alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|EXHIBIT 32.2
        CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
        In connection with the Quarterly Report of Trimol Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of the Company hereby certifies, 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 Company as of and for the periods covered in the Report.

|                  |                        
|----------------- | -----------------------
|                  |                        
|November 20, 2006 | /s/ Jack Braverman     
|                  | Jack Braverman         
|                  | Chief Financial Officer
|                  | TRIMOL GROUP, INC.     

|23
|--
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Todd Branham, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (James Leff, J.), convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of attempted robbery in the second degree and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of from 3 to 6 years, unanimously affirmed.

According to the driver, defendant stated that he was armed with a gun and demanded money, causing the driver to leap from the moving cab; the cab struck three parked cars before coming to a stop. Defendant fled but was apprehended by police officers within a few blocks. According to the defense, which presented no evidence at the trial, the driver jumped from the cab because he did not want to drive to Harlem, and simply forgot to put the vehicle in "park”. Whether the driver fabricated his version of the facts, as defendant argues, was an issue of credibility for the jury to resolve, and no reason appears why their determination should be disturbed.

Finally, the court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant in view of the seriousness of the crime and defendant’s criminal history. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Sullivan, Milonas, Rosenberger and Kassal, JJ.
Order entered June 10 , 2016

In The



## Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 16

- 00453

- CV

HICKORY TRAIL HOSPIT AL, L.P., Appellant

V.

MARVELLA LOYA, Appellee

On Appeal from the 95t h Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 15

- 02031



### O RDER

Before the Court is appellee’s June 7, 2016 motion to file corrected brief. Appellee’s

motion is GRANTED . Appellee’s corrected brief shall be filed within TEN DAYS o f the date

of this order.

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT

CHIEF JUSTICE
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

November 9, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

134020 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

ESTATE OF ELENA STOYKA, by Michelle Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, Stoyka, Personal Representative, and MICHELLE Justices STOYKA and MICHAEL STOYKA, Individually, 

Plaintiffs-Appellees, 

v SC: 134020 

 COA: 271970 

Macomb CC: 04-002686-NH 

MT. CLEMENS GENERAL HOSPITAL, and DR.

MICHAEL KITTO,

Defendants-Appellees, 

and 

MACOMB EMERGENCY CARE PHYSICIANS, 

P.C., and DR. ROBERT FABER,

 Defendants-Appellants, 

and 

ST. JOSEPH MERCY OF MACOMB and DR. 

HARRY ARETAKIS,

 Defendants. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Chief Justice, a stipulation signed by counsel for the parties 

agreeing to the dismissal of this application for leave to appeal is considered, and the 

application for leave to appeal is DISMISSED with prejudice and without costs. 

t1106 

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 9, 2007 

 Clerk
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

APR 28, 2011

JOHN LEY

 CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 10-12377

________________________

D.C. Docket Nos. 1:09-md-02036-JLK

1:10-cv-20813-JLK

In Re: CHECKING ACCOUNT OVERDRAFT LITIGATION

___________________________________________________

LACY BARRAS, on behalf of herself

and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

BRANCH BANKING AND TRUST COMPANY,

a federally chartered thrift institution,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(April 28, 2011)

Before PRYOR and COX, Circuit Judges, and WATKINS, District Judge. *

Honorable W. Keith Watkins, United States District Judge for the Middle District of *

Alabama, sitting by designation.
PER CURIAM:

After oral argument in this case, the United States Supreme Court decided

AT&T Mobility LLC v. Conception, No. 09-893, 2011 WL 1561956 (April 27, 2011). 

The district court’s order denying the motion to compel arbitration is VACATED, and

this case is remanded to the district court for reconsideration in light of the Supreme

Court’s opinion.

VACATED AND REMANDED. 

1

 This is an unlimited remand. 1

2
#### JORDAN v. STATE.

No. 15390.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 18, 1932.

J. A. Johnson, of Stephenvillé, for appellant.

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

HAWKINS, J.

Conviction is for driving an automobile upon the public road while the driver was intoxicated; punishment being one year in the penitentiary.

We fin'd in the record an instrument which purports to have been signed by appellant, asking to withdraw his appeal. It is not verified as required in such cases. Paul v. State, 17 Tex. App. 583; Catron v. State, 63 Tex. Cr. R. 377, 140 S. W. 227. Other authorities are collated under section 589, Branch’s Ann. Tex. P. C.

No statement of facts or bills of exception are found in the record. In this condition nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1972 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1972

 To improve the monitoring and reporting of propane stocks and days of 
 supply by the Administrator of the Energy Information Administration 
     with regard to propane export volumes, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 17, 2017

  Mr. Thune (for himself and Ms. Klobuchar) introduced the following 
bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To improve the monitoring and reporting of propane stocks and days of 
 supply by the Administrator of the Energy Information Administration 
     with regard to propane export volumes, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION DATA REPORTING.

    Not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
Administrator of the Energy Information Administration shall ensure 
that any data published relating to days of supply of propane 
inventories in the United States include a calculation of the volume of 
exports of propane.
                                 <all>
```
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



### October 27, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice



### 136847 Michael F. Cavanag h Elizabeth A. Weave r Marilyn Kell y Maura D. Corriga n 

### PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, J ustices



### v SC: 136847 COA: 284917 Wayne CC: 07-010962 BRIAN JAMES HOSFELT, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _________________________/

On order of the Court, th e application for leave to ap peal the May 16, 2008 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

1020 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 27, 2008

Clerk
MEMORANDUM

DATE: 3/02/2015

FROM: Angela Hackel; OAR

TO: Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR–2013-0602

SUBJECT: Docketing of Materials

SUMMARY: 

In a call held on 2/26/2015, EPA discussed the upcoming Clean Power Plan with community

stakeholders.

ATTENDEES:

The attached spreadsheet lists the attendees that participated in the call. In addition to those listed the 

following EPA staff from the Office of Air and Radiation were present on the call:

-Janet McCabe

-Kevin Culligan

-Holly Wilson

-Angela Hackel

-Erika Wilson

-Andrea Drinkard
–4–

Order entered December 18, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-01428-CV

IN RE ANDREW JACKSON, Relator

Original Proceeding from the Criminal District Court No. 5

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. F91-04916-WL & F92-02256-IL

ORDER

Before Justices Myers, Molberg, and Nowell

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DENY relator’s November 20, 2019 petition 

for writ of mandamus.

/s/ KEN MOLBERG 

JUSTICE
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-12-00353-CV

IN RE GEORGE DE LOS SANTOS RELATOR

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

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

The court has considered relator’s petition for writ of mandamus and is of 

the opinion that relief should be denied. Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of 

mandamus is denied.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: GABRIEL, GARDNER, and MCCOY, JJ.

DELIVERED: October 8, 2012

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4, 52.8(d).
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 203 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 203

 To reaffirm that the Environmental Protection Agency may not regulate 
     vehicles used solely for competition, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 24, 2017

 Mr. Burr (for himself, Mr. Rounds, Mr. Rubio, Mr. Tillis, Mr. Crapo, 
    Mr. Heller, Mr. Graham, Mr. Boozman, Mr. Moran, Mrs. Ernst, Mr. 
   Manchin, Mr. Inhofe, Mrs. Fischer, Mr. Tester, and Mr. Donnelly) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
               Committee on Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To reaffirm that the Environmental Protection Agency may not regulate 
     vehicles used solely for competition, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Recognizing the Protection of 
Motorsports Act of 2017'' or the ``RPM Act of 2017''.

SEC. 2. EXCLUSION FROM ANTI-TAMPERING PROVISIONS.

    Section 203(a) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7522(a)) is amended 
by adding at the end the following: ``No action with respect to any 
device or element of design described in paragraph (3) shall be treated 
as a prohibited act under that paragraph if the action is for the 
purpose of modifying a motor vehicle into a vehicle to be used solely 
for competition.''.

SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF MOTOR VEHICLE.

    Section 216(2) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7550(2)) is 
amended--
            (1) by striking ``(2) The term'' and inserting the 
        following:
            ``(2) Motor vehicle.--
                    ``(A) In general.--The term''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
                    ``(B) Exclusion.--The term `motor vehicle' does not 
                include a vehicle used solely for competition, 
                including a vehicle used solely for competition that 
                was converted from a motor vehicle.''.

SEC. 4. REGULATIONS.

    Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall finalize any 
regulation necessary to implement the amendments made by this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### ACKERMAN v. STATE.

No. 15922.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 7, 1933.

C. W. Croom, of El Paso, for appellant.

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

LATTIMORE, Judge.

Conviction for barratry; punishment, a fine of $5.

Our barratry statute, article 430, P. C., makes penal the act of “any attorney at law who shall seek or obtain employment in any suit or case at law, or in equity, to prosecute or defend the same, by means of personal solicitation of such employment, or by procuring another to solicit for him employment in such case.” It is charged in the information in this case that appellant “was then and there an attorney at law”; also that he did then and there “unlawfully and willfully seek and obtain employment in a suit at law,” and said suit at law is described in the information as a suit in the district court of El Paso county, Tex., Sixty-Fifth judicial district, wherein Elsie M. Simon was the plaintiff, and Lincoln G. Simon was the defendant, said suit being numbered 38552 on the docket of said court; also it was charged that the employment was “to prosecute said suit,” and it was further averred that the employment was “sought from Elsie M. Simon by procuring another, to-wit: Sam E. 'Wilt to solicit the employment as aforesaid in said case.”

Appellant made a motion to quash the information upon the ground that same did not state from whom, the emp’o.vment was solicited. As we read the information, it very explicitly states that such employment was sought from Elsie M. Simon.

Another ground of the motion to quash was that the information did not describe the suit; or allege sufficient facts from which the nature or character of the suit of Simon v. Simon might be ascertained. We think it is entirely immaterial and not necessary to set out the nature or character of the suit. If there was in fact a suit or case at law in a court between two parties named, we think it a sufficient description to refer' to the suit as a suit at law, and give its number, and allege the court in which it was filed, and the parties thereto. We do not see how it could make any difference in the criminality of appellant’s act, whether it was a divorce suit, a damage suit, or a suit of any other kind or character. We think the court properly overruled the motion to quash.

*117The statement of facts in this case is in question and answer form, and, under the provisions of article 760, O. C. P., as amended by Acts 1031, 1st Called Sess., e. 34, § 7 (Vernon’s Ann. C. C. P. art. 760), cannot be for that reason considered by us. There are no bills of exception in the record.

Finding no error in the record, the judgment will be affirmed.
November 18, 2008 

James Goldstene 

Executive Officer 

California Air Resources Board 

PO Box 2815 

Sacramento, CA 95812 

SUBJECT: Submittal of State Implementation Plan Revision for Reasonably Available Control 

Technology (RACT SIP) 

Dear Mr. Goldstene: 

Enclosed are four (4) copies of a revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) that was adopted by the 

Board of Directors of the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District on October 23, 2008. 

This SIP revision was adopted pursuant to 40 CFR 51.192 and meets the requirements for Reasonably 

Available Control Technology (RACT) in accordance with Sections 182(b)(2) and 182(f) of the federal 

Clean Air Act. 

No comments were received from the public or U.S. EPA during the notice period or at the public hearing 

for this SIP revision. 

The SIP revision includes commitments to adopt requirements in Rule 450, Graphic Arts Operations, for 

mandatory control equipment for flexible packaging printing, offset lithographic printing, and letterpress 

printing presses with potential to emit, prior to controls, of at least 25 tons per year of VOC, and more 

stringent fountain solution requirements for offset lithographic printing operations with actual emissions of 

at least 450 pounds per month of VOC. The SIP revision also includes commitments to adopt more 

stringent requirements in Rule 451, Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products, for metal 

furniture coating operations with actual VOC emissions of at least 3 tons per 12-month rolling period and 

to increase the required overall control efficiency to 90 %. The aforementioned commitments were 

satisfied by amendments to Rule 450 and 451 adopted on October 23, 2008 and September 25, 2008, 

respectively. 

The RACT SIP submittal contains the following enclosures: 

1. Board letter; 

2. Signed Board resolution; 

3. Adopted SIP revision; 

4. Staff Report that documents our analysis of the RACT requirements; 

5. Evidence of Public Notice; 

If you have any questions regarding the enclosed SIP submittal, you may contact me at (916) 874-4802. 

Sincerely, 

Larry Greene 

Executive Director/Air Pollution Control Officer 

Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD 

c: Brigette Tollstrup 

 Laura Lawrence, CARB 

Enclosures
#### John G. Majtan, Appellant, v Howard D. Johnson Company et al., Respondents.

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law with costs and motion denied. Memorandum: The court erred in granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment because defendants failed to meet their burden of proving as a matter of law that the remarks made by their employee, a waitress, to a customer about plaintiff’s sexual preference were outside the scope of her employment *(see*generally, *Riviello v Waldron, 47*NY2d 297, 303; *Murray v Watervliet City School Dist.,*130 AD2d 830), particularly in light of the fact that her job responsibilities included making conversation with the customers *(cf., Heindel v Bowery Sav. Bank,*138 AD2d 787). We further find that plaintiff has raised a question of fact whether defendants ratified their employee’s statements *(see, e.g, Matter of State Div. of Human Rights v St. Elizabeth’s Hosp.,*66 NY2d 684; *see generally,*52 NY Jur 2d, Employment Relations, § 358). (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Herkimer County, O’Donnell, J.—summary judgment.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Boomer, Pine and Lawton, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 140 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 140

   To withhold certain highway funds if a State does not comply with 
 certain requirements in issuing a driver's license or identification 
                     card, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 6, 2009

 Mr. Gallegly (for himself, Mr. Bilbray, and Mr. Bartlett) introduced 
      the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on 
   Oversight and Government Reform, for a period to be subsequently 
   determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 
 provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To withhold certain highway funds if a State does not comply with 
 certain requirements in issuing a driver's license or identification 
                     card, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. WITHHOLD HIGHWAYS FUNDS IN CERTAIN CASES.

    (a) Percentage for Certain Calendar Years.--Notwithstanding any 
other provision of law, if a State does not comply with the 
requirements of section 202 of title II of Division B of Public Law 
109-13 (49 U.S.C. 30301 note), the Secretary shall withhold a 
percentage of the amount to be apportioned for Federal-aid highways 
under each of paragraphs (1), (3), and (4) of section 104(b) of title 
23, United States Code, for the following calendar years:
            (1) Calendar year 2010.--For calendar year 2010, 2 percent.
            (2) Calendar year 2011.--For calendar year 2011, 4 percent.
            (3) Calendar year 2012.--For calendar year 2012, 6 percent.
            (4) Calendar year 2013 and each calendar year thereafter.--
        For calendar year 2013 and in each calendar year thereafter, 8 
        percent.
    (b) Apportioned Funds.--If, within 4 years after the date the 
apportionment for any State is reduced in accordance with this section, 
the Secretary determines that such State has complied with the 
requirements of section 202 of title II of Division B of Public Law 
109-13 (49 U.S.C. 30301 note), the Secretary shall apportion to such 
State an increase in an amount equal to such reduction. If at the end 
of such 4-year period, any State has not complied with such 
requirements, any amounts so withheld shall lapse.

SEC. 2. REAL ID AMENDMENT.

    Section 202(d) of the REAL ID Act of 2005 (49 U.S.C. 30301 note) is 
amended--
            (1) by striking paragraph (11); and
            (2) redesignating paragraphs (12) and (13) as paragraphs 
        (11) and (12), respectively.
                                 <all>
```