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

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 317 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 317

  Commemorating the 20\th\ anniversary of the opening of the American 
                         Visionary Art Museum.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           November 18, 2015

Ms. Mikulski submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
        the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Commemorating the 20\th\ anniversary of the opening of the American 
                         Visionary Art Museum.

Whereas the American Visionary Art Museum in Baltimore, Maryland, opened on 
        November 24, 1995;
Whereas, in 1992, Congress designated the American Visionary Art Museum as the 
        national repository and education center for visionary art;
Whereas the American Visionary Art Museum--

    (1) is the first museum in North America that is wholly dedicated to 
assembling a comprehensive national collection of visionary art;

    (2) perseveres due largely to the leadership of its founder, Rebecca 
Alban Hoffberger, who built the idea of assembling a comprehensive national 
collection of visionary art into an institution;

    (3) encourages art as a means of expression for at-risk youth and other 
individuals who are often overlooked;

    (4) seeks to end the stigma associated with disability by illuminating 
the power to overcome the adversity associated with disability through 
creativity;

    (5) educates, inspires, and entertains over 125,000 visitors each year; 
and

    (6) continues to fulfill its mission to increase awareness of uncommon 
art that is created out of extraordinary circumstances; and

Whereas it is in the best interest of the national welfare and each United 
        States citizen--

    (1) to preserve visionary art; and

    (2) to celebrate visionary art as a unique art form: Now, therefore, be 
it

    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) commemorates the 20\th\ anniversary of the opening of 
        the American Visionary Art Museum; and
            (2) reaffirms that visionary art is a rare and valuable 
        national treasure to which individuals in the United States 
        should devote attention, support, and resources to ensure it is 
        collected, preserved, and understood.
                                 <all>
```
#### STATE *v.*NANCY CARPENTER.

The plea of “not guilty” by a defendant charged with, an assault, makes it incumbent upon the State to prove everything necessary t© establish his guilt: *Hence,*when on the trial below, the State failed to prove that the offence' had been committed within two years *before*the finding of the indictment, the defendant was entitled toa. new trial.

. INDICTMENT for Assault and Battery, tried at Pall Term, 1875, of Gbaham Superior Court, his Honor Jjidge *Gannon*presiding.

The defendant pleaded “ not guilty,” and her counsel asked the court to charge the jury that “ as the State did not show, or offer to show, that the offence was committed within two years before the finding of the indictment, the jury must acquit.”

The court refused to charge as requested, and held that if the defendant relied on the statute of limitations, he must ahow it or give the State notice of such defence.

The jury returned a verdict of guilty and thereupon the defendant moved for a new trial. Motion overruled. Judgment and appeal.

No counsel for defendant in this court.

*Attorney General*Ilargrove, for the State.

*231Settle, J.

To ail indictment for an assault and battery tbe defendant plead *“*not guilty,” and requested tlie court to charge the jury that as the State did not show, or offer to show, that the offence was committed within two years before the prosecution was instituted, they must return a verdict of not guilty. The court refused so to charge, and held “ that if: the defendant relied upon the statute of limitations, he must show it or give the State notice of it.” This was error.

The general issue “ not guilty ” made it incumbent upon the State to prove every thing necessary to establish the guilt of the defendant.

We believe a practice has grown up, under which the State does not usually, in the trial of misdemeanors, prove, in the first instance, venue, time, &c., unless some-point be-made thereon by the defendant, but this practice is permitted merely for convenience and the dispatch of business, and ought never to prejudice a defendant who, as in this case, relies upon such defences.

The court might have permitted the prosecution to recall a witness and prove time, place, &e., when the defendant asked for instructions to the jury, but instead of so doing a ruling was made to the prejudice of the defendant,- for which there must be a *venire de novo.*

Pek Cueiam. *Yen ire de novo.*
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 84 (Thursday, May 1, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 24667]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-09935]

========================================================================
Notices
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules 
or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings 
and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings, 
delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency 
statements of organization and functions are examples of documents 
appearing in this section.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 84 / Thursday, May 1, 2014 / 
Notices

[[Page 24667]]

AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Notice of Public Information Collection Requirements Submitted to 
OMB for Review

    Summary: U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has 
submitted the following information collection to OMB for review and 
clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. 
Comments regarding this information collection are best assured of 
having their full effect if received within 30 days of this 
notification. Comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for USAID, 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB), Washington, DC 20503. Copies of submission may be 
obtained by calling (202) 712-5007.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Number: OMB 0412-XXXX.
    Form Number: AID Form 507-1.
    Title: Freedom Information/Privacy Act Record Request Form.
    Type of Submission: New Information Collection.
    Purpose: The purpose of the collection is to enable the U.S. Agency 
for International Development to locate applicable records and to 
respond to requests made under the Freedom of Information Act and the 
Privacy Act of 1974. Information includes sufficient personally 
identifiable information and/or source documents as applicable. Failure 
to provide the required information may result in no action being taken 
on the request. Authority to collect this information is contained in 5 
U.S.C. 552, 5 U.S.C. 552a, and 22 CFR 215.4.
    Annual Reporting Burden:
    Respondents: 600.
    Total annual responses: 600.
    Total annual hours requested: 9000.

    Dated: April 24, 2014.
Lynn P. Winston,
Chief, Bureau of Management, Office of Management Services, Information 
and Records Division, U.S. Agency for International Development.
[FR Doc. 2014-09935 Filed 4-30-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6116-01-M
```
EXHIBIT 23(a)2


                 NOTICE REGARDING CONSENT OF ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP


         Section 11(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the
"Securities Act"), provides that at the time a registration statement becomes
effective, if it contains an untrue statement of a material fact, or omits a
material fact required to be stated therein or necessary to make the statements
therein not misleading, any person acquiring a security pursuant to such
registration statement (unless it is proved that at the time of such acquisition
such person knew of such untruth or omission) may assert a claim against, among
others, an accountant who has consented to be named as having certified any part
of the registration statement or as having prepared any report for use in
connection with the registration statement.

         On March 28, 2002, Southern Company's Board of Directors, upon
recommendation of its Audit Committee, decided not to engage Arthur Andersen LLP
("Andersen") as the principal public accountants for Southern Company and its
subsidiaries. For more information, see the Current Reports on Form 8-K dated
March 28, 2002 of Southern Company and each of the operating companies.

         Southern Company, Alabama Power, Georgia Power, Gulf Power and
Mississippi Power have not obtained a reissued audit report from Andersen and
have been unable to obtain, after reasonable efforts, Andersen's written consent
to incorporate by reference Andersen's audit reports with respect to their
financial statements as of and for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2001 and
2000. Under these circumstances, Rule 437a under the Securities Act permits this
Annual Report on Form 10-K to be filed without a written consent from Andersen.
Because such companies have not been able to obtain Andersen's consent, you will
not be able to recover against Andersen under Section 11 of the Securities Act
for any untrue statements of a material fact contained in the financial
statements audited by Andersen or any omissions to state a material fact
required to be stated therein. To the extent provided in Section 11(b)(3)(C) of
the Securities Act, however, other persons who are liable under Section 11(a) of
the Securities Act, including Southern Company's, Alabama Power's, Georgia
Power's, Gulf Power's and Mississippi Power's officers and directors, may still
rely on Andersen's original audit report as being made by an expert for purposes
of establishing a due diligence defense under Section 11(b) of the Securities
Act.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 333 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 333

 To direct the Senate Legal Counsel to appear as amicus curiae in the 
name of the Senate in Bank Markazi, The Central Bank of Iran v. Deborah 
                      D. Peterson, et al. (S. Ct.)

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           December 10, 2015

   Mr. McConnell (for himself and Mr. Reid) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 To direct the Senate Legal Counsel to appear as amicus curiae in the 
name of the Senate in Bank Markazi, The Central Bank of Iran v. Deborah 
                      D. Peterson, et al. (S. Ct.)

Whereas, in the case of Bank Markazi, The Central Bank of Iran v. Deborah D. 
        Peterson, et al., No. 14-770, pending in the Supreme Court of the United 
        States, the constitutionality of section 502 of the Iran Threat 
        Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012, Pub. L. No. 112-158, 126 
        Stat. 1214, 1258 (2012), codified at 22 U.S.C. Sec. 8772, has been 
        placed in issue;
Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(c), 706(a), and 713(a) of the Ethics in 
        Government Act of 1978, 2 U.S.C. 288b(c), 288e(a), and 288l(a), the 
        Senate may direct its counsel to appear as amicus curiae in the name of 
        the Senate in any legal action in which the powers and responsibilities 
        of Congress under the Constitution are placed in issue: Now, therefore, 
        be it
    Resolved, That the Senate Legal Counsel is directed to appear as 
amicus curiae on behalf of the Senate in the case of Bank Markazi, The 
Central Bank of Iran v. Deborah D. Peterson, et al., to defend the 
constitutionality of section 502 of the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria 
Human Rights Act of 2012.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>




                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                            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 Quarterly Report of A.S.V., Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gary Lemke, Chief
Executive 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:

        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/ Gary Lemke
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Gary Lemke
                                        President
                                        November 7, 2003
```

[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 176 (Wednesday, November 19, 2008)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E2269]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

     40TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE NORTH STAR CHAPTER OF THE SIERRA CLUB

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. BETTY McCOLLUM

                              of minnesota

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, November 19, 2008

  Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Madam Speaker, I rise today to 
congratulate the North Star Chapter of the Sierra Club on 40 years of 
protecting and restoring Minnesota's proud natural legacy.
  The Sierra Club is one of America's most influential environmental 
organizations, and Minnesota's North Star Chapter is among the oldest 
and most active in the country. I commend the North Star Chapter on its 
history of policy achievements and success in mobilizing our 
communities to action. By engaging citizens in grassroots advocacy, 
they have worked to deliver essential environmental victories at the 
state and national level.
  The environmental and conservation challenges facing the planet today 
are great. A changing climate, rapid loss of habitat, and deepening 
fossil fuel dependence will require citizens to become involved in 
making the change we need on an unprecedented scale. During my time in 
Congress, members of the North Star Chapter have been valuable partners 
in defending against a series of assaults on federal environmental 
protections. Now as we look toward the start of the next Congress and 
the support of a new Administration, we have the opportunity to restore 
America's global leadership on environmental policy while advancing a 
``green'' revolution here at home. I look forward to continuing our 
shared fight for environmental protection and restoration in the years 
ahead.

                          ____________________
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Laquan Plowden, Also Known as Laquan W. Plowden, Also Known as Quani, Appellant.

[772 NYS2d 855]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Cacciabaudo, J.), rendered February 9, 2000, convicting him of manslaughter in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the trial court *610properly refused to charge the jury on the defense of justification since no reasonable view of the evidence established the elements of that defense *(see People v Reynoso,*73 NY2d 816 [1988]; *People v Watts,*57 NY2d 299 [1982]; *People v Battee,*308 AD2d 596 [2003], *lv denied*1 NY3d 568 [2003]; *People v Robinson,*295 AD2d 544 [2002]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive *(see People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Santucci, J.P., Florio, Schmidt and Townes, JJ., concur.
II

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 515

To amend the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921, to make it unlawful

for any stockyard owner, market agency, or dealer to transfer or market

nonambulatory livestock, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 3, 1999

Mr. AKAKA (for himself, Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire, Mr. REID, Mrs.

FEINSTEIN, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. TORRICELLI, and Mr.

SCHUMER) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

A BILL

To amend the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921, to

make it unlawful for any stockyard owner, market agency, or dealer to transfer or market nonambulatory livestock, and for other purposes.

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 ‘‘Downed Animal Pro5 tection Act’’.
2

•S 515 IS

1 SEC. 2. UNLAWFUL STOCKYARD PRACTICES INVOLVING

2 NONAMBULATORY LIVESTOCK.

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Title III of the Packers and

4 Stockyards Act, 1921, is amended by inserting after sec5 tion 317 (7 U.S.C. 217a) the following:

6 ‘‘SEC. 318. UNLAWFUL STOCKYARD PRACTICES INVOLVING

7 NONAMBULATORY LIVESTOCK.

8 ‘‘(a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:

9 ‘‘(1) HUMANELY EUTHANIZED.—The term ‘hu10 manely euthanized’ means to kill an animal by me11 chanical, chemical, or other means that immediately

12 render the animal unconscious, with this state re13 maining until the animal’s death.

14 ‘‘(2) NONAMBULATORY LIVESTOCK.—The term

15 ‘nonambulatory livestock’ means any livestock that

16 is unable to stand and walk unassisted.

17 ‘‘(b) UNLAWFUL PRACTICES.—It shall be unlawful

18 for any stockyard owner, market agency, or dealer to buy,

19 sell, give, receive, transfer, market, hold, or drag any non20 ambulatory livestock unless the nonambulatory livestock

21 has been humanely euthanized.’’.

22 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—

23 (1) IN GENERAL.—The amendment made by

24 subsection (a) takes effect 1 year after the date of

25 the enactment of this Act.
3

•S 515 IS

1 (2) REGULATIONS.—Not later than 1 year after

2 the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of

3 Agriculture shall issue regulations to carry out the

4 amendment.

Æ
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



The undersigned, Ronald J. Ivans,
Chief Financial Officer of the managing owner, Prudential Securities Futures Management Inc. (the Managing Owner), of Diversified Futures Trust I (the Trust); hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Trusts Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Trust.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                              |  |  |  | 
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  |  |  | 
|/s/ Ronald J. Ivans                                                           |  |  |  | 
|Ronald J. Ivans Chief Financial Officer of the Managing Owner August 13, 2004 |  |
#### STATE *vs.*SPENCER S. REEVES.

Where the record of the proceedings on an indictment for murder, uses the past tense, instead of the present, this is not error

Where a prisoner, indicted for murder, upon his arraignment pleads not gnilty, “and for his trial puts himself on *Ms country,”*this is sufficient without his saying “ *on God and Ms country.”*

The case of *State*v. *Martin,*2 lied. 101, cited and approved.

Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Guilford County, at the Fall Term, 1847, his Honor Judge Bailey presiding.

The case was this. After a conviction of murder, the prisoner moved in arrest of judgment; and, after the motion was overruled, and sentence passed on him, he appealed. The motion was founded on two reasons. The one, that in several instances the proceedings are stated in the record, in the past, instead of the present, tense. The other, that in that part of the record, which contains the arraignment, and plea of the prisoner, it is stated, “and thereof, and for his trial, the said Spencer S. Reeves, puts himself upon the countrywhereas it should have been, that the prisoner said, that he would “ be tried by God and the Country.”

*Attorney General,*for the State.

*Morehead,*for the defendant.

Ruffin, C. J.

There is no force in either of the reasons in arrest. That respecting the tense, was taken and over-ruled in *Martin’s case,*2 Ired. 101. As to the other point, the record is right, in its present form. The enquiry, how the prisoner will be tried, which tenders to him an election as to the mode, had its origin; doubtless, in his *20right anciently to a trial by jury or by battle. But, though still made, in deference to long usage, that en-quiry, and the answer to it are held, at this day, an unmeaning ceremony; as we have but one method of proceeding for capital felonies, which is by indictment and trial by jury, indeed, although the old forms are adhered to in England, in the oral proceedings in the arraignment of the accused and taking his plea, yet the only note of them made at the time, is a memorandum by the clerk on the indictment — “po. se.” — meaning, that the prisoner put himself *(ponit*se) upon the country. 1 *Chit. C. L.*416. And in the best formularies of engrossed records, no notice is taken of any part of that ceremony, subsequent to the plea ; but they merely state, that “being demanded concerning the premises, &c., how he will acquit himself thereof, he saith, *that he is not guilty thereof*and thereof, for good and evil, *he puts himself upon the*countryand then, after an entry of the similiter, (which, indeed, may be omitted, without error,) there follows immediately the award of the *venire.*4 *Bl. Com.*340, *Appendix*3. Whether regard be had, then, either to the substance or the forms of the proceeding, it is only necessary, that there should be a plea of not guilty, tendering a proper issue to the country.

It must, therefore, be certified to the Superior Court, that there was no error in passing judgment of death on the prisoner, to the end that it may be carried into execution.

Per Curiam. Ordered to be certified accordingly.