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

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 449 Received in Senate (RDS)]

  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 449

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 25, 2002

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
 Providing for representation by Congress at a special meeting in New 
             York, New York, on Friday, September 6, 2002.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That: (a) The Speaker of the House of Representatives (in consultation 
with the Minority Leader of the House of Representatives), with respect 
to the House of Representatives, and the President pro tempore of the

Senate (in consultation with the Majority Leader and the Minority 
Leader of the Senate), with respect to the Senate, may send such 
Representatives, Senators and other appropriate persons, to a special 
meeting of Congress and related events to be held on Friday, September 
6, 2002 in New York, New York, in remembrance of the terrorist attacks 
of September 11, 2001, and in recognition of the City of New York for 
the harm it sustained and its recovery.
    (b) Attendees under subsection (a) shall be led by the Speaker and 
the Minority Leader of the House of Representatives, and by the 
President pro tempore (or his designee), Majority Leader, and the 
Minority Leader of the Senate.
    Sec. 2. The Congress may accept the offer of the City of New York 
and entities controlled by the City of New York to host and pay the 
expenses of the Congress to prepare, attend, and participate in the 
special meeting of September 6, 2002, and related events of that day, 
referred to in section 1.
    Sec. 3. On behalf of the Congress, the officers of the House of 
Representatives and the officers of the Senate may make arrangements 
with the City of New York and other required entities and agencies for 
participation by the Congress for the purposes designated under this 
resolution.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 25, 2002.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
Exhibit 32.2  Section 1350 Certification  In connection with the quarterly report of Lotus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Adam Wasserman, Chief Financial 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.  November 14, 2008
        /s/ Adam Wasserman
 Adam Wasserman, Chief Financial Officer, principal financial and accounting officer  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement 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.
(a)  A review of Exeter Finance LLC’s activities and of its performance under the Sale and Servicing Agreement, dated as of January 23, 2022 (the “Sale and Servicing Agreement”), among Exeter Holdings Trust 2022-1, EFCAR, LLC, Exeter
          Finance LLC, as servicer (in such capacity, the “Servicer”), Exeter Automobile Receivables Trust 2022-1, and Citibank, N.A., as indenture trustee and backup servicer, during the period from February 23, 2022 to December 31, 2022 has been made
          under my supervision.
 
 (b)  To the best of my knowledge,
        based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Sale and Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout the aforementioned period.
 
   By:  /s/ Ben Miller
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 502 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  2d Session

                            H. CON. RES. 502

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

   Expressing the sense of the Congress in support of Breast Cancer 
                Awareness Month, and for other purposes.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
107th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 502

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Whereas every 3 minutes a woman is diagnosed with breast cancer;
Whereas 182,000 new cases of breast cancer are expected to be diagnosed in the 
        United States in 2002;
Whereas breast cancer is the leading cause of death in women between the ages of 
        40 and 55;
Whereas 1 in 8 women who lives to age 85 will develop breast cancer in her 
        lifetime;
Whereas when breast cancer is found early the survival rate is 96 percent;
Whereas mammograms and monthly breast self-examinations are the key components 
        of early detection; and
Whereas Breast Cancer Awareness Month provides a special opportunity to provide 
        education about the importance of monthly breast self-examinations and 
        annual mammograms: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That it is the sense of Congress that--
            (1) Breast Cancer Awareness Month provides a special 
        opportunity to provide education about the importance of 
        monthly breast self-examinations and annual mammograms;
            (2) it is appropriate to salute the more than 2,000,000 
        breast cancer survivors in the United States and the efforts of 
        victims, volunteers, and professionals who combat breast cancer 
        each day;
            (3) national and community organizations should be 
        recognized and applauded for their work in promoting awareness 
        about breast cancer and for providing information and treatment 
        to its sufferers; and
            (4) organizations and health practicioners are urged to use 
        this opportunity to promote awareness, monthly self-
        examinations, and annual mammograms.

            Passed the House of Representatives October 16, 2002.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Raymond T. MORGAN, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 80SA245.

Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc.

Nov. 10, 1980.

Dale Tooley, Dist. Atty., 0. Otto Moore, Asst. Dist. Atty., Brooke Wunnicke, Chief Appellate Deputy Dist. Atty., Denver, for plaintiff-appellant.

Marks & Olom, Jonathan L. Olom, Denver, for defendant-appellee.

HODGES, Chief Justice.

In this case, the People seek to bring an interlocutory appeal challenging certain determinations made by the district court during a hearing on a motion to clarify an earlier suppression ruling which had been affirmed on interlocutory appeal on February 25, 1980 in *People v. Morgan,*Colo., 606 P.2d 1296 (1980). We therein affirmed the district court’s ruling suppressing “all evidence relating to ... [a] severed fingertip.... ” The case was then returned to the district court for further proceedings and trial.

This interlocutory appeal is not properly before this court and is therefore dismissed.

On May 8, 1980, defense counsel filed a motion in the district court captioned “Motion for Clarification of Suppression Order.” The motion contained a list of eighteen evidentiary items, and defense counsel *65sought to have the court rule as to which of the items were covered by the district court’s earlier suppression ruling.

The transcript of the May 18, 1980 hearing on that motion reveals that the district court judge stated again and again that the proceeding was simply to clarify the earlier suppression order. There was no new suppression order issued in the course of this hearing.

Interlocutory appeals to this court in criminal cases are governed by the provisions of C.A.R. 4.1. The subject matter of such appeals is extremely narrow. Under the rule, interlocutory appeals may only be made by the State from adverse rulings by a district court to motions made pursuant to Crim.P. 41(e) (Motion for Return of Property and to Suppress Evidence), Crim.P. 41(g) (Suppression of Confession or Admission), and Crim.P. 41.1(i) (Court Order for Nontes-timonial Identification: Motion to Suppress). This court has on several occasions dismissed interlocutory appeals because they did not fall within the limitations of these rules. *See People v. McNulty,*173 Colo. 491, 480 P.2d 560 (1971); *People v. Thornburg,*173 Colo. 230, 477 P.2d 372 (1970).

The only ruling of a district court to a Crim.P. 41(e), (g) or 41.1(i) motion in this case occurred on May 7, 1979. That ruling was the subject of the interlocutory appeal decided by this court on February 25, 1980. We have affirmed that ruling in the prior interlocutory appeal and a second interlocutory appeal on this same ruling is improper. Nor may the State challenge by interlocutory appeal the determinations of the district court on the motion to clarify since the State’s objections do not involve adverse rulings under the specified rules of criminal procedure. *People v. Lott,*197 Colo. 78, 589 P.2d 945 (1979); *People v. Fidler,*175 Colo. 90, 485 P.2d 725 (1971); *People v. McNulty, supra; People v. Thornburg, supra.*

Appeal dismissed.
EXHIBIT 32

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 Naugatuck Valley Financial Corporation (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, John C. Roman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and I, Lee R.
Schlesinger, Vice President and Treasurer 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 result of operations of the Company as of the date and for the period covered by the Report.



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|                                     
|/s/ John C. Roman                    
|John C. Roman                        
|President and Chief Executive Officer



|                             
|-----------------------------
|                             
|/s/ Lee R. Schlesinger       
|Lee R. Schlesinger           
|Vice President and Treasurer 
|(Principal Financial Officer)



Date:
November 12, 2004
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

In connection with the Annual Report of Gores Holdings IX, Inc. (the “Registrant”) on Form 10‐K for the year ended December 31, 2021 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I certify, in the capacity and on the date indicated below, 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, as amended; and |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

 

This certificate is being furnished solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.

Date: March 24, 2022

|   |                                         |
|--------|----------------------------------------------|
|   | /s/ Andrew McBride                           |
|   | Andrew McBride                               |
|   | Chief Financial Officer                      |
|   | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) |
**Exhibit 32.1**

** **

**POLYPORE INTERNATIONAL, INC.**

** **

**CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

** **

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Polypore International, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ended October 3, 2009 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, RobertB. Toth, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, does herebycertify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.                                       The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.                                       The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date: November 6,  2009 | /s/ Robert B. Toth                     |
|------------------------------|----------------------------------------|
|                         | Robert B. Toth                         |
|                         | President and Chief  Executive Officer |

 

----
#### The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jack ADARGO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 79CA0304.

Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. II.

Sept. 4, 1980.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 25, 1980.

Certiorari Denied Jan. 19, 1981.

*594J. D. MacFarlane, Atty. Gen., Richard F. Hennessey, Deputy Atty. Gen., Mary J. Mullarkey, William Morris, Asst. Attys. Gen., Denver, for plaintiff-appellee.

Eugene Deikman, P. C., Denver, for defendant-appellant.

STERNBERG, Judge.

Jack Adargo appeals his conviction for the “soft” sale of narcotics under C.R.S. 1963, 48-5-2. We affirm.

In 1972, Adargo pled guilty to and was thereafter sentenced for the “hard” sale of a narcotic drug pursuant to C.R.S. 1963, 48-5-20. Subsequently, the Colorado Supreme Court distinguished “hard” and “soft” sale by making it plain that only the former requires the intent to induce another to use or possess narcotics. *People v. Patterson,*187 Colo. 431, 532 P.2d 342 (1975); *People v. Bowers,*187 Colo. 233, 530 P.2d 1282 (1974).

Based on those opinions the trial court granted Adargo’s Crim.P. 35(b) motion which asserted that he had not voluntarily pled guilty to a “hard” sale because he was not informed of one of the critical elements of that crime, specifically, the intent to induce another to possess narcotic drugs. At the hearing on his motion, Adargo established that he had not in fact initiated the transaction, but rather had merely committed a “soft” sale. Accordingly the trial court sentenced him for that crime and vacated the “hard” sale sentence.

In this appeal, Adargo claims that sentence was illegal because he was not “re-arraigned” as required by *Albritton v. People,*157 Colo. 518, 403 P.2d 772 (1965). We are not persuaded by defendant’s argument.

While the statutes and rule prescribe the necessary elements of an arraignment, § 16-7-203, C.R.S. 1973 (1978 Repl. Vol. 8), makes it clear that they have not created a ritual from which a court cannot deviate. See, e. *g., Harrington v. District Court,*192 Colo. 351, 559 P.2d 225 (1977); *Martinez v. People,*134 Colo. 82, 299 P.2d 510 (1956). Where, as here, the record indicates that defendant was present in the proper court, knew of the elements of the crime, and entered his plea, we conclude that there were no deficiencies in the proceeding requiring reversal. Cf. *People v. Keenan,*185 Colo. 317, 524 P.2d 604 (1974).

Adargo next argues that he did not actually plead guilty to a “soft” sale. However, he premises that contention on the failure of the court to arraign him on that charge prior to imposition of sentence. Since we found that he was, in fact, arraigned, the court could properly entertain his guilty plea. *See People v. Keenan, supra.*

Adargo’s claim that the court did not satisfy the requirements of Crim.P. 11 prior to receiving his plea of guilty to a “soft” sale is without factual basis in the record.

The judgment is affirmed.

PIERCE and SMITH, JJ., concur.
-84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74

 36

 38

 40

 42

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★

▲ ▲

▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 500

18 12 06 00

08/01

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 01 Aug 06

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.92 N 77.01 W Meters AGL
#### ELIZABETH BAPTIST CHURCH, INC. v. Van PONDER and Clint Carter, d/b/a Carter Pulpwood Company.

86-1011.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Dec. 4, 1987.

Malcolm R. Newman of Newman & Newman, Dothan, for appellant.

*614James W. Parkman III of Nomberg, McCabe & Parkman, Dothan, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Following a trial and a judgment for the defendants, the plaintiff appealed. The only issue raised is whether the court erred in denying the plaintiffs motion for default judgment. Because the plaintiff’s “motion for trial” averred that “all issues are joined,” we find no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in denying plaintiff’s motion for default judgment on the ground that the defendants failed to file an answer. *Oliver v. Sawyer,*359 So.2d 368 (Ala.1978); Rule 55, A.R.Civ.P.

AFFIRMED.

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

Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

June 16, 2015

Order 

June 16, 2015

151053(78)

CITY OF HOLLAND,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v

CONSUMERS ENERGY COMPANY,

Defendant-Appellant.

SC: 151053

COA: 315541

Ottawa CC: 12-002758-CZ

________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of the Michigan Municipal Electric 

Association (MMEA) to participate as amici curiae is GRANTED. The amicus brief 

submitted by the MMEA on June 10, 2015, is accepted for filing.
Record of Discus s ion Docket No. FAA- Directora t e ldenti tier: -AD With whom outside the FAA has this action been discussed (i.e., Design Approval Holder, manufacturer, ATA , NBAA, RAA, AOPA , ALPA, GAMA, etc)? 

### /

ORGAN I ZATION PERSON CONTACTED D ATE TOP I CS DISCUSSED 

### BOEING VARIOUS 2 012 TO PRESENT Oth er . List below.

Other / Additional Inf o rmati o n : 

### Discussions with Boe ing to investigate and to fix 

### the unsafe condition.
Exhibit
32.1





TOT
Energy, Inc.


12100 NE
16 Ave; Suite 210


North
Miami, FL 33161





February15,
2010





Securities
and Exchange Commission


100 F
Street, NE


Washington,
DC 20549





Re:
Certification Pursuant To 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350





Dear
Ladies and Gentlemen:





In
connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of TOT Energy,
Inc., for the quarter ended December 31, 2009, each of the undersigned hereby
certify pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections
(a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), to the
undersigned’s knowledge that:




1.
            such Quarterly Report on Form
      10-Q of TOT Energy, Inc., for the quarter ended December 31, 2009, 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 such
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of TOT Energy, Inc., for the quarter ended
      December 31, 2009, fairly presents, in all material respects, the
      financial condition and results of operations of TOT Energy,
      Inc.





BY:
      /S/ Mike ZoiMike
      ZoiChief
      Executive Officer(Principal
      Executive Officer)BY:
      /S/ Jonathan NewJonathan
      NewChief
      Financial Officer(Principal
      Financial and Accounting
Officer)





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to TOT Energy, Inc. and will be
retained by TOT Energy, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.





In
accordance with Item 601 of Regulation S-B, this certification is
being “furnished” as Exhibit 32.2 to TOT Energy, Inc.’s quarterly report
and shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) or otherwise subject to the
liabilities of that section, nor shall it be deemed incorporated by reference in
any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act, except as
expressly set forth by specific reference in such a filing.