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

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 37 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  1st Session
S. CON. RES. 37

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That the Clerk of the House of Representatives, in the enrollment of 
the bill (H.R. 2539) entitled ``An Act to abolish the Interstate 
Commerce Commission, to amend subtitle IV of title 49, United States 
Code, to reform economic regulation of transportation, and for other 
purposes'' shall make the following corrections:
            (1) In section 11326(b) proposed to be inserted in title 
        49, United States Code, by section 102, strike ``unless the 
        applicant elects to provide the alternative arrangement 
        specified in this subsection. Such alternative'' and insert 
        ``except that such''.
            (2) In section 13902(b)(5) proposed to be inserted in title 
        49, United States Code, by section 103, strike ``Any'' and 
        insert ``Subject to section 14501(a), any''.

            Passed the Senate December 21, 1995.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
104th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                            S. CON. RES. 37

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 Directing the Clerk of the House of Representatives to make technical 
changes in the enrollment of the bill (H.R. 2539) entitled ``An Act to 
  abolish the Interstate Commerce Commission, to amend subtitle IV of 
    title 49, United States Code, to reform economic regulation of 
               transportation, and for other purposes''.
```
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 Annual Report of Triangle Capital Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2015 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, E. Ashton Poole , 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/ E. ASHTON POOLEE. Ashton PooleChief Executive OfficerFebruary 24, 2016
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

In connection with the
Annual Report of Triangle Capital Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Steven C.
Lilly, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to and for the purposes of 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/    STEVEN C. LILLY 
|Steven C. Lilly        
|Chief Financial Officer

March 7, 2012
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-1128

PAUL CHARLES BIRD, SR.,

Debtor - Appellant,

v.

SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING, LLC; BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON 

TRUST,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

REBECCA ANNE HERR,

Trustee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. 

George L. Russell, III, District Judge. (1:21-cv-02224-GLR)

Submitted: August 18, 2022 Decided: August 22, 2022

Before WYNN, THACKER, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1128 Doc: 17 Filed: 08/22/2022 Pg: 1 of 3
2

Paul Charles Bird, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Robert Harvey Hillman, SAMUEL I. WHITE 

PC, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1128 Doc: 17 Filed: 08/22/2022 Pg: 2 of 3
3

PER CURIAM:

Paul Charles Bird, Sr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as 

interlocutory his appeal from the bankruptcy court’s order denying his challenges to the 

creditor’s standing to file a motion for relief from the automatic stay and to the bankruptcy 

court’s jurisdiction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Bird v. Specialized Loan 

Servicing, LLC, No. 1:21-cv-02224-GLR (D. Md. Jan. 11, 2022). We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1128 Doc: 17 Filed: 08/22/2022 Pg: 3 of 3
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, James H. Mackaness, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, certify that the Quarterly Report of IRIDEX Corporation on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended April 4, 2009 (i) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of IRIDEX Corporation.

Date: May 15, 2009

|       |  |                                             
|------ |  | --------------------------------------------
|       | 
|By:    |  | /s/ JAMES H. MACKANESS                      
|Name:  |  | James H. Mackaness                          
|Title: |  | Chief Financial Officer                     
|       |  | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
III

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 134

Expressing the Senate’s gratitude to Sheila P. Burke for her service as

Secretary of the Senate.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 15 (legislative day, JUNE 5), 1995

Mr. DOLE (for himself and Mr. DASCHLE) submitted the following resolution;

which was considered and agreed to

RESOLUTION

Expressing the Senate’s gratitude to Sheila P. Burke for

her service as Secretary of the Senate.

Whereas Sheila P. Burke faithfully served the Senate of the

United States as Secretary of the Senate from January

4, 1995, to June 8, 1995, and discharged the difficult

duties and responsibilities of that office with unfailing devotion and a high degree of efficiency;

Whereas since May 26, 1977, Sheila P. Burke has ably and

faithfully upheld the high standards and traditions of the

staff of the Senate of the United States for a period that

includes 10 Congresses, and she continues to demonstrate outstanding dedication to duty as an employee

of the Senate; and

Whereas through her exceptional service and professional integrity as an officer and employee of the Senate of the
2

SRES 134 ATS

United States, Sheila P. Burke has gained the esteem,

confidence, and trust of her associates and the Members

of the Senate: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the Senate recognizes the notable con2 tributions of Sheila P. Burke to the Senate and to her

3 country and expresses to her its appreciation and grati4 tude for her long, faithful, and continuing service.

5 SEC. 2. The Secretary of the Senate shall transmit

6 a copy of this resolution to Sheila P. Burke.

Æ
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 4.16

                              CERTIFICATE OF TRUST
                                       OF
                           GOODYEAR CAPITAL TRUST III


                  The undersigned Trustees of Goodyear Capital Trust III (the
"Trust"), pursuant to the Delaware Business Trust Act (12 Del. C. ss.3801, et
seq.), HEREBY CERTIFY:

                  1. Name. The name of the business trust formed hereby is:

                           Goodyear Capital Trust III

                  2. Delaware Trustee. The name and business address of the
Delaware Trustee of the Trust in the state of Delaware is Chase Manhattan Bank
USA, National Association, c/o JPMorgan Chase Bank, Attention: Institutional
Trust Services, 500 Stanton Christiana Road, Floor3/OPS4, Newark, Delaware
19713.

                  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, being all of the Trustees
of the Trust, have executed this Certificate of Trust as of the 12th day of
June, 2002.


                                 DELAWARE TRUSTEE:

                                 Chase Manhattan Bank USA, National Association


                                 By: /s/ Dennis Kelly
                                     -------------------------------------------
                                          Name:  Dennis Kelly
                                          Title:  Assistant Vice President


                                 PROPERTY TRUSTEE:

                                 JPMORGAN CHASE BANK

                                 By: /s/ Patrick J. Healy
                                     -------------------------------------------
                                          Name:  Patrick J. Healy
                                          Title:  Vice President


                                 REGULAR TRUSTEE:


                                 /s/ Stephanie W. Bergeron
                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                          Stephanie W. Bergeron
Exhibit 13.1

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 Annual Report of
Gazit-Globe Ltd. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the period ended December 31, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Aharon Soffer, President of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: April 22, 2013



|                 
|-----------------
|/s/ Aharon Soffer
|Aharon Soffer    
|President
1 The Honorable Ortrie D. Smith, United St ates District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 07-3556

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Leonard Bieri, III, * Western District of Missouri. * Appellant. * [UNPUBLISHED]

___________ Submitted: November 14, 2008 Filed: December 5, 2008

___________ Before MELLOY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Leonard Bieri appeals the district court’s 1 denials of his Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g) motion for return of property, his motion for reconsideration, and his “motion for ruling. ” We conclude that Bieri’s Rule 41(g) motion was properly denied because, under the law-of-the-case doctrine, he was precluded from claiming lawful entitlement to th e property in light of this court’s prior decisions in United States v. Bieri , 21 F.3d 819, 820, 823-25 (8th Cir. 1994) (instructing district court to treat property as single unit under 21 U.S.C. § 853(a)),-2- and United States v. Bieri , 68 F.3d 232, 235, 238 (8th Cir. 1995) (holding that forfeiture under § 853(a) was warranted gi ven district court’s prior finding that property was used to facilitate drug-tra fficking offenses; remanding for entry of forfeiture order). SeeJackson v. United States , 526 F.3d 394, 396-97 (8th Cir. 2008) (review standard; noting that Rule 41(g) mo tion is properly denied if movant is not entitled to lawful possession of seized prope rty or property is subject to forfeiture); United States v. Huber , 462 F.3d 945, 953 (8th Cir. 2006) (law-of-the-case doctrine requires trial court to follow decision of appellate court with re spect to all issues addressed by that opinion). Moreover, upon careful review of Bieri’s arguments, we conclude that no exception to the law-o f-the-case doctrine is warranted. See United States v. Bartsh , 69 F.3d 864, 866 (8th Cir. 1995) (decision in prior appeal must be followed in later proceedings unless party introduces substantially different evidence or prior decision is clearly erroneous and works manifest injustice). We also conclude that the district court properly dismissed Bieri’s motion to reconsider because he was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his Rule 41(g) motion, seeUnited States v. Felici , 208 F.3d 667, 670 (8th Cir. 2000) (district court need not hold evidentiary hearing when it is apparent that person seeking return of property is not lawfully entitled to own or po ssess property), and that the district court appropriately denied Bieri’s “motion for ru ling” because it raised issues that were moot. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
#### John Lucious STAFFORD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNKNOWN, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-6956

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 21, 2017

Decided: November 28, 2017

John Lucious Stafford, Appellant Pro Se.

Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

John Lucious Stafford seeks to appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition for failure to comply with a court order. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of ap-pealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). 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 debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Stafford has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
#### IN RE: James B. CURRY, Petitioner.

No. 17-1998

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: December 21, 2017

Decided: December 27, 2017

James B. Curry, Petitioner Pro Se.

Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

James B. Curry petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district court has failed to follow this court’s instruction to determine whether he received the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. After this court remanded to the district court to make the determination, the district court found that Curry might not have received the report and recommendation and ordered the district court clerk to resend it to Curry. The district court docket reflects that Curry has received the report and recommendation and filed objections to it. Accordingly, we deny the mandamus petition, the supplemental petitions, and Curry’s pending motions to investigate misconduct, to compel, and to expedite. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*PETITION DENIED*
# EUR-Lex - 32001R1044 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32001R1044

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 1044/2001 of 30 May 2001 determining the allocation of export licences for certain milk products to be exported to the Dominican Republic under the quota referred to in Article 20a of Regulation (EC) No 174/1999 **

*
Official Journal L 145 , 31/05/2001 P. 0028 - 0028 *

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1044/2001

of 30 May 2001

determining the allocation of export licences for certain milk products to be exported to the Dominican Republic under the quota referred to in Article 20a of Regulation (EC) No 174/1999

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in milk and milk products(1), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1670/2000(2),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 174/1999 of 26 January 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 as regards export licences and export refunds in the case of milk and milk products(3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 806/2001(4), and in particular Article 20a(11) thereof,

Whereas:

Article 20a of Regulation (EC) No 174/1999 determines the procedure for allocating export licences for certain milk products to be exported to the Dominican Republic under a quota opened for that country. Applications submitted for the 2001/2002 quota year cover quantities greater than those available. As a result, allocation coefficients should be set for the quantities applied for,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The quantities covered by export licence applications for the products referred to in Article 20a(3) of Regulation (EC) No 174/1999 submitted for the period 1 July 2001 to 30 June 2002 shall be multiplied by the following allocation coefficients:

- 0,589048 for applications submitted for the part of the quota referred to in Article 20a(4)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 174/1999,

- 0,530177 for applications submitted for the part of the quota referred to in Article 20a(4)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 174/1999.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 1 June 2001.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 30 May 2001.

For the Commission

Franz Fischler

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 48.

(2) OJ L 193, 29.7.2000, p. 10.

(3) OJ L 20, 27.1.1999, p. 8.

(4) OJ L 118, 27.4.2001, p. 4.
114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 805 

AN ACT 

To provide for certain requirements relating to the Internet 

Assigned Numbers Authority stewardship transition. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 805 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Domain Openness 

3 Through Continued Oversight Matters Act of 2015’’ or 

4 the ‘‘DOTCOM Act of 2015’’. 

5 SEC. 2. REQUIREMENTS FOR IANA STEWARDSHIP TRANSI6 TION. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Until the date that is 30 legisla8 tive days after the submission to Congress of the report 

9 described in subsection (b), the Assistant Secretary may 

10 not permit the NTIA’s role in the performance of the 

11 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority functions to termi12 nate, lapse, be cancelled, or otherwise cease to be in effect. 

13 (b) REPORT DESCRIBED.—The report described in 

14 this subsection is a report that contains— 

15 (1) the proposal relating to the transition of the 

16 NTIA’s stewardship of the Internet Assigned Num17 bers Authority functions that was developed in a 

18 process convened by ICANN at the request of the 

19 NTIA; and 

20 (2) a certification by the Assistant Secretary 

21 that— 

22 (A) such proposal— 

23 (i) supports and enhances the multi24 stakeholder model of Internet governance; 
3 

•HR 805 EH

1 (ii) maintains the security, stability, 

2 and resiliency of the Internet domain name 

3 system; 

4 (iii) meets the needs and expectations 

5 of the global customers and partners of the 

6 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority serv7 ices; 

8 (iv) maintains the openness of the 

9 Internet; and 

10 (v) does not replace the role of the 

11 NTIA with a government-led or intergov12 ernmental organization solution; and 

13 (B) the required changes to ICANN’s by14 laws contained in the final report of ICANN’s 

15 Cross Community Working Group on Enhanc16 ing ICANN Accountability and the changes to 

17 ICANN’s bylaws required by ICANN’s IANA 

18 Stewardship Transition Coordination Group 

19 have been adopted. 

20 (c) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

21 (1) ASSISTANT SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Assist22 ant Secretary’’ means the Assistant Secretary of 

23 Commerce for Communications and Information. 
4 

•HR 805 EH

1 (2) ICANN.—The term ‘‘ICANN’’ means the 

2 Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Num3 bers. 

4 (3) LEGISLATIVE DAY.—The term ‘‘legislative 

5 day’’ does not include Saturdays, Sundays, legal 

6 public holidays, or days either House of Congress is 

7 adjourned for more than 3 days during a session of 

8 Congress. 

9 (4) NTIA.—The term ‘‘NTIA’’ means the Na10 tional Telecommunications and Information Admin11 istration. 

Passed the House of Representatives June 23, 2015. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 805 

AN ACT 

To provide for certain requirements relating to the 

ship transition. Internet Assigned Numbers Authority steward-