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

[Congressional Bills 119th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 13 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

119th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. J. RES. 13

  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
    United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Office of the 
Comptroller of the Currency of the Department of the Treasury relating 
        to the review of applications under the Bank Merger Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            February 4, 2025

 Mr. Kennedy (for himself, Mr. Hagerty, and Mr. Tillis) introduced the 
 following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the 
            Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
    United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Office of the 
Comptroller of the Currency of the Department of the Treasury relating 
        to the review of applications under the Bank Merger Act.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the 
rule submitted by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency of the 
Department of the Treasury relating to ``Business Combinations Under 
the Bank Merger Act'' (89 Fed. Reg. 78207 (September 25, 2024)), and 
such rule shall have no force or effect.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2021110EN.01003001.xml

| 29.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 110/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 110/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 February 2021 — EAB v EUIPO (RADIOSHUTTLE)

(Case T-341/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark RADIOSHUTTLE - Absolute ground for refusal - Not distinctive - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Restriction of the goods designated in the trade mark application)

(2021/C 110/34)

Language of the case: Swedish

Parties

Applicant: EAB AB (Smålandsstenar, Sweden) (represented by: J. Norderyd and C. Sundén lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: T. von Schantz and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 March 2020 (Case R 1428/2019-1) regarding an application for registration of the word mark RADIOSHUTTLE as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders EAB AB to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EAB AB to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 255, 3.8.2020.

---
Case 3:05-cv-01445-R Document 5 Filed 09/14/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 57
1Miles contends in his objections that the limitation period is an

unconstitutional suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. The Fifth Circuit has

rejected this argument:

The 1-year limitations period of the AEDPA does not violate the

Suspension Clause of Art. 1, § 9 [of the Constitution] unless it

“renders the habeas remedy ‘inadequate or ineffective’ to test the

legality of detention.” [Petitioner] has not shown how the

limitations period made the habeas remedy inadequate or ineffective

for him, since nothing prevented him from filing a petition before

the limitations period expired. 

See Molo v. Johnson, 207 F.3d 773, 775 (5th Cir. 2000)(citation omitted); see

generally Wyzkowski v. Department of Corrections, 226 F.3d 1213, 1217 (11th Cir.

2000)(“[e]very court which has addressed the issue-–i.e., whether, as a general

matter, § 2244(d) constitutes an unconstitutional suspension of the writ–has

concluded that it does not”)(multiple citations omitted). Miles also contends

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

BILLY RELL MILES, §

Petitioner, §

 §

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO.4:05-CV-491-Y

 §

DOUGLAS DRETKE, DIRECTOR, §

T.D.C.J.,Correctional § 

Institutions Div., §

Respondent. § 

 ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

In this action brought by petitioner Billy Rell Miles under 28

U.S.C. § 2254, the Court has made an independent review of the

following matters in the above-styled and numbered cause:

1. The pleadings and record;

2. The proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the United States magistrate judge filed on

November 10, 2005; and

3. The Petitioner's written objections to the proposed

findings, conclusions and recommendation of the United

States magistrate judge filed on December 5, 2005.

The Court, after de novo review, concludes that Petitioner’s

objections must be overruled,1 and that the petition for writ of

 

 Case 4:05-cv-00491-Y Document 19 Filed 12/06/05 Page 1 of 2 PageID 243
that the enactment of the limitations provision violated the Ex Post Facto clause

of the Constitution. Miles’s conviction, however, was not final until after the

enactment of the limitations period. Furthermore, application of the statute of

limitations does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause. See United States v.

Flores, 135 F.3d 1000, 1004-05 (5th Cir. 1998). 

2

habeas corpus should be dismissed with prejudice as time-barred

under 28 U.S.C. § 2244, for the reasons stated in the magistrate

judge's findings and conclusions. 

Therefore, the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of

the magistrate judge are ADOPTED.

Petitioner Billy Rell Miles’s Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 

SIGNED December 6, 2005.

 

 Case 4:05-cv-00491-Y Document 19 Filed 12/06/05 Page 2 of 2 PageID 244
Henry Lee WILLIAMS, Jr. v. STATE

CR-16-0756

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

December 8, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

BRUCE ANTHONY WASHINGTON, §

Petitioner, §

 §

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO.4:05-CV-428-Y

 §

DOUGLAS DRETKE, DIRECTOR, §

T.D.C.J.,Correctional § 

Institutions Div., §

Respondent. § 

 ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

In this action brought by petitioner Bruce Anthony Washington

under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the Court has made an independent review of

the following matters in the above-styled and numbered cause:

1. The pleadings and record;

2. The proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the United States magistrate judge filed on

November 17, 2005; and

3. The Petitioner's written objections to the proposed

findings, conclusions and recommendation of the United

States magistrate judge filed on November 30, 2005.

The Court, after de novo review, concludes that Petitioner’s

objections must be overruled, and that the petition for writ of

habeas corpus should be dismissed with prejudice as time-barred

under 28 U.S.C. § 2244, for the reasons stated in the magistrate

judge's findings and conclusions. 

Therefore, the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of

the magistrate judge are ADOPTED.

Petitioner Bruce Anthony Washington’s Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 

SIGNED December 6, 2005.

 

 Case 4:05-cv-00428-Y Document 19 Filed 12/06/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 102
**Exhibit 32.1**

**Certification Pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350**

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of VWRInternational, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended June 30,2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, John M. Ballbach, President and Chief Executive Officerof the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adoptedpursuant to the § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the bestof my knowledge:

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

(2)          Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| Dated: August 11, 2006                     |     |
|-------------------------------------------------|----------|
| /s/ JOHN M. BALLBACH                            |          |
| Name: John M.  Ballbach                         |     |
| Title:***President and Chief Executive Officer* | * * |

 

----
**Exhibit 31.2**

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Michael S.Thomsen, the Chief Financial Officer of the registrant, certify that:

 

1.                                       I have reviewed this annualreport on Form 10-KSB of Scheid Vineyards Inc.;

 

2.                                       Based on my knowledge, thisannual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omitto state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this annual report;

 

3.                                       Based on my knowledge, thefinancial statements, and other financial information included in this annualreport, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this annual report;

 

4.                                       The Registrant’s othercertifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) and we have:

 

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosures and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the Registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

 

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period coveredby this report based upon such evaluation; and

 

c) disclosed in this report any change in the Registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the Registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and

 

5.                                       The Registrant’s othercertifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the Registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of Registrant’s Board of Directors (or persons performingequivalent functions):

 

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the Registrant’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and

 

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the Registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.

 

 
| * * | */s/* *Michael S. Thomsen* | * * |
|----------|---------------------------------|----------|
|     | Michael S.  Thomsen             |
|     | Chief Financial  Officer        |
|     | March 30,  2005            |

 

----
Brandi Faye EDWARDS v. Jamie Russell COFIELD

2160160

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

July 28, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Thomas Steve BURKE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-3868

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed April 9, 2019

Thomas Steve Burke, Raiford, pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Wesley Heidt, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

EVANDER, C.J., EISNAUGLE and GROSSHANS, JJ., concur.
James Michael SIMS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-0003

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

February 13, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 544 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 544

 Designating the week beginning February 5, 2024, as ``National Tribal 
                   Colleges and Universities Week''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            February 6, 2024

    Mr. Tester (for himself, Mr. Daines, Mr. Schatz, Mr. Lujan, Ms. 
    Klobuchar, Ms. Sinema, Ms. Warren, Ms. Baldwin, Ms. Smith, Mr. 
Heinrich, Ms. Hirono, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Bennet, Ms. Rosen, 
  Mr. Rounds, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Cramer, Mr. Lankford, Mr. Hoeven, Mr. 
Barrasso, Mr. Thune, Mr. Moran, Mrs. Fischer, and Mr. Kelly) submitted 
      the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Designating the week beginning February 5, 2024, as ``National Tribal 
                   Colleges and Universities Week''.

Whereas there are 34 Tribal Colleges and Universities operating on more than 90 
        campuses in 15 States;
Whereas Tribal Colleges and Universities are tribally chartered or federally 
        chartered institutions of higher education and therefore have a unique 
        relationship with the Federal Government;
Whereas Tribal Colleges and Universities serve students from more than 230 
        federally recognized Indian tribes;
Whereas Tribal Colleges and Universities offer students access to knowledge and 
        skills grounded in cultural traditions and values, including indigenous 
        languages, which--

    (1) enhances Indian communities; and

    (2) enriches the United States as a nation;

Whereas Tribal Colleges and Universities provide access to high-quality 
        postsecondary educational opportunities for--

    (1) American Indians;

    (2) Alaska Natives; and

    (3) other individuals that live in some of the most isolated and 
economically depressed areas in the United States;

Whereas Tribal Colleges and Universities are accredited institutions of higher 
        education that prepare students to succeed in the global and highly 
        competitive workforce;
Whereas Tribal Colleges and Universities have open enrollment policies, and 
        approximately 13 percent of the students at Tribal Colleges and 
        Universities are non-Indian individuals; and
Whereas the collective mission and the considerable achievements of Tribal 
        Colleges and Universities deserve national recognition: Now, therefore, 
        be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) designates the week beginning February 5, 2024, as 
        ``National Tribal Colleges and Universities Week''; and
            (2) calls on the people of the United States and interested 
        groups to observe National Tribal Colleges and Universities 
        Week with appropriate activities and programs to demonstrate 
        support for Tribal Colleges and Universities.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

STEPHEN RAYMOND DOMINICK,

Petitioner,

VS.

DOUGLAS DRETKE, Director, Texas

Department of Criminal Justice,

Correctional Institutions Division,

Respondent.

)

)

)

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

)

) 3:05-CV-1271-G

)

) ECF

)

)

)

ORDER

United States Magistrate Judge William F. Sanderson, Jr. made findings,

conclusions, and a recommendation in this case. Petitioner filed objections and the

district court has made a de novo review of those portions of the proposed findings and

recommendation to which objection was made. The objections are OVERRULED

and the court ACCEPTS the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the

United States Magistrate Judge with the following clarification.

Habeas counsel for the petitioner objects with particular vehemence regarding

the magistrate judge’s statement “that an attorney ‘violates ethical standards when a

 

 Case 3:05-cv-01271-G Document 15 Filed 05/11/06 Page 1 of 3 PageID 90
- 2 -

telephone conversation is recorded without the other person’s knowledge.’”

Petitioner’s Objections to the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the

United States Magistrate Judge (“Objections”) at 1-2 (citing Findings, Conclusions,

and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge at 7, n.2). Noting that

the “Magistrate Judge’s research . . . was incomplete,” habeas counsel then points the

court to a letter written by Steven W. Young, General Counsel to the Texas State Bar,

clarifying Professional Ethics Opinion 514, on which the Magistrate Judge’s

statement was based. This letter, later reprinted in the April 1997 edition of Voice For

the Defense, the Texas Criminal Defense Lawyer’s Association Monthly Magazine,

states the following:

Professional Ethics Opinion 514 sets forth the Professional

Ethics Committeeís [sic] opinion that such taping is

unethical. Those opinions are not binding on the grievance

system.

. . . Currently this position is that such conduct, if

otherwise legal, is not unethical. Based on that position,

we currently classified any allegation such as described in

the opinion as any [sic] inquiry and as such it is dismissed

at the initial review stage by the Chief Disciplinary Counsel

Staff.

February 4, 1997 letter from Steven W. Young attached to Objections as Exhibit A.

Not wishing to impugn habeas counsel’s character or ethics inadvertently, the

court notes that the Texas State Bar determined in 1997 that it is not unethical for

an attorney to record a conversation without the knowledge of the other person.

 

 Case 3:05-cv-01271-G Document 15 Filed 05/11/06 Page 2 of 3 PageID 91
- 3 -

SO ORDERED.

May 11, 2006.

 

 Case 3:05-cv-01271-G Document 15 Filed 05/11/06 Page 3 of 3 PageID 92
Murphy J. PAINTER v. STATE of Louisiana, THROUGH the OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, The Department of Revenue and Taxation, Alcohol Tobacco Control Commission, Cynthia Bridges, in Her Official Capacity as Secretary of the Department of Revenue and Taxation, The Office of State Inspector General, and, Stephen Street, in His Official Capacity as State Inspector General

NO. 2019-CC-0283

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 8, 2019

Denied.

HUGHES, J., would grant.
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 Swinging Pig Productions, Inc. a Florida
corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period
ending September 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Julie Mirman, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of her knowledge, 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 result of operations of the
      Company.




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






/s/
      Julie MirmanJulie
      Mirman
                Chief
      Executive Officer
                  November
      13, 2008
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-13-0006130

21-MAR-2014

12:21 PM
Steven Mark RILEY Sr., Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D18-4687

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 3, 2019

Steven Mark Riley Sr., pro se, Petitioner.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.

*673DISMISSED. *See**Baker v. State* , 878 So.2d 1236 (Fla. 2004).

Lewis, Winsor, and M.K. Thomas, JJ., concur.
Aaron Lewis JOHNSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-1329

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 5, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATIONS



I, Dennis G. Dracup, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this Form 10-Q of Language Line, 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 quarterly 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 officers 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 we 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; and



c) 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 officers 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 the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):



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; and



b) 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: May 12, 2005



|    |  |                                     
|--- |  | ------------------------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Dennis G. Dracup                
|    |  | Dennis G. Dracup                    
|    |  | Chief Executive Officer and Director



18