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

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 37 

Honoring the men and women who paid the ultimate price for the Nation’s 

freedom and recommitting the people of the United States to remember 

and renew the legacy of Memorial Day. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 28, 2021 

Mr. BUDD submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred 

to the Committee on Armed Services 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Honoring the men and women who paid the ultimate price 

for the Nation’s freedom and recommitting the people 

of the United States to remember and renew the legacy 

of Memorial Day. 

Whereas it is essential to remember and renew the legacy of 

Memorial Day, which was established in 1868 to pay 

tribute to individuals who made the ultimate sacrifice in 

service to the United States; 

Whereas Congress made the observance of Memorial Day a 

Federal holiday in 1971; 

Whereas the first Memorial Day celebrations, which at the 

time was commonly referred to as Decoration Day, often 

involved mass closures of businesses within a town for 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HCON 37 IH 

the day while residents would visit the graves of soldiers, 

decorating them with flowers and flags; 

Whereas Memorial Day is intended to be a somber remembrance and honoring of the sacrifice of the men and 

women who died during the performance of their military 

duties; 

Whereas in 2000, Congress passed the National Moment of 

Remembrance Act in which Congress found that ‘‘greater 

strides must be made to demonstrate appreciation for 

those loyal people of the United States whose values, represented by their sacrifices, are critical to the future of 

the United States’’; and 

Whereas in 2000, Congress asked the people of the United 

States to participate in a symbolic and solemn National 

Moment of Remembrance at 3:00 p.m. local time on Memorial Day to ‘‘honor the men and women of the United 

States who died in the pursuit of freedom and peace’’: 

Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That Congress— 

3 (1) urges all Americans to continue to observe 

4 the National Moment of Remembrance to dem5 onstrate respect for the courage and sacrifice of the 

6 approximately 1,300,000 members of the Armed 

7 Forces who have lost their lives in war from 1775 

8 to 2021; 

9 (2) recognizes that Memorial Day is a day dis10 tinctly intended to commemorate and honor the mili11 tary personnel who never returned home; and 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HCON 37 IH 

1 (3) recognizes that the ability of the House of 

2 Representatives and Senate, along with the rest of 

3 the Government, to provide representative govern4 ance for the people of the United States would not 

5 be possible without the bravery of those members of 

6 the Armed Forces who are honored on Memorial 

7 Day. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 23.1CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRMWe hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Nos. 33-79668,333-31948, 333-53170, 333-99159, 333-102877, 333-103763, 333-104947, 333-109578, 333-111805,333-177409, 333-117508 and 333-124859) on Form S-8 and the Registration Statements (Nos.333-112404, 333-106578, 333-120366 and 333-137578) on Form S-3 of The South Financial Group, Inc.of our report dated February 28, 2008 relating to the consolidated financial statements,management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K**.**/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLPCharlotte, North Carolina
## In T he Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07 - 24 - 00250 - CV IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF THERESA BARRIER AND JASON BARRIER On Appeal from the County Court at Law No . 2

Lubbock County, Texas Trial Court No . DC - 2023 - FM - 1888 , Honorable Tom Brummett , Presiding 

### September 13 , 2024 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before PARKER and DOSS and YARBROUGH, JJ. Appellant, Jason Barrier, proceeding pro se , filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s Final Decree of Divorce without paying the requisite filing fee. By letter of August 5, 2024 , the Clerk of this Court notified Appellant that the filing fee was overdue and that unless he was excused from paying court costs under Rule of Appellate Procedure 20.1, failure to pay the filing fee by August 15 would result in dismissal of the appeal. To date, Appellant has neither paid the filing fee nor sought leave to proceed without payment of court costs.2

Because Appellant has failed to comply with a requirement of the appellate rules and a notice from the Clerk requiring action within a specified time, we dismiss the appeal. See T EX . R. A PP . P . 25.1(b), 42.3(c). Per Curiam
III 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 9 

Fixing the hour of daily meeting of the Senate. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 3, 2019 

Mr. MCCONNELL submitted the following resolution; which was ordered to lie 

over, under the rule 

RESOLUTION 

Fixing the hour of daily meeting of the Senate. 

1 Resolved, That the daily meeting of the Senate be 

2 12:01 p.m. unless otherwise ordered. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
Case: 2:18-cv-00966-EAS-EPD Doc #: 79 Filed: 09/21/20 Page: 1 of 5 PAGEID #: 638
Case: 2:18-cv-00966-EAS-EPD Doc #: 79 Filed: 09/21/20 Page: 2 of 5 PAGEID #: 639
Case: 2:18-cv-00966-EAS-EPD Doc #: 79 Filed: 09/21/20 Page: 3 of 5 PAGEID #: 640
Case: 2:18-cv-00966-EAS-EPD Doc #: 79 Filed: 09/21/20 Page: 4 of 5 PAGEID #: 641
Case: 2:18-cv-00966-EAS-EPD Doc #: 79 Filed: 09/21/20 Page: 5 of 5 PAGEID #: 642
United States District Court

FOR THE

Southern District of Ohio

STEVEN B. BARGER, an individual,

Plaintiff,

-VFIRST DATACORPORATION, et a!..

Defendants,

-VJULIE K. KELLY, an individual,

Third Party Witness.

Civil Case No. EDNY: l:17-c:v-04869-FB-LB

Civil Case No. l:18-mc-00010

^.o

e=>

CO

c_

cr

I—

ro

-o

ra:

ro

RESPONSE TO MOTION TO COMPEL AND MOTION TO QUASH

My name isJulie Kelly. On July 23"*, 2018 i received in an email and courier the attached Motion to

Compel my testimony In the case Barger v. First Data Corporation, et al.

I respectfully request that the Court quash the attached motion based on the fact that I attended the

deposition as ordered, at the time and place that appears on the subpoena.

Iam attaching, as exhibits, a copy of the documents Ireceived on July 23^" of the Saul Ewing Arnstein &

Lehr, LLP and First Data's Motion to Compel as Exhibit A. my correspondence with Mr. Eidelman, Ms.

Cooper, Saul EwingArnstein St Lehr LLP, Jackson Lewis P.C., and the lawyer who was present when I

appeared onJune 25'^ 2018 at 10:00 AM at the offices of Cook St Logothetis, LLC, 30Garfield Place,

Suite 540, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202, as Exhibit B, and a statement with further exhibits, from lead council

for Plaintiff Barger, Shawn E. Shearer, as Exhibit C.

Case: 1:18-mc-00010-SJD-SKB Doc #: 4 Filed: 07/27/18 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: 116
Case: 1:18-mc-00010-SJD-SKB Doc #: 4 Filed: 07/27/18 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: 117
Case: 1:18-mc-00010-SJD-SKB Doc #: 4 Filed: 07/27/18 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: 118
Case: 1:18-mc-00010-SJD-SKB Doc #: 4 Filed: 07/27/18 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: 119
#### Robarge v General Motors Corporation,

No. 91094;

Court of Appeals No. 132899.
#### Penix v Bender,

No. 90469;

*Interlocutory Appeals*

*Leave to Appeal Denied August 30, 1991:*

Court of Appeals No. 116466.
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION

IN RE: DAVOL, INC./C.R. BARD, 

INC., POLYPROPYLENE HERNIA 

MESH PRODUCTS LIABILITY 

LITIGATION

This document relatesto: 

ALL ACTIONS.

Case No. 2:18-md-2846

JUDGE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.

Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER NO. 46

On July 13, 2023, a Case Management Conference was held in this multidistrict litigation.

This order memorializes developments in the third and fourth bellwether cases, Case No. 18-cv1022, Stinson v. Davol, Inc. et al. and Case No. 18-cv-1440, Bryan v. C.R. Bard, Inc. et al.

For good cause shown, the Court ADOPTS the Parties’ Stipulation Concerning Scheduling 

of Certain Case-Specific Developments. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7/13/2023 s/Edmund A. Sargus, Jr. 

DATE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case: 2:18-md-02846-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 774 Filed: 07/13/23 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 8826
<PAGE>



                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.1



                    CONSENT OF KPMG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

The Board of Directors and Stockholders of Informix Corporation:

     The audits referred to in our report dated January 24, 2001, included the
related financial statement schedule as of December 31, 2000, and for each of
the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2000, included in the
annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2000. This financial
statement schedule is the responsibility of the Company's management. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on this financial statement schedule
based on our audits. In our opinion, based on our audits and the report of other
auditors, such financial statement schedule, when considered in relation to the
basic consolidated financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly in all
material respects the information set forth therein.

     We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements
(Nos. 333-01409, 33-11161, 33-22862, 333-31116, 33-31117, 333-31369, 33-31371,
33-50608, 33-50610, 33-56707, 333-61843, 333-70323, 333-89231, 333-31670, and
333-43238) on Form S-8 and (No. 333-90667) on Form S-3 of Informix Corporation
of our report dated January 24, 2001, relating to the consolidated balance
sheets of Informix Corporation and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2000 and
1999, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders'
equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended
December 31, 2000, and the related financial statement schedule, which report
appears in the December 31, 2000, annual report on Form 10-K of Informix
Corporation.


                                  /s/ KPMG LLP


Mountain View, California
March 23, 2001
**Exhibit 23.1**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

The Board ofDirectors 

Carmike Cinemas, Inc. 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No. 333-121940, 333-102765, 333-102764, and 333-85194 on Form S-8 of our reports dated March 1, 2010, relating to theconsolidated financial statements of Carmike Cinemas, Inc. and subsidiaries (the “Company”) and the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting, appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of CarmikeCinemas, Inc. and subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 2009. 

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP 

Atlanta, Georgia 

March 1, 2010
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

v Criminal: CR-1-00-94

BRIAN MOONEY

Defendant

 ORDER

Parties are hereby notified that the above styled case is SCHEDULED for a Revocation 

Hearing on Monday, January 7, 2008 at 2:30 p.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 _______s/Herman J. Weber________

Judge Herman J. Weber

United States District Court

Case 1:00-cr-00094-HJW Document 160 Filed 12/27/2007 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF WPI GROUP, INC. FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED MARCH 28, 1999
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-26-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-28-1999
<CASH>                                          63,927
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               19,482,101
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,307,000
<INVENTORY>                                 14,874,038
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            38,336,021
<PP&E>                                      21,782,790
<DEPRECIATION>                               6,699,995
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             106,749,304
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       17,925,597
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        60,488
<OTHER-SE>                                  22,739,613
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               106,749,304
<SALES>                                     46,952,695
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            46,952,695
<CGS>                                       27,125,435
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               46,306,719
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                85,810
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           3,405,169
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (2,511,877)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (904,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (1,607,887)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (1,607,887)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.27)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.27)
        

</TABLE>
#### Christian Schlatterer v. Helene Nickodemus, impleaded with Peter Nickodemus.

*Married woman*— Joint *note*— Consideration.

*K*married woman, is not bound by a promissory note which, she signs jointly with her husband ior the amount of a judgment that has been rendered against them both, if it only appears that she signed it because he asked her *to,*and without knowing the use to he made of it. This only makes her a surety for her husband, and does not connect her with the consideration in such away as to reach her sole property.

In Michigan a married woman can not be held liable upon her note, without connecting her with the consideration, as she has no general power to make notes or other contracts.

Error to Saginaw. (Grage, J.)

Oct. 10.

Oct. 31.

Assumpsit. Plaintiff brings error.

Affirmed.

*Sweet <& Flanders*and *Wm. A. Olarh*for appellant.

*627*William S. Tennant*for appellees.

A married woman’s note for any consideration that does not affect her separate property is void: *Ross v. Walker*31 Mich. 120 ; *Johnson v. /Sutherland*39 Mich. 580 ; she is not liable on the covenants ■of her husband’s deed : *Cawley*«¡l *Fox*38 Mich. 887; and see *West v. Laraway*28 Mich. 466; *Haney v. Galloway*48 Mich. 533 ; *Benson v. Morgan*50 Mich. 77.

Cooley, J.

The action in this case is upon a promissory note signed by Peter Nickodemus and Helene Nickodemus, who are husband and wife, payable to the order of Jacob Nickodemus, and by him endorsed to the plaintiff before ■maturity. No defense is made for Peter Nickodemus, but defendant Helene contends that as to her the note is void.

As a married woman in this State has 'no general power to make promissory notes or other contracts, the plaintiff was under the necessity of making some showing to connect the defendant Helene with the consideration. This he ■claims to have done by evidence that the note was given for the amount of a justice’s judgment which had previously been rendered against both the makers. The evidence, however, fails to show that there was ever any agreement 'by anybody with defendant Helene that the note should be given in settlement of the judgment, or that she was .apprised of any such purpose in making it. Her testimony is that she signed the note with her husband because he requested her to do so, but without knowing the use to be made of it; and there is no other evidence on the subject. It is plain, therefore, thiff it is not made to appear .that the note was given by defendant Helene with any regard to her sole property, or otherwise than as surety for her husband. The necessary result is that as to her the note is not shown to be of any validity. *De Vries v. Conklin*22 Mich. 255; *Kenton Ins. Co. v. McClellan*43 Mich. 565.

Other questions were made in the case, but as this is conclusive we do not notice them.

The. judgment must be affirmed with costs.

The other Justices concurred.
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 129 (Friday, July 5, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 40517]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-16114]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES

National Endowment for the Arts Proposed Collection; Comment 
Request

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), as part of its 
continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a 
preclearance consultation program to provide the general public and 
federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or 
continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995. This program helps to ensure that requested data 
is provided in the desired format; reporting burden (time and financial 
resources) is minimized; collection instruments are clearly understood; 
and the impact of collection requirements on respondents is properly 
assessed. Currently, the NEA is soliciting comments concerning the 
proposed information collection of: Blanket Justification for NEA 
Funding Application Guidelines and Reporting Requirements. A copy of 
the current information collection request can be obtained by 
contacting the office listed below in the address section of this 
notice.

DATES: Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the 
address section below within 60 days from the date of this publication 
in the Federal Register. The NEA is particularly interested in comments 
that:
     Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is 
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, 
including whether the information will have practical utility;
     Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the 
burden of the proposed collection of information, including the 
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
     Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the 
information to be collected; and
     Can help the agency minimize the burden of the collection 
of information on those who are to respond, including through the use 
of electronic submission of responses through Grants.gov.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to Jillian Miller, Director, Office of 
Guidelines and Panel Operations, National Endowment for the Arts, 1100 
Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Room 621, Washington, DC 20506-0001; telephone 
(202) 682-5504 (this is not a toll-free number), fax (202) 682-5049.

Kathy Plowitz-Worden,
Panel Coordinator, National Endowment for the Arts.
[FR Doc. 2013-16114 Filed 7-3-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7537-01-P
```
**Exhibit      4(o)**

| Subject:                   | General                Electric Capital Services, Inc. Annual Report on Form 10-K for the                fiscal                year ended December 31, 2006 - File No.                0-14804 |
|--------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Very                truly yours, GENERAL                ELECTRIC CAPITAL SERVICES, INC.    |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| By:                                                                                                            | /s/                Kathryn A. Cassidy |   |
|                                                                                                           | Kathryn                A. CassidySenior                Vice President Corporate Treasuryand                Global Funding Operation |   |
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 Aethlon Medical, Inc. (the “Registrant”) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, James A. Joyce, 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. Based on my knowledge, the Quarterly 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Aethlon Medical, Inc.








Dated: February 17, 2011
/s/ JAMES A. JOYCEJames A. JoyceChief Executive OfficerAethlon Medical, Inc.





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Aethlon Medical, Inc. and will be retained by Aethlon Medical, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
H. Con. Res. 64 Agreed to December 15, 2021

One Hundred Seventeenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE FIRST SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday, 

the fourth day of January, two thousand and twenty-one 

Concurrent Resolution 

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That in the enrollment of the bill S. 1605, the Secretary 

of the Senate shall make the following correction: Amend the long 

title so as to read: ‘‘An Act to authorize appropriations for fiscal 

year 2022 for military activities of the Department of Defense, 

for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such 

fiscal year, and for other purposes.’’. 

Attest: 

Clerk of the House of Representatives. 

Attest: 

Secretary of the Senate.