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

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 323 Introduced in House (IH)]

105th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 323

 Expressing the sense of the Congress that the Attorney General should 
            be an elected officer of the Federal Government.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             August 6, 1998

Mr. Hall of Texas (for himself and Mr. Taylor of Mississippi) submitted 
    the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
 Expressing the sense of the Congress that the Attorney General should 
            be an elected officer of the Federal Government.

Whereas the Attorney General of the United States is the chief law enforcement 
        officer of the Federal Government;
Whereas the Attorney General is nominated by the President and confirmed by the 
        Senate;
Whereas once confirmed by the Senate, the Attorney General serves at the will of 
        the President and is a member of the President's cabinet;
Whereas the Attorney General is often confronted with a conflict of interest 
        when an investigation of alleged misconduct by high-level officials of 
        the Federal Government is necessary;
Whereas Attorneys General in several recent administrations have been confronted 
        with possible conflicts of interest;
Whereas these conflicts seriously compromise the Attorney General's ability to 
        investigate alleged misconduct by high-level officials of the Federal 
        Government;
Whereas the public lacks confidence in the Attorney General's independence when 
        an investigation of alleged misconduct by high-level officials of the 
        Federal Government is necessary;
Whereas the creation of the independent counsel in 1978 did not solve the 
        problem of the Attorney General's lack of independence;
Whereas since the ``Iran-Contra'' investigation 22 independent counsels have 
        been appointed, and their investigations have cost taxpayers nearly 
        $130,000,000;
Whereas 43 States provide for the election of their attorneys general; and
Whereas the independent election of the Attorney General would protect the 
        Attorney General from conflicts of interest when investigations of 
        alleged misconduct by high-level officials of the Federal Government are 
        necessary: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That it is the sense of the Congress that--
            (1) the Attorney General should be an elected officer of 
        the Federal Government; and
            (2) the Congress should propose an amendment to the 
        Constitution providing for the independent election of the 
        Attorney General.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6534

ALEXANDER PARKER,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

ALTON BASKERVILLE, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District

Judge. (CA-03-263-AM)

Submitted: July 16, 2004 Decided: August 4, 2004

Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alexander Parker, Appellant Pro Se. John H. McLees, Jr., OFFICE OF

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Alexander Parker seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000).

The order is appealable only if a circuit justice or judge issues

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his

constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v.

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683

(4th Cir. 2001).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude

Parker has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny

Parker’s motion for 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 the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.1




AGREEMENT TO ACCELERATE THE VESTING OF THE 
FIRST MID-ILLINOIS BANCSHARES, INC. STOCK UNIT AWARDS


This Agreement is between _______________________ (the “Employee”) and First Mid-Illinois Bancshares, Inc. (the “Company”).  The parties agree as follows:


1.The Employee and the Company have previously entered into one or more award agreements (the “Award Agreements”), pursuant to which the Employee has been granted the following outstanding stock unit awards (the “Awards”) relating to shares of the common stock of the Company (the “Shares”):


	
					
	Award Agreement Date
	Target Number of Shares Subject to Award: 
	Maximum Number of Shares Subject to Award
	90% of Maximum Number of Shares Subject to Award: 

	[__]
	[__]
	[__]
	[__]

	[__]
	[__]
	[__]
	[__]

	[__]
	[__]
	[__]
	[__]






2.Effective as of December 15, 2017, the Company will cause each of the Awards listed in Section 1 to accelerate and vest at 90% of the maximum number of Shares subject to each respective Award (the “Vested Shares”).  


3.The Company will withhold from the Vested Shares a number of Shares sufficient to satisfy the Employee’s tax withholding obligation with respect to the Vested Shares.  The Company will distribute (i) the net remaining Vested Shares and (ii) the cash value of any dividend equivalents payable with respect to the Vested Shares to the Employee in full settlement of each Award. This distribution shall be made as soon as possible after the date of this Agreement, but no later than March 15th, 2018. 


4.As of the effective date of this Agreement and subject to the payment of the amounts described in Section 3, the Employee acknowledges that he or she has no further right to receive any other Shares, other sums of money or other benefits pursuant to the Award Agreements or the Awards listed in Section 1, except as expressly stated in this Agreement.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement is executed by the parties as of the date set forth below, to be effective as of the 15th day of December, 2017.


	
			
	First Mid-Illinois Bancshares, Inc.




By: ______________________________


Date: _____________________________
	





______________________________________
Employee
Date: _________________________________
**EXHIBIT ITEM 32.2**

 

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

 

The certification set forth below is being submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission solely for the purpose of complying with Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

 

May 24, 2011

 

Bruce N. Warner, the Chief Financial Officer of Northern California Bancorp, Inc. certifies:

 

c.               that this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended March 31, 2011 fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

d.              that information contained in this Form 10-Q/A for the period ended March 31, 2011 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Northern California Bancorp, Inc.

 

 
|   | /s/   Bruce N. Warner         |
|--------|-------------------------------|
|   | Bruce N. Warner               |
|   | Chief   Financial Officer and |
|   | Principal Accounting Officer  |

 

1

----
NUMBER 13-21-00183-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG 

 

JASON REIP, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 36th District Court

of Aransas County, Texas.

ORDER OF ABATEMENT

Before Justices Benavides, Longoria, and Tijerina

Order Per Curiam

Appellant’s brief was due on August 16, 2021. Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 38.8(b)(2), on August 19, 2021 and August 31, 2021, the Clerk of the Court 

notified appellant’s counsel that the brief had not been timely filed, requested counsel to 

file a response concerning the failure to file the brief within ten days, and warned counsel 
2

that the Court would abate and remand this cause to the trial court for appropriate findings 

if a response was not filed. Counsel has nevertheless failed to file either a response or 

an appellate brief in this matter.

Accordingly, we now ABATE this appeal and REMAND the cause to the trial court 

for further proceedings pursuant to Rule 38.8(b)(2) and (3) of the Texas Rules of Appellate 

Procedure. Upon remand, the trial court shall utilize whatever means necessary to make 

appropriate findings and recommendations concerning the following: (1) whether 

appellant desires to prosecute this appeal; (2) why appellant's counsel has failed to file a 

brief and whether counsel has effectively abandoned the appeal; (3) whether appellant 

has been denied effective assistance of counsel; (4) whether appellant's counsel should 

be removed; and (5) whether appellant is indigent and entitled to court appointed

counsel.

If the trial court determines that appellant does want to continue the appeal, that 

present counsel should be removed, and that appellant is indigent and entitled to court 

appointed counsel, the trial court shall appoint new counsel to represent appellant in this 

appeal. If new counsel is appointed, the name, address, email address, telephone 

number, email address, and state bar number of said counsel shall be included in an 

order appointing counsel.

The trial court shall cause its findings and recommendations, together with any 

orders it may enter regarding the aforementioned issues, in a supplemental clerk's 

record. Furthermore, the trial court shall cause a supplemental reporter's record of any 

proceedings to be prepared. The supplemental clerk's record and supplemental 
3

reporter's record, if any, shall be filed with the Clerk of this Court on or before the 

expiration of thirty days from the date of this order.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish.

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed on this 

21st day of September, 2021.
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 34 Introduced in House (IH)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 34

Expressing the sense of the Congress that the President should submit a 
                National Energy Policy Plan to Congress.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 4, 1997

 Mr. Pickett submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
                 referred to the Committee on Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Expressing the sense of the Congress that the President should submit a 
                National Energy Policy Plan to Congress.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That it is the sense of the Congress that the President should, no 
later than January 1, 1998, and biennially thereafter through 2006, 
submit a National Energy Policy Plan to the Congress, together with 
proposals for implementing legislation, that will provide for energy 
self-sufficiency for the United States at the earliest practicable 
date.
                                 <all>
```
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18
- 2065

HAROLD BLICK , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. SHAPIRO & BROWN, LLP; PROFESSIONAL FORECLOSURE CORPORATION OF VIRGINIA; SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.; DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia , at Charlottesville

. Norman K. Moon , Senior District Judge. ( 3:16

- cv - 00070

- NKM

- JCH )

Submitted : January 22, 2019 Decided: January 24, 2019

Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Harold Blick , Appellant Pro Se. Jessica Ashley Glajch, William Dean Ledoux, Jr. , ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT, LLC , Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees

. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Harold Blick appeals the district court’s order entering judgment in favor of Deutsche Bank National Trust Company on Blick’s b reach of contract claim and in favor of Blick on his claim against Shapiro & Brown, LLP, under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692

- 1692p (2012), and ordering Shapiro & Brown to pay Blick $1 in nominal damages and $1000 in statutory da mages. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Blick v. Shapiro & Brown, LLP , No. 3:16

- cv - 00070

- NKM

- JCH (W.D. Va. July 12, 2018). We dispense with oral argument beca use the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
IV

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 46

Expressing the sense of Congress that investigations of campaign fundraising

practices should be left to the Federal Election Commission.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 12, 1997

Mr. FATTAH submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred

to the Committee on House Oversight

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of Congress that investigations of campaign fundraising practices should be left to the Federal

Election Commission.

Whereas Congress established the bipartisan Federal Election

Commission to investigate alleged violations of Federal

law relating to the financing of campaigns for Federal

elections on a bipartisan basis;

Whereas many members of Congress have complained that

the Commission does not carry out its mission, largely

because the Commission has not been given sufficient resources;

Whereas the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight of the House of Representatives and the Committee

on Governmental Affairs of the Senate have announced
2

•HCON 46 IH

plans to conduct hearings and investigations of fundraising practices of the 1996 elections;

Whereas it is anticipated that nearly $10,000,000 will be

spent on these hearings and investigations, an amount

that represents nearly 35 percent of the amount appropriated by Congress for the entire operations of the Federal Election Commission for fiscal year 1997;

Whereas unlike the Federal Election Commission, these Committees have no real expertise in Federal election law and

operate on a partisan basis;

Whereas because of the partisan nature of the operation of

Congressional committees, the findings of these Committees will inevitably be viewed with skepticism by the people of the United States;

Whereas the appropriate means for Congress to address the

issues expected to be raised in these hearings and investigations is through the consideration of legislation to reform the laws governing the financing of campaigns for

election for Federal office; and

Whereas the time spent by the members of these Committees

in conducting these hearings and investigations is time

that will not be spent addressing education, health care,

job creation, and other issues affecting the real lives of

the people of the United States: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

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

3 (1) any investigations of alleged violations of

4 Federal law relating to the financing of campaigns

5 for election for Federal office should be conducted

6 by the Federal Election Commission; and
3

•HCON 46 IH

1 (2) the amounts proposed to be expended to

2 conduct Congressional hearings and investigations of

3 such alleged violations should instead be provided to

4 the Commission so that it may effectively carry out

5 its responsibilities under the law.

Æ
Exhibit 32.1

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

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and
(b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), I, Ashley C.
Andersen, President and Chief Executive Officer of Trudy Corporation do hereby
certify, to the best of my knowledge that:


     1)  The Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ended
         September 30, 2005 being filed with the Securities and Exchange
         Commission (the "Report") 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 of operations of
         the Company.


This Certification accompanies this Form 10-QSB/A as an exhibit, but shall not
be deemed as having been filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 or as a separate disclosure document of the Company or the
certifying officer.



                                       /s/ ASHLEY C. ANDERSEN
                                       -----------------------------------------
Date: November 14, 2005                Ashley C. Andersen
                                       President, Chief Executive Officer


                                       34
| 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. |
|----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                       |   |                                                                                                                 |
|--------------------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                       |   |                                                                                                                 |   |
| Date:  March      15, 2010  | By:    |  /s/ Andrew Gordon                                                                                              |   |
|                                       |   | Andrew      Gordon                                                                                                   |   |
|                                       |   | President,      Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer(Principal      Executive and Accounting Officer) |   |
|                                       |   |                                                                                                                 |   |
# Službeni list L 110/2014

| | ISSN 1977-0847 |
| --- | --- |
| Službeni list
  Europske unije | L 110 |
| | |
| Hrvatsko izdanje | Zakonodavstvo | Svezak 57.12. travnja 2014. |

ISSN 1977-0847

Službeni list

Europske unije

L 110

Hrvatsko izdanje

Zakonodavstvo

Svezak 57.12. travnja 2014.

---

| Sadržaj | | II.   Nezakonodavni akti | Stranica |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | ODLUKE |
| | | 2014/189/EU |
| | * | Odluka Komisije od 28. prosinca 2012. o Državnoj Potpori SA.33760 (12/N-2, 11/C, 11/N); SA.33763 (12/N-2, 11/C, 11/N); SA.33764 (12 N-2, 11/C, 11/N); SA.30521 (MC 2/10); SA.26653 (C9/09); SA.34925 (12 N-2, 12/C, 12/N); SA. 34927 (12 N-2, 12/C, 12/N); SA. 34928 (12 N-2, 12/C, 12/N) koju su proveli Kraljevina Belgija, Francuska Republika i Veliko Vojvodstvo Luksemburg u korist poduzetnika Dexia, DBB/Belfius i DMA
  (priopćeno pod brojem dokumenta C(2012) 9962)

   (
  1
  ) | 1 |

Sadržaj

II.   Nezakonodavni akti

Stranica

ODLUKE

2014/189/EU

*

Odluka Komisije od 28. prosinca 2012. o Državnoj Potpori SA.33760 (12/N-2, 11/C, 11/N); SA.33763 (12/N-2, 11/C, 11/N); SA.33764 (12 N-2, 11/C, 11/N); SA.30521 (MC 2/10); SA.26653 (C9/09); SA.34925 (12 N-2, 12/C, 12/N); SA. 34927 (12 N-2, 12/C, 12/N); SA. 34928 (12 N-2, 12/C, 12/N) koju su proveli Kraljevina Belgija, Francuska Republika i Veliko Vojvodstvo Luksemburg u korist poduzetnika Dexia, DBB/Belfius i DMA
  (priopćeno pod brojem dokumenta C(2012) 9962)

   (
  1
  )

(priopćeno pod brojem dokumenta C(2012) 9962)

1

1

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Tekst značajan za EGP |

---

(1)   Tekst značajan za EGP

1

| HR | Akti čiji su naslovi tiskani običnim slovima su oni koji se odnose na svakodnevno upravljanje poljoprivrednim pitanjima, a općenito vrijede ograničeno razdoblje.
  Naslovi svih drugih akata tiskani su masnim slovima, a prethodi im zvjezdica. |
| --- | --- |

HR

Akti čiji su naslovi tiskani običnim slovima su oni koji se odnose na svakodnevno upravljanje poljoprivrednim pitanjima, a općenito vrijede ograničeno razdoblje.

Naslovi svih drugih akata tiskani su masnim slovima, a prethodi im zvjezdica.

---

II. Nezakonodavni akti

ODLUKE

| 12.4.2014 | HR | Službeni list Europske unije | L 110/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.4.2014

HR

Službeni list Europske unije

L 110/1

---

ODLUKA KOMISIJE

od 28. prosinca 2012.

o Državnoj Potpori SA.33760 (12/N-2, 11/C, 11/N); SA.33763 (12/N-2, 11/C, 11/N); SA.33764 (12 N-2, 11/C, 11/N); SA.30521 (MC 2/10); SA.26653 (C9/09); SA.34925 (12 N-2, 12/C, 12/N); SA. 34927 (12 N-2, 12/C, 12/N); SA. 34928 (12 N-2, 12/C, 12/N) koju su proveli Kraljevina Belgija, Francuska Republika i Veliko Vojvodstvo Luksemburg u korist poduzetnika Dexia, DBB/Belfius i DMA

(priopćeno pod brojem dokumenta C(2012) 9962)

(Vjerodostojan je samo tekst na francuskom jeziku)

(Tekst značajan za EGP)

(2014/189/EU)

Ovaj će dokument biti objavljen u posebnom izdanju Službenog lista Europske unije na hrvatskom jeziku ako zadovolji potrebne uvjete.

---