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

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 403 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 403

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                     November 13, 2013.
    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2655) to amend Rule 11 of the Federal Rules 
of Civil Procedure to improve attorney accountability, and for other purposes. 
All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall 
be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill are 
waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on 
any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) 
one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary; and (2) one motion to 
recommit.
    Sec. 2.  At any time after adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, 
pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 982) to amend title 11 of the United States Code to require the 
public disclosure by trusts established under section 524(g) of such title, of 
quarterly reports that contain detailed information regarding the receipt and 
disposition of claims for injuries based on exposure to asbestos; and for other 
purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of 
order against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be 
confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the 
Judiciary. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under 
the five-minute rule. The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order 
against provisions in the bill are waived. No amendment to the bill shall be in 
order except those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying 
this resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in 
the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report 
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the 
question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order 
against such amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the 
bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House 
with such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question shall be 
considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
**Exhibit 23**

** **

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

 

To The Board of Directors

General Steel Holdings, Inc. and Subsidiaries

 

We consent to the use of our reports datedMarch 16, 2011, except for the effects on the consolidated statements of the restatement described in Note 2, as to which the dateis August 29, 2012, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of General Steel Holdings, Inc. and Subsidiaries as of December31, 2010 and 2009, and the related consolidated statements of operations and other comprehensive (loss) income, changes in equity,and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2010, which report appear in the December 31,2010 annual report on Form 10-K Amendment No. 1 of General Steel Holdings, Inc. We consent to the incorporation by reference inthe registration statements on Form S-3 (No.333-149217 and No.333-164625) of the report described in the previous sentence appearingin the annual report on Form 10-K Amendment No. 1 of General Steel Holdings, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2010.

 

/s/ Frazer Frost, LLP

 

Brea, California

August 29, 2012
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-2096

PATINA VARNEY, for Tonya M. Varney,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

SHIRLEY S. CHATER, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL

SECURITY,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. Mary S. Feinberg, Magistrate

Judge. (CA-95-477)

Submitted: May 15, 1997 Decided: May 28, 1997

Before RUSSELL, HALL, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Patina Varney, Appellant Pro Se. Charlotte Jefferson Hardnett,

Margaret J. Krecke, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia,

Pennsylvania; Stephen Michael Horn, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Patina Varney appeals the district court's order affirming the

Commissioner's denial of children's Supplemental Security Income

benefits. We have reviewed the record and the district court's

opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the

reasoning of the district court. Varney v. Chater, No. CA-95-477

(S.D.W. Va. July 24, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 278 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                  House Calendar No. 37
113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 278

                          [Report No. 113-133]

       Dismissing the election contest relating to the office of 
     Representative from the Forty Third Congressional District of 
                              California.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 26, 2013

 Mrs. Miller of Michigan, from the Committee on House Administration, 
  reported the following resolution; which was referred to the House 
                   Calendar and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
       Dismissing the election contest relating to the office of 
     Representative from the Forty Third Congressional District of 
                              California.

    Resolved, That the election contest relating to the office of 
Representative from the Forty Third Congressional District of 
California is dismissed.
                                                  House Calendar No. 37

113th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                              H. RES. 278

                          [Report No. 113-133]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

       Dismissing the election contest relating to the office of 
     Representative from the Forty Third Congressional District of 
                              California.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             June 26, 2013

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0144

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

EDWARD LEROY SOUTHER,

Defendant and Appellant. 

GRANT

Pursuant to authority granted under Mont. R. App. P. 26(1), the 

Appellant is given an extension of time until August 4, 2022, to prepare, 

file, and serve the Appellant’s reply brief.

No further extensions will be granted.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

June 23 2022

06/23/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0144
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Feature Stories

Filters

              - other_basic-42(1)

## By Location

              - alaska(7)
              - arizona(4)
              - california(38)
              - colorado(1)
              - delaware(1)
              - district of columbia(2)
              - florida(1)
              - georgia(2)
              - hawaii(15)
              - idaho(4)
              - maryland(2)
              - massachusetts(2)
              - (-)michigan(1)
              - minnesota(3)
              - montana(3)
              - north carolina(2)
              - oklahoma(1)
              - oregon(3)
              - puerto rico(2)
              - south dakota(7)
              - u.s. virgin islands(2)
              - utah(1)
              - virginia(2)
              - washington(16)
              - wisconsin(1)
              - wyoming(15)

## By Year

General        January 20, 2022        Upper Midwest Water Science Center - Instagram Links
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 Texxon,  Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-QSB for the period  ending June 30, 2004, as filed with the  Securities  and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Gifford M. Mabie III,
Chief  Executive  Officer  (and  principal  financial  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:

          (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.


August 13, 2004                   /s/ Gifford M. Mabie III
                                  ------------------------------
                                  Gifford M. Mabie III, Chief
                                  Executive Officer and principal
                                  financial officer


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 to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

The foregoing  certification  is being  furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission as an exhibit to the Report and shall not be considered filed as part
of the Report.
STATE of Louisiana v. Troy TAYLOR

NO. 2018-KK-1045

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

November 20, 2018

Denied.
----

EXHIBIT 32.1 

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

In connection with the quarterly report of AlphaRx, Inc. on Form 10-QSB forthe period ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof, Michael Lee, as chief executive officer ofAlphaRx, Inc., does hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to thebest of his knowledge: 

1. This 10-QSB report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act; and 

2. The information contained inthis 10-QSB report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and result of operations of AlphaRx, Inc. 

/s/ Michael Lee Michael Lee Chief Executive Officer February 12, 2007 

----
M.M., a juvenile, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D18-104

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed November 14, 2018

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Stephen J. Weinbaum, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Christina L. Dominguez, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before EMAS, FERNANDEZ and LUCK, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *See**State v. DiGuilio*, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla. 1986).
* Pursuant to 5 TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-31094 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus MICHAEL A. WATSON, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana (3:04-CR-186-ALL)

-------------------- ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Before KING, WIENER, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The guilty-plea conviction ofDefendant-Appellant Michael A. Watson for use of a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime, in violation United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D January 23, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk1 Michael A. Watson v. United States, 06-571, Dec. 10, 2007. 2 of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A), was based on his trade of drugs to an undercover agent in exchangefor a handgun. When he pleaded guilty, Watson reserved the right to challenge on appeal the sufficiency of the factual basis to support his conviction under the statute. Wefollowed our precedent in rejectingWatson’s insistence that an act like his

—— obtaining a firearm in exchange for drugs

—— is distinguishable from our precedent sustaining convictions when the defendant receives drugs or other consideration in exchange for a firearm that he possessed and gives up in the exchange transaction. The Supreme Court ofthe United States granted certiorari, and sub nom Watson v. United States,

—— U.S.

—— (2007), reversed our affirmance of Watson’s conviction. 1 The court held that a person does not “use” a firearm within the intendment of the statute when he receives it in exchange for drugs and remanded Watson’s case to us for additional consistent proceedings. Accordingly, we withdraw our previous opinion affirming Watson’s conviction, reverse his conviction for use of a firearm during and in relation to
a drug trafficking crime, vacate the sentence imposed for that c onviction, and remand this case to the district court for further disposition consistent with our3

ruling today, recognizing that a person does not “use” a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) when he receives it in exchange for drugs. PRIOR OPINION AND JUDGME N T WITHDRAWN; CONVICTION FOR VIOLATION OF 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) REVERSED; SENTENCE VACATED; CASE REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR FURTHER DISPOSITION CONSISTENT HEREWITH.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 22-3302

___________________________

United States of America,

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee,

v.

Blake Ruel,

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant.

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of Nebraska - Omaha

 ____________

Submitted: March 6, 2023

Filed: March 9, 2023

[Unpublished]

____________

Before COLLOTON, BENTON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Blake Ruel appeals a sentence imposed by the district court1 after Ruel pleaded

guilty to offenses involving drugs and firearms. His counsel moved to withdraw and

1The Honorable Robert F. Rossiter, Jr., Chief Judge, United States District

Court for the District of Nebraska.
filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the

reasonableness of the sentence. Ruel moved for new counsel on appeal, stating that

he was misled by his counsel during the plea negotiations.

As to counsel’s argument, we conclude that Ruel’s sentence was not

unreasonable. The court specifically stated that it had considered all of the factors

under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and there is no indication that the court overlooked a

relevant factor, gave significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or

committed a clear error of judgment in weighing the relevant factors. See United

States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (standard of

review); see also United States v. Callaway, 762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014). 

As to Ruel’s pro se argument that counsel was ineffective during the plea

negotiations, Ruel did not move to withdraw his plea as involuntary, and we conclude

that his challenge to counsel’s performance would be better addressed on collateral

review. See United States v. Umanzor, 617 F.3d 1053, 1060 (8th Cir. 2010); United

States v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d 824, 826-27 (8th Cir. 2006).

We have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.

75 (1988), and find no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the

judgment. We also grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we deny Ruel’s motion

for new counsel as moot.

______________________________

-2-
Exhibit 99.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


I,  Scott  Siegel,  Chief  Executive  Officer of First Aid Direct, Inc., certify
that:

1.  The  periodic  report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a)
or  15(d);  and

2.  Information  contained  in  the  report  fairly  presents,  in  all material
respects,  the  financial  condition  and  results  of operations of the issuer.


Date:  July 15, 2003


                                   /s/  Scott Siegel
                                   -----------------
                                   Scott Siegel
                                   Chief Executive Officer


<PAGE>
Exhibit 31                  Rule 13a-14(d) Certification

                                  CERTIFICATION

     I, Michael L. Parker, a President and Director of Washington Mutual
Mortgage Securities Corp., 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 WASHINGTON MUTUAL
MORTGAGE SECURITIES CORP. MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2003-MS6;

         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.

         In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on
information provided to me by the following unaffiliated third parties acting as
servicers and sub-servicers:

     Downey  Savings  and  Loan  Assoc,   Greenpoint  Mortgage,   RBC  Mortgage,
Washington Mutual


Dated: March 15, 2004
                                     /s/ Michael L. Parker
                                         Michael L. Parker,
                                         President and Director
Grant of Extension of Time

 PAGE 1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0099

IN THE MATTER OF 

L.Q.M., 

A Youth in Need of Care.

GRANT OF EXTENSION OF TIME

Upon consideration of the Appellant’s Motion for Extension of Time, 

and good cause appearing therefore, the Appellant is granted an extension of 

time until June 10, 2021, to prepare, serve, and file the Opening Brief.

No further extensions will be granted.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 26 2021

04/26/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0099
Order entered August 11, 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 13
- 00969
- CR PAUL HARVEY ANDREWS, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial C ourt Cause No. F
- 11
- 49282
- T



### O RDER
We GRANT the State’s August 7, 2014 motion to extend time to file brief and present oral argument. The brief tendered on August 7, 2014 is ORDERED filed as of that date. The State shall be permitted to present oral arg ument on September 24, 2014.

/s/ MOLLY FRANCIS PRESIDING JUSTICE
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.2
 SARBANES-OXLEY ACT SECTION 302
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
  1)
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Commercial Bancshares, Inc.;2)
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report 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 with respect to the period
covered by this report;3)
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results
of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report; .4)
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made
known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which
this report is being prepared;b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; andc)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
(the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and
 5)
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
 a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting
 Date:
    
    03/31/2006/s/ Scott A. Oboy[Signature]Scott A. OboySenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer