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

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 121 (Tuesday, September 11, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Page S6110]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                   AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED AND PROPOSED

       SA 2781. Mr. HELLER submitted an amendment intended to be 
     proposed by him to the bill S. 3457, to require the Secretary 
     of Veterans Affairs to establish a veterans job corps, and 
     for other purposes, which was ordered to lie on the table.
       SA 2782. Mr. BURR submitted an amendment intended to be 
     proposed by him to the bill S. 3457, supra; which was ordered 
     to lie on the table.
       SA 2783. Mr. PAUL submitted an amendment intended to be 
     proposed by him to the bill S. 3457, supra; which was ordered 
     to lie on the table.
       SA 2784. Mrs. GILLIBRAND submitted an amendment intended to 
     be proposed by her to the bill S. 3457, supra; which was 
     ordered to lie on the table.
       SA 2785. Mr. BEGICH (for himself, Mr. Wyden, and Mr. 
     Merkley) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by 
     him to the bill S. 3457, supra; which was ordered to lie on 
     the table.
       SA 2786. Mr. McCAIN submitted an amendment intended to be 
     proposed by him to the bill S. 3457, supra; which was ordered 
     to lie on the table.
       SA 2787. Ms. COLLINS (for herself and Mr. Lieberman) 
     submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by her to the 
     bill S. 3457, supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
       SA 2788. Ms. COLLINS (for herself and Mr. Leahy) submitted 
     an amendment intended to be proposed by her to the bill S. 
     3457, supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
       SA 2789. Mrs. MURRAY submitted an amendment intended to be 
     proposed by her to the bill S. 3457, supra; which was ordered 
     to lie on the table.

                          ____________________
```
<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
                      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: July 22, 2004

                            /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 or as a separate disclosure document of the Company or
the certifying officer.

                                      254
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v *221Colin Peters, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Slavin, J.), rendered January 11, 1989, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Since defense counsel merely made a general objection and did not raise the specific factual or legal basis for his objection, the defendant has failed to preserve for appellate review his claim that the trial court improperly discharged a juror *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *cf., People v Jackson,*149 AD2d 532).

We reject the defendant’s contention that his right to be present for all material stages of trial was violated *(see,*CPL 260.20; *People v Ciaccio,*47 NY2d 431). The defendant had no right to be present during that portion of the pre-charge conference at which the court discussed with counsel what would be included on the proposed verdict sheet, as that conference only involved questions of law and procedure *(see, People v Velasco,*77 NY2d 469).

The defendant has failed to preserve for appellate review his various claims of prosecutorial misconduct *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Medina,*53 NY2d 951). Thompson, J. P., Eiber, Balletta and Ritter, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Joan Kline, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Vaughn, J.), rendered June 22, 1990, convicting her of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree and offering a *267false instrument for filing in the first degree (10 counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the County Court, Suffolk County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).

Viewing the evidence adduced at trial in a light most favorable to the People, we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and to exclude to a moral certainty any reasonable hypothesis of innocence *(see, People v Johnson,*65 NY2d 556; *People v Kennedy,*47 NY2d 196). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]). The evidence established that the signatures of a doctor and a teacher had been forged on certain forms that the defendant submitted to the Suffolk County Department of Social Services in an attempt to secure funding for her handicapped children’s program. The defendant’s contention that the "HCP-2” forms were not "written instrument[s]” within the meaning of Penal Law § 175.00 (3) is without merit *(cfi, People v Bel Air Equip. Corp.,*39 NY2d 48; *People v Wolf,*59 AD2d 547).

Although we disapprove of the prosecutor’s reference to the defendant as "a fraud” during summation, in light of the strong evidence of guilt, we find that the defendant was not deprived of a fair trial *(see, People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230).

We have reviewed the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Hooper, J. P., Lawrence, Eiber and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
# C_2008158EN.01001501.xml

| 21.6.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 158/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.6.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 158/15

---

Action brought on 5 May 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-187/08)

(2008/C 158/23)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Schima and J.-B. Laignelot, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/91/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2002 on the energy performance of buildings (1) or by not informing the Commission thereof, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 15 of the Directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/91/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2002 on the energy performance of buildings (1) or by not informing the Commission thereof, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 15 of the Directive;

1

| — | Order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The time-limit for transposing the Directive 2002/91/EC expired on 4 January 2006. At the date on which the present action was brought, the defendant had still not adopted the measures necessary to transpose the directive in regard to the Walloon Region or, at least, had not informed the Commission thereof.

---

(1)  OJ 2003 L 1, p. 65.

1

---
Exhibit 32.1

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Smith Barney Tidewater Futures Fund L.P. (the ‘‘Partnership’’) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the ‘‘Report’’), I, Jerry Pascucci, President and Director of Citigroup Managed Futures LLC, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 Partnership.

/s/ Jerry Pascucci
Jerry Pascucci
Citigroup Managed Futures LLC
President and Director

Date:November 14, 2007

---
EXHIBIT 11.1
    SYQUEST TECHNOLOGY, INC.
    COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
    (In thousands, except per share data)
    <TABLE>
    <CAPTION>
 
                                                       Three months ended
                                                             June 30,
                                                       --------------------
                                                          1997      1996
                                                      ---------   ---------
    <S>                                                 <C>         <C>
 
    Net (Loss) before cumulative effect of
    cumulative preferred stock dividends and
    extraordinary credit                              ($10,672)   ($41,317)
 
    Cumulative preferred stock dividends                  (394)         -
 
    Value assigned to warrants issued in
    conjunction with Preferred Stock Offerings          (24,050)        -
                                                      ---------   ---------
    Net (loss) applicable to Common Shareholders        (35,116)   (41,317)
 
    Common and common equivalent shares










      outstanding:                                       44,054      11,450
 
 
    Net (loss) common and common equivalent share        ($.80)     ($3.61)
                                                      =========   =========
 
    </TABLE>
# C_2009267EN.01001601.xml

| 7.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 267/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.11.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 267/16

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 September 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Malta

(Case C-76/08) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Admissibility - Conservation of wild birds - Directive 79/409/EEC - Spring hunting - Prohibition - Derogation from the system of protection - Condition that there be no ‘other satisfactory solution’ - Legitimate expectations)

2009/C 267/27

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Recchia, D. Lawunmi and P. Oliver, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Republic of Malta (represented by: S. Camilleri, D. Mangion, acting as Agents and J. Bouckaert, advocaat)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of Article 9 of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1) — Failure to comply with the criteria laid down by the Directive for the grant of a derogation authorising hunting in spring of quail and turtle doves

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by authorising the opening of a hunting season for quails (Coturnix coturnix) and turtle doves (Streptopelia turtur) during the spring migration period in the years 2004 to 2007, without complying with the conditions laid down in Article 9(1) of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds, as amended, in respect of 2004 to 2006, by Council Regulation (EC) No 807/2003 of 14 April 2003, and, in respect of 2007, by Council Directive 2006/105/EC of 20 November 2006, the Republic of Malta has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by authorising the opening of a hunting season for quails (Coturnix coturnix) and turtle doves (Streptopelia turtur) during the spring migration period in the years 2004 to 2007, without complying with the conditions laid down in Article 9(1) of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds, as amended, in respect of 2004 to 2006, by Council Regulation (EC) No 807/2003 of 14 April 2003, and, in respect of 2007, by Council Directive 2006/105/EC of 20 November 2006, the Republic of Malta has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

| 2. | Orders the Republic of Malta to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Republic of Malta to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 92, 12.4.2008.

1

---
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4301 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

<DOC>
115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4301

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 8, 2018

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 201 Tom Hall Street in Fort Mill, South Carolina, as the ``J. 
                Elliott Williams Post Office Building''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. J. ELLIOTT WILLIAMS POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 201 Tom Hall Street in Fort Mill, South Carolina, shall be 
known and designated as the ``J. Elliott Williams Post Office 
Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``J. Elliott 
Williams Post Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives May 7, 2018.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
Exhibit 31.1**SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION**I, Gregory S. Daily, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of iPayment, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this quarterly report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.       Date: May 14, 2007 By: /s/ Gregory S. Daily             Gregory S. Daily      Chief Executive Officer
# C_2008171EN.01005002.xml

| 5.7.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/50

---

Action brought on 5 February 2008 — Nardin v Parliament

(Case F-12/08)

(2008/C 171/99)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Thierry Nardin (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: V. Wiot, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

First, annulment of the decision of the European Parliament of 2 April 2007 fixing the applicant's rights on taking up his appointment inasmuch as it did not grant him the expatriation allowance and, second, an order that the defendant pay the expatriation allowance and default interest and make good the non-material damage suffered by the applicant.

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the European Parliament of 2 April 2007 fixing the applicant's rights on taking up his appointment inasmuch as it did not grant him the expatriation allowance; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the European Parliament of 2 April 2007 fixing the applicant's rights on taking up his appointment inasmuch as it did not grant him the expatriation allowance;

| — | Order the European Parliament to pay to the applicant the expatriation allowance corresponding to a monthly sum of 16 % of the total amount of basic salary plus household allowance and dependent child allowance paid to the applicant per month since April 2007 and for all the months following until payment in full; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the European Parliament to pay to the applicant the expatriation allowance corresponding to a monthly sum of 16 % of the total amount of basic salary plus household allowance and dependent child allowance paid to the applicant per month since April 2007 and for all the months following until payment in full;

| — | Order payment of default interest on the damages awarded at 8 % per year since the respective dates on which the sums fell due until payment in full; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order payment of default interest on the damages awarded at 8 % per year since the respective dates on which the sums fell due until payment in full;

| — | Order the European Parliament to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 10 000 or any other sum, including a higher one, to compensate for the non-material damage which he has suffered; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the European Parliament to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 10 000 or any other sum, including a higher one, to compensate for the non-material damage which he has suffered;

| — | Order the European Parliament to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

---
**Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 July 2009 – Fornaci Laterizi Danesi v Commission**

**(Case C‐498/08 P)**

Appeal – Action for annulment – Time-limit for bringing an action – Point from which time starts to run – Inadmissibility because out of time – Appeal manifestly unfounded

Actions for annulment – Time-limits – Point from which time starts to run – Day on which a measure came to the knowledge of the applicant – Subsidiary matter (Art. 230, fifth para., EC) (see paras 21-22, 27)

**Re:**

| | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Appeal brought against the order of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 9 September 2008 in Case T-224/08 | Fornaci Laterizi Danesi | v | Commission | by which that court dismissed as inadmissible the application for annulment of Commission Decision 2008/25/EC of 13 November 2007 adopting, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC, a first updated list of sites of Community importance for the Continental biogeographical region (OJ 2008 L 12, p. 383), in so far as a plot of land belonging to the applicant, under reference IT20A0018, was included in that list. |

**Operative part:**

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | The appeal is dismissed. |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Fornaci Laterizi Danesi SpA is ordered to pay the costs. |