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

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. RES. 263

Relating to church burning.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 13, 1996

Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN (for herself, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. DASCHLE, Mr.

KEMPTHORNE, Mrs. BOXER, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. KERRY, Mr.

WELLSTONE, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. PELL, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. BIDEN, Mr. SIMON, and Mr.

HARKIN) submitted the following resolution; which was held at the desk

JUNE 18, 1996

Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

RESOLUTION

Relating to church burning.

Whereas there have been at least 32 fires of suspicious origin

at churches serving African-American communities in the

last 18 months;

Whereas these churches are a vital part of the life of these

communities;

Whereas intentionally burning churches is a very heinous

crime in these communities, and all across America, because church burning was used during the civil rights

struggle in an attempt to intimidate African-Americans

from exercising their Constitutional rights;
2

•SRES 263 IS

Whereas there have been at least 60 fires and incidents of

desecration in houses of worship in 15 different States

since 1990;

Whereas intentionally burning churches, when done to intimidate any American from the free exercise of his or her

rights as an American, is inconsistent with the First

Amendment to the United States Constitution, which

guarantees every American the right to the free exercise

of his or her religion;

Whereas intentionally burning churches, when done to intimidate any American from the free exercise of his or her

rights as an American is also inconsistent with the First

Amendment guarantee that ensures that Americans can

freely and peaceably assemble together; and

Whereas intentionally burning churches, when done to intimidate any American from the free exercise of his or her

rights is a serious national problem that must be expeditiously and vigorously addressed: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That—

2 (1) the Senate condemns arson against church3 es as being totally inconsistent with American val4 ues;

5 (2) the Senate believes that the investigation

6 and prosecution of those who are responsible for

7 fires at churches, and especially any incidents of

8 arson whose purpose is to divide communities or to

9 intimidate any Americans, should be a high national

10 priority; and
3

•SRES 263 IS

1 (3) the Senate commends the President for

2 pledging to devote all Federal resources necessary to

3 bring those responsible for committing any act of

4 arson against churches to justice, and urges that all

5 investigations of fires at churches which are of sus6 picious origin are conducted in a sensitive manner

7 that reflects the special character of churches and

8 the role they play in American communities.

Æ
IV

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 136

Providing for an adjournment of the two Houses.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 31, 1997

Mr. GOSS submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was considered

and agreed to

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Providing for an adjournment of the two Houses.

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That, in consonance with section 132(a) of

3 the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, when the

4 House adjourns on the legislative day of Friday, August

5 1, 1997 or Saturday, August 2, 1997, pursuant to a mo6 tion made by the Majority Leader or his designee, it stand

7 adjourned until noon on Wednesday, September 3, 1997,

8 or until noon on the second day after Members are notified

9 to reassemble pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent res10 olution, whichever occurs first; and that when the Senate

11 recesses or adjourns at the close of business on Thursday,

12 July 31, 1997, Friday, August 1, 1997, or Saturday, Au-
2

HCON 136 ATH

1 gust 2, 1997, pursuant to a motion made by the Majority

2 Leader or his designee in accordance with this concurrent

3 resolution, it stand recessed or adjourned until noon on

4 Tuesday, September 2, 1997, or until such time on that

5 day as may be specified by the Majority Leader or his

6 designee in the motion to recess or adjourn, or until noon

7 on the second day after Members are notified to reassem8 ble pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution,

9 whichever occurs first.

10 SEC. 2. The Speaker of the House and the Majority

11 Leader of the Senate, acting jointly after consultation with

12 the Minority Leader of the House and the Minority Lead13 er of the Senate, shall notify the Members of the House

14 and Senate, respectively, to reassemble whenever, in their

15 opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.

Æ
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Michael Wayne BOGAR, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-10429 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed February 14, 2018

Jay Stevenson Weimer, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Brandon Elliott Beck, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Lubbock, TX, Peter Michael Fleu-ry, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before WIENER, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Michael Wayne Bogar appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), He contends that the *247240-month, above-Güidelines sentence is substantively unreasonable because it was greater than necessary to satisfy the sentencing goals set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Bogar argues that the district court imposed the statutory maximum sentence based solely on his criminal history and without properly accounting for other aspects of his history and characteristics. He also argues that, under the totality of the circumstances, the extent of the variance was unreasonable.

The record reflects that the district court considered the advisory Guidelines range, the statutory penalties, the Section 3553(a) factors, the facts in the presen-tence report, and Bogar’s arguments in mitigation of the sentence. The district court made an individualized assessment and concluded that the Guidelines range did not adequately take into account the Section 3553(a) factors. Although Bogar’s 240-month sentence is 52 months greater than the top of the 151 to 188-month Guidelines range, we have upheld variances greater than the increase to his sentence. *See United States v. Brantley,*537 F.3d 347, 348-50 (5th Cir. 2008).

Bogar’s arguments do not show a clear error of judgment on the district court’s part in balancing the Section 3553(a) factors; instead, they constitute a mere disagreement with the district court’s weighing of those factors. Given the significant deference that is due to a district court’s consideration of the Section 3553(a) factors and the district court’s reasons for its sentencing decision, Bogar has not demonstrated that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. *See Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 38, 50-53, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); *Brantley,*537 F.3d at 349. Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cm. 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 Cm. R. 47.5,4.
Exhibit 32.1

        CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 -
              CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF ACCOUNTING OFFICER

         In connection  with the Quarterly  Report of Nevstar  Corporation  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period ended  December 31, 2005,  as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Timothy P. Halter,  Chief Executive Officer and Chief Accounting  Officer of the
Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350,  adopted as 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 result of  operations of the
Company.



                              /s/ Timothy P. Halter
                             ----------------------
                             Timothy P. Halter
                             Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
                             February 21, 2006

A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document  authenticating,  acknowledging,  or otherwise adopting,  the signature
that  appears  in typed  form  within the  electronic  version  of this  written
statement  required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be
retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange  Commission
or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1997
<CASH>                                       1,277,292
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  440,956
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (17,850)
<INVENTORY>                                     66,537
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,473,735
<PP&E>                                         881,155
<DEPRECIATION>                                 150,796
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,338,277
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          248,568
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     5,566,124
<OTHER-SE>                                 (2,476,415)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,338,277
<SALES>                                        435,259
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               435,259
<CGS>                                          248,418
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  594,927
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (386,377)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       200
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (386,577)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (386,577)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN THE MATTER OF J.M.D.D.L.C.,

A JUVENILE.

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-13-00332-CV

Appeal from the

65th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 11,01433)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the 

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. It appearing to this Court that 

Appellant is indigent; we make no further order as to payment of costs on appeal. This decision 

shall be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2015.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
**
**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 on Form 10-K of Saratoga Investment Corp. (the “Company”) for the annual period endedFebruary 29, 2020, as filed with the Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Christian L. Oberbeck, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and I, Henri J. Steenkamp, Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, each certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to our knowledge: 

1. TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 

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

Date: May 6, 2020 
/s/ CHRISTIAN L. OBERBECKChristian L. OberbeckChief Executive Officer/s/ HENRI J. STEENKAMPHenri J. SteenkampChief Financial Officer and Chief Compliance Officer**
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Commercial Mortgage  Servicing**D1050-084, 8th Floor  401 South Tryon St.  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334 |
|--------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

**ANNUAL STATEMENT OFCOMPLIANCE**

 

 

Reference is hereby made to thatcertain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of September 1, 2014, by andamong DEUTSCHE MORTGAGE & ASSET RECEIVING CORPORATION, as Depositor, WELLSFARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Master Servicer, RIALTO CAPITAL ADVISORS,LLC, as Special Servicer, WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee,WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Certificate Administrator, PayingAgent and Custodian, and SITUS HOLDINGS, LLC as Operating Advisor with respectto Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, COMM 2014-UBS5 (the"Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise definedshall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 10.11 ofthis Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of Commercial MortgageServices do hereby certify that:

 

1. A review of the activitiesof the Master Servicer during the period from January 1, 2016 through December31, 2016 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance per theAgreement during such period has been made under my supervision, and

 

2. To the best of myknowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has fulfilled all of itsobligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout theReporting Period.

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersignedhas executed this Certificate as of the 28th day of February 2017.

 

 

/s/ Daniel Bober

Daniel Bober

Executive Vice President

Wells Fargo Bank

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together we’ll  go far |
|------------------------|-------------------------------------|
---

Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of
Golden Elephant Glass Technology, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), on
Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2010, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), Hong Tan, Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, does hereby certify, pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to 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
result of operations of the Company.

January 19, 2011

/S/ Hong
TanHong
TanChief Financial Officer

---
##### 



Exhibit 31.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Richard J. Townsend, certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of Loral
Space & Communications Ltd.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any
untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material
fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading
with respect to the period covered by this report;3.
    
    [Intentionally omitted];4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls
and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:  (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or
caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed
under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in which this report is
being prepared;(c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants
disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report
our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by
this report based on such evaluation; and(d)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the
registrants internal control over financial reporting that
occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrants internal control over
financial reporting; and  5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control
over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):  (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses
in the design or operation of internal control over financial
reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the
registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report
financial information; and(b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant role in the
registrants internal control over financial reporting. /s/ Richard J. TownsendRichard J. TownsendChief Financial OfficerMay 12, 2004
#### Elena D. RUZICKA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-1151

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: December 6, 2017

Filed: December 11, 2017

Elena D. Ruzicka, Pro Se

Jared D. Kemper, Dykema & Gossett, Minneapolis, MN, Jill M. Wheaton, Dyke-ma & Gossett, Ann Arbor, MI, for Defendant-Appellee

Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Minnesota resident Elena Ruzicka appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment in this diversity action challenging the legality of the foreclosure and sheriffs sale of her home. Upon de novo review, *see Beaulieu v. Ludeman,*690 F.3d 1017, 1024 (8th Cir. 2012), we affirm. Specifically, we agree with the district court that Ruzicka’s evidence failed to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding Chase’s compliance with Minn. Stat. § 580.041, subd. lb, which requires that the mortgage-holder deliver a specified foreclosure-advice notice with every written communication to the mortgagor, up to the time of a foreclosure sale. We also agree with the district court that Ruz-icka could not prevail on her breach-of-contract claim, as the summary judgment record would not permit the conclusion that Chase’s alleged breach of the mortgage agreement caused Ruzicka to suffer any economic damages that would not have otherwise occurred. *See Gen. Mills Operations, LLC v. Five Star Custom Foods, Ltd.,*703 F.3d 1104, 1107 (8th Cir. 2013).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment, and we deny the pending motion. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Janie S. Mayeron, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota, now retired, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C, § 636(c),
# C_2012343EN.01000901.xml

| 10.11.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.11.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/9

---

Action brought on 28 August 2012 — Bundesrepublik Deutschland v Council of the European Union

(Case C-399/12)

2012/C 343/11

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland (represented by: N. Graf Vitzthum and T. Henze, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the Council decision of 18 June 2012; (1) |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Council decision of 18 June 2012; (1)

1

| — | Order the Council of the European Union to bear the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Council of the European Union to bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its action, the Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Federal Republic of Germany) challenges the Council decision of 18 June 2012‘establishing the position to be adopted on behalf of the European Union with regard to certain resolutions to be voted in the framework of the International Organisation for Vine and Wine (OIV)’.

According to the Federal Government, Article 218(9) TFEU was the incorrect legal basis for the adoption of the decision. Article 218(9) TFEU concerns in the first instance only the adoption of the positions of the Union in bodies, set up by international agreements, of which the Union is a member. Article 218(9) TFEU cannot however be applied in relation to the representation of the Member States in bodies of international organisations in which only the Member States participate by virtue of separate international treaties. Second, Article 218(9) TFEU covers only ‘acts having legal effects’, meaning acts binding under international law. OIV resolutions are however not acts in that sense.

Moreover no other legal basis for the adoption of the Council decision is apparent.

---

(1)  Council Document No 11436 ‘establishing the position to be adopted on behalf of the European Union with regard to certain resolutions to be voted in the framework of the International Organisation for Vine and Wine (OIV)’.

1

---