alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
H. Con. Res. 25 Agreed to December 12, 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 at least two children born each day will be affected with

tuberous sclerosis;

Whereas nearly one million people worldwide are known to have

tuberous sclerosis;

Whereas tuberous sclerosis affects all races and ethnic groups

equally;

Whereas tuberous sclerosis is caused by either an inherited

autosomal disorder or by a spontaneous genetic mutation;

Whereas when tuberous sclerosis is genetically transmitted as an

autosomal dominant disorder, a child with a parent with the

gene will have a 50-percent chance of inheriting the disease;

Whereas two-thirds of the cases of tuberous sclerosis are believed

to be a result of spontaneous mutation, although the cause of

such mutations is a mystery;

Whereas diagnosis takes an average of 90 days with consultation

of at least three specialists;

Whereas tuberous sclerosis frequently goes undiagnosed because

of the obscurity of the disease and the mild form the symptoms

may take; and

Whereas the Congress as an institution, and Members of Congress

as individuals, are in unique positions to help raise public awareness about the need for increased funding for research, detection,

and treatment of tuberous sclerosis and to support the fight

against tuberous sclerosis: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that—

(1) all Americans should take an active role in the fight

against tuberous sclerosis by all means available to them,

including early and complete clinical testing and investigating

family histories;

(2) the role played by national and community organizations and health care providers in promoting awareness of

the importance of early diagnosis, testing, and ongoing

screening should be recognized and applauded;

(3) the Federal Government has a responsibility to—

(A) endeavor to raise awareness about the importance

of the early detection of, and proper treatment for, tuberous

sclerosis;

(B) increase funding for research so that the causes

of, and improved treatment for, tuberous sclerosis may

be discovered; and
H. Con. Res. 25—2

(C) continue to consider ways to improve access to,

and the quality of, health care services for detecting and

treating tuberous sclerosis; and

(4) the Director of the National Institutes of Health should

take a leadership role in the fight against tuberous sclerosis

by acting with appropriate offices within the National Institutes

of Health to provide to the Congress a five-year research plan

for tuberous sclerosis.

Attest:

Clerk of the House of Representatives.

Attest:

Secretary of the Senate.
Exhibit
32.2





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF
FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350




In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Blackhawk Capital Group
BDC, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarter ended September 30, 2010 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Craig
A. Zabala, as acting Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereto certifies,
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 his knowledge:




1.       The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities 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:    December
13, 2010





/s/ Craig A. ZabalaCraig
      A. ZabalaActing
      Chief Financial Officer(Principal
      Financial 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 Blackhawk Capital Group BDC Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7163
ARNOLD CULBREATH, Petitioner - Appellant, versus TRAVIS MEDLOCK; STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CA-95-55-2-18AJ) Submitted: November 5, 1996 Decided: November 19, 1996 Before HALL and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Arnold Culbreath, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Arnold Culbreath, a South Carolina inmate, filed an untimely notice of appeal of the dismissal of his petition for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The time periods for filing notices of appeal are governed by Fed. R. App. P. 4. These periods are "mandatory and jurisdictional." Browder v. Director, Dep't of Corrections , 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson , 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). Parties to civil actions have thirty days within which to file in the district court notices of appeal from judgments or finalorders. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1). The only exceptions to the appeal period are when the district court extends the time to appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). The district court entered its order on September 12, 1995;Appellant's notice of appeal was filed on July 18, 1996. Appellant's failure to note a timely appeal or obtain either an extension or a reopening of the appeal period leaves this court without jurisdiction to consider the merits of Appellant's appeal. We therefore deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 35.1





Servicer Compliance Statement of AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc.








This Annual Statement as to Compliance is delivered to you pursuant to Section 4.10 (a) of the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of October 21, 2021 (the “Agreement”) and Item 1123 of Regulation AB, executed in connection with the formation of GM Financial Consumer Automobile Receivables Trust 2021-4 (the “Trust”), the issuance of the Notes by the Trust and the closing of the transactions and the execution and delivery of the various documents by AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. (the “Servicer”) and AFS SenSub Corp. in connection therewith.  The capitalized terms used herein shall have the same meanings as in the Agreement.





The undersigned certifies that I am the Executive Vice President, Corporate Controller and Chief Accounting Officer of the Servicer.  I further certify as follows:





1. I have conducted, or caused to be conducted under my supervision, a review of the Servicer during the preceding period from January 1, 2022 through December 31, 2022, and its performance under the Agreement.





2. To the best of my knowledge, following such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement throughout such period, and, to the best of my knowledge, there has been no default in the fulfillment of any such obligation.








AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc.





By:/s/ Connie CoffeyDated:March 3, 2023Connie CoffeyExecutive Vice President, Corporate Controller and Chief Accounting Officer
Exhibit
        32.1
  Splinex
        Technology Inc.
 550
        West
        Cypress Creek Road-Suite 410
 Ft.
        Lauderdale, Florida, 33309
  December
        5, 2005
  Securities
        and Exchange Commission
 100
        F
        Street, NE
 Washington,
        DC 20549
  Re:
        Certification of Principal Executive Officer Pursuant To 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350
  Dear
        Ladies and Gentlemen:
  In
        connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Splinex
        Technology Inc., for the quarter ended September 30, 2005, I, Gerard Herlihy,
        President and Chief Financial Officer of Splinex Technology Inc., hereby
        certify
        pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
        the
        Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
  1)
              such
                  Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Splinex Technology Inc., for
                  the
                  quarter ended September 30, 2005, 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-QSB of
                  Splinex
                  Technology Inc., for the quarter ended September 30, 2005, fairly
                  presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
                  results of
                  operations of Splinex Technology Inc.BY:
                  /S/ Gerard Herlihy
                ——————————————
                Gerard
                  Herlihy
                President
                  and Chief Financial Officer
                (Principal
                  Executive Officer, Principal Financial and Accounting Officer and
                  Duly
                  Authorized 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 Splinex Technology Inc.
        and
        will be retained by Splinex Technology 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 Splinex Technology 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.
**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 Quarterly Report of SNB Bancshares, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, R. Darrell Brewer, 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.   **SNB BANCSHARES, INC.**Date:   November 15, 2004
By:
/s/ R. Darrell BrewerChief Financial Officer
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 Rand Acquisition Corporation
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ending September 30, 2005 (the
"Report"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof, I, Laurence S. Levy, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Sec. 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 result of operations of the Company.


By: /s/ Laurence S. Levy                                 Dated: January 20, 2006
    ---------------------------------------
        Laurence S. Levy
        Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
        (Principal Executive and Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-20394

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RAFAEL RENTERIA-MARTINEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-97-CR-284-ALL

- - - - - - - - - -

December 10, 1998

Before DAVIS, DeMOSS and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Rafael Renteria-Martinez appeals his sentence after pleading

guilty to reentry by a deported alien. He argues that the

district court violated Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(c) because it did not

make written findings on a disputed factual issue. Because there

was no disputed factual issue, Rule 32 does not apply, and

Renteria’s appeal lacks a factual or legal basis. Accordingly,

the sentence of the district court is AFFIRMED, and the appeal is

DISMISSED as frivolous. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 42503

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

DIMAS ROBERT NARVAIZ, II,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2015 Unpublished Opinion No. 488

Filed: May 14, 2015

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada

County. Hon. George D. Carey, District Judge. 

Order relinquishing jurisdiction, affirmed. 

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Jason C. Pintler, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Jessica M. Lorello, Deputy 

Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;

and GRATTON, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM 

Dimas Robert Narvaiz, II, entered an Alford1 plea to attempted strangulation. I.C. § 18-

923. In exchange for his guilty plea, an additional charge was dismissed. The district court 

sentenced Narvaiz to a unified term of fifteen years, with a minimum period of confinement of 

three years, to run concurrent with an unrelated sentence. The district court retained jurisdiction, 

and Narvaiz was sent to participate in the rider program.

 

1 See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970). 
2

After Narvaiz completed his rider, the district court relinquished jurisdiction without 

reducing Narvaiz’s sentence. Narvaiz appeals, claiming that his sentence is excessive and 

constitutes an abuse of discretion and that the district court erred by not reducing Narvaiz’s

sentence upon relinquishment of jurisdiction.2 

Narvaiz contends that his sentence is excessive and constitutes an abuse of discretion. 

Sentences are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Our appellate standard of review and the 

factors to be considered when evaluating the reasonableness of a sentence are well-established. 

State v. Burdett, 134 Idaho 271, 1 P.3d 299 (Ct. App. 2000); State v. Sanchez, 115 Idaho 776, 

769 P.2d 1148 (Ct. App. 1989); State v. Reinke, 103 Idaho 771, 653 P.2d 1183 (Ct. App. 1982); 

State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 650 P.2d 707 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing the length of a 

sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 722, 726, 170 

P.3d 387, 391 (2007). 

The record does not indicate that the district court abused its discretion in sentencing. 

The order of the district court relinquishing jurisdiction and Narvaiz’s sentence are affirmed. 

 

2 The state’s brief addressed Narvaiz’s appeal as being from the denial of an I.C.R. 35 

motion for reduction of sentence. Narvaiz does not raise this as an issue. Therefore, we do not 

address this on appeal.
ALI RESHARD BARBOUR,

Petitioner,

v.

MICHAEL D. CREWS, 

SECRETARY OF FLORIDA 

DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS,

Respondent.

___________________________/

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D14-3981

Opinion filed September 17, 2014.

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus -- Original Jurisdiction.

Ali Reshard Barbour, pro se, Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

DISMISSED. See Baker v. State, 878 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 2004).

LEWIS, C.J., PADOVANO and CLARK, JJ., CONCUR.
P u rsuan t t o 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5, t h e courtha s det erm i n ed that t h i s opi n i on * shou l d n otbe pu bl i shed an d i s not preceden texcept u n der t h e l i m i t ed c i r c um s t anc e s s e tf

o r t h i n 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5. 4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 60670 Su m m ar y Cal endar

M AR IA C RI STI N A A LVAR EZ P et i t i on er

v. ERI C H H OLD ER, J R, U S ATTORN EY GE N ERA L Res po nde nt
Pet i t i o n f

o rRev i e w o f

a n Ord e ro f

t he B o a r do f Im m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls B I AN o. A 95 813 735

B ef ore K IN G , D E N N IS, an d O W E N , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * M ari a C ri st i n a A lvarez, a na t ive an d ci t i zen of M exi co, p et i t i on s f or r evi ew of a de c i si on of

the B oar d of

Im m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( B IA) di sm i ss i ng herappeal fr o m the de n i a lof h er a p p l i ca ti on f or ca n cell a ti on of rem ov a lf or ce r ta in
n on perm an en tres i den t s and adj u st m en tof sta tu s an d f

rom t h e B IA ’ s or der den yi n g h er m ot i on f or r econsi derati on . A lvarez argu es t h at t h e i m m i grati on j u dg e err ed byden yi n g h er app l i cat i on f or c an cel l ati on of

rem oval becau se her United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Jul y 2, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 60670

2 rem oval w ou l d i m pose an ex ce p tion alan d extrem el y u n du e ha rdship on h er U n i t ed S t ates- born , m in o r chil dren
. Th e G overnm en targu es t h at t h i s c ou rt l ac ks j ur i s di c t i o n ov e rt he B IA’ s or de rdi s m i s s i ng Al va r e z ’ s a ppe alb e c aus e s he fai l ed t o fi l e at i m e l y pe t i t i o n f o rr e vi e w f

r o m t hatde c i s i o n. The G o ve r nm e nt f u rt h er argues t h at A lvarez ha s w aived a n y cha l l en ge t o the den i alof her m ot i on f or r econsi derati on by fai l i n g t o bri ef t h e i ssue. A lvar ez di d n otf

i l e a ti m el y pet i t i on forrev i ew of the B IA ’ s A pril23, 2008
o r d e rd is m is s in gh e ra p p e a l. S e eS t o n ev . I NS , 5 1 4 U .S
. 3 8 6 , 3 9 4 -9 5 (19 9 5 ); G u evara v. G on zales , 450 F
. 3d 173 , 176 ( 5th C i r. 200 6)
. A ccor di n gl y, t h i s c ou rt la c k s ju r is d ic tio n to re v ie w th e B IA ’ s d e c is io n d is m is s in gh e ra p p e a l. A l t h ou gh A lvarez’ s pet i t i on f or revi ew of t h e B IA ’ s den i alof her m ot i on f

or r e c o n s id e r a t io n i s t im e lyfi le d , s h e r a is e s n o is s u e w it h r e s p e c tto th e B IA ’s de ni alo f he r m o t i o n f o r r e c o ns i de r at i o n. I s s ue s t hat ar e no tb r i e fe d a r e w aive d. S eeT h u ri v
. A sh cr oft , 3 8 0 F .3 d7 8 8 , 7 9 3 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). F or t h e f

oregoi n g reasons, A lvarez’ s peti t i on f or revi ew i s D E N IE D i n part
a n dD IS M IS S E D i n pa rt.
IV

House Calendar No. 30

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 79

[Report No. 107–73]

Authorizing the use of the Capitol Grounds for the Greater Washington

Soap Box Derby.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 22, 2001

Mr. HOYER (for himself, Mr. MORAN of Virginia, Mr. WOLF, Mr. WYNN, Mrs.

MORELLA, and Ms. NORTON) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

MAY 21, 2001

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Authorizing the use of the Capitol Grounds for the Greater

Washington Soap Box Derby.

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring),
2

•HCON 79 RH

1 SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF SOAP BOX DERBY RACES

2 ON CAPITOL GROUNDS.

3 The Greater Washington Soap Box Derby Associa4 tion (in this resolution referred to as the ‘‘Association’’)

5 shall be permitted to sponsor a public event, soap box

6 derby races, on the Capitol Grounds on June 23, 2001,

7 or on such other date as the Speaker of the House of Rep8 resentatives and the Committee on Rules and Administra9 tion of the Senate may jointly designate.

10 SEC. 2. CONDITIONS.

11 The event to be carried out under this resolution shall

12 be free of admission charge to the public and arranged

13 not to interfere with the needs of Congress, under condi14 tions to be prescribed by the Architect of the Capitol and

15 the Capitol Police Board; except that the Association shall

16 assume full responsibility for all expenses and liabilities

17 incident to all activities associated with the event.

18 SEC. 3. STRUCTURES AND EQUIPMENT.

19 For the purposes of this resolution, the Association

20 is authorized to erect upon the Capitol Grounds, subject

21 to the approval of the Architect of the Capitol, such stage,

22 sound amplification devices, and other related structures

23 and equipment as may be required for the event to be car24 ried out under this resolution.
3

•HCON 79 RH

1 SEC. 4. ADDITIONAL ARRANGEMENTS.

2 The Architect of the Capitol and the Capitol Police

3 Board are authorized to make any such additional ar4 rangements that may be required to carry out the event

5 under this resolution.

6 SEC. 5. ENFORCEMENT OF RESTRICTIONS.

7 The Capitol Police Board shall provide for enforce8 ment of the restrictions contained in section 4 of the Act

9 of July 31, 1946 (40 U.S.C. 193d; 60 Stat. 718), con10 cerning sales, advertisements, displays, and solicitations

11 on the Capitol Grounds, as well as other restrictions appli12 cable to the Capitol Grounds, with respect to the event

13 to be carried out under this resolution.
House Calendar No. 30

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 79

[Report No. 107–73]

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Authorizing the use of the Capitol Grounds for the

Greater Washington Soap Box Derby.

MAY 21, 2001

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed