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

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 18 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. J. RES. 18

 Proposing an amendment to the Constitution relative to contributions 
 and expenditures intended to affect elections for Federal, State, and 
                             local office.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

             January 17 (legislative day, January 10), 1995

 Mr. Hollings (for himself, Mr. Specter, Mrs. Kassebaum, Mr. Campbell, 
and Mr. Exon) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read 
          twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
 Proposing an amendment to the Constitution relative to contributions 
 and expenditures intended to affect elections for Federal, State, and 
                             local office.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein),

SECTION 1. CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENDITURES IN FEDERAL ELECTIONS.

    The following article is proposed as an amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States, to be valid only if ratified by the 
legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years 
after the date of final passage of this joint resolution:

                              ``Article--

    ``Section. 1. Congress shall have power to set reasonable limits on 
expenditures made in support of or in opposition to the nomination or 
election of any person to Federal office.
    ``Section. 2. Each State shall have power to set reasonable limits 
on expenditures made in support of or in opposition to the nomination 
or election of any person to State office.
    ``Section. 3. Each local government of general jurisdiction shall 
have power to set reasonable limits on expenditures made in support of 
or in opposition to the nomination or election of any person to office 
in that government. No State shall have power to limit the power 
established by this section.
    ``Section. 4. Congress shall have power to implement and enforce 
this article by appropriate legislation.''.
                                 <all>
```
##### 



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 Quarterly Report of Citizens First Financial Corp. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Dallas
G. Smiley, Chief Financial 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 to the best of my knowledge: (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/ Dallas G. Smiley  Dallas G. Smiley
Chief Financial Officer
May 14, 2004
Exhibit 10.11


Consent of Independent Public Accountants

We hereby consent to the use in this Annual Report on Form 20-F of Companhia
Vale do Rio Doce of our report dated January 18, 2002, relating to the
Consolidated Financial Statements of Companhia Coreano-Brasileira de
Pelotizacao - KOBRASCO for the years ended December 31, 2001 and 2000, which is
included in such Annual Report.


/s/ Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu

Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, June 27, 2002
| (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. |
|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                        |        |                               |
|-----------------------------|--------|------------------------------------|
|                        |   |                               |   |
| Date:      December 3, 2010 |   | /s/      Qingyu Meng               |   |
|                        |   | Qingyu      Meng, President        |   |
|                        |   | (Principal      Executive Officer) |   |
|                        |   |                               |   |

----
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Andrea BLOODWORTH, a/k/a Andre Thettle Green, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-4195

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: September 26, 2017

Decided: September 28, 2017

Howard W. Anderson III, LAW OFFICE OF HOWARD W. ANDERSON III, LLC, Pendleton, South Carolina, for Appellant. Carrie Fisher Sherard, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Andrea Bloodworth pled guilty in 2008 to being a felon in possession of a firearm, and was sentenced to 204 months’ imprisonment. Following the Supreme Court’s decision in *Johnson v. United States,*— U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015), the district court held a resentenc-ing hearing at which it determined that Bloodworth no longer qualified as an armed career criminal. Accordingly, the court imposed a sentence of time-served because Bloodworth had already served more than the statutory maximum sentence of 120 months. Bloodworth appeals. Counsel has filed a brief in accordance *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), certifying that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether the district court erred in denying his request to “bank” the time Bloodworth over-served his sentence against his term of supervised release. Although advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, Blood-worth has not done so.

The Supreme Court has held that a defendant is not entitled to a credit toward a tern of supervised release based on excess time served in prison. *See United States v. Johnson,*529 U.S. 53, 59, 120 S.Ct. 1114, 146 L.Ed.2d 39 (2000) (“The objectives of supervised release would be unfulfilled if excess prison time were to offset and reduce terms of supervised release.”). Therefore, this claim fails. In accordance with *Anders,*we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.

*791This court requires that counsel inform Bloodworth, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Bloodworth requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Bloodworth. 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*
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

LUIS G. MONTOYA,

Appellant,

v.

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,

Appellee.

No. 4D17-1472

[March 15, 2018]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Joel T. Lazarus, Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE13008112.

Louis G. Montoya, Weston, pro se.

Kimberly S. Mello of Greenberg Traurig, P.A., Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

WARNER, CIKLIN and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 18 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  1st Session
S. CON. RES. 18

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That the Architect of the Capitol is authorized and directed to 
transfer to the custody of the Chief Justice of the United States the 
catafalque which is presently situated in the crypt beneath the rotunda 
of the Capitol so that the said catafalque may be used in the Supreme 
Court Building in connection with services to be conducted there for 
the late Honorable Warren Burger, former Chief Justice of the Supreme 
Court of the United States.

            Passed the Senate June 26 (legislative day, June 19), 1995.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
104th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                            S. CON. RES. 18

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Authorizing the Architect of the Capitol to transfer the catafalque to 
                the Supreme Court for a funeral service.
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0369

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

ERIN ELLIOT HOLCOMB,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including April 5, 2024, within which to prepare, file, and 

serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

March 5 2024

03/05/2024

Case Number: DA 22-0369
<Page>

<Table>
<S><C>


                 INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS                                                COMMON STOCK
                  OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE                                                 PAR VALUE $.01

  NUMBER


                                                               [LOGO]


               THIS CERTIFICATE IS TRANSFERABLE                                           CUSIP 171798 10 1
                   IN NEW YORK, NEW YORK                                         SEE REVERSE FOR CERTAN DEFINITIONS
                AND JERSEY CITY, NEW JERSEY


                                                        CIMAREX ENERGY CO.


               THIS CERTIFIES THAT

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

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

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

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

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

               IS THE OWNER OF


                                    FULLY PAID AND NON-ASSESSABLE SHARES OF COMMON STOCK OF

               CIMAREX ENERGY CO. TRANSFERABLE ON THE BOOKS OF THE CORPORATION BY THE HOLDER HEREOF IN PERSON OR BY
               DULY AUTHORIZED ATTORNEY UPON SURRENDER OF THIS CERTIFICATE PROPERLY ENDORSED. THIS CERTIFICATE
               IS NOT VALID UNLESS COUNTERSIGNED BY THE TRANSFER AGENT AND REGISTERED BY THE REGISTRAR.
                        WITNESS THE SIGNATURES OF ITS DULY AUTHORIZED OFFICERS.

                                                                     Dated:
                       /s/ F.H. Merelli
                                                                     COUNTERSIGNED AND REGISTERED
                        President and Chairman                           CONTINENTAL STOCK TRANSFER & TRUST COMPANY

                                                                                                     TRANSFER AGENT
                                                                                                      AND REGISTRAR
                                                                     BY
                       /s/ Barbara L. Schaller

                                     Secretary
                                                                                               AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE


</Table>
#### Jose Reyes AREVALOS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden Joseph MCFADDEN, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-7347

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: December 19, 2017

Decided: December 22, 2017

*148Jose Reyes Arevalos, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Attorney General, Sherrie Ann Butterbaugh, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jose Reyes Arevalos seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 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 Arevalos 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*
1/2 

EASA EMERGENCY AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE 

EAD No.: 2007- 0050-E 

Date: 26 February 2007

No person may operate an aircraft to which an Airworthiness Directive applies, except in accordance with the 

requirements of that Airworthiness Directive unless otherwise agreed with the Authority of the State of Registry.

Type Approval Holder’s Name: 

Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG 

Type/Model designation(s): 

BR700-715 series, all models 

TCDS Number: LBA 6336 

Foreign AD: Not applicable. 

Supersedes: Not applicable. 

ATA 72 Engine - High Pressure Compressor - Front Drum Assembly 

Manufacturer(s): Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG 

Applicability: All BR700-715A1-30, BR700-715B1-30 and BR700-715C1-30 Engines 

These engines are known to be installed on, but not limited to Boeing 717 

aircraft. 

Reason: 

Repair Scheme BRG3086 Issue 1 instructs the repair of the High Pressure 

(HP) Compressor Front Drum Assembly Damping Grooves. This repair has an 

impact on the life of the High Pressure (HP) Compressor Front Drum 

Assembly. This EAD has been raised to mandate certain specific CAUTION 

notes related to specific subtasks of the BR715 Time Limits Manual (TLM) T715-3BR instructing a reduced life for certain Serial Numbers (S/N) of the High 

Pressure (HP) Compressor Front Drum Assemblies Part No. BRH20070 after 

repair BRG3086 Issue 1 has been applied and Part No. BRR21918 after repair 

BRG3086 Issue 1 has been applied. Results for each individual repair case are 

listed in the latest revision of Non-Modification Service Bulletin SB-BR700-72-

A900437. 

Effective Date: 28 February 2007 
2/2 

Compliance: 

Before next flight after repair BRG3086 Issue 1 has been accomplished, 

amend the Time Limits Manual (TLM) by adding specific CAUTION notes to the 

below subtasks in order to include the mandatory reduced lives. 

BR715 Time Limits Manual (TLM) T-715-3BR: 

Subtask 05-10-01-860-004 

Subtask 05-10-01-860-018 

Subtask 05-10-01-860-033 

Subtask 05-10-01-860-052 

Refer to Alert Non-Modification Service Bulletin SB-BR700-72-A900437, Initial 

Issue or later approved revisions, for a list of affected serial numbers and their 

reduced life. 

Ref. Publications: BR715 Time Limits Manual (TLM) T-715-3BR 

Remarks:

1. If requested and appropriately substantiated the responsible EASA 

manager for the related product has the authority to accept Alternative 

Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) for this AD. 

2. The safety assessment has requested not to implement the full 

consultation process and an immediate publication and notification. 

3. Enquiries regarding this AD should be addressed to AD Focal Point, 

Certification Directorate, EASA. E-mail: ADs@easa.europa.eu 

4. For any questions concerning the technical content of the requirements in 

this AD, please contact: E-mail: rrd.aog@rolls-royce.com
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Peter Paul AMAN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-3115

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Filed September 29, 2017

(D.C. Nos. 6:17-CV-01001-JTM and 6:04-CR-10244-JTM-1) (D. Kansas)

Annette B. Gurney, David M. Lind, Office of the United States Attorney, District of Kansas, Wichita, KS, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee

Peter Paul Aman, Pro Se

Before KELLY, MURPHY, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges.

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

Paul J. Kelly, Jr., Circuit Judge

Defendant-Appellant Peter Paul Aman, a federal inmate appearing pro se, seeks a certificate of appealability (“COA”) to appeal from the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his sentence. United States v. Aman, No. 6:04-CR-10244-JTM, 2017 WL 1437313 (D. Kan. Apr. 24, 2017). To obtain a' COA, Mr. Aman must make a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); see Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000). Because Mr. Aman has not made such a showing, we deny a COA and dismiss the appeal.

In 2005, Mr. Aman pled guilty and was sentenced to 15 years for unlawful receipt and distribution of child pornography. 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2). Mr. Aman sought to appeal, but we granted the government’s motion to enforce the plea agreement which contains a waiver of the right to appeal or collaterally attack. United States v. Aman, No. 05-3161 (10th Cir. Nov. 9, 2005).

Mr. Aman again proceeds under § 2255 alleging that provisions in the statutory and sentencing guidelines punishing child pornography are similarly vague to those found unconstitutional in Johnson v. United States, — U.S. —, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015). He also contends that a recent amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines should result in a reduction of his sentence. The district court granted the government’s motion to enforce the plea agreement waiver and dismissed Mr. *940Aman’s § 2225 motion and denied a COA. Aman, 2017 WL 1437313 at *2.

For this court to grant a COA, Mr. Aman must show that “reasonable jurists could debate whether.. .the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Slack, 529 U.S. at 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). On appeal, Mr. Aman renews his contentions, and specifically argues that Amendment 801 to the Sentencing Guidelines should result in the removal of a five-point enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2. The district court correctly applied the Hahn factors to determine the enforceability of the waiver. United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315, 1325 (10th Cir. 2004). Its conclusions that the waiver applies and that, in any event, Amendment 801 is not retroactive, are not reasonably debatable.

We therefore DENY Mr. Aman’s request for a COA, DENY his request to proceed IFP, and DISMISS his appeal.
III

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 157

Commending Senator Robert Byrd for casting 14,000 votes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 27 (legislative day, JULY 10), 1995

Mr. DASCHLE (for himself, Mr. DOLE, Mr. ROCKEFELLER, Mr. FORD, Mr.

THURMOND, Mr. LOTT, Mr. INOUYE, Mr. ABRAHAM, Mr. AKAKA, Mr.

ASHCROFT, Mr. BAUCUS, Mr. BENNETT, Mr. BIDEN, Mr. BINGAMAN,

Mr. BOND, Mrs. BOXER, Mr. BRADLEY, Mr. BREAUX, Mr. BROWN, Mr.

BRYAN, Mr. BUMPERS, Mr. BURNS, Mr. CAMPBELL, Mr. CHAFEE, Mr.

COATS, Mr. COCHRAN, Mr. COHEN, Mr. CONRAD, Mr. COVERDELL, Mr.

CRAIG, Mr. D’AMATO, Mr. DEWINE, Mr. DODD, Mr. DOMENICI, Mr.

DORGAN, Mr. EXON, Mr. FAIRCLOTH, Mr. FEINGOLD, Mrs. FEINSTEIN,

Mr. FRIST, Mr. GLENN, Mr. GORTON, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. GRAMM, Mr.

GRAMS, Mr. GRASSLEY, Mr. GREGG, Mr. HARKIN, Mr. HATCH, Mr. HATFIELD, Mr. HEFLIN, Mr. HELMS, Mr. HOLLINGS, Mrs. HUTCHISON, Mr.

INHOFE, Mr. JEFFORDS, Mr. JOHNSTON, Mrs. KASSEBAUM, Mr.

KEMPTHORNE, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. KERREY, Mr. KERRY, Mr. KOHL, Mr.

KYL, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Mr.

LUGAR, Mr. MACK, Mr. MCCAIN, Mr. MCCONNELL, Ms. MIKULSKI, Ms.

MOSELEY-BRAUN, Mr. MOYNIHAN, Mr. MURKOWSKI, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.

NICKLES, Mr. NUNN, Mr. PACKWOOD, Mr. PELL, Mr. PRESSLER, Mr.

PRYOR, Mr. REID, Mr. ROBB, Mr. ROTH, Mr. SANTORUM, Mr. SARBANES, Mr. SHELBY, Mr. SIMON, Mr. SIMPSON, Mr. SMITH, Ms. SNOWE,

Mr. SPECTER, Mr. STEVENS, Mr. THOMAS, Mr. THOMPSON, Mr. WARNER, and Mr. WELLSTONE) submitted the following resolution; which was

considered and agreed to

RESOLUTION

Commending Senator Robert Byrd for casting 14,000 votes.
2

SRES 157 ATS

Whereas the Honorable Robert C. Byrd has served with distinction and commitment as a United States Senator

from the State of West Virginia since January 3, 1959;

Whereas he has dutifully and faithfully served the Senate six

years as Senate majority leader (1977–80, 1987–88) and

six years as the Senate minority leader (1981–1986);

Whereas his dedicated service as a United States Senator has

contributed to the effectiveness and betterment of this institution;

Whereas he is one of only three United States Senators in

American history who has been elected to seven 6-year

terms in the Senate;

Whereas he has held more Senate leadership positions than

any other Senator in history: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the United States Senate congratu2 lates the Honorable Robert C. Byrd, the senior Senator

3 from West Virginia, for becoming the first United States

4 Senator in history to cast 14,000 votes.

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

6 a copy of this resolution to Senator Robert C. Byrd.

Æ