alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADDED BY

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Union Financial Bancshares, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2003
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Dwight V. Neese, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as added by 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 period covered
by the Report.
| | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/    DWIGHT V. NEESEDwight V. Neese President and Chief Executive Officer




Date: August 6, 2003



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided by Union Financial Bancshares, Inc. and will be retained by Union Financial Bancshares, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange commission or its staff upon request.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 176 (Wednesday, November 19, 2008)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E2262]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

  CONGRATULATING DR. ROHIT T. AGGARWALA AND THE CITY OF NEW YORK FOR 
           RECEIVING THE ``FRIEND OF THE ENVIRONMENT AWARD''

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. GARY L. ACKERMAN

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, November 19, 2008

  Mr. ACKERMAN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Dr. Rohit 
T. Aggarwala, the Director of New York City's Office of Long-term 
Planning and Sustainability, within New York City Mayor Michael 
Bloomberg's Office of Operations, for receiving the prestigious 
``Friend of the Environment Award'' from the Alley Pond Environmental 
Center (APEC) on November 13th, 2008. APEC, located in Douglaston, 
Queens, is a superb educational center committed to environmental 
understanding and awareness. Rit, as he is known by his friends and 
colleagues, is at the forefront of Mayor Bloomberg's PlaNYC initiative, 
a sweeping sustainability plan for New York City's future.
  A native of New York City, Dr. Aggarwala holds a BA, MBA, and PhD 
from Columbia University, as well as an MA from Queen's College in 
Ontario. Prior to joining the City government, Dr. Aggarwala worked at 
the Federal Railroad Administration, and currently chairs a 
subcommittee at the Transportation Research Board, which is part of the 
National Academy of Science. He is the author of several articles about 
transportation policy and about the history of New York City.
  Under Rit's leadership as Director, New York City's Office of Long-
term Planning and Sustainability is implementing a long-term 
sustainability plan to ensure New York City's continued prosperity, 
growth, and health. On Earth Day, 2007 the Mayor's Office of Long Term 
Planning and Sustainability released PIaNYC, which included 127 
separate initiatives to protect New York's future, including: housing 
an additional 1 million New Yorkers affordably; increasing access to 
parks, playgrounds and open spaces; reclaiming brownfields; developing 
critical backup systems for the aging water network to ensure 
reliability; providing additional reliable power sources and upgrading 
existing power plants; and reducing water pollution so we can open the 
City's amazing waterways for recreation.
  Madam Speaker, I ask all my colleagues to join me in commending Dr. 
Aggarwala and New York City's Office of Long-term Planning and 
Sustainability for all of its hard work and dedication promoting sound 
environmental building practices, and for helping New York City lead 
the world as a Green global citizen.

                          ____________________
```
```

[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 160 (Thursday, October 2, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Page S10501]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                    CONVENING OF THE 111th CONGRESS

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed 
to the immediate consideration of H.J. Res. 100, convening of the 111th 
Congress.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The joint resolution will be stated by title.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A joint resolution (H.J. Res. 100) appointing the day for 
     the convening of the first session of the One Hundred 
     Eleventh Congress and establishing the date for the counting 
     of the electoral votes for President and Vice President cast 
     by the electors in December 2008.

  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the joint 
resolution.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent the joint resolution be read three 
times, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no 
intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The joint resolution (H.J. Res. 100) was ordered to a third reading, 
was read the third time, and passed.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEVIN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________
```
Exhibit 10.17(c)
 THIRD AMENDMENT TO LEASE
 ProLogis California I LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company Skechers USA, Inc., a Delaware corporation
 RECITALS
     Period
    
    Monthly Base RentJune 1, 2011  October 31, 2011
    
    $
    282,394.36
       TENANT:
    
    
    
    LANDLORD:Skechers USA, Inc.,
a Delaware corporation
    
    
    
    ProLogis California I LLC,
a Delaware limited liability companyBy:
    
    ProLogis Management Incorporated
a Delaware corporation
 its AgentBy:
    
    /s/ David Weinberg
    
    
    
    By:
    
    /s/ W. Scott LamsonName:
    
    David Weinberg
    
    
    
    Name:
    
    W. Scott LamsonTitle:
    
    COO and CFO
    
    
    
    Title:
    
    Senior Vice President
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 25, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-40829

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RAFAEL ANGEL ASCENCIO-CONTRERAS, also known as Rafael

Acencio,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:04-CR-1078-ALL

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

Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Rafael Angel Ascencio-Contreras appeals his guilty-plea

conviction and sentence for illegal reentry following deportation

in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He challenges the

constitutionality of § 1326(b)’s treatment of prior felony and

aggravated felony convictions as sentencing factors rather than

as elements of the offense that must be found by a jury in light

of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000).
No. 05-40829

-2-

Ascencio-Contreras’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed

by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). 

Although Ascencio-Contreras contends that Almendarez-Torres was

incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court

would overrule Almendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi, we have

repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that

Almendarez-Torres remains binding. See United States v.

Garza-Lopez, 410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S.

Ct. 298 (2005). Ascencio-Contreras properly concedes that his

argument is foreclosed in light of Almendarez-Torres and circuit

precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further

review.

AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 10.21


Date:  May 20, 1997

                            Subject: LOAN TO MR. MOSHE GUY
                                     ---------------------
                                           
                                           
Mr. Moshe Guy will receive a loan from Summit Design (EDA) Ltd. (The Company)
on May 22, 1997.  The Loan will be in the amount of $350,000, and will bear an
interest rate of 5% per year, payable on 12/31 each year or earlier if the loan
is paid in full.

The loan must be repaid out of Mr. Moshe Guy's proceeds of selling his house and
his stock in Summit Design Inc.  The loan will be paid back within 5 years
unless Mr. Moshe Guy leaves the company and in that case the loan will be paid
back immediately.
Summit is to effect a security interest in Mr. Moshe Guy's new home (first
position) and in his Summit Stock.





 /s/ LARRY C. GERHARD                   /s/ MR. GUY MOSHE       
------------------------               -------------------
Summit Design (EDA) Ltd.               Mr. Guy Moshe


 /s/ C. ALBERT KOOB                        /s/ MRS. GUY HAYA    
-----------------------                  ----------------------
Summit Design, Inc.                      Mrs. Guy Haya
C. Albert Koob  
CFO
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 6513** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. ANTONIO NAVARRO HOWIE , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Charlotte
. Robert J. Conrad, Jr. , District Judge. ( 3:06

- cr - 00050

- RCJ

- 1; 3:11

- cv - 00290

- RJC )

Submitted : August 17, 2015 Decided: August 19, 2015

Before KING and WYNN , Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Antonio Navarro Howie, Appellant Pro Se. William Michael Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Kevin Zolot, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina; Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Antonio Navarro Howie seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ( 2012 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (20 12 ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (20 12 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debata ble or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is d ebatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Howie has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny
a cert ificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(Subsection (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned officer of Alexander's, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certifies, to such officer's knowledge,
that the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

|February 27, 2006 |  | /s/STEVEN ROTHName: Steven Roth
Title: Chief Executive Officer
|----------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------

71

---
<PAGE>
 
                                   EXHIBIT 11
 
                             AMSOUTH BANCORPORATION
 
          STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                          THREE MONTHS ENDED     YEAR ENDED
                                             DECEMBER 31         DECEMBER 31
                                          --------------------------------------
                                            1995      1994     1995      1994
                                          --------- ------------------ ---------
                                           (IN THOUSANDS EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)
<S>                                       <C>       <C>      <C>       <C>
Net income..............................  $  47,892 $  1,355 $ 174,955 $ 127,290
                                          ========= ======== ========= =========
Average shares of common stock outstand-
 ing....................................     58,231   58,030    58,262    56,527
                                          ========= ======== ========= =========
Earnings per common share...............  $    0.82 $   0.02 $    3.00 $    2.25
                                          ========= ======== ========= =========
</TABLE>
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.9

                                    AMENDMENT

            This AMENDMENT is made and entered into this 13th day of November
       1998 by and between Technical Consumer Products, Inc. ("TCP"), an Ohio
       corporation located at 23632 Mercantile Rd., Unit A, in Beechwood, Ohio,
       U.S.A. , represented by Ellis Yan, President; and

            PRACTICAL INNOVATIONS, INC. a Delaware corporation represented by
       its President, Andrzej Bobel ("PRACTICAL"), having principal place of
       business at 201 Norman Ct., Des Plaines, Illinois 60016, U.S.A.

            This AMENDMENT is made to the AGREEMENT dated June 18, 1996 and
       signed by the above named parties.

            This AMENDMENT is effective as of January 1, 1999.

            Now, both parties, based on mutual considerations agree to amend the
       AGREEMENT as follows:

       - Delete Paragraph 4.02 in its entirety.

       - Enter New Paragraph 4.02 as follows:

         4.02 Monthly Total Royalty Amount ("MTRA":
          In addition to the Licensing Fee provided for above, TCP shall pay to
       PRACTICAL a nonrefundable Monthly Royalty Payments based on the following
       terms:
          For each and every calendar month, on or before the 15th day of the
       following calendar month during the term of this AGREEMENT and/or as long
       as PRODUCTS are sold by TCP or any other SELLER, the Monthly Royalty
       Payment shall be equal to: Twenty Cents US ($US0.20) multiplied by the
       total number of units of PRODUCTS sold during that particular month.
       However, in no case shall the Monthly Total Royalty Amount (MTRA) be
       higher than:
       a) 4% (four percent) of the first $US500,000 (Five Hundred Thousand
       Dollars US) of NET SALES during the particular calendar month, and

       b) 2% (two percent) of all NET SALES above the first $US500,000 during
       that particular calendar month.

            This AMENDMENT is mutually accepted and agreed to by TCP and
       PRACTICAL, and shall constitute an integral part of the subject
       AGREEMENT.


       Accepted and Agreed to:


       /s/Ellis Yan                     11/13/98
       -----------------------------    ----------------------------
       Ellis Yan                        Date

       /s/Andrzej Bobel                 11/13/98
       -----------------------------    ----------------------------
       Andrzej Bobel                    Date
#### Frank T. Campbell, Spencer Smith and Peter A. Dey, Railroad Commissioners In and For the State of Iowa, v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company, Appellant.

Action to compel conformity to maximum rate schedule: second appeal, 53 N. W. Rep. 351, *followed.*

*Appeal from Dyon District Court.*— Hon. George W. Wakefield, Judge.

Tuesday, May 8, 1894.

Action in equity to compel the defendant to conform its charges to the schedule of maximum rates made by the board of railway commissioners, and applicable to its road. Judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiffs. Defendant *appeals.*

Affitrmed.

*John W. Cary*and *George D. Clarice*for appellant.

*John T. Stone,*Attorney General, and *H. G. McMillan,*County Attorney, for appellees.

Given, J.

This case was before this court on a former appeal by the plaintiffs from a judgment dismissing their petition, the case having been submitted below on the pleadings and on an agreed statement of facts. See 53 N. W. Rep. 351. Said judgment being reversed, and the ease remanded, it was again submitted on the same pleadings and agreed statement of facts, and judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiffs, from which defendant prosecutes this appeal. The case is now before us upon *765the same abstract and arguments as on the former submission, and no other or different questions are presented. A careful review of those questions fails to discover to us any reason for changing the conclusions announced in the former opinion, and, the judgment now appealed from being in harmony with that opinion, it is affirmed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

 

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, 

 Petitioner 

 

 v. 

HARRY J. LEVANT, 

 Respondent 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

No. 2113 Disciplinary Docket No. 3 

No. 168 DB 2014 

Attorney Registration No. 57079 

(Philadelphia) 

 O R D E R 

PER CURIAM: 

 AND NOW, this 10th day of December, 2014, there having been filed with this 

Court by Harry J. Levant his verified Statement of Resignation dated October 17, 2014, 

stating that he desires to resign from the Bar of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in 

accordance with the provisions of Rule 215, Pa.R.D.E., it is 

 ORDERED that the resignation of Harry J. Levant is accepted; he is disbarred on 

consent from the Bar of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; and he shall comply with 

the provisions of Rule 217, Pa.R.D.E. Respondent shall pay costs, if any, to the 

Disciplinary Board pursuant to Rule 208(g), Pa.R.D.E.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

MANUEL A. CINTRON,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 615 EAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 14th day of April, 2020

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
II

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 355

To amend title 13, United States Code, to eliminate the provision that

prevents sampling from being used in determining the population for

purposes of the apportionment of Representatives in Congress among

the several States.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

FEBRUARY 3, 1999

Mr. MOYNIHAN (for himself and Mr. BINGAMAN) introduced the following bill;

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs

A BILL

To amend title 13, United States Code, to eliminate the

provision that prevents sampling from being used in determining the population for purposes of the apportionment of Representatives in Congress among the several

States.

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 ‘‘A Just Apportionment

5 for All States Act’’.
2

•S 355 IS

1 SEC. 2. USE OF SAMPLING.

2 Section 195 of title 13, United States Code, is

3 amended by striking ‘‘Except for the determination of

4 population for purposes of apportionment of Representa5 tives in Congress among the several States, the’’ and in6 serting ‘‘The’’.

Æ
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 665 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 665

 To amend the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 
      to prohibit the consideration of retroactive tax increases.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 18, 1999

  Mr. Coverdell (for himself, Mr. Hagel, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Kyl, Mr. 
Inhofe, and Mr. Grassley) introduced the following bill; which was read 
twice and referred jointly pursuant to the order of August 4, 1977, to 
      the Committees on the Budget and Governmental Affairs, with 
 instructions that if one Committee reports, the other Committee have 
                 thirty days to report or be discharged

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 
      to prohibit the consideration of retroactive tax increases.

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

SECTION 1. AMENDMENTS TO THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET AND IMPOUNDMENT 
              CONTROL ACT OF 1974.

    (a) In General.--Title III of the Congressional Budget and 
Impoundment Control Act of 1974 is amended by adding at the end the 
following:

    ``prohibition on the consideration of retroactive tax increases

    ``Sec. 316. (a) In General.--It shall not be in order in the House 
of Representatives or the Senate to consider any bill, joint 
resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report, that includes a 
retroactive Federal income tax rate increase.
    ``(b) Definition.--In this section--
            ``(1) the term `Federal income tax rate increase' means any 
        amendment to subsection (a), (b), (c), (d), or (e) of section 
        1, or to section 11(b) or 55(b), of the Internal Revenue Code 
        of 1986, that imposes a new percentage as a rate of tax and 
        thereby increases the amount of tax imposed by any such 
        section; and
            ``(2) a Federal income tax rate increase is retroactive if 
        it applies to a period beginning prior to the enactment of the 
        provision.''.
    (b) Supermajority Point of Order.--Subsections (c) and (d) of 
section 904 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 
1974 are amended by inserting ``314,'' after ``313,''.
    (c) Conforming Amendment.--The table of contents for the 
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 is amended by 
inserting after the item relating to section 315 the following:

``Sec. 316. Prohibition on the consideration of retroactive tax 
                            increases.''.
    (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section take 
effect on January 1, 1999.
                                 <all>
```