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

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 5 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 5

        Expressing support for prayer at school board meetings.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 6, 2009

 Mr. Vitter submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
        the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
        Expressing support for prayer at school board meetings.

Whereas the freedom to practice religion and to express religious thought is 
        acknowledged to be a fundamental and unalienable right belonging to all 
        individuals;
Whereas the United States was founded on the principle of freedom of religion 
        and not freedom from religion;
Whereas the framers intended that the first amendment to the Constitution would 
        prohibit the Federal Government from enacting any law that favors one 
        religious denomination over another, not prohibit any mention of 
        religion or reference to God in civic dialogue;
Whereas in 1983, the Supreme Court held in Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783, that 
        the practice of opening legislative sessions with prayer has become part 
        of the fabric of our society and invoking divine guidance on a public 
        body entrusted with making the laws is not a violation of the 
        Establishment Clause of the first amendment, but rather is simply a 
        tolerable acknowledgment of beliefs widely held among the people of the 
        Nation;
Whereas voluntary prayer in elected bodies should not be limited to prayer in 
        State legislatures and Congress;
Whereas school boards are deliberative bodies of adults similar to a legislature 
        in that they are elected by the people, act in the public interest, and 
        hold sessions that are open to the public for voluntary attendance; and
Whereas voluntary prayer by an elected body should be protected under law and 
        encouraged in society because voluntary prayer has become a part of the 
        fabric of our society, voluntary prayer acknowledges beliefs widely held 
        among the people of the Nation, and the Supreme Court has held that it 
        is not a violation of the Establishment Clause for a public body to 
        invoke divine guidance: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) recognizes that prayer before school board meetings is 
        a protected act in accordance with the fundamental principles 
        upon which the Nation was founded; and
            (2) expresses support for the practice of prayer at the 
        beginning of school board meetings.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

     In connection with the Annual Report of Ruby Mining Co. (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB/A for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, G.
Howard Collingwood, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Murray D.
Bradley, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, 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 our knowledge:

     1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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.

By:

/s/ G. Howard Collingwood
----------------------------
G. Howard Collingwood Chief
Executive Officer
August 9, 2005

/s/ Murray D. Bradley
-----------------------------
Murray D. Bradley
Chief Financial Officer
August 9, 2005






                                       76
<PAGE>
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JULY 12, 2023

NO. 03-22-00303-CV

Francine Lee Lankford and Frank T. Vickers, Appellants

v.

Salvador Abreo and Frank J. Dzienowski, Jr, Appellees

APPEAL FROM THE 423RD DISTRICT COURT OF BASTROP COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES BAKER, THEOFANIS, AND JONES

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART –

OPINION BY JUSTICE JONES

This is an appeal from the interlocutory order signed by the trial court on May 13, 2022. Having 

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error 

in the portion of the order dismissing Vickers’s claim against Dzienowski. Therefore, the Court 

affirms that portion of the trial court’s interlocutory order. The Court further holds that there 

was reversible error in the portion of the order granting Abreo’s plea to the jurisdiction. 

Therefore the Court reverses the portion of the trial court’s interlocutory order dismissing 

Lankford’s claims against Abreo and remands the case against him to the trial court for further 

proceedings. Vickers and Abreo shall each bear one-half of the costs of appeal, both in this 

Court and in the court below.
#### State v. Turner

105,433

04/08/13

Denied.

Unpublished
#### COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Respondent v. Sabriel R. RIVERA, Petitioner

No. 496 MAL 2017

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

November 28, 2017

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 28th day of November, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED.
**EXHIBIT 13.2**

**Certification**

**Pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

**(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title18, United States Code)**

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), each of the undersigned officers of Copa Holdings, S.A. (the “ Company ”), does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that: 

The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2016 of the Company fully complieswith the requirements of section 13(a) or section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company. 

Dated: April 21, 2017 

 

 
(Section 906 CEOCertification)
#### State v. Smith

108,162

108,163

11/20/13

Denied.

Unpublished
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

In the Matter of

EDWARD L. RUSSAKOFF

PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT
FROM ADMINISTRATIVE SUSPENSION :

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 173 DB 2018 (No. 84 RST 2018)

Attorney Registration No. 29684

( Allegheny County )

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 30 th day of November

, 201 8 , the Report and Recommendation of

Disciplinary Board Member dated November 19 , 2018 , is approved and it is ORDERED

that Edward L. Russakoff

, who has been on Administrative Suspension

, has never been

suspended or disbarred, and has demonstrated that h e has the moral qualifications,

competency and learning in law required for admission to practice in the Commonwealth,

shall be and is, hereby reinstated to active status as a member of the Bar of this

Commonwealth. The expenses incurred by the Board in the investigation and processing

of this matter shall be paid by the Petitioner.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-77,198-07

EX PARTE ALEJANDRO GONZALES, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 1152889-F IN THE 248 DISTRICT COURT TH

FROM HARRIS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Applicant was convicted of aggravated sexual assault of a child and sentenced to forty years’

imprisonment. The First Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction. Gonzales v. State, No. 01-08-

00173-CR (Tex. App.—Houston [1 Dist.]July 16, 2009). Applicant filed this application for a writ st

of habeas corpus in the county of conviction, and the district clerk forwarded it to this Court. See

TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07.

Applicant contends, among other things, that he is actually innocent. He has filed a

document with his application purporting to be affidavit from the complainant. After a remand, the

trial court has found that the purported affidavit is fraudulent and that the notary public listed in the

affidavit did not notarize the document. 
2

We agree and hold that Applicant has abused the writ and filed a frivolous lawsuit. See Ex

parte Jones, 97 S.W.3d 586 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003); TEX. GOV’T CODE § 498.0045(a-1). Should

Applicant file future habeas applications in this cause, we will not consider the merits of his

applications unless he shows that the factual or legal basis of his grounds was unavailable in a

previously filed application. This application is dismissed.

Copies of this ordershall be sent to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice–Correctional

Institutions Division and the Board of Pardons and Paroles.

Filed: January 12, 2022

Do not publish
#### State v. Ledford

106,548

106,549

09/04/13

Denied. .

Unpublished
#### State v. Bell

107,245

09/04/13

Denied

Unpublished
##### 



(1)
    
    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 Lubrizol Corporation.
 /s/ James L. HambrickJames L. HambrickChief Executive Officer and President
May 9, 2008  (1)
    
    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 Lubrizol Corporation.
 /s/ Charles P. CooleyCharles P. CooleyChief Financial Officer
May 9, 2008
Consent of Independent Auditors

     

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the previously filed Registration Statements on Form S-8 of B.O.S. Better Online Solutions Ltd. (the “Company”) of our independent auditors’ report dated March 24, 2003, relating to the consolidated financial statements of B.O.S. Better Online Solutions Ltd. appearing in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2002.

  



 

	Tel Aviv, Israel	/s/ Kost Forer & Gabbay
	June 26, 2003	KOST FORER & GABBAY
	 	A member of Ernst & Young Global
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Compas Medical, P.C., as Assignee of Prempin, Sergo, Appellant, <br><br>against<br><br>ELRAC, Inc., Respondent.</font></b></div><br><br><p>The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell, Esq.), for appellant.Carman, Callahan &amp; Ingham, LLP (Paul A. Barrett, Esq.), for respondent.</p><p>Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Carolyn E. Wade, J.), entered February 18, 2014. The order granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.</p><p>ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with $25 costs.</p><p>In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff's assignor and/or plaintiff had failed to comply with 11 NYCRR 65-2.4 (a), (b) and (c), which make it a condition precedent to coverage to provide written notice of an accident no later than 30 days after the accident and to submit written proof of claim no later than 45 days after health care services are furnished. Plaintiff opposed the motion, asserting facts and raising arguments similar to those raised by the plaintiff in <a href="../2015/2015_51223.htm" target="_blank"><i>Great Health Care Chiropractic, P.C. v Elrac, Inc. </i>(48 Misc 3d 139</a>[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 51223[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th &amp; 13th Jud Dists 2015]). By order entered February 18, 2014, the Civil Court granted defendant's motion.</p><p>For the reasons stated in <a href="../2015/2015_51223.htm" target="_blank"><i>Great Health Care Chiropractic, P.C. v Elrac, Inc. </i>(48 Misc 3d 139</a>[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 51223[U]), the order is affirmed.</p><p>PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA AND SOLOMON, JJ., concur.</p><br>ENTER:<br>Paul Kenny<br>Chief Clerk<br>Decision Date: July 14, 2017<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
Exhibit 32.2


          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 Quarterly Report of Micronetics, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended December 31,
2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), Dennis Dow, Vice President-Finance of
the Company 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 Section 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 28, 2004      /s/Dennis Dow
                      ----------------------
                      Name: Dennis Dow
                      Title: Vice President-Finance
                     (Principal Financial Officer)



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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                        49759
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                       4379
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                           11170
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                        103550
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  168858
<COMMON>                                          7357
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                           38
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                              27222
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                   34617
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                             47165
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                7600
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                     1275
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                   78201
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                   168858
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                        28840
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                              1023
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                       25068
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                       26091
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                           2749
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                 337
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                    3086
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          1958
<NET-INCOME>                                      1128
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                     1128
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                           809
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                         1543
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                           (4191)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .70
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .70
        


</TABLE>
No. 11-1525.

#### Granados Gaitan *v.*Holder, Attorney General.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
# Table 10.8

# RSE 10.8

# Microsoft_Word_Document1.docx

# image1.emf

# Microsoft_Word_Document2.docx

# image2.emf
#### State v. Taylor

108,548

02/12/14

Denied.

Unpublished
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 06245**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  x 

### 06245\06245_Checklist.XLS EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook



### 06245\06245_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist 

### 06245\06245_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted x 

### 06245\06245_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 06245\06245_PartB.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 06245\06245_PartC.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 06245\06245_PartD.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 06245\06245_PartE.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 06245\06245_PartH.xls Plant submitted survey file



### 06245\Certification Statement_06245.pdf Plant certification statement x 

### 06245\Supporting Documentation\06245_EPA ICR Steam Plants Map 2 8-13-2010.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

06245\Supporting Documentation\06245_EPA Steam Electric ICR Map 1 9-8-2010.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 

### 06245\Supporting Documentation\EPA Steam Electric ICR Water Balance Diagram 1 9-8-2010.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

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

. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF WATERMARK
INVESTORS
REALTY TRUST FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          12,152
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                12,152
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  12,152
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           99,618
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       196,235
<OTHER-SE>                                   (283,701)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    12,152
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                31,499
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (31,499)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (31,499)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.06)


</TABLE>
## In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

________________________ No. 07 - 16 - 00110 - CV

________________________ IN THE INTEREST OF L.R., A CHILD On Appeal from the 99th District Court Lubbock County, Texas Trial Court No. 2015 - 790,967 ; Honorable William C. Sowder , Presiding April 14 , 2016 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ. Appellant, J.R. , 1 appearing pro se , filed a notice of appeal from a report and temporary orders issued by an associate judge in a suit affecting the parent - child relationship. We now dismiss the appeal for failure to comply with a requirement of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure , for failure to comply with a notice from the clerk requiring action within a specified time , and for want of jurisdiction
.

1 To protect the privacy of the parties involved, we refer to them by their initials. See T EX . F AM . C ODE A NN . § 109.002(d) (West 2014). See also T EX . R. A PP . P . 9 .8(b).2

By letter dated March 14, 2016 , the clerk of th is court notified J.R. that his filing fee of $205 was overdue and advised him that fail ure to pay the filing fee or file an affidavit of indigence b y March 24 would subject the appeal to dismissal without further notice pursuant to Rule 42.3(c) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. To date, J.R. has not paid or made other arrangements for th e discharge of the filing fee. Unless a party is excused from pay ing a filing fee, the clerk is required to collect filing fees set by statute or the Texas Supreme Court when an item is presented for filing. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 5, 12.1(b). Although the filing of a proper notice of appeal invokes an appellate court’s jurisdiction, if a party fails to follow the prescribed rules of appellate procedure, the appeal may be dismissed. Id. at 25.1(b). In addition , J.R. purports to appeal a repor t and t emporary orders concerning L.R., a child, signed by an associate judge on February 16
. See T EX . F AM . C ODE A NN . § 201.011(a) (West 2014 ). On February 17, S.R., the child’s mother, filed a request for a de novo hearing before the district court that referred the case to the associate judge
. See T EX . F AM . C ODE A NN . § 201. 015 (West Supp. 2015)
. The de novo hearing was set for March 9
. Because the r eport of an associate judge i s not a final , appealable order or judgment , this court does not have jurisdiction over the appeal
. See id. at § 201 .013(b) (West 2014). For these reasons, t his appeal is dism issed
. T EX . R. A PP . P. 42.3 (b), (c).

Per Curiam