alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 The Honorable Richard E. Dorr, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 04-3570

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Western District of Missouri. Robert J. Lacher, * * [Unpublished] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: April 7, 2005 Filed: April 13, 2005

___________ Before BYE, RILEY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. In this direct criminal appeal, Robert Lacher challenges the sentence the district court 1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to a felon-in-possession charge. He argues that (1) Blakely v. Washington , 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), precluded the district court from finding that his second-degree burglary conviction of a commercial building was a crime of violence; and (2) the conviction is not a crime of violence, and this court-2- should revisit United States v. Hascall , 76 F.3d 902 (8th Cir.) (holding burglary of commercial structure is crime of violence), cert. denied , 519 U.S. 948 (1996). These arguments fail. During the pendency of this appeal, the Supreme Court held in United States v. Booker , 125 S. Ct. 738, 756, 765-67 (2005), that the reasoning in Blakelyapplies to the federal Sentencing Guidelines, and therefore that “any fact (other than a prior conviction) which is necessary to support a sentence exceeding the maximum authorized by the facts established by a plea of guilty . . . must be admitted by the defendant or proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.” Thus, the Court reaffirmed that, consistent with the Sixth Amendment, a court may find the fact of a prior conviction, see id. at 756, and the fact of a prior conviction includes the determination whether the conviction is of a type that enhances the defendant’s sentence, see United States v. Kempis-Bonola , 287 F.3d 699, 703 (8th Cir. 2002). We also find that the court properly determined that Lacher’s conviction was a “crime of violence,” see Hascall , 76 F.3d at 904 (second-degree burglary of commercial building “involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another” and is therefore a crime of violence), and only this court en banc may revisit its holding in Hascall , see United States v. Yell , 18 F.3d 581, 583 (8th Cir. 1994). Lacher raises no argument based on Booker that the sentence imposed was unreasonable. Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF CHASTAIN CAPITAL CORPORATION FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER
31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                      11,957,616
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,168,006
<PP&E>                                       7,294,583
<DEPRECIATION>                                 118,751
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             154,512,426
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       94,673,723
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        73,468
<OTHER-SE>                                  59,765,235
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               154,512,426
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,374,394
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  273,173
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,431,851
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            39,453,061
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           3,321,327
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (45,671,695)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (45,671,695)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (45,671,695)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (5.54)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (5.54)
        

</TABLE>
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2817 

To amend title XXVII of the Public Health Service Act to remove the 

non-discrimination requirements relating to health care providers. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 24, 2013 

Mr. HARRIS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend title XXVII of the Public Health Service Act 

to remove the non-discrimination requirements relating 

to health care providers. 

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 ‘‘Protect Patient Access 

5 to Quality Health Professionals Act of 2013’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REMOVING NON-DISCRIMINATION REQUIREMENTS 

7 RELATING TO HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS. 

8 Section 2706 of the Public Health Service Act (42 

9 U.S.C. 300gg–5) is amended by striking ‘‘NON-DIS10 CRIMINATION IN HEALTH CARE’’ and all that follows 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2817 IH

1 through ‘‘The provisions of section 1558’’ and inserting 

2 the following: ‘‘NON-DISCRIMINATION IN HEALTH

3 CARE. 

4 ‘‘The provisions of section 1558’’. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
p. 1


# OAR Box 1875 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 38 ) ll-E-5 6 Docket Number: 

# A-90-1 9

Printed 12/1/200811:12:46

AM Sheet 38of 86P. 2 

## A-90-1 9 ll-E-5 6 DATE : Septembe r 16 , 199 2 SUBJECT : Hazardou s Organi c NESHA P (HON ) Meetin g wit h Stat e

Representative s Attache d i s a n agend a fo r a teleconferenc e i n whic h Jef f Clark , Offic e o f Ai r Qualit yPlannin g an d Standards , update d member s o f th e Nationa l Governor s Association' s Ai r Implementatio n Tas k Forc e abou t th e HON . Attachment : 1

.i i ___-_—.... .... . 

### DE C I 8199 2

i p 'A i

,x •'-• • ,-• • .' 2 •

mgmll.memos.dc tP. 3 \

### NATIONAL ' CJOVERNOB S ASSGOATIO N Ro y Rome r Governo r of Colorad o Chairma n Carrol l A . Campbel l Jr. Governo r o f Sout h Carolin a Vic e Chairma n Raymon d C Scheppac h Executiv e Directo r Hal l o f th e State

s 444 Nort h Capito l Stree t Washington . D.C . .10001.1 5 Telephon e (202)6>4.5)0 O

**** * AGEND A Th e Stat e Environmenta l Commissioners ' Ai r Implementatio n Tas k Forc e Conferenc e Call wit

h EP A - - Wednesday . Septembe r 16 . 2:0 0 p.m . Easter

n Tim e Conferenc

e Line : 202-260-025 4 HO N Rul e

• Statu s o

f EP A Discussion s wit

h OM B

• Interpollutan

t Averaging : Strategy fo

r Promulgation o

f the Rule Economi c Incentive

s Rul e Briefing by EP

A andInput

fro mState s (refe

r to EP A briefing material s attached) Ne wSourc e Revie wRule s an d VO

C Bankin g an d Tradin g Briefing by EP

A an dInput fromState s Titl e I V NO

x Rul e Updat e o n Rul e fromEP A
Exhibit 99.2

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 Pathmark Stores, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended May 3, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Frank G. Vitrano, President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

| |  |        |  | /s/ Frank G. Vitrano                 
| |  | ------ |  | -------------------------------------
| |  | Name:  |  | Frank G. Vitrano                     
| |  | Title: |  | President and Chief Financial Officer
| |  | Date:  |  | June 11, 2003                        

---

QuickLinks
Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 66 Filed 12/14/21 Page 1 of 2
Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 66 Filed 12/14/21 Page 2 of 2
June 30, 2015

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

SHANNON JOE CHAUNCEY, Appellant

NO. 14-13-00950-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. 

Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the 

judgment. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Marshall , ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2019-Ohio-3113.]

D ISCIPLINARY C OUNSEL v . M ARSHALL . [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Marshall , ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2019-Ohio-3113.] (No. 2013-0924

— Submitted June 27, 2019

— Decided August 2, 2019.)
O N A PPLICATION FOR R EINSTATEMENT

.

____________________ {¶ 1} This cause came on for further c onsideration upon the filing of an application for reinstatement by respond ent, Joy Lenore Marshall, Attorney Registration No. 0073585, last known busin ess address in Columbus, Ohio. {¶ 2} The court coming now to consider its order of November 6, 2014, wherein the court, pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(12)(A)(3), suspended respondent from the practice for a period of two years, with one year stayed on conditions, finds that respondent has substantially complied with that order and with the provisions of Gov.Bar R. V(24). {¶ 3} Therefore, it is ordered by this cour t that respondent is reinstated to the practice of law in the state of Ohio on the condition that she continue to make restitution payments in accordance with th e promissory note executed on July 30,
2019. {¶ 4} It is further ordered that the clerk of this court issue certified copies of this order as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(17)(D)(1) and that publication be made as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(17)(D)(2). {¶ 5} For earlier case, see Disciplinary Counsel v. Marshall , 142 Ohio St.3d 1, 2014-Ohio-4815, 27 N.E.3d 481.
O’C ONNOR , C.J., and K ENNEDY , F RENCH , F ISCHER , D E W INE , D ONNELLY , and S TEWART , JJ., concur.

________________________
EXHIBIT 32.01

# 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 Swank, Inc. (the
Company) for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2006 (the
Report), the undersigned each hereby certifies that: (1) the Report
fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended; 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:  November 14, 2006 | /s/ John Tulin, PresidentJohn Tulin,
(Chief Executive
Officer)
|------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------

|Dated:  November 14, 2006 | /s/ Jerold R. Kassner
Jerold R. Kassner,
Senior Vice President and Treasurer
(Chief Financial Officer)
|------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Swank, Inc. and will be retained by
Swank, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.

22
Appendix C

Modeling Analysis Protocol

and Quality Assurance Project Plan

Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation 

Division of Air Pollution Control 

9th Floor L&C Annex 

401 Church Street 

Nashville, TN 37243

Pre-Hearing Draft

Regional Haze SIP for TN Class I Areas

Appendix C - 1

January 18, 2008
Introduction

The regional haze modeling was coordinated by the southeastern regional planning organization,

Visibility Improvement - State and Tribal Association of the Southeast (VISTAS), which is

comprised of the ten southeast states (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North

Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia) and the local programs and

tribal agencies located within these states. VISTAS contracted with ENVIRON International

Corp., Alpine Geophysics, LLC and the University of California Riverside to perform the

emissions and air quality modeling for the regional haze state and tribal implementation plans.

Appendix C.1 contains the modeling protocol submitted by the contractors entitled Modeling

Protocol for the VISTAS Phase II Regional Haze Modeling. The modeling protocol documents

the meteorological model, emissions model and air quality model that was used for this project.

It discusses in detail the configuration of the models, modeling domains, quality assurance

objectives, etc.

Appendix C.2 contains the quality assurance project plan that was developed by the modeling

contractors to outline the quality assurance procedures that were used in the modeling process.

Appendix C.3 contains an article from Atmospheric Environment published in 2006. The article

contains details of modifications made to the secondary organic aerosols (SOA) module in

CMAQ, by ENVIRON, to better quantify SOA. This was necessary as preliminary modeling

runs showed organic carbon was significantly under-predicted in the summer and this underprediction was determined to be unacceptable because organic carbon is a major contributor to

PM mass and visibility impairment in the southeastern United States. The modified SOA module

in CMAQ incorporates additional SOA formation based on emissions data from pine forests in

Durham, NC. Full details of the SOA module are included in section 4 of the article.

Pre-Hearing Draft

Regional Haze SIP for TN Class I Areas

Appendix C - 2

January 18, 2008
**Exhibit 32(i)**

****

**CERTIFICATION**

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

In connect with the quarterly report of Taylor Devices, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-QSB for the period ended February 28, 2005 to be filed with Securities and Exchange
Commission on or about  the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Douglas P. Taylor, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
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 as of the dates and for the periods
covered by the Report.

It is not intended that this statement be deemed to be filed for purposes of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.



|Date: April 13, 2005 | By: | /s/ Douglas P. Taylor                      
|-------------------- | --- | -------------------------------------------
|                     |     | Douglas P. Taylor, 
Chief Executive Officer
#### Pete MERRITT, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 22656.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 24, 1943.

John L. Fowler, of Odessa, for appellant.

Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of assault with intent to murder with malice, and his punishment was assessed at six years’ confinement in the penitentiary.

Since the filing of the record in this court, the appellant has presented a written motion, duly verified, stating that he no longer desires to prosecute the appeal and requesting that the same be dismissed. The motion is granted and the appeal is ordered dismissed.
Exhibit 4.5
CERTIFICATE OF CORPORATE DOMESTICATION
OF IVANHOE CAPITAL ACQUISITION CORPORATION
Pursuant to Section 388
of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (the “DGCL”)
Ivanhoe Capital Acquisition Corporation, presently a Cayman Islands exempted company limited by shares (the “Company”), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY:
1. The Company was first incorporated on July 8, 2020 under the laws of the Cayman Islands.
2. The name of the Company immediately prior to the filing of this Certificate of Corporate Domestication with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware in accordance with Section 388 of the DGCL was Ivanhoe Capital Acquisition Corporation.
3. The name of the Company as set forth in the Certificate of Incorporation being filed with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware in accordance with Section 388(b) of the DGCL is “SES AI Corporation.”
4. The jurisdiction that constituted the seat, siege social, or principal place of business or central administration of the Company, or any other equivalent thereto under applicable law, immediately prior to the filing of this Certificate of Corporate Domestication in accordance with the provisions of Section 388 of the DGCL was the Cayman Islands.
5. The domestication has been approved in the manner provided for by the document, instrument, agreement or other writing, as the case may be, governing the internal affairs of the Company and the conduct of its business or by applicable non-Delaware law, as appropriate.
This Certificate of Corporate Domestication shall be effective upon the filing hereof with the Secretary of State of Delaware in accordance with Section 388 of the DGCL.
[Signature page follows]


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Certificate to be executed by its duly authorized officer on this [·] day of [·], 2021.
​
	​
	IVANHOE CAPITAL ACQUISITION CORPORATION,
a Cayman Islands exempted company limited by shares

	​
	​

	​
	​

	​
	​
	By:
	​

	​
	Name: Robert Friedland

	​
	Title: Chief Executive Officer



​
M A N D A T E

TO THE 357TH DISTRICT COURT of CAMERON COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas, on the 17th day of July, 

2014, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

Juan Antonio Coronado, Francisco 

Soliz Ramirez, Roberto Rivera III, 

Ruben Contreras,

Appellants,

v.

Peter Zavaletta Appellee.

CAUSE NO. 13-14-00335-CV (Tr.Ct.No. 2008-03-1636-E)

was determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal 

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion. Costs of the appeal are adjudged against 

appellants.

We further order this decision certified below for observance

July 17, 2014.



WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals 

for the Thirteenth District of Texas, in this behalf, and in all things have it duly 

recognized, obeyed and executed.

WITNESS, the Hon. Rogelio Valdez, Chief Justice of our Court of Appeals, with the seal 

thereof affixed, at the City of Edinburg, Texas this 29th day of January, 2015.

Dorian E. Ramirez, CLERK
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. RP01-30-000]

Take notice that on October 5, 2000, Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company (ESNG) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, certain revised tariff sheets, bear a proposed effective date of November 1, 2000.

ESNG states that the purpose of this instant filing is to track rate changes attributable to storage services purchased from Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation (Columbia) under its Rate Schedule CFSS. The costs of the above referenced storage services comprise the rates and charges payable under ESNG's Rate Schedule CFSS. This tracking filing is being made pursuant to Section 3 of ESNG's Rate Schedule CFSS.

ESNG states that copies of the filing have been served upon its jurisdictional customers and interested State Commissions.

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-26686  Filed 10-17-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Exhibit 32.2

Certification  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)

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 Vertis, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), hereby certifies, to such officer's knowledge,
that:

The
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003 (the "Report") of the Company fully complies
with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.

|Dated: March 5, 2004 | /s/DEAN D. DURBINName: Dean D. Durbin
Title: Chief Financial Officer | 
|-------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------- | 

The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely 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) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.

---

QuickLinks