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

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 221 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 221

    To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide penalties for 
   displaying nooses in public with intent to harass or intimidate a 
  person because of that person's race, color, religion, or national 
                                origin.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 7, 2011

   Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas introduced the following bill; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide penalties for 
   displaying nooses in public with intent to harass or intimidate a 
  person because of that person's race, color, religion, or national 
                                origin.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Noose Hate Crime Act of 2011''.

SEC. 2. DISPLAYING NOOSES IN PUBLIC WITH INTENT TO HARASS OR 
              INTIMIDATE.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 13 of title 18, United States Code, is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 250. Displaying nooses in public with intent to intimidate
    ``Whoever, with intent to harass or intimidate any person because 
of that person's race, color, religion, or national origin, displays a 
noose in public shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more 
than 2 years, or both.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of 
chapter 13 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the 
end the following new item:

``250. Displaying nooses in public with intent to intimidate.''.
                                 <all>
```
SANFORD AIRPORT 

AUTHORITY 

Board of Directors 

* * * * * 

FrankS. loppolo, Jr., Esq. 

Chairman 

Tim M. Slattery 

Vice Chairman 

Jennifer T. Dane, Esq. 

Secretary !Treasurer 

U. Henry Bowlin 

Board Member 

Whitey Eckstein 

Board Member 

William R. Miller 

Board Member 

Clyde H. Robertson, Jr. 

Board Member 

Clayton D. Simmons, Esq. 

Board Member 

Stephen P. Smith 

Board Member 

A.K. Shoemaker 

Chairman Emeritus 

Kenneth W. Wright 

Counsel 

Larry A. Dale, C.M. 

President & CEO 

***** 

March 23, 2015 

Department of Transportation 

395 ESt Sw 

Washington, DC 20423 

RE: Docket 46080/0ST -1996-1 095 

To Whom It May Concern: 

Please consider this our letter of support for Surinam Airways Limited's renewal 

application for exemption authority under §401 09 of the Federal transportation 

law. 

We support the amended exemption application as requested to include service 

between points in Surinam, on the one hand, and Orlando and/or Sanford, 

Florida, on the other, via one or more of the following intermediate points: 

Georgetown, Guyana; Port-of-Spain, Trinidad and Tobago; Curacao, 

Netherlands, Antilles; Aruba; Barbados; and Port-au-Prince, Haiti. 

Understanding that service to Orlando will serve Georgetown, Guyana, as the 

intermediate point. 

Furthermore, we support Surinam's planned service set to begin on or about July 

1, 2015 and operate during the months of July, August, and September with 

initial scheduled service for one roundtrip per week. If the service is financially 

viable, Surinam Airways would continue the service and increase frequencies, 

serve Sanford and/or Orlando, and/or serve other intermediate points. 

Finally, we support the renewal application requesting Orlando and Sanford, 

Florida be added to the current co-terminals New York/Newark and Miami. 

~ PreS:nt Lar ale 

sident & CEO 

anford Airport Authority Orlando Sanford International, Inc. 

CC: Mr. Henk Fitz-Jim 

Herbert A. Rosenthal , ESQ 

/rj 

(407) 585-4000 • 1200 Red Cleveland Boulevard Sanford, Florida 32773 • Fax: (407) 585-4045 

www. OrlandoSanfordAirport.com
| **GENERAL (Details)**                | 6 Months Ended |
|--------------------------------------|----------------|
||
| **Fiscal Period [Line Items]**       |           |
| Fiscal year, minimum number of weeks | P52W           |
| Fiscal year, maximum number of weeks | P53W           |

| X                                                                                                                                                 |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Details**Name:**pvh_FiscalPeriodLineItems**Namespace Prefix:**pvh_**Data Type:**xbrli:stringItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**duration |
| X                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Definition
Maximum weeks comprising the Company's fiscal year ending on the Sunday closest to February 1.
+ References
No definition available.
+ Details**Name:**pvh_FiscalYearMaximumWeeksPeriod**Namespace Prefix:**pvh_**Data Type:**us-types:durationStringItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**duration |
| X                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Definition
Minimum weeks comprising the Company's fiscal year ending on the Sunday closest to February 1.
+ References
No definition available.
+ Details**Name:**pvh_FiscalYearMinimumWeekPeriod**Namespace Prefix:**pvh_**Data Type:**us-types:durationStringItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**duration |
EXHIBIT 31.1 - SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION



                                  CERTIFICATION



I, Kenneth McCullum, certify that:


1.       I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on
         Form 8-K containing distribution or servicing reports filed in respect
         of the periods included in the year covered by this annual report of
         Hartford Life Global Funding Trust 2005-021;

2.       Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a
         whole, 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 as of the last day of the period covered by this annual
         report;

3.       Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information
         required to be provided to the depositor by the trustee under the
         pooling and servicing, or similar agreement, for inclusion in these
         reports is included in these reports;

4.       I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
         depositor and the trustee under the pooling and servicing, or similar
         agreement, and based upon my knowledge and the annual compliance review
         required under that agreement, and except as disclosed in the reports,
         the depositor and trustee have each fulfilled its obligations under
         that agreement; and

5.       The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the
         trustee's or depositor's compliance with the minimum servicing or
         similar standards based upon the report provided by an independent
         public accountant, after conducting a review in compliance with the
         Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers or similar
         procedure, as set forth in the pooling and servicing, or similar
         agreements, that is included in these reports.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information
provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:

                  JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and its officers and agents



Date: August 9, 2005

/s/ Kenneth McCullum

Kenneth McCullum
Vice President & Actuary
Hartford Life Insurance Company, as depositor
Third Department,

November, 1990

(November 1, 1990)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Robert G. Cranmer, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Monserrate, J.), rendered November 7, 1986, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of rape in the third degree and endangering the welfare of a child.

County Court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress certain evidence seized at his apartment pursuant to a search warrant. Even if it is accepted that defendant had standing to challenge the use of the seized property at trial *(cf., People v Wesley,*73 NY2d 351; *see, Horton v California,*
      *567496 US —, 110 S Ct 2301), his constitutional rights were, nevertheless, not violated by the seizure of items not specified in the warrant. The warrant was valid, the evidence was in plain view and its incriminatory nature was readily apparent *(see, People v Watson,*100 AD2d 452). There was also no abuse of discretion in allowing a witness to testify as an expert as to the victim’s failure to make earlier disclosures *(see, People v Benjamin R.,*103 AD2d 663).

Judgment affirmed. Kane, J. P., Weiss, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Harvey, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1



THE COAST DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM, INC.



Annual Report on Form 10-K

for the Year ended December 31, 2003



CERTIFICATION



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



The undersigned, who is the Chief Executive Officer of The Coast Distribution
System, Inc. (the Company), hereby certifies that (i) the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003, as filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Annual Report), to which this
Certification is an Exhibit, fully complies with the applicable requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and (ii) the information contained in this Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.



Dated: March 29, 2004



/s/    THOMAS R.
MCGUIREThomas R. McGuireChairman and Chief Executive Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-50941

Summary Calendar

In re: JOHN COOPER; CARRIE D. BOE,

Petitioners.

Petition for a Writ of Mandamus to the

United States District Court for the Western District of Texas

Before WIENER, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

John Cooper and Carrie Boe (Petitioners) seek a writ of mandamus to

vacate a district court’s order remanding a case to state court. In subsequent

1

briefing to the court, however, the Petitioners have suggested that their petition

has been mooted by the filing of an amended complaint in state court. The

Petitioners claim that they will file a new notice of removal as a result of this

pleading. Specifically, the Petitioners “respectfully suggest their Petition for

Writ of Mandamus is moot, but reserve the right to re-file same should the

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

December 9, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 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.

See In re Allstate Ins. Co., 8 F.3d 219, 221 (5th Cir. 1993) (“We may review a remand 1

order on petition for writ of mandamus . . . provided that it was entered on grounds not

authorized by [28 U.S.C.] § 1447(c).”). But see Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U.S. 706,

711-15 (1996) (holding that remand orders are also appealable orders under 28 U.S.C. § 1291).

Case: 10-50941 Document: 00511317363 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/09/2010
No. 10-50941

District Court remand the . . . claims pending in the underlying litigation in the

future prior to a proper adjudication.” We read this representation as a request

by the Petitioners to withdraw the instant petition, and we dismiss the petition

on that basis. We do not address at this time whether this court otherwise lacks

jurisdiction to review the district court’s remand order.

2

DISMISSED.

28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) (“An order remanding a case to the State court from which it was

2

removed is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise . . . .”); see also Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF

Bio, Inc., — U.S. —, 129 S. Ct. 1862, 1865-66 (2009) (“This Court has consistently held that

§ 1447(d) must be read in pari materia with § 1447(c), thus limiting the remands barred from

appellate review by § 1447(d) to those that are based on a ground specified in § 1447(c).”).

2

Case: 10-50941 Document: 00511317363 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/09/2010
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 on Form 10-Q of Network Engines, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended December 31,
2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, John H. Curtis, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, 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.

|Dated: February 9, 2005 |  | /s/JOHN H. CURTISJohn H. CurtisChief Executive
Officer
|----------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------

---



QuickLinks
|   | (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. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  Date: April 12, 2011 |  By:            Ernest W. Letiziano |
|----------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                       |  Ernest W. Letiziano                                                                            |
|                       |  Chief Executive and                                                                            |
|                       |  Chief Financial Officer                                                                        |
|                       |                                                                                                 |
Exhibit 12.2

                                  CERTIFICATION


I, Amir Hai, certify that:

     1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Shamir Optical
Industry Ltd;

     2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;

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

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

a.   Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
     controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure
     that material information relating to the company, including its
     consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
     entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
     prepared;

b.   Evaluated the effectiveness of the company's disclosure controls and
     procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
     effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of
     the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

d.   Disclosed in this report any change in the company's internal control over
     financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual
     report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
     affect, the company's internal control over financial reporting; and

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

a.   All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
     operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
     likely to adversely affect the company's ability to record, process,
     summarize and report financial information; and

b.   Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
     employees who have a significant role in the company's internal control
     over financial reporting.

Date: June 28, 2005

                                                                        Amir Hai
                                                         Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 23

 

 

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No. 333-128202 and No. 333-134249 on Forms S-8 and the Registration Statement No. 333-146121 and 333-157631 on Forms S-3 of Parke Bancorp, Inc. of our report, dated March 27, 2009, relating to our audit of the 2008 consolidated financial statements of Parke Bancorp, Inc., appearing in the Annual Report to Shareholders, which is            incorporated in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Parke Bancorp, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2008.

 

 

Blue Bell, Pennsylvania

March 27, 2009

 

McGladrey & Pullen, LLP is a member firm of RSM International –

an affiliation of separate and independent legal entities.
#### CLARK COUNTY FARM BUREAU TOBACCO CO-OP. Inc., Appellant, v. Eugene CULTON, Jr., et al., Appellees.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

June 17, 1955.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 14, 1955.

Redwine & Redwine, M. C. Redwine, D. L. Pendleton, Winchester, for appellant.

Alton S. Payne, Harvey T.. .Lisle, Winchester, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This is a motion for an appeal from the Clark Circuit Court, W. J. Baxter, Judge.

This action was brought to recover $1,500 for the breach of a contract for personal services. By answer, counter-claim and *141set-off appellant sought to recover $1,250 from appellees. The judgment in favor of appellee, Eugene Culton, Jr., for $1,500 was entered upon the verdict of the jury which we find was properly instructed. . An examination of the record convinces us that the judgment is supported by the pleadings and the evidence and we find no error in the record prejudicial to the substantial rights of appellant.

Motion for appeal is overruled and the judgment is affirmed.
#### Raymond ESCOBAR, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27697.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 19, 1955.

*874■No appearance for appellant.

John F. May, Dist. Atty., Karnes City, Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

WOODLEY, Judge.

Upon his plea of guilty, a jury being waived, appellant was convicted of assault with intent to murder with malice and his punishment was assessed at two years in the penitentiary.

A motion for new trial was filed and urged upon the theory that appellant had been lulled into believing that he did not need to employ an attorney.

There is no, statement of facts on the trial proper.

The statement of facts on the motion for new trial refutes the claim that appellant was not guilty of a criminal offense when he fired into a car in which several persons were riding, and does not support the plea that he did not receive a fair and impartial trial.

The burden of appellant’s complaint was and is that he was not granted probation, which he hoped for.

The granting or refusal of the motion for new trial was, under the facts, within the discretion of the trial court, as was the granting or withholding of probation. No abuse of discretion is made to appear.

The following authorities support our ■conclusion: Berry v. State, 159 Tex.Cr.R. 492, 265 S.W.2d 86; Lewis v. State, 149 Tex.Cr.R. 224, 192 S.W.2d 889; Wolfe v. State, 153 Tex.Cr.R. 171, 218 S.W.2d 204.

The judgment is affirmed.
#### COLEMAN v. STATE.

No. 26789.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 27, 1954.

No attorney on appeal.

William H. Scott, Dist. Atty., King C. Haynie, Asst. Dist. Atty., Houston, Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.-

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense ,is -indecent exposure, as- defined by Article 535c, Vernon’s Ann P.C.; the -punishment, 6 months in jail.

*110The. record is before ,us without a statement of facts or bills of exception.

All the proceedings appearing regular and nothing being presented for our review, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.