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

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 99 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to require 

that an increase in the Federal debt requires approval from a majority 

of the legislatures of the several States. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 17, 2012 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United 

States to require that an increase in the Federal debt 

requires approval from a majority of the legislatures 

of the several States. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives 

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all 

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 

7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HJ 99 IH 

1 States within seven years after the date of its submission 

2 for ratification: 

3 ‘‘ARTICLE— 

4 ‘‘An increase in the Federal debt requires approval 

5 from a majority of the legislatures of the several States.’’. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
- 1

-

No. 58 The People &c., Respondent, v. James R. McIntosh, Appellant.

James A. Hobbs, for appellant. Scott Myles, for respondent.

MEMORANDUM : The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Even a ssuming the court erred in denying defendant’s request to submit the crimes of manslaughter in the second degree and criminally negligent homicide to the jury as lesser included offenses of the charged crimes of murder in the second degree and- 2

- No. 58

- 2

- manslaughter in the first degree, the error was harmless ( People v Johnson , 87 NY2d 357, 361 [1996]; People v Boettcher , 69 NY2d 174, 180 [1987]; People v Brown , 203 NY 44,
50

- 51 [1911]; People v Granger , 187 NY 67, 73 [1907]). The Appellate Division properly
conclud ed that defendant’s conviction of the lesser inclusory count of first

- degree manslaughter , which it dismissed as required by CPL 300.40 (3) (b), did not change the harmless error analysis

. Under th e circumstances presented here , t he jury’s guilty verdict on the indictment’s highest count despite the availability of the next lesser included offense for their consideration, “foreclose s [ defendant’s] challenge to the court’s refusal to charge the remote lesser included offenses” ( Boettcher , 69 NY2d at 180) , b ecause it dispels any speculation as to whether the jury might have reached a guilty verdict on “still lower degree[s] of homicide” ( Brown , 203 NY at 50).

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Order affirmed, in a memorandum. Chief Judge DiFiore and Judges Rivera, Stein, Fahey, Garcia, Wilson and Feinman concur.

Decided June 27, 2019
1 The Honorable Jean C. Hamilton, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Eastern District of Missouri.



## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 99-2326

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Eastern * District of Missouri. Javier Sanchez-Martinez, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: January 25, 2000 Filed: February 1, 2000

___________ Before McMILLIAN, HANSEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Javier Sanchez-Martinez pleaded guilty to being found in the United States without the Attorney General’s consent, having previously been deported, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). The district court 1 sentenced him to 15 months imprisonment and1 year supervised release. Mr. Sanchez-Martinez’s counsel has filed a brief-- arguing that the court erred by not sentencing Mr. Sanchez-Martinez to home detention-2-

or community confinement, that the court erred by not advising Mr. Sanchez-Martinez of his right to appeal, and that counsel was ineffective--and has moved to withdraw pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Although we granted Mr. Sanchez-Martinez permission to file a pro se supplemental brief, he has not done so.
We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by sentencing Mr. Sanchez-Martinez to a term of imprisonment rather than home detention or community confinement. Although the court was not required to state its reasons for selecting the sentence, because the Guidelines imprisonment range spanned less than 24 months, the court explained that it had imposed the sentence for the purposes of punishment, general deterrence, and incapacitation. See UnitedStates v. Sykes , 46 F.3d 869, 870- 71 (8th Cir. 1995) (under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c)(1), not necessary to state reasons; affirming where court, nonetheless, stated that sentence was imposed for purposes of punishment, general deterrence, and incapacitation).
We reject counsel’s argument that the district court erred by failing to advise Mr. Sanchez-Martinez of his right to appeal, because it is clear from the transcript that the court did advise him of his right to appeal. Finally, ineffective assistance of counsel shouldbe raised in a proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, rather than in this direct criminal appeal. See United States v. Martin , 59 F.3d 767, 771 (8th Cir. 1995).
After review of counsel’s Anders brief, along with our independent review of the record in accordance with Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.-3-

A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
****

Exhibit 35.1

 

[U.S. Bank National AssociationLetterhead] 

** **

**Annual Statement of Compliance**

TILES Trust No. 2006-1

 

VIA: EMAIL

 

MS Structured Asset Corp.

1585 Broadway

New York, New York 10036

 

Reference is made to theTrust Agreement (the “Agreement”), between MS Structured Asset Corp., as Depositor and U.S. Bank National Association,as Trustee, as successor-in-interest to Bank of America, National Association, as Trustee, as successor by merger to LaSalle BankNational Association, as Trustee, for TILES Trust No. 2006-1, dated February 15, 2006, together with Schedules I, II and III attachedthereto, and the Standard Terms for Trust Agreements, between MS Structured Asset Corp., as Depositor and U.S. Bank National Association,as Trustee, as successor-in-interest to Bank of America, National Association, as Trustee, as successor by merger to LaSalle BankNational Association, as Trustee dated March 5, 2003. Capitalized terms used herein and not defined shall have the meanings definedin the Trust Agreement and the Standard Terms for Trust Agreements.

 

I, Kimberly O. Jacobs, a Senior Vice Presidentof U.S. Bank National Association as successor-in-interest to Bank of America, National Association, as successor by merger toLaSalle Bank National Association, as Trustee hereby certify that:

 

1.      A review of the activities of the Trustee during the preceding calendar year and of the performance of the Trustee underthe Agreement has been made under my supervision; and

 

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on suchreview, the Trustee has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout such year.

 

Capitalized terms used but not defined hereinhave the meanings set forth in the Agreement.

 

 

 

Date: March 8, 2018

 

U.S. Bank National Association as successor-in-interestto Bank of America, National Association as successor by merger to LaSalle Bank National Association, as Trustee

 

 

 

By: /s/ Kimberly O. Jacobs   

Kimberly O. Jacobs

Senior Vice President
# C_2019030EN.01000301.xml

| 24.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 30/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 30/3

---

Summary of European Commission Decisions on authorisations for the placing on the market for the use and/or for use of substances listed in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH)

(Published pursuant to Article 64(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (1)
  )

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2019/C 30/04)

Decisions granting an authorisation

| Reference of the decision (2) | Date of decision | Substance name | Holder of the authorisation | Authorisation number | Authorised use | Date of expiry of review period | Reasons for the decision |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| C(2019) 51 | 17 January 2019 | formaldehyde oligomeric reaction products with aniline (technical MDA)
  EC No 500-036-1;
  CAS No 25214-70-4 | Polynt Composites France, Route d’Arras, 62320 Drocourt, France | REACH/19/8/0 | Formulation of an epoxy resin hardener containing technical MDA | 21 August 2029 | In accordance with Article 60(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, the socioeconomic benefits outweigh the risk to human health arising from the use of the substance and there are no suitable alternative substances or technologies in terms of their technical and economic feasibility. |
| REACH/19/8/1 | Industrial use of an epoxy resin hardener containing technical MDA aimed at immobilising spent ion exchange resins in a high containment matrix |

Reference of the decision (2)

Date of decision

Substance name

Holder of the authorisation

Authorisation number

Authorised use

Date of expiry of review period

Reasons for the decision

C(2019) 51

17 January 2019

formaldehyde oligomeric reaction products with aniline (technical MDA)

EC No 500-036-1;

CAS No 25214-70-4

Polynt Composites France, Route d’Arras, 62320 Drocourt, France

REACH/19/8/0

Formulation of an epoxy resin hardener containing technical MDA

21 August 2029

In accordance with Article 60(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, the socioeconomic benefits outweigh the risk to human health arising from the use of the substance and there are no suitable alternative substances or technologies in terms of their technical and economic feasibility.

REACH/19/8/1

Industrial use of an epoxy resin hardener containing technical MDA aimed at immobilising spent ion exchange resins in a high containment matrix

---

(1)  OJ L 396, 30.12.2006, p. 1.

(2)  The decision is available on the European Commission website at: http://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/chemicals/reach/about/index_en.htm

---
079P16

#### State v. Marko Stasiv

Def’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA15-806)

Denied
**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**


**(18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**








In
      connection with the accompanying Annual Report of Consolidated Oil & Gas,
      Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006
      (the “Report”), I, James C. Yeatman, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
      hereby certify that to my knowledge:





(1)  The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. §78o(d)); and





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





Dated:
      May 18, 2007





*/s/
      James C.
      Yeatman*


James
      C.
      Yeatman


Chairman
      and Chief Executive Officer








The
      above
      certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §1350) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-KSB
      or as a separate disclosure document.
Kranem Corporation: Exhibit 10.15 - Filed by newsfilecorp.com






Exhibit 10.15


CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL REDACTED AND FILED SEPARATELY WITH THE COMMISSION.

  REDACTED MATERIAL IS MARKED AS ______________








CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL REDACTED AND FILED SEPARATELY WITH THE COMMISSION.

  REDACTED MATERIAL IS MARKED AS ______________








CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL REDACTED AND FILED SEPARATELY WITH THE COMMISSION.

  REDACTED MATERIAL IS MARKED AS ______________








CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL REDACTED AND FILED SEPARATELY WITH THE COMMISSION.

  REDACTED MATERIAL IS MARKED AS ______________








CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL REDACTED AND FILED SEPARATELY WITH THE COMMISSION.

  REDACTED MATERIAL IS MARKED AS ______________








CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL REDACTED AND FILED SEPARATELY WITH THE COMMISSION.

  REDACTED MATERIAL IS MARKED AS ______________








CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL REDACTED AND FILED SEPARATELY WITH THE COMMISSION.

  REDACTED MATERIAL IS MARKED AS ______________








CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL REDACTED AND FILED SEPARATELY WITH THE COMMISSION.

  REDACTED MATERIAL IS MARKED AS ______________








CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL REDACTED AND FILED SEPARATELY WITH THE COMMISSION.

  REDACTED MATERIAL IS MARKED AS ______________
#### SIKES CONCRETE, INC., and American Fire and Casualty Company, Appellants, v. BREAK-N-GROUND, LLC, Rhonda Williams, Nicholas Williams, Reed Holloway, and David Runyon a/k/a David White a/k/a Mickey White a/k/a “DW”, Appellees.

CASE NOS. 1D16-2054

1D16-4018

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Opinion filed August 9, 2017

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Bay County. James B. Fensom, Judge.

AFFIRMED.
Motion Granted and Order filed March 29 , 20 1 2
.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 1 1

- 0 1 0 20

- CR

____________ CHRISTEN LEE SHANEHCHIAN , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from County Criminal Court at Law No. 6

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1689765



### ORDER
Appellant has filed a motion to supplement the record. The motion is GRANTED. The clerk of County Criminal Court at Law No. 6 is directed t o deliver to the clerk of this c ourt the origina l of State's Exhibit No.3, a DVD , on or before April 9 , 20 1 2
. The clerk of this c ourt is directed to receive, maintain, and keep safe this original exhibit; to deliver it to the justices of this c ourt for their inspection; and, upon completion of inspection, to return the original of State's Exhibit No.3, a DVD, to the clerk of County Criminal Court at Law No. 6

.
PER CURIAM
#### COM. v. MCKENZIE, K.

1188 WDA 2016

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

07/28/2017

CP-04-CR-0000384-2013 (Beaver)

Affirmed
No. 12-6618.

#### Del Toro-Barboza *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 32


                    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                     18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Maui Land & Pineapple
Company, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended
June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we, Donald A. Young
and Paul J. Meyer, respectively, the President & Chief Executive
Officer and Executive vice President/Finance of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of
section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and

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



/S/ DON YOUNG
Donald A. Young
President & Chief Executive Officer



/S/ PAUL J. MEYER
Paul J. Meyer
Executive Vice President/Finance
(Chief Financial Officer)


August 13, 2003
date




A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the
Company and furnished the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
|                                                                                
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                  
|View History: Annual                                                            
|View History: Annual                                                            
|View History:                                                                   
|                                                                                
|Kansas Natural Gas Number of Residential Consumers - Sales  (Number of Elements)
|                                                                                
|                                                                                
|Kansas Natural Gas Number of Residential Consumers - Sales  (Number of Elements)
|                                                                                

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0  | Year-1  | Year-2  | Year-3  | Year-4  | Year-5  | Year-6  | Year-7  | Year-8  | Year-9 
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | -------
|1990's                                                                                                                            |         |         |         |         |         |         |         | 811,975 | 841,843 | 824,803
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 833,662 | 836,486 | 843,353 | 850,464 | 851,388 | 856,761 | 862,203 |         |         |        
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 853,842 | 854,730 | 854,779 | 858,546 | 860,415 | 861,651 | 864,828 | 867,652 | 870,322 | 872,403
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 880,897 | 884,382 | 887,490 |         |         |         |         |         |         |        
|- = 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
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 90 (Monday, May 11, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 25862]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-12464]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION


Sunhine Act Meeting

AGENCY: Federal Election Commission.
* * * * *
FEDERAL REGISTER NUMBER: 98-12244.

PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED DATE & TIME: Tuesday, May 12, 1998, 10:00 A.M., 
Meeting Closed to the Public.
    This meeting has been cancelled.
* * * * *
PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED DATE & TIME: Thursday, May 14, 1998, 10:00 A.M. 
Meeting Open to the Public.

    This meeting has been cancelled.
PERSON TO CONTACT FOR INFORMATION: Mr. Ron Harris, Press Officer, 
Telephone: (202) 694-1220.
Mary W. Dove,
Administrative Assistant.
[FR Doc. 98-12464 Filed 5-6-98; 4:37 pm]
BILLING CODE 6715-01-M
No. 12-6120.

#### Smith *v.*Florida.

.Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 3d Dist. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis*denied. Petitioner is allowed until December 4, 2012, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.
407P16

#### James Cummings v. State of North Carolina

1. Def’s *Pro Se*Motion for Discretionary Review (COAP16-706)

2. Def’s *Pro Se*Motion for Appeal

1. Dismissed

2. Dismissed
|                                                                       
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                       
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                         
|View History: Annual                                                   
|View History: Annual                                                   
|View History:                                                          
|                                                                       
|Kansas Natural Gas Number of Commercial Consumers  (Number of Elements)
|                                                                       
|                                                                       
|Kansas Natural Gas Number of Commercial Consumers  (Number of Elements)
|                                                                       

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1980's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 82,934 | 83,810 | 85,143
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 85,539 | 86,874 | 86,840 | 87,735 | 86,457 | 88,163 | 89,168 | 85,018 | 89,654 | 86,003
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 87,007 | 86,592 | 87,397 | 88,030 | 86,640 | 85,634 | 85,686 | 85,376 | 84,703 | 84,715
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 84,446 | 84,874 | 84,673 | 84,969 | 85,654 | 86,066 | 85,947 | 86,232 | 86,199 | 85,969
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 86,252 | 86,573 | 86,997 |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 5/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 6/28/2024
#### COM. v. GREENFIELD, J.

230 MDA 2017

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

08/07/2017

Reargument Denied 10/13/2017

CP-06-CR-0004192-2016

(Berks)

Affirmed