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

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 117 (Thursday, August 2, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Page S6006]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

  AMBASSADOR JAMES R. LILLEY AND CONGRESSMAN STEPHEN J. SOLARZ NORTH 
             KOREA HUMAN RIGHTS REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2012

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed 
to Calendar No. 458.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill, (H.R. 4240) to reauthorize the North Korean Human 
     Rights Act of 2004, and for other purposes.

  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask that the bill be read a third time and 
the Senate proceed to vote on passage of this bill.
  The bill was read the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on passage of the bill.
  The bill (H.R. 4240) was passed.

                          ____________________
```
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 22, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-60575

Conference Calendar

 

ROBERT CRAIG STARKS,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

MICHAEL PETTIFORD, Warden,

Respondent-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 5:03-CV-283-BrS

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

Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Robert Craig Starks, federal prisoner # 83561-020, appeals

from the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, in which he

alleged that the procedures used in his prison disciplinary

proceeding violated his due process rights and, further, that the

evidence was insufficient to support a finding of guilt. 

Federal habeas relief, however, can be had only where the

petitioner has been deprived of some right secured to him by the

laws of the United States or by the United States Constitution. 
No. 03-60575

-2-

Malchi v. Thaler, 211 F.3d 953, 957 (5th Cir. 2000). Although

disciplinary action resulting in an inmate’s loss of previously

earned “good time” must be accompanied by procedural safeguards,

see Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 564-65 (1974), Starks was

not deprived of good-time credits. Moreover, he has no

constitutional right to be housed in any particular facility, and

he concedes that he was never placed in administrative

segregation. See Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 244-45

(1983); Tighe v. Wall, 100 F.3d 41, 42 (5th Cir. 1996); see also

Luken v. Scott, 71 F.3d 192, 193 (5th Cir. 1995). He therefore

has not been deprived of a liberty interest and has not stated a

cognizable § 2241 claim. See Malchi, 211 F.3d at 957. 

AFFIRMED.
#### In the Matter of Joseph Troiano et al., Petitioners, against Frank M. Volz et al., Constituting the Board of Appeals of the Town of Babylon, Respondents.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Suffolk County,

August 14, 1959.

*Mortimer Cohen*for petitioners.

*William T. Lauder*for respondents.

Fred J. Munder, J.

In this proceeding under article 78 of the Civil Practice Act the petitioner seeks to annul a decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals denying his request for a variance of front yard requirements and for permission to erect an incinerator for the burning of paper.

The petitioner is in the business of refuse collection, the area of its operation being along the South Shore in the Towns of *954Oyster Bay, Babylon and Islip. Its principal officer, Joseph Troiano, testified that the unusable refuse is disposed of at the various town incinerators and dumps and that petitioner salvages all paper which is brought to the plant at East Farming-dale. Some of the paper is unsaleable and must be destroyed. Having been stopped from burning such refuse by the town authorities petitioner sought to avoid the objection by erecting an incinerator (which counsel insists on calling a furnace) on some lots abutting the premises it presently occupies in its business.

The Zoning Board of Appeals, in a lengthy and comprehensive decision following a full hearing and inspection by the board, concluded that what the petitioner was seeking to do was, first to so subdivide its land as to create a violation with respect to the existing building and provide an inadequate area for its proposed building; second, to go into competition with the nearby municipal incinerator; and third, to eliminate a cost of operation incident to removing the unsaleable material now sorted to the admittedly adequate town incinerator. The decision also discussed other aspects such as petitioner’s comparison of his proposed operation with the incinerators of department stores and factories which burn only their own waste paper materials and none collected by them from outside and also the nuisance aspect from fly ash, smoke and odors incident to the operation of an incinerator.

I find that the board very reasonably and fairly determined all the fact questions raised by petitioner’s application and that there was ample evidence to support its conclusions. There is no reason or justification for the court to interfere with that determination.

The petition is dismissed.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Unify Corporation (the Registrant) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended January 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Steven D. Bonham, Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge:

(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and

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

|Dated: March 15, 2007 | /s/ STEVEN D. BONHAM   
|--------------------- | -----------------------
|                      | Steven D. Bonham       
|                      | Chief 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 Unify Corporation and will be retained by Unify Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
#### Application of Bert MILLER, for Writ of Habeas Corpus, H. C. McLeod, Warden, Oklahoma State Penitentiary, Respondent.

No. A-12706.

Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma.

Feb. 4, 1959.

*653Bert Miller, pro se.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., by Lewis A. Wallace, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

POWELL, Presiding Judge.

Bert Miller seeks release by way of writ of habeas corpus from his confinement in the Oklahoma State Penitentiary. It is alleged in petition that petitioner was sentenced in the district court of McCurtain County to a term of life for the crime of murder; that he was not afforded a fair and impartial trial; that the trial court would only allow three of his twenty witnesses to testify; that he was convicted on false evidence; that he killed in self-defense, and set out are the purported facts of the difficulty, and affidavits of persons expressing sympathy for him.

Upon the filing of petition, rule to show cause was issued and the respondent, H. C. McLeod, Warden, Oklahoma State Penitentiary, McAlester, Oklahoma, has filed response, attached to which is photostatic copy of the judgment and sentence for life, showing that the petitioner, Bert Miller, was sentenced on June 16, 1946; that he had been charged with murder, was represented by attorney C. D. Wilkinson, was duly arraigned on the charge and thereafter tried before a jury and found guilty; and that he filed a motion for new trial but withdrew said motion and the court thereupon sentenced the petitioner in accordance with the verdict of the jury, to life imprisonment.

Respondent states that the petitioner does not allege facts sufficient, as a matter of law, to entitle him to the relief prayed for in his petition. We must so hold. We have said many times that the writ of habeas corpus does not serve as an appeal and review of the facts. Ex parte Hummingbird, 78 Okl.Cr. 33, 143 P.2d 166; Ex parte Monroe, 89 Okl.Cr. 358, 207 P.2d 944; Ex parte Hibbs, Okl.Cr., 322 P.2d 654.

We have further said that only where the record and evidence reveals the judgment void will relief be granted by habeas corpus. In re Duty, Okl.Cr., 318 P.2d 900.

The question of whether the trial court erred in not permitting certain of petitioner’s witnesses to testify, the question of perjury of certain of State’s witnesses, etc., were matters to be presented to the trial court in a motion for new trial, and to this court on appeal. The action of the defendant in withdrawing his motion for new trial and asking that sentence then be imposed precludes this court from *654reviewing the purported facts of the homicide in question.

The petition for writ of habeas corpus is accordingly denied.

NIX and BRETT, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 13.2

906 Certification

Securities and Exchange Commission

100 F Street, N.E.

Washington, D.C. 20549

Ladies and Gentlemen:

In connection with the Annual Report of Sinopec Shanghai Petrochemical Company Limited (the Company) on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Ye Guohua, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best
of my knowledge:



| | 1. | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) , as applicable, 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 at the dates and for
the periods indicated.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Date: June 27, 2011



By:

/s/ Ye GuohuaName: Ye GuohuaTitle: Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>

                              EXHIBIT NUMBER 13(2)

                                  CERTIFICATION
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                WITH RESPECT TO THE ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 20-F/A
                      FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2003
                          OF CHINA ENTERPRISES LIMITED

      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), the
undersigned officer of China Enterprises Limited, a Bermuda company (the
"Company"), does hereby certify, to the best of such officer's knowledge, that:

      (i) the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the U.S. 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 operations of the
Company.

Dated: December 12, 2005

                                                   /s/ Chow Chun Man, Jimmy
                                                   ------------------------
                                                     CHOW CHUN MAN, JIMMY
                                                    Chief Financial Officer

      The certification set forth above is being furnished as an Exhibit solely
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is not being filed
as part of the Form 20-F/A or as a separate disclosure document of the Company
or the certifying officer.
# C_2007170EN.01004101.xml

| 21.7.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 170/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 170/41

---

Action brought on 4 June 2007 — Italy v Commission

(Case T-205/07)

(2007/C 170/78)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: P. Gentili, Avvocato dello Stato)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the Call for expressions of interest to constitute a database of candidates to be recruited as contracts agents carrying out various activities within the European institutions and agencies, EPSO/CAST/EU/27/07, published only in English, French and German on the EPSO website http://europe.eu.epso/cast27/call on 27 March 2007. |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Call for expressions of interest to constitute a database of candidates to be recruited as contracts agents carrying out various activities within the European institutions and agencies, EPSO/CAST/EU/27/07, published only in English, French and German on the EPSO website http://europe.eu.epso/cast27/call on 27 March 2007.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-156/07 Spain v Commission.

Spain

Commission

---
<Page>

                                                                   Exhibit 10.71

                ASSIGNMENT OF LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY INTERESTS

     THIS ASSIGNMENT OF LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY INTERESTS (this "Assignment"),
is dated as of January 5, 2005, and made by and between SUPREME PLASTICS GROUP
PLC ("Seller"), and PLIANT INVESTMENT, INC. ("Buyer").

     WHEREAS, Seller and Buyer have entered into an agreement for purchase and
sale of all of Seller's interest in Alliant Company. LLC ("Alliant") dated
January 5, 2005 the "Agreement") upon completion of the $400,000 wire transfer
from Buyer to Seller.

     NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and
sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, Seller and Buyer hereby agree as
follows:

     1.   Seller hereby sells, conveys, transfers, assigns and delivers TO
Buyer, and Buyer accepts from Seller, all of right, title and interest Seller's
memebership interest (representing 50% interest) in Aliant [the "Seller
Percentage Interest"). its

     2.   Seller warrants to Buyer that on the date hereof, Seller is the true
and lawful owner of the Seller Percentage Interest, holds good and marketable
title in and to Seller Percentage Interest, free and clear of all liens,
encumbrances and rights of third parties, and has full power and authority to
sell and convey the same.

     3.   At the request of Buyer, Seller shall provide such further
instruments, documents and certificates as may be reasonably necessary to assure
a transfer of title to the Seller Percentage Interest to Buyer.

     4.   This Assignment shall be governed by, construed and enforced in
accordance with the laws of the slate of Delaware.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Seller and Buyer have has caused this Assignment to be
executed and delivered on the date first above written.

SUPREME, PLASTICS GROUP PLC                    PLIANT INVESTMENT, INC.


By: /s/ N.S. Grenal                            By: /s/ J. Bruce Underwood
   ---------------------------------              ------------------------------
Name: N.S. Grenal                              Name: J. Bruce Underwood
     -------------------------------                ----------------------------
Title: MANAGING DIRECTOR                       Title: V.P MFG.
      ------------------------------                 ---------------------------
# C_2009032EN.01001001.xml

| 7.2.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 32/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 December 2008 — Gateway, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Fujitsu Siemens Computers GmbH

(Case C-57/08 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(1)(b) and (5) - Earlier marks including the word sign ‘GATEWAY’ - Word sign ‘ACTIVY Media Gateway’ - Absence of similarity of the signs - Lack of likelihood of confusion - Taking into account of the renown of earlier marks when carrying out a global assessment of opposing signs)

(2009/C 32/16)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Gateway, Inc. (represented by: C.R. Jones, Solicitor)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent), Fujitsu Siemens Computers GmbH

Other parties to the proceedings:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 27 November 2007 in Case T-434/05 Gateway, Inc. v OHIM by which the Court of First Instance dismissed an action for annulment brought by the proprietor of the Community and national word and figurative marks containing the word element ‘GATEWAY’ in respect of goods in Classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 37 and 38 against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 14 September 2005 in Case R 1068/2004+1 dismissing the appeal brought by the appellant against the Opposition Division's decision, which rejected the opposition brought by the appellant against the application for registration of the word mark ‘ACTIVY Media Gateway’ in respect of goods in Classes 9, 35, 38 and 42

Gateway, Inc.

OHIM

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Gateway, Inc. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Gateway, Inc. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 171, 5.7.2008.

1

---
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 120 (Monday, September 10, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1463]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

             IN RECOGNITION OF NEW AVENUES FOR INDEPENDENCE

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. DENNIS J. KUCINICH

                                of ohio

                    in the house of representatives

                       Monday, September 10, 2012

  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of New Avenues 
to Independence, a volunteer organization that provides services to 
individuals with disabilities.
  New Avenues to Independence was founded in 1952 by a group of parents 
with disabled children. Instead of sending their children off to live 
in institutions, the founding parents had a vision of an organization 
that would facilitate independent lives for their children and others 
with disabilities. For the past sixty years, New Avenues to 
Independence has provided opportunities for employment and education to 
the individuals it serves, in addition to various forms of therapy and 
recreational activities both inside and outside of its group homes. New 
Avenues to Independence serves people with a wide range of disabilities 
and is committed to meeting the specific needs of each individual.
  Since its founding, New Avenues to Independence has grown in the 
number of people it serves as well as the number of services it 
provides. There are now eight homes located in the Northeast Ohio area, 
serving 600 disabled people each year. Over the years, New Avenues to 
Independence has received many awards recognizing its contributions to 
the community. This year marks the 60th anniversary of its founding.
  Mr. Speaker and colleagues, please join me in honoring New Avenues to 
Independence, an organization that has provided individuals with 
disabilities the means to lead independent lives for the past sixty 
years.

                          ____________________
```
#### Gail Weitzner et al., Appellants, v Hensinger, Inc., Defendant, and Weisblatt Electric Company, Inc., et al., Respondents. (And a Third-Party Action.)

— In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lockman, J.), dated December 7, 1989, which granted the motion of the defendants Weisblatt Electric Company, Inc., and Weisblatt Elevator, Inc., division of Weisblatt Electric Company, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them and severing the action as against the remaining defendant.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The plaintiff Gail Weitzner, an employee of National West-minister Bank (hereinafter NatWest), was injured on August 27, 1984, while working in the bank vault in the course of attempting to lift by hand a teller-buggy over the lip of a dumbwaiter which had descended below the proper floor level. The dumbwaiter was used to transport money between floors of the premises. Ms. Weitzner was unable to maneuver the dumbwaiter by using the controls. She had not received any formal training in the use of the dumbwaiter. However, in the past, she had observed others using it. She claimed that after she was injured, the Head Teller was able to maneuver the dumbwaiter by pressing the "up” and "inching” buttons simultaneously. The Head Teller, on the other hand, denied that she had simultaneously pressed the two controls.

Weisblatt Electric Company, Inc., and Weisblatt Elevator, Inc., division of Weisblatt Electric Company (hereinafter Weisblatt) had contracted with NatWest to regularly and systematically inspect and maintain the mechanism on a quarterly basis. Weisblatt also agreed to make special calls on request should trouble develop, at an extra charge to NatWest.

The Supreme Court granted Weisblatt’s motion for summary judgment, finding a complete absence of evidence establishing Weisblatt’s notice of a defective condition. It further noted that the plaintiffs’ argument that Weisblatt "had a duty to educate the bank’s employees regarding operation of the dumbwaiter is without evidentiary support in the contract between the defendant and the bank”.

The record supports a conclusion that the plaintiffs have failed to establish the existence of material facts of sufficient import to create triable issues of fact for trial (see, *Shaw v Time-Life Records,*38 NY2d 201, 207). Mere unsubstantiated *833allegations are insufficient to raise a triable issue *(see, Daliendo v Johnson,*147 AD2d 312, 317). Accordingly, the court properly exercised its discretion in granting Weisblatt’s motion for summary judgment and severing the action as against the remaining defendant. Thompson, J. P., Kunzeman, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.