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

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 421 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 421

 Congratulating the University of Connecticut Women's Basketball Team 
for winning the 2016 National Collegiate Athletic Association Division 
                                I title.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 13, 2016

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Congratulating the University of Connecticut Women's Basketball Team 
for winning the 2016 National Collegiate Athletic Association Division 
                                I title.

Whereas, on Tuesday, April 5, 2016, the University of Connecticut Women's 
        Basketball Team (in this preamble referred to as ``UConn'') won the 2016 
        National Collegiate Athletic Association (in this preamble referred to 
        as the ``NCAA'') Division I title with an 82-51 win over the Syracuse 
        Orange at Bankers Life Fieldhouse in Indianapolis, Indiana;
Whereas this is UConn's fourth consecutive NCAA national championship and 11th 
        NCAA national championship overall;
Whereas Breanna Stewart was awarded the Most Outstanding Player of the Final 
        Four for an unprecedented fourth time;
Whereas UConn finished the 2015-2016 season with a record of 38-0 and extended 
        its winning streak to 75 games;
Whereas UConn has won 122 of its last 123 games, with each win coming by double 
        digits; and
Whereas Geno Auriemma passed John Wooden for the most national championships won 
        by any head coach in NCAA Division I basketball history: Now, therefore, 
        be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) commends the University of Connecticut Women's 
        Basketball Team for winning the 2016 National Collegiate 
        Athletic Association Division I title;
            (2) congratulates the fans, students, and faculty of the 
        University of Connecticut; and
            (3) respectfully requests that the Secretary of the Senate 
        transmit an enrolled copy of this resolution to--
                    (A) the President of the University of Connecticut, 
                Susan Herbst; and
                    (B) the Head Coach of the University of Connecticut 
                Women's Basketball Team, Luigi ``Geno'' Auriemma.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 32(g)**

 

 

 

**CERTIFICATION**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE**

**SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of Southern Power Company for the year ended December 31, 2005, we, the undersigned, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of our individual knowledge and belief, that:

 

| (1) | such Annual Report on Form 10-K of Southern Power Company for the year ended December 31, 2005, which this statement accompanies, 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 such Annual Report on Form 10-K of Southern Power Company for the year ended December 31, 2005, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Southern Power Company. |
|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

 

|   |                     /s/Ronnie L. Bates                    

Ronnie L. Bates

President and Chief Executive Officer

 

 

 

  |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                /s/Michael W. Southern               

Michael W. Southern

Senior Vice President and

Chief Financial Officer

                                                                 |

 

 

Date:  February 27, 2006
```

[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 177 (Thursday, November 20, 2008)]
[House]
[Page H10847]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                          PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Will the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta) 
come forward and lead the House in the Pledge of Allegiance.
  Mr. LATTA led the Pledge of Allegiance as follows:

       I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of 
     America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation 
     under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

                          ____________________
```
Exhibit 99.1

 Certification of CEO Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the filing of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the
Quarter Ended September 30, 2002 (the "Report") by Vizacom Inc. ("Registrant"),
each of the undersigned hereby certifies that:

      1.    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
            15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and

      2.    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of Registrant.


                                                  /s/ Vincent DiSpigno
                                                  --------------------
                                                  Vincent DiSpigno
                                                  Chief Executive Officer
#### JOSEPH J. NANCE v. THE CAROLINA CENTRAL RAILWAY COMPANY.

*Jurisdiction*-- *Justice of the Peace.*

Justices of the Peace have no jurisdiction of actions founded in tort.

{Oh. 16, § 10, Bat. Rev. is improvidently brought forward from the Revised Code.)

*(Buttinger*v. Marshall, 70 N, C. 520 ; and *Heptinstatt*v. Rue, 75 N. C. 78, cited and approved.)

Civil ActioN brought in a Justice’s Court in the county of Bladen, in which the plaintiff recovered of defendant company, the value of a cow which was killed by an employee of the company, while running an engine and cars on its road. The defendant appealed to the Superior Court of said county and the judgment of the Justice was affirmed at Chambers, on September 8th, 1875, by *McKoy, J.*

From the judgment of His Honor, the defendant appealed to the Supreme Court.

*Messrs. Lyon f Lyon,*and *1. H.*Sutton, for the plaintiff.

*Mr. W. F.*French, for the defendant.

Bynum, J.

There was some dispute between the counsel, whether a supplemental statement at the foot of the case as stated and signed by the counsel for plaintiff" and defendant, was a part of the case for this Court. The supplemental statement is not signed by either counsel and, therefore, unless it had been agreed to be a part of the case, we can decide the case only on the signed statement and the record.

The action was instituted, doubtless, under the Rev. Code, ch. 17, § 7,- which was improvidently brought' forward in Bat. Rev. ch. 16, § 10, as the existing law, and1 thus misled the plaintiff But, by the Const., Art. IV. § 33, Justices of *10the Peace are excluded from all jurisdiction of actions founded in tort. .This action belonging to that class, the Justice had no jurisdiction. *Bullinger*v. Marshall, 70 N C. 520 ; *Heptinstall*v. *Rue, 75*N. C. 78. It can be a matter of little consequence to the plaintiff; whether the appeal is dismissed for want of - a case stated in due time, as is insisted upon by him, or whether the judgment is reversed upon the question of jurisdiction, as is insisted upon by the defendant. If not appealed from,'even the judgment of the Justice was still a nullity and could not have been enforced against the defendant.

There is error.

Pee, Curiam. *Venire de novo.*
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 USC, SECTION 1350,
                       AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


      In connection with the Quarterly Report of Anza Capital, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended July 31, 2005, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Vincent Rinehart, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

      (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

      (2) Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Dated:  October 21, 2005                       /s/  Vincent Rinehart
                                               ---------------------------------
                                               By:  Vincent Rinehart
                                               Its:  President


A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to Anza Capital,  Inc. and will be retained by Anza  Capital,  Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
*** Note: Confidential treatment has been requested with respect to certain information contained in this document.
Confidential portions have been omitted from the public filing and have been filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission.



EXHIBIT 10.16



THIRD ADDENDUM TO THE JOINT MARKETING AND

SALES AGREEMENT

Between

ADP, INC. AND CONCUR
TECHNOLOGIES, INC.



This Third Addendum is made as of May 31, 2003, between
Concur Technologies, Inc. (Concur) with its main office at 6222 185thAvenue Northeast, Redmond,
Washington 98052 and ADP, Inc. (ADP), by and through its Major Accounts Division (ADPMA) of its Employer Services Group with its principal office at One ADP Boulevard, Roseland, New Jersey 07068, and contains changes,
modifications, revisions and additions to the Joint Marketing and Sales Agreement dated as of May 17, 2000 (as amended by this Third Addendum, the Second Addendum dated May 28, 2002 and the Addendum dated November 29, 2001, the
Agreement). Terms used in this Third Addendum but not otherwise defined herein shall have the respective meanings assigned to them in the Agreement.



Now, therefore, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained in the Agreement and in this Third Addendum, and for other good and valuable consideration receipt
of which is hereby acknowledged, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Agreement, ADP and Concur agree as follows:



| | 1. |  | Section 12.1 of the Agreement is hereby amended by (a) deleting the date [ * * * ] contained therein and replace such date with [ * * * ] and (b) deleting
the phrase At the end of the Renewal Term, contained therein and replace such phrase with During the last [ * * * ] of the Renewal Term,.
| | -- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



All other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. In the event of any conflict between the terms and
conditions of this Addendum and the terms and conditions of the Agreement, this Third Addendum shall prevail. The terms defined in the Agreement and used in this Third Addendum shall have the same respective meanings as set forth in the Agreement,
unless clearly otherwise defined in this Third Addendum.



IN WITNESS
WHEREOF, this Third Addendum to the Agreement is hereby executed by an authorized representative of each Party hereto as of the date first above written.



|ADP, INC. |  | CONCUR TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
|--------- |  | -------------------------
|          |  |                          
|By:       |  | /s/ Stuart
Salkman       
|Name:     |  | Stuart
Salkman           
|Title:    |  | DVP/GM
E-Business
#### William B. Wilson *v.*Morgan Hudspeth *et al.*

Sureties for the prosecution of a suit, are hound for the costs accruing’ before, as well as after the execution of the bond.

This was an action of debt, upon a bond given fop the prosecution of a suit, brought by the defendant, *Hudspeth,*against the plaintiff; which was *“*tobe void, *u*if in case of failure in the said suit, the said *Morgan u Hudspeth*pay and satisfy all the costs and i charges “ that may accrue therein.” After *oyer,*the defendants pleaded *non infregerunt conventionem.*

Upon the trial, before his Honor Judge Martin, it was admitted by the defendants, that *Hudspeth*had failed in his suit, and had not paid the costs, and that the whole costs amounted to g *117,*but they contended that at the execution of the bond, the costs of the plainiiff amounted only to g58.

The jury, under the instructions, of his Honor, returned a verdict for the plaintiff for all the costs of the suit, and the defendants appealed.

No counsel appeared for the defendants.

The *Attorney- General*for the plaintiff.

Ham, Judge.

-After stating the case as above, proceeded: The doubts which have brought the case before us are not readily discerned. The condition is that *Morgan Hudspeth*shall pay all the costs, that shall or may accrue upon a contingency that may happen after that time, namely, *a. failure*faithfully to prosecute the suit against *Wilson.*Such failure has taken place, and *Hudspeth*has failed to pay the costs. The defendants are therefore bound to pay all the costs accruing therein. All the costs are •the costs which accrued before, as well as the costs which accrued after the date of the prosecution bond given by the defendants.

Ter Curiam. — JudgmeNT affirmed.
Exhibit 99.1



   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the filing of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the
Quarterly Period Ended June 30, 2002 (the "Report") by Cinema Ride, Inc. (the
"Company"), the undersigned hereby certifies that:

(1)  The Report fully complies in all material respects with the requirements of
     Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
     and

(2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
     respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.




                                               /s/ MITCHELL J. FRANCIS
Date:  August 15, 2002                    By:  _______________________________
                                               Mitchell J. Francis
                                               Chief Executive Officer
                                               Chief Financial Officer
#### Richmond, Appellant, vs. Village of Lodi, Respondent.

*January 11*—

February *15, 1938.*

*25For the appellant there was a brief by *Grady, Farnszvorth & Walker*of Portage, and oral argument by *Daniel H. Grady.*

For the respondent there was a brief by *Olin & Butler,*and oral argument by *Robert M. Rieser*and *James Ward*Rector, all of Madison.

Fairchild, J.

Sec. 66.06 (10) (a), Stats. 1931, creates the position of manager of a public utility owned by a village, city, or town, and provides without qualification as to time or term that the position be filled by appointment. The operation of a public utility by a village being proprietary, plaintiff suggests the application of a rule to permit the making of a contract of hire by the commission, but the appointment of a manager for the utility is a governmental act. The management, as between itself and the village, sustains a relation described as governmental, even though in the relations of the utility with others, its character is proprietary. *Springer v. Philippine Islands,*277 U. S. 189, 203, 48 Sup. Ct. 480, 482, 72 L. Ed. 845.

The commission is authorized to appoint the manager and fix his compensation. The word “appoint” completely expresses the power of the utility commission as to the manager’s tenure. Under such provisions, the power to remove at pleasure is implied. *State ex rel. Wagner v. Dahl,*140 Wis. 301, 303, 122 N. W. 748; *Ekern v. McGovern,*154 Wis. 157, 244, 142 N. W. 595, citing Throop, Public Officers, § 354; *Burnap v. United States,*252 U. S. 512, 515, *2640 Sup. Ct. 374, 375, 64 L. Ed. 692; *Wright v. Gamble,*136 Ga. 376, 71 S. E. 795; *State v. Archibald,*5 N. D. 359, 66 N. W. 234. The utility commission cannot surrender its power of removal at any time, reposed in it by the legislature, by appointing or by making a contract with plaintiff for a definite term. *Gillan v. Board of Regents of Normal Schools,*88 Wis. 7, 58 N. W. 1042; *Wright v. Gamble, supra; State v. Archibald, supra.*

*By the Court.*— Order affirmed.
No. 1150, Misc.

Petitioner *pro se. William M. Ferguson,*Attorney General of Kansas, and J. *Richard Foth,*Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

#### Byers *v.*Parker, Chief Justice.

Motion for leave to file petition for writ of mandamus and for other relief denied.
Opinion filed June 17, 2021

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals ___________

No. 11-21-00092-CR

___________

MELVIN JOHNATAY HENRY, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 104th District Court

Taylor County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 22018B

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant entered into a plea agreement with the State. Pursuant to that plea 

agreement, Appellant pleaded guilty to the third-degree felony offense of possession 

of cocaine. The trial court assessed Appellant’s punishment, in accordance with the 

terms of the plea agreement, at imprisonment for seven years. Appellant filed a pro 

se notice of appeal. We dismiss the appeal. 
2

This court notified Appellant by letter that the trial court had certified that this 

is a plea bargain case in which Appellant has no right of appeal. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 25.2(a)(2), (d); see also TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 44.02 (West 

2018). We requested that Appellant respond and show grounds to continue the 

appeal. We have received a response from Appellant’s court-appointed appellate 

counsel in which counsel agrees that Appellant has no right to appeal and that this 

appeal should be dismissed. Counsel notes that Appellant’s assertions can be 

addressed in a postconviction writ of habeas corpus.

Rule 25.2(a)(2) provides that, in a plea bargain case in which the punishment 

does not exceed the punishment agreed to in the plea bargain, “a defendant may 

appeal only: (A) those matters that were raised by written motion filed and ruled on 

before trial, (B) after getting the trial court’s permission to appeal, or (C) where the 

specific appeal is expressly authorized by statute.” TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). 

Subsections (A), (B), and (C) are not applicable here. We note that Rule 25.2 does 

not permit a plea-bargaining defendant to appeal matters related to the voluntariness 

of the plea bargain—unless the defendant has obtained the trial court’s permission 

to appeal. See Cooper v. State, 45 S.W.3d 77, 83 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001); 

Carender v. State, 155 S.W.3d 929, 931 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005, no pet.). 

The documents on file in this appeal reflect that Appellant entered into a plea 

bargain, that his punishment was assessed in accordance with the plea bargain, and 

that he waived his right of appeal. The trial court certified that Appellant has no 

right of appeal. Both the plea agreement and the trial court’s certification were

signed by Appellant, Appellant’s trial counsel, and the judge of the trial court. The

documents on file in this court support the trial court’s certification. See Dears v. 

State, 154 S.W.3d 610, 613–14 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, we must 
3

dismiss this appeal without further action. TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d); Chavez v. State, 

183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).

This appeal is dismissed. 

PER CURIAM

June 17, 2021

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). 

Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., 

Trotter, J., and Williams, J.
#### Conrad G. Reger et al., Appellants-Respondents, v Harry’s Harbour Place Grille, Inc., Respondent, and Harbour Place Marine Sales, Inc., Respondent-Appellant.

(Appeal No. 1.)

[773 NYS2d 687]

Appeal and cross appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Patrick H. NeMoyer, J.), entered April 3, 2002. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) and denied the cross motion of defendant Harbour Place Marine Sales, Inc. for summary judgment on common-law indemnification.

It is hereby ordered that said appeal and cross appeal be and the same hereby are unanimously dismissed without costs *(see Loafin’ Tree Rest. v Pardi*[appeal No. 1], 162 AD2d 985 [1990]). Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Wisner, Hurlbutt and Gorski, JJ.