alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 102

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Congress that the cost

be able to keep more of what they earn.should be reduced so that American families willof government spending and regulatory programs
105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 102

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Whereas the total cost of government spending and regulations (total cost of government) consumes 36.2 percent of

the Nation’s net national product;

Whereas the total cost of government now exceeds

$3,520,000,000,000 annually;

Whereas Federal regulatory costs now exceed

$785,000,000,000 annually;
2

•HCON 102 EH

Whereas the cost of government in general and excessive regulations in particular place a tremendous drain on the

economy by reducing worker productivity, increasing

prices to consumers, and limiting the economic choices

and individual freedoms of our citizenry;

Whereas, if the average American worker were to spend all

of his or her gross earnings on nothing else besides meeting his or her share of the total cost of government for

the current year, that total cost would not be met until

July 3, 1997;

Whereas July 3, 1997, should therefore be considered Cost

of Government Day 1997; and

Whereas it is not right that the American family has to give

up more than 50 percent of what it earns to the government: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that, as

3 part of balancing the budget and reevaluating the role of

4 government, Federal, State, and local elected officials

5 should carefully consider the costs of government spending

6 and regulatory programs in the year to come so that

7 American families will be able to keep more of what they

8 earn.

Passed the House of Representatives June 25, 1997.

Attest:

Clerk.
420 P.2d 944

#### Charles D. NICKERSON, Petitioner, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION of Arizona et al., and Edward Ast (Ed Ast Builders), Respondents.

No. 1 CA-IC 99.

Court of Appeals of Arizona.

Dec. 9, 1966.

Alan Philip Bayham, Phoenix, for petitioner.

Robert R Park, Chief Counsel, by Dee-Dee Samet, Phoenix, for respondent Industrial Commission.

DONOFRIO, Judge.

This case is before the Court by Writ of Certiorari to review the lawfulness of Decision Upon Rehearing affirming a previous award which denied reopening of petitioner’s claim. The Decision complained of was issued January 7, 1966.

The petitioner suffered a back injury, a compression fracture of a vertebra, in an industrial accident that occurred in May, 1957. He returned to work in May, -1958, and was discharged from medical treatment with no disability rating in August, 1958. In July, 1959, after a timely petition for rehearing and further treatment, an award was issued finding petitioner suffered a five percent general physical functional disability, but had no loss of earning capacity as a result thereof. Several petitions to reopen were filed in 1960, which resulted in an award denying reopening in January, 1961. The next petition to reopen was filed in February, 1965. Petitioner testified that he had not sought medical treatment during the four intervening years. A consultation board of orthopedic specialists examined petitioner in June, 1965, and found that his present complaints were related to his osteoarthritic condition, which pre-existed the industrial injury and was only temporarily aggravated by that injury. A formal hearing was held October 18, 1965, at which time medical testimony was presented by members of the consultation board and by petitioner’s attending physician. The Commission determined that petitioner had not shown a new, additional, or previously undiscovered disability attributable to the industrial injury of May 16, 1957.

The question presented to this Court is: does the evidence support the Award and Findings of the Commission? We have examined the record and it is our opinion that the Commission’s award is reasonably supported by the evidence. It *373is therefore our duty to affirm. Kennecott Copper Corp. v. Industrial Commission, 4 Ariz.App. 327, 420 P.2d 194. (Filed Nov. 18, 1966)

The award of January, 1966, is affirmed.

STEVENS, C. J., and CAMERON, J., concur.
#### Raymond C. FOSS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Todd ROWEN, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-15652

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted November 15, 2017 *

Filed November 30, 2017

Raymond C. Foss, Pro Se

Gary Charles Brickwood, Attorney, Brickwood Law Office, Redding, CA, for Defendant-Appellee

Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Raymond C. Foss appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing as time-barred his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging false arrest and imprisonment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Jones v. Blanas,*393 F.3d 918, 926 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Foss’s action as time-barred because, even with the benefit of statutory tolling and accepting Foss’s argument that his claim accrued in October 2006, Foss failed to file this action within the applicable statute of limitations, and equitable tolling did not apply. *See*Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 335.1 (two-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims); *Jones,*393 F.3d at 927 (§ 1983 claims are governed by the forum state’s statute of limitations for personal injury claims, including state law regarding tolling); *Azer v. Connell,*306 F.3d 930, 936 (9th Cir. 2002) (three-pronged test for equitable tolling in California).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by not holding an evidentiary hearing. *See United States v. Schafer,*625 F.3d 629, 635 (9th Cir. 2010) (denial of eviden-tiary hearing is reviewed for abuse of discretion).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Foss’s motion for appointment of counsel because Foss did not show exceptional circumstances warranting such an appointment. *See Palmer v. Valdez,*560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting forth standard of review and explaining the “exceptional circumstances” requirement).

*720We reject as unsupported by the record Foss’s contention that he was prejudiced by defendant raising new issues in the reply brief because Foss was given an opportunity to file a sur-reply brief.

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 By The Chief Executive Officer,

As Adopted Pursuant To Section 906 Of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act Of 2002.

I, Gerald L.
Storch, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



| | 1. | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Toys R Us, Inc. (the Company) for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2011 (the Report)
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (15 U.S.C. 78m); and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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

June 10, 2011



|                                    
|------------------------------------
|/s/    Gerald L.
Storch             
|Gerald L. Storch                    
|Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
|(Principal Executive Officer)
```

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 193 (Tuesday, October 6, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 60433]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-25403]

[[Page 60433]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Thirtieth Meeting: Special Committee (213) Enhanced Flight 
Visions Systems/Synthetic Vision Systems (EFVS/SVS)

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of 
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of thirtieth Special Committee 213 meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the 
thirtieth Special Committee 213 meeting.

DATES: The meeting will be held October 20th-22nd from 8:30 a.m.-5:00 
p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at National Institute of Aerospace 
Headquarters, 100 Exploration Way, Hampton, VA 23666, Tel: (202) 330-
0662.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street 
NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, or by telephone at (202) 833-
9339, fax at (202) 833-9434, or Web site at http://www.rtca.org or 
Jennifer Iversen, Program Director, RTCA, Inc., jiversen@rtca.org, 
(202) 330-0662.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is 
hereby given for a meeting of Special Committee 213. The agenda will 
include the following:

Tuesday, October 20, 2015

1. Plenary discussion (sign-in at 08:00 a.m.)
    a. Introductions and administrative items
    b. Review and approve minutes from last full plenary meeting
    c. Review of terms of reference and update work product dates
    d. WG1, WG2 and WG3 status updates
    e. Industry updates
    f. EFVS Workshop update
    g. WG2 Draft Document

Wednesday, October 21, 2015

1. Plenary discussion
    a. Demonstrations at NASA Langley
    b. WG3 Draft Document
    c. WG1 Discussion

Thursday, October 22, 2015

1. Plenary discussion
    a. WG1 Draft Document
    b. Administrative items (new meeting location/dates, action items 
etc.)

    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space 
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public 
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present 
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in 
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may 
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 30, 2015.
Latasha Robinson,
Management & Program Analyst, Next Generation, Enterprise Support 
Services Division, Federal Aviation Administration.
[FR Doc. 2015-25403 Filed 10-5-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CEO 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 on Form 10-K of Fortress Investment Group LLC (the Company) for the
annual period ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Wesley R. Edens, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, 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 his 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/ Wesley R. Edens    
|Wesley R. Edens        
|Chief Executive Officer
|March 16, 2009         

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall
not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard Allen WITCHER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-7088

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: December 19, 2017

Decided: December 22, 2017

Richard Allen Witcher, Appellant Pro Se. Leslie Williams Fisher, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; Elizabeth Marie Yusi, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appel-lee.

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Richard Allen Witcher seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability 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 motion 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 Witcher 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*
#### Orlando PARKER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Bryan STIRLING, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-7187

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: January 18, 2018

Decided: January 23, 2018

*226Orlando Parker, 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 GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Orlando Parker seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and denying relief on Parker’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition, 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 appealability 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 Parker 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*
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 133 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  1st Session

                            H. CON. RES. 133

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Congress regarding the terrorist bombing in 
                 the Jerusalem market on July 30, 1997.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 133

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Whereas on July 30, 1997, two terrorist bombs exploded almost simultaneously in 
        the open market in Jerusalem killing at least 13 people and wounding 
        more than 150 others; and
Whereas this attack is a violent and vicious assault against the peace process 
        and against citizens of Israel: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That the Congress--
            (1) Expresses the deep condolences of the Congress and the 
        American people to the families of the victims and to the 
        people of Israel for the loss of life and the serious injuries 
        that have been suffered in the terrorist bombing in the 
        Jerusalem market and expresses the solidarity of the American 
        people with the people of Israel in the face of this tragic and 
        senseless act;
            (2) Reaffirms the determination of the Congress to join 
        with the government of Israel in fighting against international 
        terrorism;
            (3) Urges Yassir Arafat and officials of the Palestinian 
        Authority to undertake immediately unequivocal action to bring 
        to justice leaders of terrorist organizations and extremist 
        groups and to eliminate all weapons and explosives in the hands 
        of such groups;
            (4) Reaffirms the commitment of the Congress of the United 
        States to the peace process in the Middle East and urges all 
        parties to work together to bring lasting peace and security 
        without violence and terrorism to that region; and
            (5) Urges the President and appropriate Executive agencies 
        to provide all appropriate assistance to the government of 
        Israel to provide medical and other assistance to the victims 
        of this terrorist act, to bring to justice the terrorist 
        leaders behind this and similar acts of violence, and to work 
        to prevent such terrorist acts in the future.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 30, 1997.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 207 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

  2d Session
S. RES. 207

To congratulate Brett Favre, a native of Kiln, Mississippi, for winning 
     the 1995 National Football League Most Valuable Player Award.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 3, 1996

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
To congratulate Brett Favre, a native of Kiln, Mississippi, for winning 
     the 1995 National Football League Most Valuable Player Award.

Whereas Brett Favre, a native of Kiln, Mississippi, is a professional football 
        player with the Green Bay Packers;
Whereas Brett Favre has demonstrated extraordinary skills as an athlete and has 
        proven himself a leader and top performer in the National Football 
        League; and
Whereas Brett Favre has been named the Most Valuable Player of the National 
        Football League for 1995: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate of the United States congratulates Brett 
Favre for the outstanding season he has had as quarterback of the Green 
Bay Packers and for being named the Most Valuable Player of the 
National Football League for 1995.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 21.1

STEWART & STEVENSON LLC LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

Name of Subsidiary

Jurisdiction of
Incorporation or
OrganizationEMDSI-Hunt Power, L.L.C.

DelawareStewart & Stevenson Distributor Holdings LLC

DelawareStewart & Stevenson Funding Corp.

DelawareStewart & Stevenson Manufacturing Technologies LLC

DelawareStewart & Stevenson Material Handling LLC

DelawareStewart & Stevenson Petroleum Services LLC

DelawareStewart & Stevenson Power Products LLC

DelawareStewart & Stevenson Truck Holdings LLC

DelawareStewart & Stevenson Canada Inc.

CanadaStewart & Stevenson de Venezuela, S.A.

VenezuelaTransmisiones Y Embragues, S.A.

VenezuelaRio Grande Services, S de R.L. de C.V.

MexicoStewart & Stevenson de las Americas Colombia Ltda.

ColombiaStewart & Stevenson Hong Kong Limited

Hong Kong


---



QuickLinks
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Kelly Wooderson BURKETT, Defendant-Appellant

No. 15-10945 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed April 6, 2017

James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Leigha Amy Simonton, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Kevin Joel Page, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Kelly Wooderson Burkett, Pro Se

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Kelly Wooderson Burkett pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine. Burkett argues that, because she was not involved in importation, the district court erred by imposing a two-level importation enhancement. She acknowledges that this argument is foreclosed by *United States v. Foulks,*747 F.3d 914, 915 (5th Cir. 2014).

She also argues that the district court erred by increasing her offense level by two levels, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1, because she attempted to obstruct or impede justice. The district court stated specifically that even if it erred by applying the enhancement, it would have imposed the same sentence. Accordingly, any error in applying the enhancement is harmless. *See United States v. Gutierrez-Mendez,*752 F.3d 418, 429-30 (5th Cir. 2014); *see also United States v. Shepherd,*848 F.3d 425, 427-28 (5th Cir. 2017).

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.