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

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 32 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  1st Session
S. CON. RES. 32

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That when the Senate recesses or adjourns at the close of business on 
Monday, November 20, 1995, pursuant to a motion made by the Majority 
Leader or his designee, in accordance with this resolution, it stand 
recessed or adjourned until a time to be determined by the Majority 
Leader on Monday, November 27, 1995, or until one hour after the House 
has voted on H.J. Res. 122, unless the House agrees to the Senate 
amendment.
    Sec. 2. The two Houses shall convene at 12:00 noon on the second 
day after Members are notified to reassemble pursuant to section 3 of 
this resolution, whichever occurs first; and that when the House of 
Representatives adjourns on the legislative day of Monday, November 20, 
1995, or the legislative day of Tuesday, November 21, 1995, it stand 
adjourned until 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday, November 28, 1995, or until 
12:00 noon on the second day after Members are notified to reassemble 
pursuant to section 3 of this resolution, whichever occurs first.
    Sec 3. The Majority Leader of the Senate and the Speaker of the 
House, acting jointly after consultation with the Minority Leader of 
the Senate and Minority Leader of the House, shall notify the Members 
of the Senate and the House, respectively, to reassemble whenever, in 
their opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.

            Passed the Senate November 20, 1995.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
104th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                            S. CON. RES. 32

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

  Providing for a conditional recess or adjournment of the Senate on 
   Monday, November 20, 1995, until Monday, November 27, 1995, and a 
conditional adjournment of the House on the legislative day of Monday, 
   November 20, 1995, or Tuesday, November 21, 1995, until Tuesday, 
                           November 28, 1995.
```
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 09724**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  09724\09724_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted x 09724\09724_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file x 09724\09724_PartE.xls Plant submitted survey file x 09724\09724_PartH.xls Plant submitted survey file

09724\Certification Statement_09724.pdf Plant certification statement x 09724\Supporting Documentation\09724_Aerial Photo_1.doc Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 09724\Supporting Documentation\09724_Aerial Photo_2.doc Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 09724\Supporting Documentation\09724_Water Balance_1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 09724\Supporting Documentation\09724_Water Balance_2.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 09724\09724_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

09724\09724_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database

. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket.
**Exhibit 32.1****Certification of Chief Executive Officer**     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created bySection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, theundersigned officer of Party City Corporation (the“Company”) hereby certifies, to such officer’sknowledge, that:          (i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company    for the quarterly period ended January 1, 2005 (the    “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of    Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the    Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and           (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly    presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and    results of operations of the Company.     /s/ NANCY PEDOT       Nancy Pedot *Chief Executive Officer*Dated: February 10, 2005     The foregoing certification is being furnished solely toaccompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, and is not being filed for purposes ofSection 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into anyfiling of the Company, whether made before or after the datehereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in suchfiling.
Exhibit 35

                            ITEM 1123 CERTIFICATION

I, David J. Kolibachuk, Vice President of U.S. Bank National Association (the
"Servicer"), hereby certify that:

(1) A review of the activities of the Servicer during the reporting period and
of the performance of the Servicer under the Standard Terms for Trust
Agreements, dated as of November 9, 2006 (the "Agreement") has been made under
my supervision; and

 (2) To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has
fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects
throughout reporting period, or, if there has been a failure to fulfill any
such obligation in any material respect, I have specified below each such
failure known to me and the nature and status thereof.


Date: March 21, 2007


                                    /s/ DAVID J. KOLIBACHUK
                                    ------------------------------
                                    David J. Kolibachuk
                                    Vice President






                                      14
#### Douglas FAUCONIER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Harold CLARKE, Director of VADOC; David A. Robinson, Chief of Corrections Operations; John A. Woodson, Warden of A.C.C.; Ms. T. McDougald, member of PRC, Defendants-Appellees, and Members of the Publication Review Committee, PRC, Defendant.

No. 17-6901

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: December 21, 2017

Decided: January 12, 2018

Douglas Leigh Fauconier, Appellant Pro Se. Margaret Hoehl O’Shea, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Douglas Fauconier appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 *175U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See Fauconier v. Clarke,*257 F.Supp.3d 746 (W.D. Va. 2017). 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*
S. J. Res. 53

One Hundred Fourth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the third day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-six

Joint Resolution

Making corrections to Public Law 104–134.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the

United States of America in Congress assembled, That:

(a) In Public Law 104–134, insert after the enacting clause:

‘‘TITLE I—OMNIBUS APPROPRIATIONS’’.

(b) The two penultimate undesignated paragraphs under the

subheading ‘‘ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS, FOREST SERVICE’’ under

the heading ‘‘TITLE II—RELATED AGENCIES, DEPARTMENT

OF AGRICULTURE’’ of the Department of the Interior and Related

Agencies Appropriations Act, 1996, as contained in section 101(c)

of Public Law 104–134, are repealed.

(c) Section 520 under the heading ‘‘TITLE V—GENERAL

PROVISIONS’’ of the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing

and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations

Act, 1996, as contained in section 101(e) of Public Law 104–134,

is repealed.

(d) Strike out section 337 under the heading ‘‘TITLE III—

GENERAL PROVISIONS’’ of the Department of the Interior and

Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1996, as contained in section

101(c) of Public Law 104–134, and insert in lieu thereof:

‘‘SEC. 337. The Secretary of the Interior shall promptly convey

to the Daughters of the American Colonists, without reimbursement, all right, title and interest in the plaque that in 1933 was

placed on the Great Southern Hotel in Saint Louis, Missouri by

the Daughters of the American Colonists to mark the site of Fort

San Carlos.’’.
S. J. Res. 53—2

(e) Section 21104 of Public Law 104–134 is repealed.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS, STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
INCLUDED IN THE COMPANY'S QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD ENDED
JUNE 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           14752
<SECURITIES>                                       998
<RECEIVABLES>                                    20205
<ALLOWANCES>                                       100
<INVENTORY>                                      13553
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 51207
<PP&E>                                           13350
<DEPRECIATION>                                    5535
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   60553
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            10081
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            12
<OTHER-SE>                                       49050
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     60553
<SALES>                                          27247
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 27247
<CGS>                                            15266
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     9911
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 127
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   2261
<INCOME-TAX>                                       339
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               1922
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      1922
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.15


</TABLE>
III

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 37

Directing the Clerk of the House of Representatives to make technical changes

in the enrollment of the bill (H.R. 2539) to amend subtitle IV of

title 49, United States Code, to reform economic regulation of transportation, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

DECEMBER 21, 1995

Mr. EXON (for himself and Mr. WELLSTONE) submitted the following; which

was considered and agreed to

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.’’

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives

2 concurring), That the Clerk of the House of Representa3 tives, in the enrollment of the bill (H.R. 2539) entitled

4 ‘‘An Act to abolish the Interstate Commerce Commission,

5 to amend subtitle IV of title 49, United States Code, to
2

SCON 37 ATS

1 reform economic regulation of transportation, and for

2 other purposes’’ shall make the following corrections:

3 (1) In section 11326(b) proposed to be inserted

4 in title 49, United States Code, by section 102,

5 strike ‘‘unless the applicant elects to provide the al6 ternative arrangement specified in this subsection.

7 Such alternative’’ and insert ‘‘except that such’’.

8 (2) In section 13902(b)(5) proposed to be in9 serted in title 49, United States Code, by section

10 103, strike ‘‘Any’’ and insert ‘‘Subject to section

11 14501(a), any’’.

Passed the Senate December 21, 1995.

Æ
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Paul BAKER, a.k.a. Darwin Stanton Baker, Jr., a.k.a. Paul D. Baker, a.k.a. Paul Douglas Baker, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-50163

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 11, 2017 *

Filed April 24, 2017

Jean-Claude Andre, Stephen Anthony Cazares, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, DOJ— Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

John Carl Lemon, II, Attorney, Law Offices of John C. Lemon, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed, R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Paul Baker appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the aggregate 135-month sentence imposed following his jury-trial convictions for conspiracy to commit mail fraud, wire fraud, and offer and sale of unregistered securities, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371; mail fraud securities, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341; wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343; offer and sale of unregistered securities and aiding and abetting and causing an act to be done, in violation of 15 U.S.C. §§ 77e and 77x and 18 U.S.C. § 2. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Baker contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to address his request for a downward departure for mental and emotional conditions and physical condition under U.S.S.G. §§ 5H1.3 and 5H1.4. We review for plain error, *see United States v. Valencia-Barragan,*608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude that there was none. The record reflects that the court considered Baker’s arguments and sufficiently explained its reasons for concluding that a mid-range sentence was warranted. *See United States v. Carty,*520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
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 Barings BDC, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2019 , as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Eric Lloyd, 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/ ERIC LLOYDEric LloydChief Executive OfficerFebruary 27, 2020
Exhibit 10.2
 MATRIXX INITIATIVES, INC.
 AMENDED AND RESTATED
2001 LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN
RESTRICTED STOCK PROGRAM AGREEMENT
 Agreement Company Grantee Date of Grant
 RECITALS
 Plan
  Original
Award Agreement
    NOW, THEREFORE
 1. GRANT OF RESTRICTED SHARES
 Common Stock




---



##### 



Restricted Shares Section 3.D
 2. RIGHTS OF GRANTEE
 Section 1
 3. RESTRICTIONS ON COMMON STOCK SUBJECT TO THIS AGREEMENT
 A. Limitations on Transfer .
 Section 3.B
 B. Lapse of Restrictions
 Section 3
 
    
    one-third (1/3) of such Restricted Shares (4,307) shall vest on May 8, 2009;
    
    one-third (1/3) of such Restricted Shares (4,307) shall vest on May 8, 2010;
and
    
    one-third (1/3) of such Restricted Shares (4,307) shall vest on May 8, 2011.
 Section 3.C




---



##### 



C. Accelerated Vesting
 Section 3.B Exhibit 10.12
 D. Issuance of Certificates
  4. SECURITIES ACT
 A. Registration
  B. Condition on Delivery of Stock




---



##### 



C. Legend
   5. REPRESENTATIONS OF GRANTEE
  A. Further Limitations on Disposition
  B. Determination of Fair Market Value
 Section 3.1
 C. Section83(b)Election
 Code Section 3




---



##### 



6. NONTRANSFERABILITY OF AGREEMENT
  7. FEDERAL AND STATE TAXES
  8. ADJUSTMENT OF SHARES
 Article 11 Section 7
 9. AMENDMENT OF THIS AGREEMENT; TERMINATION




---



##### 



10. GOVERNING LAW
  11. SEVERABILITY
  12. ENTIRE AGREEMENT




---



##### 



MATRIXX INITIATIVES, INC.By:
    /s/ William J. HemeltWilliam J. HemeltActing President, Chief Operating Officer
and Chief Financial Officer GRANTEE:SignatureName
#### Raymond BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, United States Parole Commission; Court Services and Community Supervision Agency (CSOSA), Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-1979

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: January 30, 2018

Decided: February 1, 2018

Raymond L. Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Vickie Elaine LeDuc, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Before MOTZ and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Raymond Brown appeals the district court’s order dismissing his complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. The district court properly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Brown’s claims. Accordingly, we affirm thé district court’s dismissal, *see Brown v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,*No. 8:16-cv-03541-PJM (D. Md. July 25, 2017), but we modify the dismissal to be *131without prejudice and affirm the dismissal as modified, 28 U.S.C. § 2106 (2012). 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 AS MODIFIED*
#### David John CARNIVALE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, New York City Department of Finance, Defendants-Appellees.

17-1659

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

February 13, 2018

*60FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: David John Carnivale, pro se, Staten Island, New York.

FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES: Andrew G. Lipkin, Joshua M. Sivin, Andrea M. Chan, of Counsel, for Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, New York, New York.

PRESENT: Pierre N. Leval, Guido Calabresi, José A. Cabranes, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant David John Carnivale, proceeding pro se, appeals from the District .Court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. ’ 1983 complaint. Carnivale sued the City of New York and the New York City Department of Finance (“the defendants”) for violations of his Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights, seeking an injunction capping the amount that the defendants could raise his property taxes. He alleged that from 2006 to 2016, the defendants had applied certain tax exemptions to his property, although they knew that he had inherited the property and did not personally qualify for the exemptions. In 2016, they removed the exemptions, causing his quarterly property tax bill to become prohibitively high. The District Court sua sponte dismissed the action without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, reasoning that the Tax Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1341, prohibits district courts from exercising jurisdiction over an attempt by a plaintiff to prevent the state from collecting taxes when there is a remedy available in the state courts. On appeal, Carnivale argues that the District Court erred by dismissing the action. He also moves to enjoin the defendants from seizing or placing a lien on his property until the conclusion of this litigation. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

We review de novo the District Court’s dismissal of a complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. *Norex Petroleum Ltd. v. Access Indus., Inc.,*631 F.3d 29, 32 (2d Cir. 2010). The plaintiff bears the burden of proving that subject matter jurisdiction exists by a preponderance of the evidence. *Makarova v. United States,*201 F.3d 110, 113 (2d Cir. 2000).

Here, upon such de novo review, we conclude that the District Court properly dismissed Carnivale’s claims. We affirm for substantially the reasons stated by the District Court -in its thorough April 24, 2017 decision.

We have considered Carnivale’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the District Court. Furthermore, we DENY as moot Carnivale’s motion to enjoin the defendants from seizing or placing a lien on his property until the conclusion of this litigation.