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

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 218 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 218

  Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the 
     conditions for the United States becoming a signatory to any 
 international agreement on greenhouse gas emissions under the United 
            Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 21, 2015

  Mr. Sensenbrenner (for himself, Mr. Smith of Texas, and Mr. Ryan of 
 Wisconsin) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                    the Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the 
     conditions for the United States becoming a signatory to any 
 international agreement on greenhouse gas emissions under the United 
            Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

    Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that 
the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol to, or 
other agreement regarding, the United Nations Framework Convention on 
Climate Change of 1992, at negotiations in Paris in December 2015, or 
thereafter, which would--
            (1) mandate new commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse 
        gas emissions for the Annex I Parties, unless the protocol or 
        other agreement also mandates new specific scheduled 
        commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for 
        Non-Annex I Parties within the same compliance period;
            (2) not ensure that all parties to the agreement reduce an 
        equal amount of greenhouse gas emissions at an equivalent rate 
        within the same compliance period;
            (3) result in serious harm to the economy of the United 
        States; and
            (4) not adequately protect United States intellectual 
        property rights.
                                 <all>
```
#### Application of FUN COUNTRY DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY for Approval of Proposed $1,250,000 Fun Country Development Authority First Mortgage Revenue Notes.

No. 50942.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

July 12, 1977.

Floyd, Brandenburg & Rogers, Norman, for petitioner.

DOOLIN, Justice.

This case is submitted on an original and uncon tested application by petitioner. Fun Country Development Authority, asks this court to assume jurisdiction and determine the validity of promissory revenue notes or bonds issued to finance the construction, development and expansion of certain television properties. The application further seeks determination of whether the development and expansion of television capabilities as herein contemplated are the proper subjects for a public trust under 60 O.S.1971 § 176 et seq, as amended.

There can be no doubt that this court has in the past assumed jurisdiction and granted relief under exact or similar circumstances; see *Application of Southern Oklahoma Development Trust,*470 P.2d 572 (Okl.1970) and *In Re: Application of Board of Education of*Western *Heights Independent School District No. 41, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma,*565 P.2d 677 (Okl.1977).

Today we decline to follow these precedents on the grounds that we will issue no further advisory opinions. This is not to say, however, that this court lacks such jurisdiction. The last cited case is but the most recent of a series that should end, and our holding shall not be interpreted as a challenge to such previous opinions or orders of this court.

We are not unmindful of *Shotts v. Hugh,*551 P.2d 252 (Okl.1976) and *Morrison v. Ardmore Industrial Development Corporation,*444 P.2d 816 (Okl.1968); but point out that in these cases a justiciable controversy existed and that fact together with the public importance of the matter dictated assumption of jurisdiction and granting of relief.

No controversy is here presented, no contest or challenge as to procedure is made.

We decline to issue an advisory opinion.

*1168JURISDICTION ASSUMED; RELIEF DENIED.

HODGES, C. J., and WILLIAMS, BERRY and BARNES, JJ., concur.

LAVENDER, V. C. J., and SIMMS, J., concur in result.
Breadcrumb

1. Home

2. Print 

3. Pdf 

4. Node 

5. Entity Print 

Program Updates

Last Modified: 

Print

Search by Keyword

▾
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Glen Birdell, Appellant.

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bernard Fried, J., at suppression hearing; John Bradley, J., at jury trial and sentence), rendered May 15, 1989, convicting defendant of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to concurrent indeterminate terms of imprisonment of from 2 to 6 years, unanimously affirmed.

On July 12, 1988, the defendant gave an undercover officer two glassine envelopes of heroin in exchange for $20 in prerecorded money. The exchange took place in a store known as the "Tribes”.

Although the defendant has a right to be present at all material stages of his trial *(People v Cain,*76 NY2d 119), it is *365not necessary that a defendant be present when what transpires concerns only a minor procedural matter, not affecting any substantial right of the defendant. *(People v Sterling,*141 AD2d 680, *lv denied*73 NY2d 790.) The colloquy here, concerning various scheduling matters, and an admonition not to discuss the case, falls into this latter category.

The court properly exercised its discretion in sentencing the defendant, based upon the defendant’s involvement in a sophisticated and well organized narcotics operation. Concur— Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.
#### SHANTA PHILLIPS *v.*BIRCH REALTY, INC.

(AC 19030)

Lavery, C. J., and Schaller and Mihalakos, Js.

Argued May 30

officially released June 27, 2000

Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32.a



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 Boston Capital Tax Credit Fund III L.P. (the "Fund") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John P. Manning, Principal Executive Officer of the general partner of the general partner of the Partnership's general partner, C&M Management Inc., certify, 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 my knowledge, after due inquiry:



|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)-15 or 15(d)-15 of the Securities and 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 Partnership.



|Date:           |  |                            
|--------------- |  | ---------------------------
|August 19, 2004 |  | /s/ John P. Manning        
|                |  |                            
|                |  | John P. Manning            
|                |  | Principal Executive 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 the Fund and will be retained by the Fund and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE

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 filing by Ionatron, Inc. (the Company) of its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007
(the Report) I, Dana A. Marshall, 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:



| | (i) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (ii) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.
| | ---- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Dana A. MarshallDana A. MarshallChief Executive Officer


Date: August 9, 2007
83 P.3d 743

SUPREME COURT OF HAWAI'I

February 4, 2004

23264

#### Certified Coatings of California v. Befitel

Vacated and Remanded
----

| 1.  | I      have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of ARI Network Services,      Inc.; |
|----------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2. | Based      on my knowledge, this quarterly report fully complies with the      requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities      Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 3. | Based      on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information      included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects      the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small      business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this      report; |
|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | By:    | /s/  Brian E.    Dearing                                            |
|--------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | By:    | Brian      E. Dearing                                                         |
|   | Title: | Chairman      of the Board of Directors and acting Chief Financial    Officer |

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6388

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

ROGER DALE RAY, a/k/a Peanut,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, 

District Judge. (5:06-cr-00012-BO-1; 5:09-cv-00002-BO)

Submitted: June 17, 2010 Decided: June 28, 2010

Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Roger Dale Ray, Appellant Pro Se. Edward D. Gray, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Roger Dale Ray seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) 

motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record 

and conclude that Ray has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss 

the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts
3

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 249 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 249

Expressing support for designation of May 2015 as ``Health and Fitness 
                                Month''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 1, 2015

   Mr. Veasey (for himself, Ms. Edwards, and Ms. Kelly of Illinois) 
submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee 
                         on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Expressing support for designation of May 2015 as ``Health and Fitness 
                                Month''.

Whereas \2/3\ of adults and nearly 1 in 3 children are overweight or obese in 
        the United States;
Whereas unhealthy eating habits and lack of physical activity have contributed 
        to the obesity epidemic in the United States;
Whereas the prevalence of obesity in the United States more than doubled from 15 
        percent to 34 percent among adults and more than tripled from 5 percent 
        to 17 percent among children and adolescents from 1980 to 2008;
Whereas an obese teenager is 70 percent more likely to become an obese adult;
Whereas obesity is more common among non-Hispanic Black teenagers (29 percent) 
        than Hispanic teenagers (17.5 percent) or non-Hispanic White teenagers 
        (14.5 percent);
Whereas 70 percent of American Indian/Alaskan Native adults are overweight or 
        obese;
Whereas studies indicate that overweight youth may never achieve a healthy 
        weight;
Whereas a poor diet is associated with major health risks that can cause illness 
        and even death;
Whereas in addition to healthy eating, people in the United States can 
        experience positive health benefits and be on the path for a better 
        future by incorporating physical activity into daily life, including 30 
        minutes for adults and 60 minutes for children;
Whereas physical activity can help prevent chronic diseases such as heart 
        disease, cancer, and stroke, control weight, reduce fat, condition the 
        heart and lungs, improve sleep, decrease potential of becoming 
        depressed, increase energy and self-esteem, relieve stress, and increase 
        the chances of living longer; and
Whereas May 2015 would be an appropriate month to designate as ``Health and 
        Fitness Month'': Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) supports the designation of ``Health and Fitness 
        Month''; and
            (2) support efforts to educate the people of the United 
        States on the importance of a healthy and nutritious lifestyle.
                                 <all>
```
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-11233 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus DYANNE FAYE JONES, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:94-CR-362-X

- - - - - - - - - - October 29, 1997 Before WISDOM, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Before the Court is Dyanne Faye Jones’s appeal from her guilty plea to the charge of conspiracy to distribute cocaine and her sentence of 51 months imprisonment, followed by 5 years of supervised release. Her Court-appointed counsel, George W. Lang, II, has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel in this case along with an accompanying brief as required by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Jones was given an opportunity to respondNo. - 2 -

1 In fact, Jones received a downward departure from the sentencing guideline range due to her cooperation with the government. to counsel’s brief and to call the Court’s attention to any meritorious issues for appeal. She did not file an answer. Our independent review of counsel’s brief and the record discloses no non-frivolous issues for appeal. The district court complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in accepting Jones’s guilty plea. The record shows that Jones was competent to enter a plea and that she did so voluntarily, with an understanding of the rights she surrendered by pleading guilty. See Boykin v. Alabama , 395 U.S. 238, 242-4 (1969). As part of her plea, Jones waived her right to appeal her plea and sentence except for a few limited exceptions which are not present in this case. The district court did not sentence Jones above the statutory maximum of 40 years, nor did the court depart upwards from the sentencing guideline range of 57-71 months for this offense. 1 Finally, the current state of the record on this direct appeal does not show that Jones received ineffective assistance of counsel. We find no non-frivolous issues presented in this appeal. Accordingly, court-appointed counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED and Jones’s APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
<PAGE>

                                                                      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 accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of Standard
Management Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2004, we Ronald D. Hunter
and Paul B. ("Pete") Pheffer, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer of Standard Management Corporation, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, to the best of our knowledge and belief, that:

            (1)   such 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 such Report fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of Standard Management Corporation.

March 24, 2005

/s/ Ronald D. Hunter
------------------------------------
Ronald D. Hunter
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

/s/ Paul B ("Pete") Pheffer
-------------------------------------
Paul B. ("Pete") Pheffer
President and Chief Financial Officer
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

Order 

September 11, 2020

160809-10

CITY OF WAYNE RETIREES ASSOCIATION,

CHRISTOPHER JOHNSON, TIMOTHY

REYNOLDS, ROBERT ENGLISH, EDMUND

ROTHFELDER, DANIEL HAMANN, and 

CHERYL FISHER, on behalf of themselves and

all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v SC: 160809; 160810

COA: 343522; 343916

Wayne CC: 17-009118-CK

CITY OF WAYNE,

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 15, 2019 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

MCCORMACK, J., (concurring).

I concur in this Court’s order denying leave to appeal because, as the Court of 

Appeals recognized, the outcome in this case is resolved by our decision in Kendzierski v 

Macomb Co, 503 Mich 296 (2019). 

The issue in Kendzierski was whether retiree healthcare benefits provided through 

the parties’ collective-bargaining agreements (CBAs) were vested, i.e., unalterable for the 

plaintiff-retirees’ lifetimes, or were instead time-limited promises that did not survive the 

expiration of those CBAs. 

As I explained in my dissent, I believe the CBAs in Kendzierski were ambiguous 

and that the plaintiffs should have been allowed to present extrinsic evidence to resolve 

that ambiguity. Kendzierski, 503 Mich at 327 (MCCORMACK, C.J., dissenting). But this 

Court disagreed, concluding that the benefits were unambiguously time-limited and that 

the defendant was, therefore, entitled to summary disposition for that reason. Id. at 326 

(opinion of the Court). 
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.

 September 11, 2020

a0911

2

Clerk

Plaintiffs in this case have offered arguments for ambiguity that are similar to 

those the Court considered and rejected in Kendzierski. While I find these arguments to 

be persuasive, plaintiffs have not asked us to reconsider our decision in Kendzierski. For 

that reason, I concur in this Court’s order denying leave to appeal. 

BERNSTEIN, J., joins the statement of MCCORMACK, C.J.