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

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 611 

Congratulating the Cumberland Valley Athletic Club on the 48th anniversary 

of the running of the JFK 50-Mile Ultra-Marathon. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

AUGUST 5, 2010 

Mr. CARDIN (for himself, Ms. MIKULSKI, and Mr. BAUCUS) submitted the 

following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Congratulating the Cumberland Valley Athletic Club on the 

48th anniversary of the running of the JFK 50-Mile 

Ultra-Marathon. 

Whereas President John F. Kennedy set as a national goal 

the improvement of the health of the members of the 

United States Armed Forces; 

Whereas President Kennedy, in 1963, issued an Executive 

order challenging United States Marine officers to finish 

a 50-mile race in 20 hours, matching a similar challenge 

issued in 1908 by President Theodore Roosevelt; 

Whereas, since that Executive order, thousands of Americans, 

not just servicemen and women, have taken up the challenge of the JFK 50-Mile Ultra-Marathon; 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 611 IS 

Whereas, since the inception of the JFK 50-Mile Ultra-Marathon, all members of the Armed Services have been invited to meet the challenge set by Presidents Kennedy 

and Roosevelt over an historic race course; 

Whereas between 30 and 40 percent of participants in the 

JFK 50-Mile Ultra-Marathon each year are active duty 

military or veterans; 

Whereas each of the branches of the United States Armed 

Forces fields at least 1 team each year in the JFK 50- 

Mile Ultra-Marathon, and the Navy typically fields several teams; 

Whereas much of the course of the JFK 50-Mile Ultra-Marathon is located on Federal land, including the historic 

C&O Canal, the Appalachian Trail, and Antietam Battlefield; 

Whereas the JFK 50-Mile Ultra-Marathon includes the War 

Correspondents Memorial Arch, a national monument located in Gathland State Park in the State of Maryland; 

and 

Whereas following the assassination of President Kennedy, 

the first JFK 50-Mile Ultra-Marathon was organized as 

a way to honor President Kennedy, and has been held 

annually, rain or shine, ever since: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) commends and congratulates the past, 

3 present, and future participants and organizers of 

4 the JFK 50-Mile Ultra-Marathon; and 

5 (2) requests the Secretary of the Senate to 

6 transmit an enrolled copy of this resolution to the 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•SRES 611 IS 

1 Cumberland Valley Athletic Club as an expression of 

2 the best wishes of the Senate for a glorious year of 

3 celebration. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
# C_2018041EN.01000501.xml

| 3.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 41/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 41/5

---

Notice for the attention of the persons subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/740, as implemented by Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2018/168, and in Council Regulation (EU) 2015/735, as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/164 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in South Sudan

(2018/C 41/02)

The following information is brought to the attention of the persons that appear in Annex II to Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/740 (1), as amended by Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2018/168 (2), and in Annex II to Council Regulation (EU) 2015/735 (3), as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/164 (4) concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in South Sudan.

1

2

3

4

The Council of the European Union has decided that the persons that appear in the abovementioned Annexes should be included in the list of persons and entities subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Decision (CFSP) 2015/740 and Regulation (EU) 2015/735 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in South Sudan. The grounds for the listing of the persons concerned appear in the relevant entries in those Annexes.

The attention of the persons concerned is drawn to the possibility of making an application to the competent authorities of the relevant Member State(s) as indicated on the websites in Annex III to Regulation (EU) 2015/735 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in South Sudan, in order to obtain an authorisation to use frozen funds for basic needs or specific payments (cf. Article 8 of the Regulation).

The persons concerned may submit a request to the Council, together with supporting documentation, that the decision to include them on the abovementioned lists should be reconsidered, before 1 October 2018, to the following address:

| Council of the European Union |
| --- |
| General Secretariat |
| DG C 1C |
| Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175 |
| 1048 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |
| Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu |

Council of the European Union

General Secretariat

DG C 1C

Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175

1048 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu

Any observations received will be taken into account for the purpose of the Council’s periodic review, in accordance with Article 9(4) of Decision (CFSP) 2015/740 and Article 20(2) of Regulation (EU) 2015/735.

The attention of the persons concerned is also drawn to the possibility of challenging the Council’s decision before the General Court of the European Union, in accordance with the conditions laid down in Article 275, second paragraph, and Article 263, fourth and sixth paragraphs, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ L 117, 8.5.2015, p. 52.

1

(2)  OJ L 31, 3.2.2018, p. 86.

2

(3)  OJ L 117, 8.5.2015, p. 13.

3

(4)  OJ L 31, 3.2.2018, p. 1.

4

---
No. 12-6122.

#### Quesada-Guerrero *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 32



THE LUBRIZOL CORPORATION

Certification of
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of

The Lubrizol Corporation Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350



I certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of
The Lubrizol Corporation for the period ending September 30, 2004:



| | (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. Hambrick                                                   
|James L. Hambrick Chief Executive Officer and
President November 5, 2004



I certify that, to the best of my
knowledge and belief, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of The Lubrizol Corporation for the period ending September 30, 2004:



| | (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. Cooley                                     
|Charles P. Cooley Chief Financial Officer
November 5, 2004
|                                                                                          
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                          
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                  
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                            
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                            
|View History:                                                                             
|                                                                                          
|Percent of Industrial Natural Gas Deliveries in Hawaii Represented by the Price  (Percent)
|                                                                                          
|                                                                                          
|Percent of Industrial Natural Gas Deliveries in Hawaii Represented by the Price  (Percent)
|                                                                                          

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1990's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 100    | 100    | 100   
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 100    | 100    | 100    | 100    | 100    | 100    | 100    | 100    | 100    | 100   
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 100    | 100    | 100    | 100    | 100    | 100    | 100    | 100    | 100    | 100   
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 100    | 100    | 100    | 100    |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
#### City of Overland Park v. McGregor

107,698

08/29/13

Denied.

Unpublished
EXHIBIT
        32.1
  CERTIFICATION
        OF PRESIDENT PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
 AS
        ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION
        906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  I,
        Annette Davis, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 adopted
        pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:
  (i)       
        The accompanying annual report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December,
        2006,
        fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of
        the
        Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
  (ii)       
        The information in such report fairly presents, in all material respects,
        the
        financial condition and results of operations of Golden Valley Development
        Inc.
        (the “Company”).
 Date:
                March 26, 2007
              By:
              /s/ Annette
                DavisAnnette
                DavisTreasurer
  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.
-1-

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 27, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-60833 

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee 

v.

JAMES O. OGLE, 

Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Mississippi

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

In our previous opinion in this case, we affirmed DefendantAppellant Ogle’s conviction and sentence. See United States v.

Ogle, No. 03-60833, 2004 WL 78109 (5th Cir. 2004) (per curiam)

(unpublished). Following our judgment, Ogle filed a petition for

certiorari, in which he challenged for the first time the

constitutionality of the Sentencing Guidelines as applied to him. 

The Supreme Court granted Ogle’s petition for certiorari, vacated

our judgment, and remanded the case to this court for further
1See Proctor & Gamble Co. v. Amway Corp., 376 F.3d 496, 499

(5th Cir. 2004)(party waived argument not included in original

brief to panel); Yokey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir.

1993). See also 16A C. WRIGHT, A. MILLER & E. COOPER, FEDERAL PRACTICE

AND PROCEDURE § 3974.1 at 501 (1999)(issues not raised in

appellant’s initial brief normally will not be considered by the

court); FED. R. APP. P. 28 (a)(9)(A) which states that an

appellant’s brief must contain “appellant’s contentions and the

reasons for them, with citations to the authorities and parts of

the record on which the appellant relies.”

-2-

consideration in light of United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738

(2005). We now reconsider the matter in light of Booker and

decide to reinstate our previous judgment affirming Ogle’s

conviction and sentence.

Because Ogle did not raise any Booker-related challenges to

his sentence until his petition for certiorari, we will not

review his claim absent extraordinary circumstances. United

States v. Taylor, No. 03-10167, 2005 WL 1155245, at *1 (5th Cir.

May 17, 2005). Our cases make it clear that an argument not

raised in appellant’s original brief as required by FED. R. APP.

P. 28 is waived.1 Appellant argues that based on remarks made by

the trial judge at sentencing, he can satisfy the plain-error

test discussed in United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 520-22

(5th Cir. 2005). Even if appellant can satisfy the plain error

test, he has not met the even more exacting test required to show

the presence of extraordinary circumstances, which requires

appellant to show a “possibility of injustice so grave as to

warrant disregard of usual procedural rules.” McGee v. Estelle,

722 F.2d 1206, 1213 (5th Cir. 1984) (footnote omitted).
-3-

Accordingly, we decline to consider the merits of his Booker

challenge. Having reconsidered our decision pursuant to the

Supreme Court’s instructions, we REINSTATE OUR JUDGMENT affirming

Ogle’s conviction and sentence.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
financial statements of Mark IV Industries, Inc. and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-29-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-1999
<CASH>                                          22,400
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  507,500
<ALLOWANCES>                                    11,600
<INVENTORY>                                    347,700
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               989,200
<PP&E>                                         863,800
<DEPRECIATION>                                 243,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,198,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          617,700
<BONDS>                                        804,600
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           500
<OTHER-SE>                                     543,600
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,198,000
<SALES>                                        559,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               559,000
<CGS>                                          382,800
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  503,400
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              14,500
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 41,100
<INCOME-TAX>                                    14,800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             26,300
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    26,300
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .52
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .48



</TABLE>
#### State v. Shipley

107,293

08/30/13

Denied.

Unpublished
State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: March 17, 2016 520154 

________________________________

In the Matter of TIM BB., 

Appellant,

v MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

MALCOLM AA.,

Respondent.

________________________________

Calendar Date: February 9, 2016

Before: Peters, P.J., McCarthy, Egan Jr. and Lynch, JJ.

__________

Michelle I. Rosien, Philmont, for appellant.

O'Connor & Kruman, PC, Cortland (A.L. Beth O'Connor of

counsel), for respondent.

Koslosky & Koslosky, Utica (William L. Koslosky of

counsel), attorney for the children.

__________

McCarthy, J.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Cortland County

(Campbell, J.), entered November 14, 2014, which, in a proceeding

pursuant to Family Ct Act article 8, granted respondent's motion

to dismiss the petition. 

Petitioner filed a petition seeking to modify/terminate a

two-year order of protection in favor of, among others, four of

his stepchildren stemming from a family offense petition. 

Respondent moved to dismiss the petition as facially

insufficient, asserting that it failed to allege a significant

change in circumstances to warrant a modification of the

underlying order of protection. Family Court granted
-2- 520154 

respondent's motion and this appeal ensued.

The underlying order of protection expired by its own terms

in April 2015, and the record does not reveal that there have

been any extensions. Therefore, the appeal has been rendered

moot and must be dismissed (see Matter of Lina Y. v Audra Z., 122

AD3d 1084, 1085 [2014]; Matter of Christopher NN. v Bobby Jo OO.,

59 AD3d 828, 828 [2009]). 

Peters, P.J., Egan Jr. and Lynch, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, as moot, without

costs.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court
#### State v. Garber

109,722

08/20/2015

Denied

Unpublished
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A17D0017. IN THE INTEREST OF: M. C., N. C., AND J. C., CHILDREN

(MOTHER).

The mother of M. C., N. C., and J. C. seeks discretionary review of the juvenile

court’s order terminating her parental rights. The juvenile court’s order was entered

on July 6, 2016, and the mother filed her application on August 8, 2016. We lack

jurisdiction.

An application for discretionary appeal must be filed within 30 days of entry

of the order or judgment to be appealed. OCGA § 5-6-35 (d). The requirements of

OCGA § 5-6-35 are jurisdictional, and this Court cannot accept an application for

appeal not made in compliance therewith. Boyle v. State, 190 Ga. App. 734 (380

SE2d 57) (1989). The mother’s application is untimely, as it was filed 33 days after

entry of the order she seeks to appeal. Accordingly, this application is hereby

DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

09/01/2016

September 01, 2016
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA F OURTH D ISTRICT

CHRISTOPHER STEWART , Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee

.

No. 4D 20

- 2320

[ February 11, 2021 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Michael A. Usan

, Judge; L.T. Case No s

. 12

- 14684CF10A, 13

- 5083CF10A, 13

- 9521CF10A and 13

- 2339CF10A

.
Christopher Stewart, White City, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed.

G ERBER , C ONNER and K UNTZ , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Summa Industries (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for thefiscal quarter ended November 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, James R. Swartwout,Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, herebycertify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

 

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

 

(2)                                  Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
|   |    /s/  James R. Swartwout |   |
|--------|-------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | James R.  Swartwout                       |
|   | Chief Executive  Officer                  |
|   | Chief Financial  Officer                  |
|   | Summa Industries                          |
|   | January 10,  2006                    |

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906has been provided to Summa Industries and will be retained by Summa Industriesand furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest.

 

----
#### State v. Rippel

108,281

11/04/13

Denied.

Unpublished
#### COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Respondent v. Matthew Allen LAWTON, Petitioner

No. 342 WAL 2017

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania..

January 9, 2018

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 9th day of January, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal, is DENIED.