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

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 265 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  2d Session

                            H. CON. RES. 265

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

   Authorizing the use of the East Front of the Capitol Grounds for 
performances sponsored by the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing 
                                 Arts.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
105th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 265

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),

SECTION 1. AUTHORIZING USE OF EAST FRONT FOR PERFORMANCES SPONSORED BY 
              KENNEDY CENTER.

    In carrying out its duties under section 4 of the John F. Kennedy 
Center Act (20 U.S.C. 76j), the John F. Kennedy Center for the 
Performing Arts in cooperation with the National Park Service (in this 
resolution jointly referred to as the ``sponsor'') may sponsor public 
performances on the East Front of the Capitol Grounds at such dates and 
times as the Speaker of the House of Representatives and Committee on 
Rules and Administration of the Senate may approve jointly.

SEC. 2. TERMS AND CONDITIONS.

    (a) In General.--Any performance authorized under section 1 shall 
be free of admission charge to the public and arranged not to interfere 
with the needs of Congress, under conditions to be prescribed by the 
Architect of the Capitol and the Capitol Police Board.
    (b) Assumption of Liabilities.--The sponsor shall assume full 
responsibility for all liabilities incident to all activities 
associated with the performance.

SEC. 3. PREPARATIONS.

    (a) Structures and Equipment.--In consultation with the Speaker of 
the House of Representatives and the Committee on Rules and 
Administration of the Senate, the Architect of the Capitol shall 
provide upon the Capitol Grounds such stage, sound amplification 
devices, and other related structures and equipment as may be required 
for a performance authorized under section 1.
    (b) Additional Arrangements.--The Architect of the Capitol and the 
Capitol Police Board may make such additional arrangements as may be 
required to carry out the performance.

SEC. 4. APPLICABILITY OF PROHIBITIONS.

    Nothing in this resolution may be construed to waive the 
applicability of the prohibitions established by section 4 of the Act 
of July 31, 1946 (40 U.S.C. 193d; 60 Stat. 718), concerning sales, 
displays, and solicitations on the Capitol Grounds.

SEC. 5. EXPIRATION OF AUTHORITY.

    A performance may not be conducted under this resolution after 
September 30, 1998.

            Passed the House of Representatives May 7, 1998.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 16-0052V Filed: April 27, 2016 UNP UBLISHED

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * DIANA HAGERMAN, * * Petitioner, * Ruling on Entitlement; Concession; * Influenza (“Flu”) Vaccine; Shoulder * Injury Related to Vaccine Administration SECRETARY OF HEALTH * (“SIRVA ”); Special Processing Unit AND HUMAN SERVICES, * (“SPU”) * Respondent. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Maximillian J. Muller, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for petitioner. Ann Donohue Martin, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

Dorse y , Chief Special Master:

On January 12, 2016, Diana Hagerman (“petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Inju ry Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.

, 2 (the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered injuries to her right shoulder, which were caused by an influenza (“flu”) vaccine she received on November 4, 2014. Petition at 1. The ca se was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On April 27, 2016, respondent filed her Rule 4(c) report in which she concedes that petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 1. Specifically, respondent stat es that “petitioner’s right sh oulder injury is consistent with SIRVA, and that it was caused in fact by the flu vaccine she received on November 4, 2014.” Id. at 3-4. Respondent fu rther agrees that petiti oner has met the statutory requirements for entitlem ent to compensation. Id.

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reaso ned explanation for the action in this case, the undersigned intends to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other inform ation, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, t he undersigned agrees that the identified material fits within this definition, the undersigned will redact such material from public access.

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2012). v.2 In view of respondent’s concession and the evidence before me, the undersigned finds that petitioner is entitled to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Nora Beth Dorsey Nora Beth Dorsey Chief Special Master
**Exhibit
31.1**
 
 **CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER UNDER SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT**
  I, Martin
Wade, III, certify that:
 
 1. I have
reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of International Microcomputer
Software, Inc;
 
 2. Based on my
knowledge, this quarterly 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;
 
 3. Based on my
knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition and results of operations of the registrant as of, and for, the
periods presented in this quarterly report;
 
 4. The
registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining internal controls for the registrant and we have:
 
 a. Designed such
internal controls to ensure that material information relating to the registrant
and its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
entities, particularly during the periods in which this quarterly report is
being prepared;
 
 b. Evaluated the
effectiveness of the registrant's internal controls of a date within 90 days
prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date");
and
 
 c. Presented in
this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the internal
controls based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date.
 
 5. The
registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
 
 a. All
significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which
could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize
and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any
material weaknesses in internal controls; and
 
 b. Any fraud,
whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a
significant role in the registrant's internal controls.
 
 6. The
registrant's other certifying officer and I have indicated in this quarterly
report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in
other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to
the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.
 
 **Date:
May 16, 2005**
 
 **By:   /s/
Martin Wade, III**
 Martin
Wade, III
 Director
& Chief
Executive Officer
  -34-
The Honorable Michael James Davis, United States District

1

Judge for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and

recommendation of the Honorable Raymond L. Erickson, United States

Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 96-2089

___________

Warren E. Nelson, *

 *

Appellant, *

 *

v. *

 *

Kenneth D. Butler, individually *

and as an attorney member, * Appeal from the United States

currently of Clure, Eaton, Butler* District Court for the

Law Office and formerly of Van * District of Minnesota.

Evera, Clure, Butler & Michelson,*

P.A. law firms respectively; * [UNPUBLISHED]

David R. Michelson, individually *

and as an attorney member, *

currently of Clure, Eaton, *

Butler Law Office and formerly of* 

Van Evera, Clure, Butler & *

Michelson, P.A., law firms *

respectively, *

 *

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: March 7, 1997

 Filed: March 24, 1997

___________

Before HANSEN, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Warren E. Nelson appeals from the district court's order granting

1

summary judgment to defendants on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim. Having

carefully reviewed the record and the briefs, we conclude summary judgment

was proper and the district court did not
-2-

abuse its discretion in granting defendants a permanent injunction. An

extended opinion would therefore lack precedential value. See 8th Cir. R.

47B. We also conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion

by conducting a hearing on defendants' summary judgment motion prior to the

deadline for completion of discovery, and granting summary judgment several

months later. See Cook v. Kartridg Pak Co., 840 F.2d 602, 604 (8th Cir.

1988) (standard of review); cf. Bright v. Standard Register Co., 66 F.3d

171, 172 (8th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). Finally, we deny Nelson's request

for oral argument.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 

A true copy.

Attest:

 CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT
Exhibit 35.1

SERVICING COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2014-5 for the fiscal year ending
December 31, 2015 (the Report), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Santander Consumer USA Inc. (the Servicer), does hereby certify and represent that:



| | 1. | A review of the activities and performance of the Servicer under the Sale and Servicing Agreement, dated as of November 25, 2014, among Santander Drive Auto Receivables LLC, Santander Consumer USA Inc., Santander
Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2014-5 and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association (the Agreement) during the period that is the subject of the Report has been made under my supervision.
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the period that is the subject of the Report.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



SANTANDER CONSUMER USA INC./s/ Jennifer M. DavisName:

Jennifer M. DavisTitle:

Deputy Chief Financial OfficerDate:

March 29, 2016/s/ Rich MorrinName:

Rich MorrinTitle:

Chief Operating OfficerDate:

March 29, 2016
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Aaron Scott PRUETT, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-56858

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Filed January 9, 2018

D.C. Nos. 3:16-cv-01561-CAB 3:96-cr-00331-CAB-l, Southern District of California, San Diego

Lawrence E. Spong, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, Plaintiff-Appellee

Kara Hartzler, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: GRABER, MURGUIA, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

The separate concurrence to the memorandum disposition filed November 30, 2017, is amended as follows:

On page 2, line 17 of the concurrence, change “In sum, even if we assume” to “Even if we assume”; on page 3, at the end of line 5 of the concurrence, add the citation: “Be*ckles v. United States,*— U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 886, 897-98, 197 L.Ed.2d 145 (Ginsburg, J., concurring).”

With these amendments, the panel has voted to deny Appellant’s petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc.

The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc, and' no judge of the court has requested a vote on it.

, Appellant’s petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc is DENIED.

No further petitions for panel rehearing or for rehearing en banc may be filed.
No. 11-9101.

#### Lewis *v.*United States.

C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 98 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 98

        Relating to tax avoidance by certain American citizens.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

               March 31 (legislative day, March 27), 1995

 Mr. Kennedy submitted the following resolution; which was ordered to 
                        lie over, under the rule

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
        Relating to tax avoidance by certain American citizens.

    Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that--
            (1) the Congress of the United States should act as quickly 
        as possible to amend the Internal Revenue Code to end the tax 
        avoidance by United States citizens who relinquish their United 
        States citizenship; and
            (2) the effective date of such amendment to the Internal 
        Revenue Code should be February 6, 1995.
                                 <all>
```
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute on Drug Abuse Special Emphasis Panel; Purity Specifications, Storage and Distribution of Medications Development (8961).                    

*Date:*                         May 2, 2022.                    

*Time:*                         12:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate contract proposals.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Drug Abuse, 301 North Stonestreet Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Trinh T. Tran, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Extramural Policy and Review, Division of Extramural Research, National Institute on Drug Abuse, NIH, 301 North Stonestreet Avenue, MSC 6021, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 827-5843,                         *trinh.tran@nih.gov*.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.277, Drug Abuse Scientist Development Award for Clinicians, Scientist Development Awards, and Research Scientist Awards; 93.278, Drug Abuse National Research Service Awards for Research Training; 93.279, Drug Abuse and Addiction Research Programs, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: March 21, 2022.

Tyeshia M. Roberson-Curtis,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2022-06298 Filed 3-24-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-50633 

Summary Calendar

__________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

TERRY LEE KINSER,

 Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. SA-93-CR-280-1

- - - - - - - - - -

March 6, 1996

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Terry Lee Kinser appeals his sentence for false statements

and aiding and abetting. 18 U.S.C §§ 1001 & 2. Kinser argues

that the Government breached the plea agreement. We have

reviewed the record and find no plain error. United States v.

Calverley, 37 F.3d 160, 162-64 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc), cert.

denied, 115 S. Ct. 1266 (1995).

AFFIRMED.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Gordon BUNGER, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-7599

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: February 15, 2018

Decided: February 20, 2018

Robert Gordon Bunger, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Rachel Miller Yasser, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

' Before WILKINSON, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*261PER CURIAM:

Robert Gordon Bunger, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (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 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 Bunger 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*
Exhibit 99.1

               Statement Furnished Pursuant to Section 906 of the
               Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

      The  undersigned,  Andrew  Gordon is the  President  and  Chief  Executive
Officer of Coffee Holding Co., Inc. (the "Company").

      This  statement is being  furnished in  connection  with the filing by the
Company of the Company's  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-QSB for the periods ended
July 31, 2002 (the "Report").

      By execution of this statement, I certify that:

            A)    the Report fully  complies  with the  requirements  of Section
                  13(a)  or  15(d) of the  Securities  Exchange  Act of 1934 (15
                  U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and

            B)    the information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in
                  all material respects,  the financial condition and results of
                  operations  of the Company as of the dates and for the periods
                  covered by the Report.

      This statement is authorized to be attached as an exhibit to the Report so
that this  statement  will  accompany  the  Report at such time as the Report is
filed with the  Securities and Exchange  Commission,  pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350. It is not intended that
this statement be deemed to be filed for purposes of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended.

Dated:  September 13, 2002        /s/ Andrew Gordon
                                  -----------------------------------
                                  Andrew Gordon
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-14-00043-CV 

TIMBERCREEK CANYON PROPERTY 

OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., APPELLANT 

 

V. 

 

CARL FOWLER, ET AL, APPELLEES 

 

On Appeal from the 251st District Court 

Randall County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 62,758-C, Honorable Ana Estevez, Presiding 

 

July 21, 2014 

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

 

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ. 

On February 12, 2014, appellant Timbercreek Canyon Property Owners’ 

Association, Inc., filed a notice of appeal. A notice of appeal by appellees “Carl Fowler, 

et al.”

1 was filed on February 25. Appellees as cross-appellants have now filed a 

motion seeking voluntary dismissal of their cross-appeal. According to a certificate of 

conference attached to the motion, it is not opposed by appellant. 

 

1

This is also the only designation of the defendants appearing in the judgment of 

the trial court.
2

Accordingly, and as no decision of the court has been delivered to date, we grant 

appellees’ motion. The cross-appeal is dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1), 

43.2(f). The appeal of appellant Timbercreek Canyon Property Owners’ Association, 

Inc., remains pending. Costs of the cross-appeal shall be paid by appellees. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 42.1(d).

Per Curiam