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

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 13

Recognizing the cultural importance of the many languages spoken in the

United States and indicating the sense of the House (the Senate concurring) that the United States should maintain the use of English as

a language common to all peoples.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 5, 1993

Mr. EMERSON (for himself, Mr. SKELTON, Mr. BILIRAKIS, Mr. BEVILL, Mr.

HYDE, Mr. COX, Mr. BATEMAN, Mr. KASICH, Mr. BLILEY, Mr. PETRI,

Mrs. ROUKEMA, and Mr. BEREUTER) submitted the following concurrent

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Education and Labor

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Recognizing the cultural importance of the many languages

spoken in the United States and indicating the sense

of the House (the Senate concurring) that the United

States should maintain the use of English as a language

common to all peoples.

Whereas the United States is a Nation with a strong history

of immigration, comprised of individuals from varied cultural, ethnic, and linguistic backgrounds, each of whom

makes his or her unique contribution to the brilliant mosaic of Americans;

Whereas net immigration accounted for one-quarter of the

United States population change during the 1980’s, and
2

HCON 13 IH

the diversity of the Nation can only be expected to continue to grow;

Whereas more than one hundred and fifty languages are spoken in the United States today, making this Nation one

of the most linguistically diverse on this Earth;

Whereas language has a power not to be underestimated and

it can unite or divide peoples of differing backgrounds

and heritages;

Whereas examples of cities, societies, and countries where

people cannot communicate in a common tongue abound:

Serbs and Croats, Azerbanijanis and Armenians, Xhosas

and Zulus, Greek and Turkish Cypriots, and Belgian

Walloons and Flemings, to name a few, and the societal

consequences are the same, discord and disintegration;

Whereas a common language allows individuals to debate

their differences, to recognize their similarities, and to

forge compromises among peoples of different races and

tongues; and

Whereas English is the common language in the United

States today and it is the language which is not identified

with any single culture or ethnicity: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That the Congress—

3 (1) recognizes and appreciates the benefits of

4 cultural diversity and the contributions that many

5 languages have made to the rich fabric of American

6 society;

7 (2) encourages citizens whose native language is

8 other than English to maintain fluency in their na-
3

HCON 13 IH

1 tive language and to pass their language and herit2 age down from generation to generation;

3 (3) encourages citizens whose native language is

4 other than English to learn English as well as re5 taining their individual heritages; and

6 (3) commends efforts to maintain one language

7 common to all people in addition to preserving and

8 maintaining the many, many languages and cultures

9 which currently exist in the United States.

Æ
Fifth Amendment



 Exhibit 10.18 
 FIFTH AMENDMENT TO THE EXPONENT, INC. 401(k) SAVINGS PLAN 
 (AS AMENDED AND RESTATED JANUARY 2,
1999) 
 WHEREAS, Exponent, Inc. (the “Company”) adopted an amended and restated 401(k) Savings Plan effective January 2,
1999 (the “Plan”); and 
 WHEREAS, the Plan must be amended as a result of changes to Section 401(a)(31)(B) of the Internal
Revenue Code regarding automatic rollovers of certain mandatory lump sum payments; and 
 WHEREAS, the Company retains the right to amend the
Plan under Section 11.1(a) thereof; 
 NOW, THEREFORE, effective March 28, 2005, subsection (c)(i) of 6.8 Commencement of
Distributions shall read in full as follows: 
 (i) if the Participant’s vested Account balance does not exceed Five Thousand Dollars
($5,000) at the time of distribution, then the Participant shall receive a lump sum distribution of the entire vested portion of such Account balance and the nonvested portion shall be treated as a forfeiture. In the event of such a mandatory lump
sum distribution greater than $1,000, if the Participant does not elect to have such distribution paid directly to an “eligible retirement plan” (as defined in Section 6.10 and Section 6 of Appendix E) specified by the
Participant in a direct rollover or to receive the distribution directly in the manner set forth in the Plan, then the Plan Administrator will pay the distribution in a direct rollover to an individual retirement plan designated by the Plan
Administrator. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Fifth Amendment to be executed by its duly authorized officer. 

 

					
	 Dated: December 20, 2005
	 	EXPONENT, INC.
			
		 	 By:
	 	 /s/ Richard L. Schlenker

		 	 Title:
	 	Secretary
Anthony G. Bosbous - Mayor



# ~p~,--- ANTHONY

B. BOSBOUS,

Mayor Cityof SaultSte. Marie

225E.PortageAve., Sault Ste.Marie. MI 49783 . Phone:906/635-5261 . Fax:906/635-5606. www.saultcity.com The City of Sault Ste. Mane 1.$ an equal opportunity proVider and employer.

PU R

# e1-tl CH IGAN' / July 24, 2013



### sg cc Kathy Noel- noeledc@lighthouse.net Spencer Nebel, City Manager RobinTroyer, City Clerk/Assistant City Manager On behalf of the City of Sault Ste. Marie I would encourage you to accept the proposal from Delta Airlines to continue with Essential PassengerAir Service to Sault Ste. Marie. If I can provide any additional information, pleasefeel free to contact me. The City of Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan has reviewed the proposal for EssentialAir Serviceat Sault Ste. Marie which was submitted by Delta Airlines. The Cityconcurs with the proposal submitted by Delta to continue providing service to the Chippewa County International Airport near Sault Ste. Marie. Commercial passengerair service is essential to the economy of Sault Ste. Marie and the Eastern Upper Peninsula. Over the years Delta has been a reliable provider of services at the Chippewa County International Airport. Dear Mr. Adams: RE: DeltaAirlines - Chippewa County International Airport Mr. KevinAdams Kevin.Adams@dot.gov
EXHIBIT 99.3



BORDERS
GROUP, INC.

STATEMENT
OF EDWARD W. WILHELM,SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF
BORDERS GROUP, INC.PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Edward W. Wilhelm,
certify that the Form 10-Q, dated July 27, 2003, of Borders Group, Inc. fully
complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that the information
contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Borders Group, Inc.

Date: September 8, 2003

/s/ EDWARD W. WILHELM
-----------------------------------------------
Edward W. Wilhelm
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Borders Group, Inc.

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

*No.*21686.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 26, 1941.

W. D. Nicholson, of Jacksboro, for appellant.

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

DAVIDSON, Judge.

The unlawful possession of wine for the purpose of sale in a dry area is the offense ; the punishment, a fine of $100.

Peace officers, operating under the authority of a search warrant, searched the residence of appellant and found therein eleven quart bottles of wine having an alcoholic content of twenty per cent by volume.

*379Appellant, testifying as a witness in his own behalf, admitted the ownership and possession of the wine, claiming that it was for medicinal purposes. He denied possessing it for the purpose of sale.

A witness for the State testified that, within a period of fifteen days before the alleged offense, he had purchased some wine of appellant. Not being remote, this testimony was admissible as tending to establish the purpose for which it was alleged that the appellant possessed the wine. Hood v. State, 111 Tex.Cr.R. 95, 10 S.W.2d' 94; Moreno v. State, 122 Tex.Cr.R. 178, 54 S.W. 2d 509; McDowell v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 155 S.W.2d 377, this day decided.

Appellant having admitted the possession and ownership of the wine renders untenable his bills of exception challenging the sufficiency of the search warrant to authorize the search of his residence, under the rule that an accused cannot complain of testimony when he testifies to the same facts. Johnson v. State, 118 Tex.Cr.R. 293, 42 S.W. 2d 421; Hood v. State, 111 Tex.Cr.R. 95, 10 S.W.2d 94.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
1

We do not reach the issues resolved in part III.C of the district court’s order, Mountain Top, 338 F. Supp. 2d at 836-37, as

there was no cross-appeal raising those issues.

RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206

File Name: 05a0482p.06

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT _________________

MOUNTAIN TOP BEVERAGE GROUP, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

WILDLIFE BREWING N.B., INC.; JAMES SORENSON,

Defendants-Appellees.

X

-

-

-

-

>

,

-

-

N

No. 04-4075

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati.

No. 01-00832—Susan J. Dlott, District Judge.

Argued and Submitted: December 7, 2005

Decided and Filed: December 22, 2005 

Before: MOORE, ROGERS, and McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges.

_________________

COUNSEL

ARGUED: David L. Petitjean, CHAPPANO WOOD, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellees. ON BRIEF:

Thomas P. Whelley II, Rachael L. Rodman, CHERNESKY, HEYMAN & KRESS, Dayton, Ohio, for

Appellant. David L. Petitjean, CHAPPANO WOOD, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellees.

_________________

OPINION _________________

ROGERS, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff Mountain Top Beverage Group appeals the district court’s grant

of summary judgment in favor of Wildlife Brewing and James Sorenson on Mountain Top’s trademark

infringement claims under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114, 1125(a), and related state law claims, and

the district court’s cancellation of Mountain Top’s “Wildcat” trademarks. After reviewing the record, the

parties’ briefs, and the applicable law, this court affirms the district court’s decision for the reasons stated

in Judge Dlott’s order below. See Mountain Top Beverage Group, Inc. v. Wildlife Brewing N.B., Inc. et al., 338 F. Supp. 2d 827 (S.D. Ohio 2003).1

 The district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of

Wildlife and Sorenson and cancelled Mountain Top’s trademark. The judgment of the district court is

therefore AFFIRMED.

1
`[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 190 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.Con.Res.190
                                     Agreed to November 26, 1993        
                       One Hundred Third Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America


                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
  the fifth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-three


                          Concurrent Resolution

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That when the House adjourns on the legislative day of Friday, November 
26, or the legislative day of Tuesday, November 30, or the legislative 
day of Wednesday December 1, 1993, pursuant to a motion by the majority 
leader, or his designee, in accordance with this resolution, it stand 
adjourned sine die, and that when the Senate adjourns on any day 
beginning on Monday, November 22, 1993 through 11:55 a.m. on Monday, 
January 3, 1994, pursuant to a motion made by the majority leader, or 
his designee, in accordance with this resolution, it stand adjourned 
sine die or until noon on the second day after Members are notified to 
reassemble pursuant to section 2 of this resolution: Provided, That the 
Senate may recess or adjourn for any period in excess of three days 
pursuant to a motion made by the majority leader, or his designee, for 
the duration of the first session of the One Hundred Third Congress, 
subject to section 2 of this resolution.
    Sec. 2. The Speaker of the House and the majority leader of the 
Senate, acting jointly after consultation with the minority leader of 
the House and the minority leader of the Senate, shall notify the 
Members of the House and Senate, respectively, to reassemble whenever, 
in their opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.
Attest:







                                  Clerk of the House of Representatives.

Attest:







                                                Secretary of the Senate.`
. 

T~EATTORNEY GENERAL 

OF TEXAS 

AUE~T~N ax. TExAe 

Eonombla klph L. -11, chu 

DHYM’I Lloenu Dlvirbn 

Dopmtmat et Ml10 8aroty 

AImtin,. Tuu 

Maroh 18, ls9 

Dear llrl oplnkur Ho, o-21 

Re: gfi.fi.1 opdrunkendrlving;punl~hi p3,oo rinr w 00m urd 

3811 untono stupenh. 

kr ucpinti083 0r 50 -8, n09t 

tq’lal -ted and MUM dlmnl~sed bu 

rti m 008tr not -ed. llot 

8 rinri Conviotion. 

Yau adYl.M that DRi8y Rnax wu 0onYloted by driving 8x4 

matataoblle while lnto%io&ed. Fho puaiahment VM fbmd at a tine of 

&jQ.OO mnd oortr and a jail wntonm or go days whloh jell rentenae 

WUI nded, 

02tpintt38t “p” 0f 50 ~~,~~r0tion 0f thrd8ttt •~ tea ~6 grsnt+d 

&a mtmltted with your letter &art. that aftar the 

sdy dlmlsaed. The fine and aorta whkh had been paid were 

foal requert cur 

"g 

lnlan u to whether the abovo nr a flzml 

oonvlatlon Nab a~ to a8ke it 0 lig8toPy upon your dopartwnt to ruw~nd 

h0r a wmr *r lla ena fe or a p er io d or l IJC nonth8. 

Xn the in&ant oMe the $Umt WM Bet r6ide 8nd the 

MUM *u dlBmlrMd. Xt 18 imaterial that the ilne 8nd oortn nuw not 

-turned to the defendant. 8ho wu not rum aonvleted 8nd your 

qurrtlon l8 uaauelwd La the negetivr. 

foura verytryly * 

AWOR8X ox8RAL OF marA 

By 8filannR.M~ 

fflenn A. Leuls 

AMid8nt 

Qiuitrrwa 

APoYm I P mRALDc.Jum 

AFZORR8Y 6lDiBULWTSIA8
EXHIBIT 32.2CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002Inconnection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of SkillSoft PublicLimited Company (the “Company”) for the period endedApril 30, 2007 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Thomas J. McDonald, Chief Financial Officer of the Company herebycertifies, 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: June 8, 2007                                                                                                    /s/ Thomas J. McDonald   Thomas J. McDonald       Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information  extracted  from  the
consolidated  (unaudited)  statements  of  income  for  the  nine  months  ended
September 30, 1999 and the  consolidated  balance sheet as of September 30, 1999
contained in the Company's  Quarterly  Report on Form 10 Q for the Quarter Ended
September  30,  1999 and is  qualified  in its  entirety  by  reference  to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>


<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                             SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                    10,673,729
<SECURITIES>                               2,034,904
<RECEIVABLES>                             32,499,240
<ALLOWANCES>                              (3,926,337)
<INVENTORY>                                   89,450
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          53,162,781
<PP&E>                                    26,504,720
<DEPRECIATION>                           (13,280,937)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            87,960,826
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     21,563,652
<BONDS>                                      264,766
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                     195,058
<OTHER-SE>                                65,397,350
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              87,960,826
<SALES>                                   29,437,519
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          88,578,264
<CGS>                                      1,560,932
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             32,802,219
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          45,519,130
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             439,500
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           121,965
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           10,619,326
<INCOME-TAX>                               3,958,103
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        6,661,223
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                               6,661,223
<EPS-BASIC>                                   0.35
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   0.33



</TABLE>
Order filed May 20, 2014 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-14-00223-CV

____________

IN THE INTEREST OF D.C., A MINOR CHILD

On Appeal from the 257th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2012-05172J

ORDER

On May 5, 2014, Brian J. Fischer filed a notice of appearance as attorney for 

the minor child, which was erroneously considered as an appearance for appellant. 

On May 6, 2014, Tom Zakes filed a motion to withdraw as counsel for appellant, 

which was granted in error. The motion does not comply with Texas Rule of 

Appellate Procedure 6.5. When new counsel is not substituted, the motion must 

provide the party’s name and last known address, state that a copy of the motion 

was delivered to the party, state that the party was notified in writing of the right to 

object to the motion, and show that the motion was delivered to the party by 

certified and regular mail. See Tex. R. App. P. 6.5.
2

Accordingly, we WITHDRAW the ruling granting counsel’s motion to 

withdraw, which was issued in error. Counsel’s motion to withdraw from 

representing appellant is DENIED. Tom Zakes remains counsel of record for 

appellant. 

The reporter’s record in this appeal was due May 19, 2014. Appellant is 

ordered to take the necessary steps to see that the reporter’s record is filed on or 

before June 6, 2014, which includes making payment arrangements for the record, 

unless the trial court determines that appellant is indigent.

PER CURIAM
EXHIBIT 32.2

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 Annual Report of Stanadyne Corporation (Stanadyne) on Form 10-K for the year
ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), we, M. David Jones, Chief Executive Officer of Stanadyne, and Stephen S. Langin, Chief Financial Officer of Stanadyne,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of our knowledge:

(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 Stanadyne.



|                        |  |                        
|----------------------- |  | -----------------------
|/s/ M. David Jones      |  | /s/ Stephen S. Langin  
|M. David Jones          |  | Stephen S. Langin      
|Chief Executive Officer |  | Chief Financial Officer
|March 31, 2006          |  | March 31, 2006
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

STEPHEN ANTHONY WALKER,

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-13-00239-CR 

Appeal from the

213th Judicial District Court

of Tarrant County, Texas 

(TC# 1216371D) 

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the 

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. This decision shall be certified 

below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2015.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

LINDA LOPEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

TEXAS CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY,

Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Civil Action No. 4:22-cv-00171-O

ORDER

Before the Court is Defendant’s Unopposed Motion for Protective Order (ECF No. 

16), filed June 16, 2022. Defendant moves for a protective order “to prevent inappropriate use or 

disclosure of confidential or sensitive materials.” Mot. 1, ECF No. 16. This Court routinely 

declines to use Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) to convert an agreement of the parties into a 

court order. This practice does not leave the parties without recourse. First, the parties may agree 

to any confidentiality or discovery-related contract among themselves without devoting judicial 

resources to the matter. See Davis v. City of Fort Worth, No. 4:14-cv-491-A, 2014 WL 12940678, 

at *3 (N.D. Tex. July 3, 2014).

Second, a party may move for leave to file a specific document under seal with a 

memorandum outlining the good cause for the document to be sealed from public. The motion 

must be supported by legal authorities and relevant facts verified by oath or declaration of a person 

with personal knowledge. See United States v. Holy Land Found. for Relief & Dev., 624 F.3d 685, 

690 (5th Cir. 2010) (“Public confidence in our judicial system cannot long be maintained where 

important judicial decisions are made behind closed doors and then announced in conclusive terms 

to the public, with the record supporting the court’s decision sealed from public view.” (cleaned 

up)); Binh Hoa Le v. Exeter Fin. Corp., 990 F.3d 410, 420–21 (5th Cir. Mar. 5, 2021) (“[W]hen 

Case 4:22-cv-00171-O Document 17 Filed 06/17/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 112
2

materials enter the court record, the standard for shielding records from public view is far more 

arduous.”). The Court thus DENIES the Motion.

SO ORDERED this 17th day of June, 2022.

Case 4:22-cv-00171-O Document 17 Filed 06/17/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 113
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the Annual Report of Entrust Financial Services, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-QSB for the year ended December 31,
2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report), I, Jeffrey D. Rudolph, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
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 Company.
|--- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Date: March
25, 2005 |  | By:/s/  Jeffrey D. Rudolph
      Chief Executive Officer
|-------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------------