alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
H. Res. 693 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

July 29, 2014. 

Resolved, That 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. 4315) to amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 

to require publication on the Internet of the basis for determinations that species are endangered species or threatened 

species, 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 amendments specified in this resolution and 

shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by 

the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 

Natural Resources. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. In lieu of 

the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 

the Committee on Natural Resources now printed in the bill, 

it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the pur-
2 

•HRES 693 EH 

pose of amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment 

in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules 

Committee Print 113–55. That amendment in the nature of 

a substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order 

against that amendment in the nature of a substitute are 

waived. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of 

a substitute 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. Any Member may demand a separate vote in 

the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of 

the Whole to the bill or to the amendment in the nature of 

a substitute made in order as original text. The previous 

question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 

amendments thereto to final passage without intervening mo-
3 

•HRES 693 EH 

tion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
Exhibit 32.1



Certification required by Rule 13a-14(b)
or

Rule 15d-14(b) and Section 1350 of Chapter
63 of Title 18 of the United States Code



In connection with the Quarterly Report of
NGP Capital Resources Company (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2012, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Stephen K. Gardner, President and 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 Exchange 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:  May 10, 2012



| | /s/ Stephen K. Gardner               
| | -------------------------------------
| | Stephen K. Gardner                   
| | President and Chief Executive Officer
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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Comstock Homebuilding Companies, Inc. (the Company) for the quarter ended
March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of Christopher Clemente, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company and Bruce Labovitz, Chief Financial Officer of
the Company, certify, to our best knowledge and belief, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                   |  |                                     
|------------------ |  | ------------------------------------
|Date: May 13, 2009 |  | /s/ Christopher Clemente            
|                   |  | Christopher Clemente                
|                   |  | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
|                   | 
|Date: May 13, 2009 |  | /s/ Bruce J. Labovitz               
|                   |  | Bruce J. Labovitz                   
|                   |  | Chief Financial Officer             

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.
Case 2:03-cv-00140-J Document 66 Filed 02/05/04 Page 1 of 1 PageID 366
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

WILLIAM ANTHONY REEVES,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 145 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Unpublished Memorandum and

Order of the Superior Court at No. 971 MDA 2017 entered on February
2, 2018, affirming the PCRA Order of the Dauphin County Court of Common

Pleas at No. CP

- 22

- CR

- 0003698

- 2012 entered on May 31, 2017

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 31 st day of July, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

GRANTED . There being no patent and obvious error appearing on the face of the

sentencing order of January 20, 2016, attached to this Order as Appendix A, or by

reference to the record of this mat ter, the Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas was

without jurisdiction or authority to modify that order on September 14, 2016. See 42

Pa.C.S. § 5505; Commonwealth v. Holmes , 933 A.2d 57 (Pa. 2007). Accordingly, the

order of the Superior Court is VACATED , as is the September 14, 2016 order of the

Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas, attached to this Order as Appendix B, which

purported to modify Petitioner’s judgment of sentence. The matter is REMANDED for

reinstatement of the sentencing order entered J anuary 20, 2016.

Justice Baer dissents and would deny allowance of appeal.[ 145 MAL 2018 ]

- 2 Appendix A[ 145 MAL 2018 ]

- 3[ 145 MAL 2018 ]

- 4 Appendix B
V.G.Y.H. v. A.L.A.

2160749

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

December 8, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
# C_2016410EN.01002502.xml

| 7.11.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 410/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.11.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 410/25

---

Appeal brought on 21 September 2016 by Carlo De Nicola against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 21 July 2016 in Case F-82/15, De Nicola v EIB

(Case T-669/16 P)

(2016/C 410/36)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Carlo De Nicola (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented by G. Ferabecoli, lawyer)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Investment Bank (EIB)

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | uphold the present appeal and, partially reversing the judgment under appeal, annul point 2 of the operative part, together with paragraphs 12, 13, 24, 55 to 57, 123 to 135 and 157 to 165 of the judgment itself; |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold the present appeal and, partially reversing the judgment under appeal, annul point 2 of the operative part, together with paragraphs 12, 13, 24, 55 to 57, 123 to 135 and 157 to 165 of the judgment itself;

| — | consequently, order the respondent to compensate Mr De Nicola for the damage suffered, as requested in the application initiating proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

consequently, order the respondent to compensate Mr De Nicola for the damage suffered, as requested in the application initiating proceedings.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The present appeal is brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 21 July 2016, which dismissed the proceedings brought by the appellant, concerning, in essence, on the one hand, the annulment of the decision of 4 December 2014, by which the respondent denied the appellant the reimbursement of certain medical expenses, and, on the other hand, the award by the respondent and the European Union of compensation for the damage he allegedly suffered.

In support of his appeal, the appellant disputes the findings on the scientific benefits of laser therapy in the judgment under appeal.

The appellant claims furthermore that the conditions relating to compensation for damage, whether material or non-material, are met in the present case.

---
<PAGE>

Exhibit 32.2

                    Certification of Chief Financial Officer
                Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 as adopted pursuant to
                      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the
Annual Report of Kendle International Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the
period ended December 31, 2004 (the "Report"), I, Karl Brenkert III, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of
my knowledge,:

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 Periodic Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

Dated: March 16, 2005

/s/ Karl Brenkert III
-----------------------
Karl Brenkert III
Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Kendle International Inc. and will be retained by Kendle
International Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
---

Exhibit 32.2

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

The undersigned, Ke Marcus Cui, the Chief Financial Officer of CHINA BAK BATTERY, INC. (the Company), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that:

1. The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2011 (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2. Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned has executed this statement this
9th day of August, 2011.

/s/ Ke Marcus CuiKe Marcus Cui 
Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to China BAK Battery, Inc. and will be retained by China BAK Battery, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

The forgoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to § 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.

---
#### Joe Campbell and E. O. McCurley, *Plaintiffs in Error,*v. State of Florida, *Defendant in Error.*

Division B.

Opinion Filed January 9, 1928.

*Philip D. Beall & John M. Coe,*Attorneys for Plaintiffs in Error;

*Fred II. Davis,*Attorney General, and *Roy Campbell,*Assistant, Attorneys for Defendant in Error.

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff in error, Joe Campbell, was indicted and convicted with E. O. McCurley, Josh Gavin and Chesley Gavin, of the offense of larceny of a certain heifer. It appears that a writ of error was taken, including all the defendants. Only two records appear to have found their way to this Court. One included the judgment against McCurley and the other included the judgment against Joe Campbell.

*1226The-judgment in this case should be reversed on authority of the opinion in the case of E. O. McCurley v. The State, filed December 6th, 1927, and it is so ordered.

Reversed.

Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
Exhibit 32.2

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

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Verdant Technology Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David J. Curd, Interim Chief 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.



March 2, 2009

|                                       
|---------------------------------------
|/s/ David J. Curd                      
|David J. Curd
Interim Financial Officer
* Pursuant to 5TH 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-30154

Summary Calendar

 

WILLIAM K. FARRIS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

GUFFEY L. PATTISON; HAROLD DILLARD; RANDY MURPHY,

Defendants-Appellees.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 99-CV-462

--------------------

October 26, 2000

Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

William K. Farris, Louisiana prisoner # 234096, appeals the

district court’s summary judgment in favor of Guffey L. Pattison,

Harold Dillard, and Randy Murphy, denying his 42 U.S.C. § 1983

civil rights action. He argues that the defendants denied him

adequate medical care for an injury to his arm suffered while he

was incarcerated at the Sabine Parish Detention Center. Because

Farris has not shown that Sheriff Pattison or Warden Dillard had

any personal involvement in the alleged denial of adequate

medical care, he has not shown that the district court erred in
No. 00-30154

-2-

denying Farris’ claim against them. See Alton v. Texas A & M

University, 168 F.3d 196, 200 (5th Cir. 1998). The competent

summary judgment evidence indicates that Farris received

extensive medical care for the injury to his arm. The evidence

does not indicate that the defendants acted with deliberate

indifference to Farris’ serious medical needs. See Farmer v.

Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 847 (1994); Reeves v. Collins, 27 F.3d

174, 176-77 (5th Cir. 1994). Unsuccessful medical treatment,

acts of negligence, or medical malpractice are insufficient to

give rise to a § 1983 action; disagreement with medical treatment

is not actionable under § 1983. See Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d

320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991). Because Farris has not shown that this

case presents exceptional circumstances which warrant appointment

of counsel, his motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED.

AFFIRMED; MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL DENIED.
FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT JUNE 15 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 10079 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 4 - 0 0 0 4 0 - C R - F T M- DN F U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s S A M H A R R I S , J R ., D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( Ju n e 15, 2006) B efo re D U B IN A , M A R C U S an dW IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: D ar l ene M . G ei ger, appo i nt ed coun se l for S am H arri s, Jr . i n thi s di re ct c r i m i na l appe a l , ha s m ove d t o w i thdr a w f r om f urthe rr e pr e s e nt a t i on of the2

ap p e lla n t a n df

ile dab r ie f

p u r s u a n t to A n d e r s v . C a lif o rn ia , 3 8 6 U .S . 7 3 8 , 8 7 S .C t. 1 3 9 6 , 1 8 L .E d .2 d4 9 3 ( 1 9 6 7 ) . O u rin d e p e n d e n t r e v ie w o f th e e n tir e r e c o r dr e v e a ls th atco u n sel ’ s assessm en to f th e rel at i v e m eri to f th e ap p eal i s co rrect . B ecau se in d e p e n d e n t e x a m in a tio n o f th e e n tir e r e c o r dr e v e a ls n o a r g u ab le is s u e s o f m e r it, co u n sel ’ s m o t i o n t o w i th d raw i s G R A N TED , and H arri s’ s c on vi ct i on and sent ence ar e A FFI R M ED .
The RIMPSEY AGENCY, INC. v. W.F. JOHNSTON IV and William M. Lawrence

2160575

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

October 13, 2017 Reh. denied December 1, 2017

Affirmed.
Timothy MILLER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D19-271

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed April 2, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
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 Quarterly Report of Horizon Lines Holding Corp.
(the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 26, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Charles G. Raymond, President and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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/    CHARLES G. RAYMOND

---

Charles
G. Raymond

President and Chief Executive Officer

(Principal
Executive Officer)

July 28, 2005
# C_2019004EN.01000801.xml

| 7.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 4/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 4/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 25 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundespatentgericht — Germany) — proceedings brought by Boston Scientific Ltd

(Case C-527/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual and industrial property - Supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products - Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 - Scope - Medical device incorporating as an integral part a substance which, used separately, may be considered to be a medicinal product - Directive 93/42/EEC - Article 1(4) - Concept of ‘administrative authorisation procedure’)

(2019/C 4/10)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundespatentgericht

Party to the main proceedings

Boston Scientific Ltd

In the presence of: Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products must be interpreted as meaning that a prior authorisation procedure, under Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices, as amended by Directive 2007/47/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007, for a device incorporating as an integral part a substance, within the meaning of Article 1(4) of that directive as amended, cannot be treated in the same way, for the purposes of applying that regulation, as a marketing authorisation procedure for that substance under Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, as amended by Directive 2004/27/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004, even if that substance was the subject of the assessment provided for in the first and second paragraphs of section 7.4 of Annex I to Directive 93/42, as amended by Directive 2007/47.

---

(1)  OJ C 402, 17.11.2017.

---
PONCHARTRAIN NATURAL GAS SYSTEM, k/d/s Promix, LLC, Andacadian Gas Pipline System v. TEXAS BRINE COMPANY, L.L.C., et al.

NO. 2019-CD-0403

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 14, 2019

Stay denied. Writ denied.
Exhibit 32.2


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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of the Proguard  Acquisition  Corp. (the
"Company"),  on Form  10-QSB  for the  period  ended  September  30,  2005  (the
"Report"),  as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on the date
hereof, I, Norman  Becker,  Chief  Financial  Officer  of the  Company,  certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Sec.  1350,  as adopted  pursuant to the Sec.  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     1. the Company's  Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the nine months ended
September  30, 2005 (the  "Report")  fully  complies  with the  requirements  of
Section 13(a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended

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


                                                /s/ Norman Becker
                                                --------------------------------
                                                Norman Becker
                                                Chief Financial Officer

December 23, 2005