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

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1510 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 1510

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the United States Courthouse in Washington, District of 
Columbia, as the ``E. Barrett Prettyman United States Courthouse'', and 
                          for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF E. BARRETT PRETTYMAN UNITED STATES 
              COURTHOUSE.

    The United States Courthouse located at 3rd Street and Constitution 
Avenue Northwest, in Washington, District of Columbia, shall be known 
and designated as the ``E. Barrett Prettyman United States 
Courthouse''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the United States courthouse referred to 
in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``E. Barrett 
Prettyman United States Courthouse''.

            Passed the Senate February 7, 1996.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
104th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 1510

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the United States Courthouse in Washington, District of 
Columbia, as the ``E. Barrett Prettyman United States Courthouse'', and 
                          for other purposes.
```
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1682 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  2d Session
                                S. 1682

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
 documentation and coastwise trade endorsement for the vessel LIBERTY.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That notwithstanding 
sections 12106, 12107, and 12108 of title 46, United States Code, and 
section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 (46 U.S.C. App. 883), as 
applicable on the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 
Transportation may issue a certificate of documentation with 
appropriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise trade for the 
vessel LIBERTY.

            Passed the Senate July 29, 1996.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
104th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 1682

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
 documentation and coastwise trade endorsement for the vessel LIBERTY.
```
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l y c onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T NA T HA NI E L HO S E A, P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. M I C H A E L B . D O N L E Y , S e c r e t a ry of the U S A i r F orce , D ef

endant- A pp el l ee . N o. 11- 16826 D . C . N o . 5 : 1 1 -cv -0 2 8 9 2 -E JD ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o r th e rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia E dw a r d J . D a vi l a , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d J une 26, 2012 ** B efo re: S C H R O E D E R , H A W K IN S , an d G O U L D , C i rcu i tJu d g es. N a tha ni e l H os e aappe a l s pr o s e f r om the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de ni a l of hi s m ot i on f orappoi ntm e ntof

c ouns e l i n hi s e m pl oy m e ntdi s c r i m i na t i on a c t i on unde r42 U . S . C . § 2000e - 16. W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r28 U . S . C . § 1291. W e r e vi e w f or 

# FI LED JU L 13 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS11- 16826 2 a n ab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n , John son v. U . S. T re asury D ep’t , 27 F . 3d 41 5, 41 7 (9th C i r. 1 9 9 4 ) ( p e rc u r i a m) , a n d w e a f f i rm. T he di s tr i c tc ourtdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on i n de ny i ng H os e a ’ s m ot i on f or appo i ntm entof coun se l because H oseafa i l ed t o est abl i sh thathe sa t i sf i ed al l three f a c to r s f o rap p o in tm e n t o f

c o u n s e l u n d e r4 2 U .S .C . § 2 0 0 0 e - 5 ( f ) ( 1 ) . Se e id . a t416- 17 ( l i s t i ng f

a c t or s f orc ourtt o c ons i de ra nd a f f i rm i ng de ni a l of

m ot i on t o appoi nt coun se l i n em pl oym entdi sc ri m i nat i on ac t i on ). H osea ’ s r em ai ni ng cont ent i on s are un pers uasi ve. H os e a ’ s l e tt e rr e que s t i ng c ouns e l i s c ons true d a s am ot i on f orappoi ntm e nt o f c o u n s e l u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 ( e ) ( 1 ) a n d , s o c o n s tru e d , is d e n ie d . See P alm er v. V aldez , 56 0 F . 3d 96 5, 97 0 (9th C i r. 20 09 ) ( se tt i ng forth “ exce pt i on al ci rc um st ance s” re qu i re m entfor app oi ntm entof coun se l for i nd i gentci vi l l i t i gant s) . AF F I RME D.
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, FINANCE  CALLISTO PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.  FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31, 2011  PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS
ADOPTED  PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I am the Senior Vice President, Finance of Callisto Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"). I am
delivering this certificate in connection with the Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2011 and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
("Form 10-Q").

Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the
Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the
Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: May 16, 2011

/s/ BERNARD F. DENOYER Bernard F. Denoyer Senior Vice President, Finance


---



QuickLinks
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 20

- 60549 Summary Calendar

**Gilmar Batista De Andrade,**

Petitioner **,**

versus

**Merrick Garland,** U.S. Attorney General ,
Respondent

**.**

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A078 966 396

Before **Davis, Jones,** and **Elrod,** Circuit Judges

.
**Per Curiam :**  * Gilmar Batista De Andrade, a native and citizen of Brazil, seeks review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision denying his motion to reopen. The petition for review is denied.

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  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 cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED December 30, 2021
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 20-60549 Document: 00516149031 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/30/2021No. 20

- 60549

2 This court reviews the denial of a motion to reopen under a highly
d eferential abuse

- of

- discretion standard. Zhao v. Gonzales , 404 F.3d 295, 303 (5th Cir. 2005)

. The BIA’s decision will be affirmed unless it is “capricious, racially invidious, utterly without foundation in the evidence, or otherwise so
irrational that it is arbitrary rather than the result of any perceptible rational approach.” Id. at 303

- 04 (internal citation omitted).
An in absentia removal order may be rescinded and the proceedings reopened if the alien demonstrates that he did not receive written notice of the hearing. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(ii). Written notice “is not required if an alien has failed to keep the immigration court apprised of his current mailing address.” Gomez

- Palacios v. Holder , 560 F.3d 354, 359 (5th Cir. 2009)

. The government “satisfies the notice requirement for obtaining a removal order when it gives proper not ice at the most recent mailing address the alien provided.” Hernandez

- Castillo v. Sessions , 875 F.3d 199, 204 (5th Cir. 2017)

. Batista De Andrade admits that he never provided his address to the immigration court. He does not dispute that he was persona lly served with a NTA advising him of his obligation to provide an address. T his portion of the petition for review is denied. Id.
Regarding Batista De Andrade’s credibility argument, the BIA must “weigh the credibility of an affidavit in determining whe ther an alien has rebutted the presumption of notice.” Hernandez v. Lynch , 825 F.3d 266, 270 (5th Cir. 2016). Batista De Andrade signed a document stating that an address in Texas would be his mailing address , and he did not provide an explanation of how someone else could have provided it . Under these facts, “[a]ny reasonable adjudicator” would not be “compelled to conclude” that the affidavit was credible. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). This portion of the petition for review is denied.
The petition for review is **DENIED**

. Case: 20-60549 Document: 00516149031 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/30/2021
#### UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. Ricardio Dale SMITH, Appellant.

No. 02-2731.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 24, 2003.

Decided Jan. 27, 2003.

Before LOKEN, FAGG, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

[UNPUBLISHED]

PER CURIAM.

Ricardio Dale Smith pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm and ammunition by a person with three felony crime-of-violence convictions, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e). Smith entered into a plea agreement in which he waived his right to appeal his sentence so long as the court sentenced him at or below the Guidelines range of 168-210 months. The district court1 sentenced Smith to the mandatory minimum of 180 months in prison and five years of supervised release. On appeal, counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).

Smith knowingly and intelligently waived his right to appeal the sentence the district court imposed. *See United States v. Morrison,*171 F.3d 567, 568 (8th Cir. 1999). Further, having reviewed the record under *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues.

Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm.

A true copy.

1

. The HONORABLE MICHAEL J. DAVIS, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1543 Considered and Passed Senate (CPS)]

  2d Session
                                S. 1543

       To clarify the treatment of Nebraska impact aid payments.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 26, 1996

    Mr. Kerrey introduced the following bill; which was read twice, 
              considered, read the third time, and passed

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
       To clarify the treatment of Nebraska impact aid payments.

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

SECTION 1. TREATMENT OF IMPACT AID PAYMENTS.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary of Education shall treat any State 
as having met the requirements of section 5(d)(2)(A) of Public Law 81-
874 for fiscal year 1991, and as not having met those requirements for 
each of the fiscal years 1992, 1993, and 1994, if--
            (1) its program of State aid was not certified by the 
        Secretary under section 5(d)(2)(C)(i) of Public Law 81-874 for 
        any fiscal year before fiscal year 1991;
            (2) the State submitted timely notice under that section of 
        its intention to seek that certification;
            (3) the Secretary determined that the State did not meet 
        the requirements of section 5(d)(2)(A) of Public Law 81-874 for 
        fiscal year 1991; and
            (4) it has made a payment to each local educational agency 
        in the State, other than any local educational agency that 
        received a payment for fiscal year 1991 under section 
        3(d)(2)(B) of Public Law 81-874, whose State aid it reduced for 
        that fiscal year, in the full amount of that reduction.
    (b) Repayment Not Required.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
law, any local educational agency in such a State that received funds 
under section 3(d)(2)(B) of Public Law 81-874 for fiscal year 1991 
shall not, by virtue of subsection (a), be required to repay those 
funds to the Secretary.
                                 <all>
```
II

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1874

To amend sections of the Department of Energy Organization Act that

are obsolete or inconsistent with other statutes and to repeal a related

section of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 13, 1996

Mr. JOHNSTON introduced the following bill; which was read twice and

referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

A BILL

To amend sections of the Department of Energy Organization Act that are obsolete or inconsistent with other

statutes and to repeal a related section of the Federal

Energy Administration Act of 1974.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Department of Energy

5 Standardization Act of 1996’’.
2

S 1874 IS

1 SEC. 2. STANDARDIZATION OF DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

2 REQUIREMENTS WITH GOVERNMENT-WIDE

3 REQUIREMENTS.

4 (a) DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY REGULATIONS.—

5 (1) Section 501 of the Department of Energy

6 Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7191) is amended by

7 striking subsections (b) and (d).

8 (2) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMEND9 MENT.—Section 501(e) of the Department of En10 ergy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7191(e)) is

11 amended by striking ‘‘subsections (b), (c), and (d)’’

12 and inserting ‘‘subsection (c)’’.

13 (b) SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS AFFECTING ADVISORY

14 COMMITTEES.—

15 (1) Section 624 of the Department of Energy

16 Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7234) is amended by—

17 (A) striking ‘‘(a)’’; and

18 (B) striking subsection (b).

19 (2) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMEND20 MENT.—Section 17 of the Federal Energy Adminis21 tration Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 776) is hereby re22 pealed.

Æ
**Exhibit 32**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

Pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350, asadopted), Michael N. Chang, the Chief Executive Officer of OptimerPharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Company”), and John D. Prunty, the ChiefFinancial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies that, to the best ofhis knowledge:

 
| 1.     | The  Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended  September 30, 2009, to which this Certification is attached as  Exhibit 32 (the “Quarterly Report”), fully complies with the  requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the  Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        |
| 2.     | The  information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all  material respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of the  period covered by the Quarterly Report and results of operations of the  Company for the period covered by the Quarterly Report.                                                                   |

 

Dated:November 3, 2009

 
| /s/  Michael N. Chang                                                           |                                                                                     | /s/  John D. Prunty |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------|
|  Michael N. Chang  Chief Executive Officer

(Principal  Executive Officer) | John  D. Prunty

Chief  Financial Officer

(Principal  Financial and Accounting Officer) |

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished tothe Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

Thiscertification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemedfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporatedby reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933,as amended, or Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made beforeor after the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any generalincorporation language contained in such filing.

 

1

----
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 7484** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. TIMOTHY JEROME NIXON , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Wester n District of North Carolina , at Charlotte
. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. ( 3:00

- cr - 00222

- GCM

- 1; 3:06

- cv - 00024

- GCM )

Submitted : February 24, 2011 Decided: March 3, 2011

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by u npublished per curiam opinion
. Timothy Jerome Nixon, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, Virginia, for Appellee
. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Timothy Jerom e Nixon seeks to appeal the district
court ’ s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 ( e ) motion for reconsideration of 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 j ustice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006) ; Reid v. Angelone , 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Ci r. 2004).
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 o r 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 debata ble, 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 Nixon has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificat e of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts3 and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. DISMISSED
**Exhibit 32.2****Certification Pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.**§ **1350)**     The undersigned, as the chief financial officer of ARRIS Group, Inc., certifies that to thebest of his knowledge the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2007,which accompanies this certification fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the quarterly report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of ARRISGroup, Inc. at the dates and for the periods indicated. The foregoing certification is madepursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350) and shall not be relied uponfor any other purpose.     Dated this 2nd day of November, 2007.         /s/ David B. Potts   David B. Potts   Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Chief Accounting Officer, and Chief Information Officer   
40
EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATIONS

I,
Bernard F. Denoyer, certify that:

1)    I
have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Callisto Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

2)    Based
on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;

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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4)    The
registrant's other certifying officer and I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:



5)    The
registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions);



Date: May 20, 2009

/s/ BERNARD F. DENOYER Bernard F. Denoyer Senior Vice President, Finance


---



QuickLinks