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

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 211

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating

to school prayer.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 9, 1993

Mr. MURTHA introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to

the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United

States relating to school prayer.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two3 thirds of each House concurring therein), That the follow4 ing article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitu5 tion of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents

6 and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by

7 the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States
2

•HJ 211 IH

1 within seven years after the date of its submission for rati2 fication:

3 ‘‘ARTICLE —

4 ‘‘Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to

5 prohibit individual prayer in public schools or to prohibit

6 public school officials from including voluntary prayer in

7 official school ceremonies and meetings. Neither the

8 United States nor any State shall prescribe the content

9 of any such prayer.’’.

Æ
----

Corrigendum to Commission Directive 74/268/EEC of 2 May 1974 laying down special conditions concerning the presence of ‘Avena fatua’ in fodder plant and cereal seed

(Official Journal of the European Communities L 141 of 24 May 1974)

On page 19, Article 2, first paragraph:

for:

               ‘Member States shall issue the official certificate provided for in Article 11 of the Directive on the marketing of cereal seed,’;

read:

               ‘Member States shall issue, on request, the official certificate provided for in Article 11 of the Directive on the marketing of cereal seed,’.

----
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

BERTRAND LAIDLER, JR.,

Appellant,

v.

STATE 0F FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D2023-0234

[January 11, 2024]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. 

Lucie County; Steven J. Levin, Judge; L.T. Case No. 562021CF000568A.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Benjamin Eisenberg, Assistant 

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Rachael Kaiman, 

Senior Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CONNER, KUNTZ and ARTAU, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI

NO. 94-KA-00261-SCT

WALLACE GATEWOOD

v.

STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION AND MAY NOT BE CITED,

PURSUANT TO M.R.A.P. 35-A

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02/24/94

TRIAL JUDGE: HON. HENRY LAFAYETTE LACKEY

COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: MARSHALL COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: DAVID L. WALKER

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

BY: WAYNE SNUGGS

DISTRICT ATTORNEY LON STALLINGS

NATURE OF THE CASE: CRIMINAL - FELONY

DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 5/15/97

MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED: 5/27/97

MANDATE ISSUED:

BEFORE DAN LEE, C.J., BANKS AND ROBERTS, JJ.

BANKS, JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT:

Wallace Gatewood appeals his conviction and sentence of 15 years for Sale of a Controlled

Substance (Cocaine). He assigns four issues of error: (1) the trial court erred in failing to sustain

Gatewood's objection to the State's race-based exercise of a peremptory challenge of a prospective

juror, (2) the trial court erred in failing to sustain Gatewood's objection to the State's gender-based

exercise of peremptory challenge of that same prospective juror, (3) the trial court erred in failing to

sustain Gatewood's objection to the admission of the tape recording of the drug transaction between

Gatewood and James Brown, and (4) the verdict of the jury was against the overwhelming weight of

the evidence.

None of these claims warrant Gatewood any relief. We find that Gatewood's first and second

assignments of error are meritless because the trial court was not clearly erroneous in accepting the
State's neutral reasons for exercising a peremptory strike against the juror to which Gatewood raised

Batson and J.E.B. objections (the reason being that the juror at issue was involved in drugs and

related to others whom they had prosecuted). Simon v. State, 679 So. 2d 617, 620 (Miss. 1996)

(adopting Batson-like scheme of analyzing gender discrimination claims in jury selection, and holding

that clearly erroneous standard applies).

His third claim of error does not avail him of any relief because the error was injected into the trial by

Gatewood himself. Since the alleged hearsay response would never have been admitted had

Gatewood's counsel not asked the witness the question which called for a hearsay answer, Gatewood

cannot now complain that this evidence was brought out. See, e.g., Reddix v. State, 381 So. 2d 999,

1008-9 (Miss. 1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 986 1980 (1980).

Finally, his fourth claim of error does not avail him of any relief because the verdict was not contrary

to the overwhelming weight of the evidence. Thornhill v. State, 561 So. 2d 1025, 1030 (Miss. 1989)

, reh'g denied, 563 So. 2d 609 (Miss. 1990).

Accordingly, the conviction and sentence entered below is affirmed.

CONVICTION OF SALE OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE, COCAINE, AND

SENTENCE OF FIFTEEN (15) YEARS IN THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS AND ORDERED TO PAY A FINE OF $2,500 PLUS COURT COSTS AND

APPLICABLE FEES AFFIRMED.

LEE, C.J., PRATHER AND SULLIVAN, P.JJ., PITTMAN, McRAE, ROBERTS, SMITH

AND MILLS, JJ., CONCUR.
IA

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 322

To authorize the President to proclaim the last Friday of April 1994 as

‘‘National Arbor Day’’.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 10, 1994

Mr. KLEIN introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on Post Office and Civil Service

JOINT RESOLUTION

To authorize the President to proclaim the last Friday of

April 1994 as ‘‘National Arbor Day’’.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That the President is hereby authorized and requested to

4 issue a proclamation designating the last Friday of April

5 1994 as ‘‘National Arbor Day’’ and calling upon the peo6 ple of the United States to observe such a day with appro7 priate ceremonies and activities.

Æ
DARRIN S. HINES,

Petitioner,

v.

FLORIDA COMMISSION ON 

OFFENDER REVIEW,

Respondent.

___________________________/

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-0169

Opinion filed November 9, 2016.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari -- Original Jurisdiction.

Darrin S. Hines, pro se, Petitioner.

Rana Wallace, General Counsel, and Mark Hiers, Assistant General Counsel, Florida 

Commission on Offender Review, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of certiorari is denied on the merits.

ROWE, MAKAR, and KELSEY, JJ., CONCUR.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 304 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 304

   Directing the Secretary of the Senate to make corrections in the 
                    enrollment of the bill S. 1312.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 3, 1994

  Mr. Williams (for himself and Mrs. Roukema) submitted the following 
  concurrent resolution; which was considered under suspension of the 
                          rules and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
   Directing the Secretary of the Senate to make corrections in the 
                    enrollment of the bill S. 1312.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That, in the enrollment of the bill (S. 1312) to amend the Employee 
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 in order to provide for the 
availability of remedies for certain former pension plan participants 
and beneficiaries, the Secretary of the Senate shall make the following 
corrections:
            (1) In section 1, strike ``1993'' and insert ``1994''.
            (2) In section 2(1), strike ``paragraph (5)'' and insert 
        ``paragraph (7)''.
            (3) In section 2(2), strike ``paragraph (6)'' and insert 
        ``paragraph (8)''.
            (4) In section 2(3), in the new paragraph (7) to be added 
        thereby, strike ``(7)'' and insert ``(9)''.
            (5) In section 3, strike ``subsection (a)(7)'' and insert 
        ``subsection (a)(9)''.
                                 <all>
```
Corrections to the IRS FY 2016 Congressional Justification

The following page provides original and revised obligations listed in the order as they appear in 

the IRS FY 2016 Congressional Justification. All numbers relate to IT program obligations as 

of September 30, 2014. The document lists the original number alongside the revised number 

for easy reference. 
Corrections to the IRS FY 2016 Congressional Justification

Page 

Number IT Program

Original

Obligations to Date

as of 9/30/2014

Revised

Obligations to 

Date as of 

9/30/2014

IRS-162 Account Management Services $10,570,857 $120,356,919

IRS-164 ACA Administration $650,646,000 $992,408,918

IRS-165 CADE 2 $686,730,962 $789,290,617

IRS-167 e-Services $172,707,218 $183,056,190

IRS-168 Electronic Fraud Detection System $110,552,937 $128,338,035

IRS-169 FATCA $16,591,581 $58,125,764

IRS-170 Individual Master File $81,845,499 $94,745,677

IRS-172 Information Reporting and Document 

Matching (IRDM)

$70,056,892 $99,544,726

IRS-174 Integrated Customer Communication 

Environment (ICCE)

$482,418,165 $496,286,197

IRS-175 Integrated Data Retrieval System $201,782,240 $217,096,779

IRS-177 Integrated Financial System (IFS) $414,083,740 $429,310,943

IRS-178 Integrated Submission and Remittance 

Processing System (ISRP)

$143,347,049 $153,576,392

IRS-179 IRS End User Systems and Services $705,367,363 $883,140,931

IRS-180 IRS Mainframes and Servers, Services 

and Support

$4,093,693,794 $4,649,277,750

IRS-181 IRS Telecommunications Systems and 

Support

$1,007,403,330 $1,279,140,403

IRS-183 IRS.gov – Portal Environment $487,488,652 $559,131,138

IRS-184 Modernized e-File $375,955,489 $424,911,049

IRS-185 Return Review Program $102,919,393 $150,993,088

IRS-186 Service Center Recognition/Image 

Processing System

$157,291,609 $167,670,457

IRS-187 Web Applications (Formerly Online 

Services (OLS))

$2,153,313 $2,153,313
**Exhibit 32.2**

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuantto section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b)of section 1350, chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), theundersigned officer of NEOPHARM, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”),does hereby certify with respect to the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission (the “10-Q Report”) that:

(1)                                  the10-Q Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)                                  theinformation contained in the 10-Q Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| Dated: November 9, 2006 | /s/ Ronald E. Pauli     |   |
|-------------------------|-------------------------|--------|
|                    | Ronald E. Pauli,        |
|                    | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
#### Lou Scharf, Plaintiff, *v.*Dorothy Scharf, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County,

January 2, 1958.

*Milton Kunen*and *Bernard Furman*for plaintiff.

*Schribner & Miller*for defendant.

Aron Steuer, J.

The parties to this consolidated action are husband and wife. Of the three actions two were brought by the wife, for separation and for the return of money claimed to have been loaned. The husband’s action is to impress a trust on certain property. This property is in the wife’s possession and in her name. The theory of the action is that pursuant to an agreement the husband’s earnings, which at the time of the *61marriage were quite modest, were deposited in accounts controlled by the wife or otherwise placed under her control. In the same accounts went the income from investments owned by the wife. The latter used these sums for the living expenses. Later, the complaint alleges, the husband’s earnings became very substantial but the same method of disposing of them continued. The complaint seeks to impress a trust on these funds. It is further claimed that the alleged loan, the subject of the wife’s suit, represented a partial disposition or payment of the husband’s share of the joint funds. On these issues the husband seeks to examine.

Two objections are raised. The first is that examinations before trial are not allowed in marital actions. And it has been held that the bar extends to other actions between spouses which have their origin in a rift of the matrimonial relationship. *(Leichtentritt*v. Leichtentritt, 6 Misc 2d 598.) The extension of the rule is based on sound principles and merits general adherence. However, all cases must be decided on their own peculiar facts. Here the matters in issue are business transactions of a rather involved nature. It is probably true that the issues would never have come to litigation had the course of the marriage continued smooth. Nevertheless the particular issues raised by this break in the harmony of the relationship are such that it would appear that their proper disposition would be aided by allowing the examination. Matters of this kind admit of inquiry on a basis less influenced by emotional factors than other issues engendered from the same sources. As to the latter, the general rule recognizing the futility of an examination in areas invariably overcharged by personal feelings forbids them and does not provide an additional forum for the venting of spite through the occasion for annoyance. When this is not applicable and when an examination will serve a useful purpose it should be allowed.

The second objection is that many of the matters sought to be examined upon are in the nature of an accounting. To an extent this contention has merit. However, these items have also a probative value on the issue of what the arrangement between the parties was. It would be practically impossible to sort out the items at this time.

Motion to vacate is denied.
# Official Journal C 233/2016

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 233 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5928 June 2016 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 233

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5928 June 2016

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2016/C 233/01 | Information related to data on Member States’ trusted lists as notified under Commission Decision 2009/767/EC, as amended by Decision 2010/425/EU and Implementing Decision 2013/662/EU and as notified under Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/1505 | 1 |
| 2016/C 233/02 | EU Guidelines for the application of State aid rules in relation to the rapid deployment of broadband networks: acceptance of the proposed appropriate measures pursuant to Article 108(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union by all Member States | 6 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2016/C 233/01

Information related to data on Member States’ trusted lists as notified under Commission Decision 2009/767/EC, as amended by Decision 2010/425/EU and Implementing Decision 2013/662/EU and as notified under Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/1505

1

2016/C 233/02

EU Guidelines for the application of State aid rules in relation to the rapid deployment of broadband networks: acceptance of the proposed appropriate measures pursuant to Article 108(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union by all Member States

6

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2016/C 233/03 | Euro exchange rates | 7 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2016/C 233/03

Euro exchange rates

7

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2016/C 233/04 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7792 — Konecranes/Terex MHPS) (
  1
  ) | 8 |
| 2016/C 233/05 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8072 — TOTAL/Saft) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 9 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2016/C 233/04

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7792 — Konecranes/Terex MHPS) (
  1
  )

1

8

2016/C 233/05

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8072 — TOTAL/Saft) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

9

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
---

EXHIBIT 32.2

STATEMENT OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF DATASTREAM SYSTEMS, INC.
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
§ 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly
Report of Datastream Systems, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period
ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), the undersigned, C. Alex Estevez, Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certifies, 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.
|-- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| |                         
| | ------------------------
| | /s/ C. Alex Estevez     
| | C. Alex Estevez         
| | Chief Financial Officer 
| | Datastream Systems, Inc.
| | May 10, 2004            

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                             294
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             491
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                          0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           5,500
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                               765
<LOANS>                                         88,479
<ALLOWANCE>                                        538
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  99,135
<DEPOSITS>                                      64,845
<SHORT-TERM>                                     6,932
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              1,294
<LONG-TERM>                                     11,900
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            16
<OTHER-SE>                                      14,148
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  99,135
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  3,746
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  173
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    51
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 3,970
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               1,657
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 456
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            1,857
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       41
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  1,255
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    674
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         674
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       435
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.30
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.29
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.84
<LOANS-NON>                                      2,733
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   614
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      117
<RECOVERIES>                                       538
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  538
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Respondent**

**v.**

**ARTHUR BURTON SCHIRMER,**

**Petitioner :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 231 MAL 2015** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 30th day of September, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of** 

**Appeal is** DENIED

**.**