the adjudication of guilt process. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, § 5(b) (Vernon Supp. 2004-05); Connolly v. State, 983 S.W.2d 738, 740-41 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999).  Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f). 				

								PER CURIAM

PANEL B:	MCCOY, LIVINGSTON, and GARDNER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED:  November 24, 2004
**
**Exhibit 33.6**

**Management’s Assessment of Compliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria**

1. Carvana Receivables Depositor LLC (the “Depositor”), as depositor, is responsible for assessing compliance with the Applicable ServicingCriteria (defined below) as of December 31, 2021, and for the year ended December 31, 2021 (the “Reporting Period”). The transactions covered by this report consist of all asset-backed securities transactions for which theDepositor acted as depositor involving a pool of fixed rate retail installment contracts used to finance the purchase of used cars and light trucks (the “Platform”). The asset-backed securities transactions included in the Platformare set forth in Appendix A hereto. 

2. The Depositor used the criteria set forth in paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB toassess its compliance with the following servicing criteria set forth in paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB (collectively, the “Applicable Servicing Criteria”): (1)(i), (1)(iii), (3)(i)(C), and (d)(4)(iii). All otherservicing criteria set forth in paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB are inapplicable to the Depositor based on the activities it performs with respect to the Platform. 

4. The Depositor has complied, in all material respects, with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of December 31, 2021 and for the Reporting Period withrespect to the Platform taken as a whole. 

5. Grant Thornton LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report onthe Depositor’s assessment of compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of December 31, 2021 and for the Reporting Period. 

March 25, 2022 

 
Carvana Receivables Depositor, LLCBy: /s/ Mike McKeeverName: Mike McKeeverTitle: President (senior officer in charge of securitization)**

Appendix A 

Carvana Auto Receivables Trust 2020-P1

Carvana Auto Receivables Trust 2021-N1

Carvana Auto Receivables Trust 2021-P1

Carvana Auto Receivables Trust 2021-N2

Carvana Auto Receivables Trust 2021-P2

Carvana Auto Receivables Trust 2021-N3

Carvana Auto Receivables Trust 2021-P3

Carvana Auto Receivables Trust 2021-N4

Carvana Auto Receivables Trust 2021-P4

 
2
#### The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Velma Lee LINDSAY, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 80CA0460.

Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. III.

Aug. 6, 1981.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 27, 1981.

Certiorari Denied Nov. 16, 1981.

J. D. MacFarlane, Atty. Gen., Richard F. Hennessey, Deputy Atty. Gen., Mary J. Mullarkey, Sol. Gen., Morgan Rumler, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for plaintiff-appellee.

J. Gregory Walta, Colorado State Public Defender, Margaret L. O’Leary, Gerald E. Piper, Deputy State Public Defenders, Denver, for defendant-appellant.

PIERCE, Judge.

Defendant, Velma Lee Lindsay, Jr., appeals his conviction of theft of a thing of *1319value worth over $200 in violation of 18-4-401 C.R.S.1973 (1978 Repl. Vol. 8). We affirm.

Lindsay was apprehended in the act of removing two suits from a department store without paying for them. The total shown on the price tags for the two suits was $205. The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred by excluding evidence of the wholesale cost of the merchandise that was the subject of the theft. We conclude that, under the circumstances of this case, it was not.

Here, there is no indication from the evidence that the seller by custom bargained its labelled prices. If the thief had attempted to purchase the items on the date and at the place of the theft, he would have had to pay the stated retail price for the items, and he should not be allowed the benefit of any lesser value than a purchaser would have had. *See Maisel v. People,*166 Colo. 161, 442 P.2d 399 (1968).

In the process of the retailer’s function of moving goods to the consuming public, the market value of retail goods is enhanced. An article in a retail outlet has a value significantly different from that which it had in the hands of the wholesaler. Retail price therefore is the better evidence of value. *People v. Irrizari,*5 N.Y.2d 142, 182 N.Y.S.2d 361, 156 N.E.2d 69 (1959); *Maisel*v. *People, supra.*Once the retail price of allegedly stolen items from a retail outlet has been established, the wholesale price becomes irrelevant, and the defendant should not be allowed to submit such evidence. *Brown v. State,*143 Ga.App. 678, 239 S.E.2d 556 (1977).

The defendant was given ample opportunity to attack the retail price as not representing true retail market value, but failed to make such a showing. The record contains sufficient competent evidence to support the jury’s verdict on the question of value. *Lee v. People,*137 Colo. 465, 326 P.2d 660 (1958).

The judgment is affirmed.

ENOCH, C. J., and SMITH, J., concur.
```

[Senate Hearing 114-851]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                        S. Hrg. 114-851
 
                                [ERRATA]
                          DO YOU KNOW WHAT IS
                       IN YOUR SUITCASE? HOW DRUG
                       TRAFFICKERS ARE DECEIVING
                     SENIORS TO SMUGGLE CONTRABAND

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                       SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON AGING

                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                    ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                             WASHINGTON, DC

                               __________

                           FEBRUARY 10, 2016

                               __________

                           Serial No. 114-19

         Printed for the use of the Special Committee on Aging
         
         
 [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]        
         

        Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov

      
                             ______                       

             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 
48-285 PDF           WASHINGTON : 2022 
      
      
      
      

                                [ERRATA]

    An error was made in the hearing Do You Know What is in 
Your Suitcase? How Drug Traffickers Are Deceiving Seniors to 
Smuggle Contraband. The name Priscilla Hanley was inadvertently 
listed in the Committee member section instead of Mark B. LeDuc 
as the Majority Staff Director for the Special Committee on 
Aging.
```
##### 



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)
    
    the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended June
30, 2006 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section
15(d), as applicable, 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 the Company.
  By:/s/ John EmeryJohn EmeryChief Executive Officer and Director(Principal Executive Officer)
  39