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

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 192

Expressing the sense of Congress with respect to information on AIDS and

HIV infections, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NOVEMBER 22, 1993

Mr. NADLER submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was

referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of Congress with respect to information

on AIDS and HIV infections, and for other purposes.

Whereas 315,390 cases of AIDS have been documented and

more than 194,300 AIDS-related deaths have resulted in

the United States;

Whereas the AIDS crisis is a national epidemic resulting in

at least 40,000 new HIV infections annually in the United States;

Whereas many adults and adolescents are not being provided

thorough and easily accessible AIDS education in order

to prevent the contraction of the disease; and

Whereas improved education and prevention efforts to adolescents as well as adults have been shown to reduce the

likelihood of contracting AIDS: Now, therefore, be it
2

•HCON 192 IH

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that—

3 (1) all States should provide quality education

4 in school sex education programs respecting—

5 (A) AIDS, and

6 (B) HIV infections,

7 (2) the Secretary of Health and Human Serv8 ices and the Surgeon General should develop guide9 lines for the prevention of AIDS and HIV infections

10 and should distribute such guidelines for parents

11 and their children,

12 (3) the television and motion picture industry

13 should encourage the use of condoms in movies, tele14 vision shows and public service announcements,

15 (4) advertisements for condoms should be en16 couraged, and

17 (5) the National Commission on AIDS should

18 be reinstituted.

Æ
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03

- 20

- 00549

- CV

T. L., Appellant

v.
Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

FROM THE 345TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY NO. D

- 1

- FM

- 19

- 004438, THE HONORABLE SCOTT H. JE NKI NS, JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

Appellant T. L. filed her notice of appeal on November 12, 2020 . The appellate
record was complete on December 7, 2020 , making appellant’s brief due on December 28, 2020

. To date, appellant’s brief has not b een filed.

The rules of judicial administration accelerate the final disposition of appeals

from suits for termination of parental rights. See Tex. R. Jud. Admin. 6.2(a) (providing 180 days
for court’s final disposition). The accelerated sche dule requir es gr eater compliance with briefing

deadlines. Therefore, we order Robert Galvin to file appellant’s brief no later than January 22,

202 1 . If the brief is not filed by that date, counsel may be required to show cause why he should

not be held in contempt of c ourt.

It is ordered on January 8, 2021.

Before Justices B a ke r , Kelly, and Smith
* The defendants were not served with process in district court and are not

participating in this appeal.  After examining the appellant’s brief and the record, we have

concluded that oral argument is unnecessary.  Thus, the appeal is submitted on the

appellant’s brief and the record.  See FED R. APP P. 34(a)(2).

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted June 23, 2009*

  Decided June 23, 2009

Before

RICHARD D. CUDAHY, Circuit Judge

RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge

TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge

No. 09‐1570

NESER EM NEHEH ALI,

Plaintiff‐Appellant,

v.

CHICAGO BANCORP, INC., et. al,

Defendants‐Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Northern District of Illinois,

Eastern Division.

No. 08 C 6713

Matthew F. Kennelly,

Judge.

O R D E R

Neser Em Neheh Ali sued Bancorp and other defendants for what appear to be

commercial and contractual claims.  His complaint is incoherent and contains no

discernable claims, though Ali labels himself and the defendants as “vessels” in an attempt

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
No. 09‐1570 Page 2

to invoke the admiralty jurisdiction of federal court.   The district court dismissed the case

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Ali’s appellate brief is similarly incomprehensible.  A litigant in this court must

“supply an argument consisting of more than a generalized assertion of error, with citations

to supporting authority.”  FED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(9)(A); see Haxhiu v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 685, 691

(7th Cir. 2008).  And although we construe pro se filings liberally, even litigants proceeding

without the benefit of counsel must articulate some reason for disturbing the district court’s

judgment.  See Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir. 2001).  Ali does not challenge

the district court’s reasoning.  In fact, it is impossible to discern any argument at all.

DISMISSED.
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

# Federal Register Citation of Previous Announcement: 

November 6, 2000, 65 FR 66535.

# Previously Announced Time and Date of Meeting: 

November 8, 2000, 11:00 a.m.

# Change in the Meeting: 

The time for the Commission meeting scheduled for November 8, 2000, has been changed to 11:00 a.m.

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-29009  Filed 11-7-00; 3:53 pm]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
---

Exhibit 32.2



**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL
  OFFICER
  PURSUANT TO
  18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, Susan Lovell Chief Financial Officer of Stockgroup Information
  Systems Inc. (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of
  the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

| | (1) | The Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for
        the year ended December 31, 2007 (the "Report") fully complies
        with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
        of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |     |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              
| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents,
        in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
        of the Company.                                                                         





*/s/ Susan Lovell*
  Susan Lovell
  Chief Financial Officer

April 1, 2008



A signed original of this written statement required by s. 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.

---
-1-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

MARCUS QUIN BUTLER, §

TDCJ No. 2353422, §

§

Petitioner, §

§

V. § No. 3:22-cv-1062-B

§

DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID, §

§

 Respondent. §

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND

DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

The United States Magistrate Judge made findings, conclusions, and a recommendation in

this case. No objections were filed. The District Court reviewed the proposed findings, conclusions,

and recommendation for plain error. Finding none, the Court ACCEPTS the Findings, Conclusions,

and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge.

Further, considering the record in this case and pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate

Procedure 22(b), Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing §§ 2254 and 2255 proceedings, and 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c), the Court DENIES a certificate of appealability. The Court adopts and incorporates by

reference the magistrate judge’s findings, conclusions, and recommendation filed in this case in

support of its finding that the Petitioner has failed to show (1) that reasonable jurists would find this

Court’s “assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong,” or (2) that reasonable jurists

would find “it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional

right” and “debatable whether [this Court] was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel,

Case 3:22-cv-01062-B-BN Document 16 Filed 09/09/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 92
 Rule 11 of the Rules Governing §§ 2254 and 2255 Cases, as amended effective on December 1, 2009, 1

reads as follows:

(a) Certificate of Appealability. The district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability

when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant. Before entering the final order, the court may direct the

parties to submit arguments on whether a certificate should issue. If the court issues a certificate, the court

must state the specific issue or issues that satisfy the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). If the court

denies a certificate, the parties may not appeal the denial but may seek a certificate from the court of appeals

under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22. A motion to reconsider a denial does not extend the time to

appeal.

(b) Time to Appeal. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a) governs the time to appeal an order

entered under these rules. A timely notice of appeal must be filed even if the district court issues a certificate

of appealability.

-2-

529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).1

But, if Petitioner does file a notice of appeal, he must either pay the appellate filing fee of

$505.00 or move for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.

SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 9, 2022. 

_________________________________

JANE J. BOYLE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:22-cv-01062-B-BN Document 16 Filed 09/09/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 93
IV

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 37

Urging the President to negotiate a comprehensive nuclear weapons test

ban.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 4, 1993

Mr. KOPETSKI (for himself, Mr. DELLUMS, Mr. SABO, Mr. GEPHARDT, and

Mr. LEACH) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Urging the President to negotiate a comprehensive nuclear

weapons test ban.

Whereas the United States has sought to limit nuclear testing through the 1963 Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapon

Tests in the Atmosphere, in Outer Space and Under

Water, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear

Weapons of 1968, the Threshold Test Ban Treaty of

1974, and the Peaceful Nuclear Explosions Treaty of

1976;

Whereas a multilateral, comprehensive ban on nuclear weapons testing would help protect individual health and the

environment, and enhance efforts to halt the proliferation

of nuclear weapons;
2

•HCON 37 IH

Whereas both France and the Russian Federation have voluntarily suspended their underground nuclear testing

programs;

Whereas the United States has joined France and the Russian Federation in suspending nuclear testing to enable

a full review of United States underground nuclear testing policy and to promote negotiations to end nuclear

testing worldwide; and

Whereas, since the beginning of the nuclear age, United

States presidents have supported and sought to negotiate

a comprehensive nuclear weapons test ban: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That the Congress urges the President to ini3 tiate, at the earliest possible time, multilateral negotia4 tions toward a comprehensive nuclear weapons test ban.

Æ
| (logo) WELLS            FARGO | **Commercial Mortgage Servicing**D1086-120, 12th Floor550 South Tryon Street Charlotte, NC 28202 1-800-326-1334 |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 **ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE**  Reference is hereby made to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of April 1, 2015, by and among J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp., as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer, Torchlight Loan Services, LLC, as Special Servicer, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Certificate Administrator, Wilmington Trust, National Association, as Trustee, and Pentalpha Surveillance LLC, as Senior Trust Advisor with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2015-C28 (the "Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement. Pursuant to Section 11.09 of this Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that: 1. A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period from April 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance per the Agreement during such period has been made under my supervision, and 2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 4th day of March 2016.  /s/ Daniel BoberDaniel BoberExecutive Vice PresidentWells Fargo Bank   

|  Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.   | (logo) Together we’ll go far |
|-------------------------------------|------------------------------------|
Exhibit 32


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 on Form 10-K for the transition period ended December 31, 2018 (the “Report”) of MSB Financial Corp. (the “Corporation”) as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, we, Michael A. Shriner, President and Chief Executive Officer, and John S. Kaufman, First Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 Corporation.




/s/ Michael A. Shriner/s/ John S. KaufmanMichael A. ShrinerJohn S. KaufmanPresident and CEOFirst Vice President and CFOMarch 29, 2019March 29, 2019
#### CHAPMAN v. STATE.

No. 24977.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 15, 1950.

*856No attorney, for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Commissioner.

' This is a case of highway robbery; the punishment, thirty-five years in the penitentiary.

Nona Parker, the alleged injured party who was night cashier of a cleaning and pressing establishment, identified the appellant as the party who, on the night of January 10, 1950, at the point of a pistol, required her to deliver to him the currency she had in the cash register.

Appellant did not testify as a witness in his own behalf. The defense of alibi, as shown by other witnesses, was rejected by the jury.

The facts abundantly warrant the jury’s conclusion of guilt. Appellant’s contrary contention, as contained in his Bill of Exception No. 1, is overruled.

Appellant complains because he was not. permitted to introduce in evidence his honorable discharge from the Army, of the United States.

There is nothing in the record which would authorize the conclusion that the discharge was material to any issue in the case. See Gary v. State, 150 Tex.Cr.R. 397, 201 S.W.2d 820; Harris v. State, 99 Tex.Cr. 60, 268 S.W. 160.

The other bill of exception being in question-and-answer form, with no certificate by the trial court as to the necessity therefor, cannot be considered.

No reversible error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the court.
{"agency":"Treasury","generated":"2013-12-12 11:24:58","items":[{"id":"1","parent":null,"text":"Reporting Quarter","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-year","label":"Reporting Year","options":[{"label":"2011","value":"2011"},{"label":"2012","value":"2012"},{"label":"2013","value":"2013"}],"value":"2013"},{"type":"select","name":"2-1-quarter","label":"Repoeting Quarter","options":[{"label":"Q1","value":"Q1"},{"label":"Q2","value":"Q2"},{"label":"Q3","value":"Q3"},{"label":"Q4","value":"Q4"}],"value":"Q4"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-1","parent":"1","text":"Ten Oldest Requests","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-1-oldest","label":"Ten Oldest","options":[{"label":"0","value":"0"},{"label":"1","value":"1"},{"label":"2","value":"2"},{"label":"3","value":"3"},{"label":"4","value":"4"},{"label":"5","value":"5"},{"label":"6","value":"6"},{"label":"7","value":"7"},{"label":"8","value":"8"},{"label":"9","value":"9"},{"label":"10","value":"10"}],"value":"10"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-3","parent":"1","text":"","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-3-closed","label":"Ten Oldest Closed","options":[{"label":"0","value":"0"},{"label":"1","value":"1"},{"label":"2","value":"2"},{"label":"3","value":"3"},{"label":"4","value":"4"},{"label":"5","value":"5"},{"label":"6","value":"6"},{"label":"7","value":"7"},{"label":"8","value":"8"},{"label":"9","value":"9"},{"label":"10","value":"10"}],"value":"3"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-2","parent":"1","text":"FOIA Requests Information","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/08\/21","fields":[{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-component","label":"Component","options":[],"value":["DO","TTB","OCC","BEP","FMS","IRS","MINT","BPD","TIGTA","FinCEN","CFPB"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-received","label":"Received","options":[],"value":["192","9","433","17","87","2511","5"," ","99","68"," "]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-processed","label":"Processed","options":[],"value":["147","12","481","20","88","2624","43"," ","112","71"," "]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-backlog","label":"Backlog","options":[],"value":["224"," ","13"," ","1","253"," "," "," "," "," "]}],"multiple":true}],"year":"2013","quarter":"Q4"}
#### SHACKLEY v. STATE.

No. 25120.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 24, 1951.

None on appeal for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Judge.

Appellant was charged by complaint and information with the sale of liquor in a dry area. He waived a trial by jury and pleaded guilty before the court. The court found him guilty and assessed his punishment at a fine of $100.

*899The record in this appeal contains neither a statement of facts nor bill of exception. Nothing is presented for our consideration. All proceedings appear to be regular.

The judgment is affirmed.
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.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

# FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION OF PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT:

65 FR 65034, October 31, 2000.

# STATUS:

Closed meeting.

# PLACE:

450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC.

# DATE PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED:

October 25, 2000.

# CHANGE IN THE MEETING:

Cancellation of meeting.

The closed meeting scheduled for Thursday, November 2, 2000 at 11:00 a.m. has been cancelled.

Dated: November 2, 2000.

Jonathan G. Katz,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-28581  Filed 11-2-00; 4:16 pm]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-M
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

                    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Institute of Mental Health Special Emphasis Panel, December 4, 2000, 8:30 am to December 4, 2000, 5:00 pm, Bethesda Holiday Inn, 8120 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD, 20814 which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on October 25, 2000, 65 FR 63878.                

The meeting time has been changed to 10:30 am to 6:00 pm on the same day at the same hotel. The meeting is closed to the public.

Dated: November 6, 2000.

LaVerne Y. Stringfield,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 00-29134 Filed 11-14-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M