alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
H. Con. Res. 308 Agreed to July 29, 2010

One Hundred Eleventh Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, 

the fifth day of January, two thousand and ten 

Concurrent Resolution 

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That, in consonance with section 132(a) of the Legislative 

Reorganization Act of 1946, when the House adjourns on any legislative day from Thursday, July 29, 2010, through Tuesday, August 

3, 2010, on a motion offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution 

by its Majority Leader or his designee, it stand adjourned until 

2 p.m. on Tuesday, September 14, 2010, or until the time of any 

reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, 

whichever occurs first. 

SEC. 2. (a) The Speaker or her designee, after consultation 

with the Minority Leader of the House, shall notify the Members 

of the House to reassemble at such place and time as she may 

designate if, in her opinion, the public interest shall warrant it. 

(b) After reassembling pursuant to subsection (a), when the 

House adjourns on a motion offered pursuant to this subsection 

by its Majority Leader or his designee, the House shall again 

stand adjourned pursuant to the first section of this concurrent 

resolution. 

Attest: 

Clerk of the House of Representatives. 

Attest: 

Secretary of the Senate.
#### HUEY v. STATE.

No. 20972.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 24, 1940.

Gray & Pope, of Tyler, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The offense is murder; the punishment, -confinement in the penitentiary for four years.

It was charged in the indictment, in substance, that appellant, with malice aforethought, killed Lum Fleming by shooting him with a gun.

According to the testimony of the state, appellant killed deceased without provocation. It was appellant’s version, as shown in his testimony, that he acted in self-defense.

In applying the law of self-defense to the facts, the court instructed the jury as follows : “Now, if you believe from the evidence, that at the time the defendant shot and killed the deceased, if he did, from some words then spoken Of some act or demonstration then made, or from some words then spoken coupled with some act or demonstration then made on the part of the deceased, it reasonably appeared to the defendant that the deceased was about to make an attack upon him and that it reasonably appeared to the defendant, viewed from his standpoint at the time, with all the facts and circumstances within his knowledge, that he was in danger of losing his life or'suffering serious bodily injury at the hands of the deceased, at that time, and that the defendant shot and killed the deceased under a reasonable apprehension or fear of death, or serious bodily injury, then you will find the defendant not guilty.”

This charge was timely and properly excepted to on the ground that nowhere 'in connection therewith was the doctrine of reasonable doubt applied. In failing to respond to the exception the trial court fell into reversible error. It is manifest that the charge as given required the jury to believe the defensive theory before they could acquit appellant, and nowhere in connection therewith applied the doctrine of reasonable doubt. See Gonzales v. State, 113 Tex.Cr.R. 439, 22 S.W.2d 674, and authorities cited.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

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.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

November 29, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

127860 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 127860 

 COA: 256762 

Wayne CC: 85-005904 

RICHARD SANDERS,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 22, 2004 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

s1121 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

November 29, 2005 

Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000870376
<NAME>                            PUBLIC STORAGE PROPERTIES XVIII, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                                1
<CURRENCY>                                                 US
       
<S>                                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                          12-Mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                 Dec-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                    Jan-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                      Dec-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                             1
<CASH>                                                154,000
<SECURITIES>                                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                                         215,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                                0
<INVENTORY>                                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      369,000
<PP&E>                                             67,767,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (13,960,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     54,176,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               2,932,000
<BONDS>                                             4,150,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                       0
<PREFERRED>                                                 0
<COMMON>                                               40,000
<OTHER-SE>                                         47,054,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       54,176,000
<SALES>                                                     0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   11,163,000
<CGS>                                                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       5,908,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      276,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    472,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     4,507,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 4,507,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                             0
<CHANGES>                                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                        4,507,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                            1.45
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            1.12
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.1CERTIFICATIONI, William C. Stone, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of SS&C Technologies, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this quarterly report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in this quarterly report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this quarterly report is being prepared;  b) Not applicable;  c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the periodcovered by this quarterly report based on such evaluation; and  d) Disclosed in this quarterly report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.        Date: August 14, 2006 /s/ William C. Stone   William C. Stone   Chief Executive Officer andChairman of the Board of Directors(Principal Executive Officer)
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 1340** 

In Re: EDWARD AARON WHITEHEAD , Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus . ( 3:09

- cr - 00069

- JPB

- DJJ

- 1 )

Submitted : July 10, 2012 Decided: August 1, 2012

Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion
.
Edward Aaron Whitehead , Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Edward Aaron Whitehead petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court h as unduly delayed acting on this court’s order remanding the case to the district court to permit resentencing. He seeks an order from this court directing the distric t court to act. Our review of the district
court’s docket reveals that the district court has granted Whitehead’s motion to reduce his prison sentence to thirty months. Accordingly, because the district court has recently decided Whitehead’ s case, we den y the mandamus petition as moot. We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional proc ess.

PETITION DENIED
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Pedro Pizarro, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Herbert Shapiro, J.), rendered on December 16, 1987, convicting defendant, after a bench trial, of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree, criminal use of a firearm in the first degree, criminal use of a firearm in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, reckless endangerment in the first degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, and sentencing defendant to concurrent indeterminate terms of 12 Vi to 25 years on the first and third charges, 7 Vi to 15 years on the second, fourth and fifth charges, 3 Vi to 7 years on the seventh charge, and definite terms of imprisonment of one year on the sixth and eighth charges, is unanimously affirmed.

We are unpersuaded that the sentence imposed was unduly harsh or severe. Taking into account, "among other things, the crime charged, the particular circumstances of the individual before the court and the purpose of a penal sanction”, we perceive no abuse of discretion warranting a reduction in sentence. *(People v Farrar, 52*NY2d 302, 305.) Concur—Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Rosenberger and Asch, JJ.
**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 amendment to the Quarterly Report of LeCroy Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Sean B. O’Connor, Chief Financial 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, to my knowledge:

 

 

| (1) | The Form 10-Q 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company. |
|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

| Date: June 6, 2006 |  
 
/s/ Sean B. O’Connor

Sean B. O’Connor 

Chief Financial Officer 

 

 

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.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  |
|--------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Exhibit 21

                                  SUBSIDIARIES


Set forth below is a list of all  subsidiaries  of Burlington  Industries,  Inc.
(the  "Corporation")*  and, as to each person  named,  the  percentage of voting
securities owned, or other bases of control, by its immediate parent.




                                                     Percentage of Voting
                                    State or         Power Represented by
                                  Jurisdiction       Securities Owned by
                                       of            the Corporation on
       Name                       Incorporation      September 30, 2000
-----------------------          --------------      ---------------------


B.I. Funding, Inc.                  Delaware                100%

BII Mexico Holdings I, Inc.         Delaware                100%

Burlington Apparel Services
 Company                            Delaware                100%

Burlington Fabrics Inc.             Delaware                100%

Insuratex, Ltd.                     Bermuda                 100%

Textiles Morelos, S.A. de C.V.      Mexico                  100%








-------------------

*        The names of 16 domestic subsidiaries and 5 foreign subsidiaries of the
         Corporation  have been omitted  because,  considered in the  aggregate,
         they  would  not  constitute  a  significant  subsidiary.  All  of  the
         foregoing  subsidiaries  are  included  in the  consolidated  financial
         statements of the Corporation.
Exhibit 10.3


 


Summary Description of Severance Arrangement with Stephen DeSantis


 


Mr. DeSantis shall be entitled to a severance payment in the amount of twelve months’ salary and twelve months’ continued benefits, plus a pro-rated bonus beginning June 30, 2005, provided that Mr. DeSantis remains employed by TCI Solutions, Inc. (“TCI”) through June 30, 2005 or is terminated without cause (as defined in his employment agreement with TCI) prior to June 30, 2005 (in which case he will receive such amounts upon his termination).  If Mr. DeSantis is terminated for cause, as defined in his employment agreement, or if he resigns prior to June 30, 2005, he will not be entitled to the aforementioned severance and benefits.  Mr. DeSantis shall be entitled to a bonus of $39,000 if he remains employed through June 30, 2005 or is terminated by TCI without cause prior to June 30, 2005.  Mr. DeSantis shall also be entitled to a bonus of $19,500 for each quarter he remains employed with
TCI after June 30, 2005, which bonus shall be pro-rated for partial periods, if any.  Payments under the above-described severance arrangement are intended to be in lieu of, and not in addition to, payments and benefits Mr. DeSantis would otherwise be entitled to under his employment agreement.
#### VELA v. STATE.

No. 20407.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 24, 1939.

J. D. Todd, Jr., and Owen D. Cox, both of Corpus Christi, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

HAWKINS, Judge.

Conviction is for selling marihuana, punishment assessed at five years in the penitentiary.

It has been made known to this court by proper affidavit that appellant has died since perfecting an appeal. It is therefore ordered that said appeal be abated.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                       7,238,847
<SECURITIES>                                11,917,774
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,064,868
<ALLOWANCES>                                   208,841
<INVENTORY>                                  3,906,546
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            27,806,713
<PP&E>                                       6,654,596
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,308,250
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              31,722,522
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,849,323
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       143,313
<OTHER-SE>                                  27,699,528
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                31,722,522
<SALES>                                      7,456,976
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,610,837
<CGS>                                        2,404,555
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,621,101
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (58,306)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              21,087
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (4,694,327)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   133,963
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (4,828,290)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (4,828,290)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.34)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.34)
        

</TABLE>
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 this Quarterly Report of UnionBanCal Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David I. Matson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



Dated:
May 20, 2009

By:

/s/ DAVID I. MATSON David I. Matson Chief Financial Officer


---



QuickLinks
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1713 

To require certain financial assistance under the State energy program and 

the Weatherization Assistance Program to be distributed without undue 

delay to support State and local high-impact energy efficiency and renewable energy initiatives. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

AUGUST 2, 2017 

Mrs. SHAHEEN (for herself, Mr. COONS, Ms. COLLINS, and Mr. REED) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To require certain financial assistance under the State energy program and the Weatherization Assistance Program to be distributed without undue delay to support 

State and local high-impact energy efficiency and renewable energy initiatives. 

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 ‘‘Investing in State En5 ergy Act’’. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1713 IS

1 SEC. 2. TIMING FOR DISTRIBUTION OF CERTAIN FINANCIAL 

2 ASSISTANCE UNDER THE STATE ENERGY 

3 PROGRAM AND THE WEATHERIZATION AS4 SISTANCE PROGRAM. 

5 (a) TIMING FOR DISTRIBUTION OF FINANCIAL AS6 SISTANCE UNDER THE WEATHERIZATION ASSISTANCE

7 PROGRAM.—Section 417(d) of the Energy Conservation 

8 and Production Act (42 U.S.C. 6867(d)) is amended— 

9 (1) by striking ‘‘(d) Payments’’ and inserting 

10 the following: 

11 ‘‘(d) METHOD AND TIMING OF PAYMENTS.— 

12 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to paragraph (2), 

13 any payments’’; and 

14 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

15 ‘‘(2) TIMING.—Notwithstanding any other pro16 vision of law (including regulations), not later than 

17 60 days after the date on which funds have been 

18 made available to provide assistance under this part, 

19 the Secretary shall distribute to the applicable re20 cipient the full amount of assistance to be provided 

21 to the recipient under this part for the fiscal year.’’. 

22 (b) TIMING FOR DISTRIBUTION OF FINANCIAL AS23 SISTANCE UNDER THE STATE ENERGY PROGRAM.—Sec24 tion 363 of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 

25 U.S.C. 6323) is amended by adding at the end the fol26 lowing: 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1713 IS

1 ‘‘(g) TIMING FOR DISTRIBUTION OF FINANCIAL AS2 SISTANCE.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law 

3 (including regulations), not later than 60 days after the 

4 date on which funds have been made available to provide 

5 financial assistance under this section, the Secretary shall 

6 distribute to the applicable State the full amount of assist7 ance to be provided to the State under this section for 

8 the fiscal year.’’. 

Æ 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS