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

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5484 

To allow border States to use a portion of certain Department of Homeland 

Security grants to build physical barriers to deter illegal crossings. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 25, 2006 

Mr. MCHENRY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Homeland Security 

A BILL 

To allow border States to use a portion of certain Department of Homeland Security grants to build physical barriers to deter illegal crossings. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Good Fences Make 

5 Good Neighbors Act of 2006’’. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5484 IH

1 SEC. 2. USE OF CERTAIN HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT 

2 FUNDS FOR BUILDING BARRIER AT BORDER 

3 PERMITTED. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (b) of section 1014 of 

5 the USA PATRIOT Act (42 U.S.C. 3714(b)) is amended 

6 to read as follows: 

7 ‘‘(b) USE OF GRANT AMOUNTS.— 

8 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Grants under this section 

9 may be used to purchase needed equipment and to 

10 provide training and technical assistance to State 

11 and local first responders. In addition, grants under 

12 this section may be used to construct, develop, ex13 pand, modify, operate, or improve facilities to pro14 vide training or assistance to State and local first re15 sponders. 

16 ‘‘(2) ADDITIONAL USE FOR BORDER STATE.— 

17 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—A border State may 

18 use up to 75 percent of the minimum amount 

19 allocated to the State under this section to 

20 build a physical barrier near the United States 

21 border to deter illegal crossings, and for costs 

22 incidental thereto. 

23 ‘‘(B) BORDER STATE DEFINED.—In this 

24 paragraph, the term ‘border State’ means— 

25 ‘‘(i) a State that shares a border with 

26 Canada or Mexico; or 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
3 

•HR 5484 IH

1 ‘‘(ii) a political subdivision of such a 

2 State.’’. 

3 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

4 this section applies to grants made for fiscal years begin5 ning after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
Exhibit 10.42



 Exhibit 10.42 
 Director Compensation Summary 
 Annual
Retainer. Each non-management director is paid an annual retainer of $190,000 in quarterly installments, following the end of each quarter of service. Of this amount, 40% (or $76,000) of the annual retainer is paid in cash and 60% (or $114,000)
is paid in deferred stock units (“DSUs”). Instead of receiving a cash payment, non-management directors may elect to have 100% of their annual retainer paid in DSUs; provided, however, that no more than 25,000 DSUs may be granted to any
non-management director in any one calendar year pursuant to the terms of the 2004 Genworth Financial, Inc. Omnibus Incentive Plan, as amended, under which the DSUs are awarded. To the extent this limit would be exceeded, the remainder of a
director’s annual retainer will be paid in cash. 
 Deferred Stock Units. The number of DSUs granted is determined
by dividing the DSU value to be delivered by the fair market value of our common stock on the date of grant. Each DSU represents the right to receive one share of our common stock in the future, following termination of service as a director, as set
forth below. DSUs accumulate regular quarterly dividends, if any, which are reinvested in additional DSUs. The DSUs will be settled in shares of common stock on a one-for-one basis beginning one year after the director leaves the Board in a single
installment or installments over ten years, at the election of the director. Additionally, grants of DSUs made after January 1, 2010, regardless of whether a non-management director elects to convert his DSUs on a single date or in a series of
annual installments, will convert and settle in shares of common stock earlier upon the death of the non-management director. 
 Fee for Lead Director. As additional compensation for service as Lead Director, the Lead Director receives an annual cash retainer of $20,000. 
 Fees for Committee Chairs. As additional compensation for service as chairperson, the chairperson of the Audit Committee receives an annual cash retainer of $15,000. Each other standing committee
chairperson receives an annual cash retainer of $10,000. 
 Matching Gift Program. The company offers a matching gift
program that provides for the matching of employee and director charitable contributions pursuant to the contribution guidelines established by the Genworth Foundation. Each non-management director is eligible for the matching of charitable
contributions on a dollar-for-dollar basis, up to a maximum matching contribution of $15,000 during any calendar year. 
 Reimbursement of Certain Expenses. Non-management directors are reimbursed for travel expenses to attend Board and committee meetings and to attend director education seminars, in accordance with policies approved from time to time.

 The compensation arrangements set forth above are effective as of January 1, 2010.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 548 

To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located 

at 200 West 2nd Street in Dayton, Ohio, as the ‘‘Tony Hall Federal 

Building and United States Courthouse’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 2, 2005 

Mr. HOBSON (for himself, Mr. BOEHNER, Mr. BROWN of Ohio, Mr. CHABOT, 

Mr. GILLMOR, Mrs. JONES of Ohio, Ms. KAPTUR, Mr. KUCINICH, Mr. 

LATOURETTE, Mr. NEY, Mr. OXLEY, Mr. PORTMAN, Ms. PRYCE of Ohio, 

Mr. REGULA, Mr. RYAN of Ohio, Mr. STRICKLAND, Mr. TIBERI, and Mr. 

TURNER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located at 200 West 2nd Street in Dayton, Ohio, 

as the ‘‘Tony Hall Federal Building and United States 

Courthouse’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

4 The Federal building and United States courthouse 

5 located at 200 West 2nd Street in Dayton, Ohio, shall be 
2 

•HR 548 IH 

1 known and designated as the ‘‘Tony Hall Federal Building 

2 and United States Courthouse’’. 

3 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

4 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

5 paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal 

6 building and United States courthouse referred to in sec7 tion 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Tony 

8 Hall Federal Building and United States Courthouse’’. 

Æ
EXHIBIT 32




                           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 Oxford Technologies Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2003, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Jacinta Sit, President and CFO 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 result of operations
        of the Company.


By: /s/ Jacinta Sit
------------------------------
Jacinta Sit, President & CFO

November 10, 2003
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-7689

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JULIAN SOTO CHAVEZ,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, 

Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:08-cv-00164-RJC; 3:05-cr-00002-

RJC-DSC-4)

Submitted: April 28, 2011 Decided: May 3, 2011

Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Julian Soto Chavez, Appellant Pro Se. Adam Christopher Morris, 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Julian Soto Chavez seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 

Supp. 2010) motion. The order is not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record 

and conclude that Chavez has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss 

the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
3

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED
Jimmy JACKSON, Jr., Appellant, v. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, Respondent.

WD 80785

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

ORDER FILED: April 10, 2018

Timothy R. Cisar, Lake Ozark, MO, for appellant.

Morgan Brewington, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.

Before Division Four: Mark D. Pfeiffer, Chief Judge, Presiding, Cynthia L. Martin, Judge and James E. Welsh, Senior Judge1

**ORDER**

1

Judge Welsh retired as an active member of the court on April 1, 2018, after oral argument in this case. He has been assigned by the Chief Justice to participate in this decision as Senior Judge.

Per curiam:

Jimmy Jackson, Jr. ("Jackson") appeals from a judgment sustaining the Director of Revenue's suspension of his driving privileges. Jackson argues that the trial court erred in admitting the results of the breath alcohol test into evidence. Jackson claims the foundational requirements for *325admission of the test were not met because the test was not performed in accordance with regulations promulgated by the Department of Health and Senior Services ("DHSS"). Specifically, Jackson asserts that the police officer who administered the breath alcohol test did not continuously observe Jackson for the fifteen minutes immediately prior to the administration of the test. We affirm. Rule 84.16(b).
**Exhibit 32**

AMANASU TECHNO HOLDINGS CORPORATION**Certification of Chairman and 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, the undersigned officer of          the registrant certifies, to the best of his knowledge, that the registrant's          Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2008 (the "Form          10-QSB") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of          the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Form          10-QSB, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition          and results of operations of the registrant.		

 Dated: June 13, 2008
			 By: /s/ Yukinori Yoshino					Yukinori Yoshino					President
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the Court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit

No. 98-60247 Summary Calendar

GEORGE FRILEY, Individually and as parent and next friend of Joseph Friley, Et Al., Plaintiffs,

VERSUS
JOHNNIE FRILEY, Individually and as parent and next friend of Joseph Friley, Plaintiff-Appellee,

VERSUS

HOUSING BENEFITS PLAN; MILLER AND ASSOCIATES; EDMOND FRANCIS, Defendants-Appellants,

TRUSTEES OF THE HOUSING BENEFITS PLAN, Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court For the Southern District of Mississippi

(2:96-CV-172-P-G) November 17, 1998
Before EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. 2 This is an appeal by the Housing Benefits Plan, et al., defendants, from a final judgment of the district court entered on March 16, 1998, pursuant to an opinion a nd order of even date therewith in which the district court granted plaintiffs’ second motion to enforce settlement pursuant to the terms of a written settlement agreement dated December 2, 1996. We have carefully reviewed the briefs, the reply brief, the record excerpts and relevant portions of the record itself. For the reasons stated by the district court in its opinion and order, we affirm the final judgment entered herein.

AFFIRMED
.
TS-CKHI02

Attachment #3

Pt. 1, Sec. B

CAS Inventory Expert Servi ce Report and Chemical Stru cture of the New Chemical

Substance

The following page gives the CAS Inventor y Expert Service (IES) Report on the new chemical substance. Also, attached here is the chemical structure of the compound.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5516 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5516

  To allow for the renegotiation of the payment schedule of contracts 
  between the Secretary of the Interior and the Redwood Valley County 
                Water District, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 25, 2006

  Mr. Thompson of California introduced the following bill; which was 
                 referred to the Committee on Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To allow for the renegotiation of the payment schedule of contracts 
  between the Secretary of the Interior and the Redwood Valley County 
                Water District, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. RENEGOTIATION OF PAYMENT SCHEDULE.

    Section 15 of Public Law 100-516 (102 Stat. 2573) is amended as 
follows:
            (1) By amending paragraph (2) of subsection (a) to read as 
        follows:
            ``(2) If, as of January 1, 2006, the Secretary of the 
        Interior and the Redwood Valley County Water District have not 
        renegotiated the schedule of payment, the District may enter 
        into such additional non-Federal obligations as are necessary 
        to finance procurement of dedicated water rights and 
        improvements necessary to store and convey those rights to 
        provide for the District's water needs. The renegotiated 
        schedule of payments shall commence when such additional 
        obligations have been financially satisfied by the District. 
        The date of the initial payment owed by the District to the 
        United States shall be regarded as the start of the District's 
        repayment period and the time upon which any interest shall 
        first be computed and assessed under section 5 of the Small 
        Reclamation Projects Act of 1956 (43 U.S.C. 422a et seq.).''.
            (2) By striking subsection (c).
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 99.3

                                 Certification
                                 -------------

I, Douglas C. Morrison, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form
     8-K containing distribution or servicing reports filed in respect of
     periods included in the year covered by this annual report, of Associates
     Credit Card Master Note Trust;

2.   Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a whole,
     does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a
     material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
     circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading as of
     the last day of the period covered by this annual report;

3.   Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information required
     to be provided to the trustee by the servicer under the pooling and
     servicing, or similar, agreement, for inclusion in these reports is
     included in these reports;

4.   I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicer
     under the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement and based upon my
     knowledge and the annual compliance review required under that agreement,
     and except as disclosed in the reports, the servicer has fulfilled its
     obligations under that agreement; and

5.   The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the
     servicer's compliance with the minimum servicing standards based upon the
     report provided by an independent public accountant, after conducting a
     review in compliance with the Uniform Single Attestation Program for
     Mortgage Bankers or similar procedure, as set forth in the pooling and
     servicing, or similar, agreement, that is included in these reports.


Date:  March 27, 2003



/s/  Douglas C. Morrison
------------------------
Douglas C. Morrison
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Citibank (South Dakota), National Association
WWW.EXFILE.COM, INC. -- 888-775-4789 -- NORTH AMERICAN GALVANIZING & COATINGS, INC. -- EXHIBIT 4.1 TO FORM S-8


    EXHIBIT
4.1

     

     

     

     

    2009
Stock Incentive Plan, Amended and Restated as of December 4, 2009 (incorporated
by reference from the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the
Commission on January 22, 2010 (Commission File No. 001-03920))
#### WILLIAM M. WELLS v. JOSIE McCULLERS WELLS.

(Filed 23 September, 1942.)

This is an appeal by the plaintiff from *Burney, J.,*at May Term, 1942, of Wilson, from an order denying his motion to strike out defendant’s answer and plea *puis darrein continuance.*

*Moore ■& Brinldey and Parser, McIntyre & Henry for plaintiff, appellant.*

*Ehringhaus & Ehringhaus and Lucas & Band for defendant, appellee.*

Per Curiam.

The Court being equally divided in opinion, *Barnhill, J.,*not sitting, the judgment of the Superior Court is affirmed as the disposition of this appeal without becoming a precedent, in accord with the practice of the Court. *Martin v. R. R.,*208 N. C., 843; *Collins v. Ins. Co.,*213 N. C., 800.

Affirmed.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Harold Watkins, Appellant.

[772 NYS2d 601]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Farneti, J.), rendered March 27, 2002, convicting him of gang assault in the first degree and assault in the first degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to sustain his conviction is partially unpreserved for appellate review *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant aided two girls who, with his encouragement, slashed the face of the victim with razor blades he provided, drove the girls to and from the shopping mall where the incident occurred, and was in a position “ready, willing or able” to aid in the commission of the crime *(People v Washing*
      *511
      *ton,*283 AD2d 661, 662 [2001]; *People v Coulter,*240 AD2d 756, 757 [1997]; *People v Wooten,*214 AD2d 596 [1995]). In addition, the testimony from the accomplice witnesses was sufficiently corroborated by evidence from an independent source, tending to “connect the defendant with the crime in such a way that the jury may be reasonably satisfied that the accomplice [s] [were] telling the truth” *(People v Daniels,*37 NY2d 624, 630 [1975]; *see*CPL 60.22 [1]; *People v Singleton,*144 AD2d 504 [1988]). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see *People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions either are not preserved for appellate review, without merit, or constitute harmless error. Santucci, J.P., Florio, Schmidt and Townes, JJ., concur.
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 First Cash Financial Services, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Rick L. Wessel, Chief Executive Officer 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 to my knowledge:  (1)The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities 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.   Date:  February 25, 2011  /s/ Rick L. Wessel Rick L. Wessel Chief Executive Officer
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-12-00686-CR

IN RE Leon BREWER

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Delivered and Filed: November 7, 2012

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DISMISSED FOR LACK OF 

JURISDICTION

On October 19, 2012, Relator Leon Brewer filed a petition for writ of mandamus, 

complaining he filed an amendment to his original application for post-conviction writ of habeas 

corpus and a motion for leave to file the amended writ and the trial court has failed to respond or 

set the matter for hearing.

However, only the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has jurisdiction over matters related 

to post-conviction relief from an otherwise final felony conviction. See Ater v. Eighth Court of 

Appeals, 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. 1991); see also TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07 

(West Supp. 2012); Board of Pardons & Paroles ex rel. Keene v. Court of Appeals for Eighth 

 1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2009CR7532, styled State of Texas v. Leon Brewer, pending in the 437th 

Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Lori I. Valenzuela presiding.
04-12-00686-CR

- 2 -

Dist., 910 S.W.2d 481, 483 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (holding that “Article 11.07 provides the 

exclusive means to challenge a final felony conviction.”). Because the relief sought in Relator’s 

petition relates to post-conviction relief from an otherwise final felony conviction, we are 

without jurisdiction to consider his petition for writ of mandamus.2

Accordingly, Relator’s petition is DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION. 

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH

 2 On March 22, 2010, relator was convicted of felony possession of a firearm. No appeal was taken in this court. 

Therefore, relator’s conviction is final.