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

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. J. RES. 58 

Providing for congressional disapproval of the proposed foreign military sale 

to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia of certain defense articles and services. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

AUGUST 4, 2022 

Mr. PAUL introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Providing for congressional disapproval of the proposed foreign military sale to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia of 

certain defense articles and services. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That the following proposed foreign military sale to the 

4 Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is prohibited: 

5 (1) The sale of the following defense articles 

6 and services, described in Transmittal No. 22–26, 

7 submitted to Congress pursuant to section 36(b)(1) 

8 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 

9 2776(b)(1)), and published in the Congressional 

10 Record on August 2, 2022: three hundred (300) PAVerDate Sep 11 2014 01:01 Aug 05, 2022 Jkt 029200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\SJ58.IS SJ58

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•SJ 58 IS 

1 TRIOT MIM–104E Guidance Enhanced Missile2 Tactical Ballistic missiles (GEM–T); tools and test 

3 equipment; range and test programs; support equip4 ment to include associated publications and technical 

5 documentation; training equipment; spare and repair 

6 parts; New Equipment Training; Transportation; 

7 Quality Assurance Team support; U.S. Government 

8 and contractor technical assistance; engineering, and 

9 logistics support services; Systems Integration and 

10 Checkout (SICO); field office support; International 

11 Engineering Services Program Field Surveillance 

12 Program; and other related elements of logistics and 

13 program support. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4584

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus WILLIAM C. PETTIS, a/k/a Bobby, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CR-02-41) Submitted: January 30, 2004 Decided: February 24, 2004 Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Peter R. Roane, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellant. John L. Brownlee, United States Attorney, Jean B. Hudson, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: William C. Pettis pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute more than fifty grams of cocaine base (Count 1) and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime (Count 8). He was sentenced to 262 months on the drug conviction and to sixty months consecutively on the gun charge. On appeal, Pettis alleges that his guilty plea was involuntary because the district court did not inform him that his 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (2000) conviction carried a mandatory minimum sentence of five years. Thus, he argues, he would not have pled guilty but for this error. He also alleges the district court erred by denying his attorney’s motion to withdraw, and denying his newly obtained counsel additional time to prepare. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. Relying on United States v. Goins , 51 F.3d 400 (4th Cir. 1995), Pettis alleges that he was not informed of the five-year mandatory minimum for his § 924(c) conviction. To the extent the district court failed to specifically inform Pettis of this fact at his plea hearing, the record otherwise reveals that Pettis was aware of the mandatory minimum sentence prior to pleading guilty. Accordingly, this claim fails. Next, we note that an indigent defendant has no right to a particular attorney and can demand new counsel only for good cause. United States v. Gallop , 838 F.2d 105, 108 (4th Cir. 1988).- 3 - A defendant does not have an absolute right to substitution of counsel. United States v. Mullen , 32 F.3d 891, 895 (4th Cir. 1994). We find that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Pettis’ motion to substitute his trial counsel prior to sentencing. Gallop , 838 F.2d at 108. Likewise, we do not find the court abused its discretion by implicitly denying Pettis’ motion for a continuance. United States v. Lorick , 753 F.2d 1295, 1297 (4th Cir. 1985). Accordingly, we affirm Pettis’ convictions and sentences. We dispense with oral argument be cause the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T G A B R I E L G A R C I A Y A N A G U I , a ka G a r c i aG abr i e l , a kaG abr i e l G a r c i a , a ka G ab r ie l G a r c iaY a n a q u i, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 09- 73674 A ge nc yN o. A 073- 928- 002 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o a r do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d S e pt e m be r13, 2010 ** B efo re: S IL V E R M A N , C A L L A H A N , an dN . R . S M IT H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. G abri elG ar ci a Y anagui , a nat i ve and ci t i ze n o f M exi co, pet i t i on s f or re vi ew of the de c i s i on of

the B oa r d of

I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s de ny i ng hi s m ot i on t o r e ope n, in w h ic h h e c h a lle n g e dth e d e n ia l o f h is ap p lic a tio n f

o rr e lie f f r o m r e m o v a l. 

# FI LED SEP 21 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS09- 73674 2 P e t i t i one rc ont e nds tha tc ountryc ondi t i ons ha ve c ha nge d i n M e xi c o the r e by e xc us i ng the t i m e a nd num e r i c a l ba r s t o r e ope ni ng hi s a s y l um , w i thhol di ng, a nd C onve nt i on A ga i ns tT ortur e c l a i m s . Y a na gui a l s o c ont e nds tha the w oul d be pe r s e c ut e d be c aus e he w oul d be pe r c e i ve d a s w e a l thyand apot e nt i a l ki dnappi ng vi c t i m be c aus e he i s aM e xi c a ns r e turni ng f r om the U ni t e d S t a t e s , the r e bye nt i t l i ng hi m t o asy l um , w i thh ol di ng , and C A T re l i ef . P et i t i on erfa i l ed t o est abl i sh changed c o u n tryc o n d itio n s in M e x ic o th a t ar e m a te r ia l to p e titio n e ra n dh is c ir c u m s tan c e s . See 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 ( c ) ( 3 ) ( ii) ; T ou f i gh iv. Mukasey , 5 3 8 F .3 d9 8 8 , 9 9 6 - 9 7 ( 9 th C i r. 20 08 ). In addi t i on , pet i t i on erfa i l ed t o est abl i sh thathe qu al i fi ed as a m em ber o f ac o g n iz ab le s o c ia l g r o up , a n dth e r e f o r e d idn o t d e m o n s tr a te p r im af a c ie e l i gi bi l i tyf

orthe a s y l um , a nd w i thhol di ng r e l i e f r e que s t e d. See D el

ga do -O rt i

z v . H older , 60 0 F . 3d 11 48 , 11 51 -52 (9th C i r. 20 10 ) ( re j ec t i ng as a part i cul arsoci al g r o up “r e tu rn in g M e x ic a n s f r o m th e U n ite dS ta te s ” ) . P e titio n e ra ls o f a ile dto e s tab lis h th a t it w a s m o r e lik e lyth a n n o t th a t h e w o u ldb e to rtu r e dif r e tu rn e dto Me x i c o , a n dth e r e b yh e f a i l e dt o e s t ab l i s h p r i m af a c i e e l i g i b i l i tyf

o rC AT p r o te c tio n . Se e id. a t1152. PETI TI O N FO R R EVI EW D EN I ED .
EX PARTE Gilbert Lee MILES

CR-16-1266

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

November 1, 2017

Transferred to Russell Cir. Ct.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 36 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. J. RES. 36

    Providing for congressional disapproval of the proposed foreign 
 military sale to the Government of Egypt of certain defense articles 
                             and services.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

             February 7 (legislative day, February 3), 2022

  Mr. Paul introduced the following joint resolution; which was read 
        twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
    Providing for congressional disapproval of the proposed foreign 
 military sale to the Government of Egypt of certain defense articles 
                             and services.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the following proposed 
foreign military sale to the Government of Egypt is prohibited:
            (1) The sale of the following defense articles and 
        services, described in Transmittal No. 20-64, submitted to 
        Congress pursuant to section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export 
        Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2776(b)(1)), and published in the 
        Congressional Record on January 31, 2022: Three (3) SPS-48 Land 
        Based Radar (LBR), spares, motor generators, repeaters, 
        radomes, technical manuals, site surveys, installation, 
        calibrations, testing, operator training, and maintenance 
        training associated with the SPS-48 LBR; obsolescence 
        replacements of processor, track management system, 
        communication equipment, uninterrupted power supply (UPS), 
        generators, and/or Transmitter Control Unit in fielded SPS-48 
        LBR systems; updated built-in-testing (BIT) and overhaul of 
        fielded SPS-48 LBR antenna systems; and other related elements 
        of logistical and program support.
                                 <all>
```
Bennett C. WILLIAMS, a/k/a Bennett Cecil Williams, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-5147

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 1, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
|   |  (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. |

|                |   |                                                       |   |
|---------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Dated: May 23, 2011 | By:    | /s/ Jay Needelman                                     |   |
|                |   | Jay Needelman (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) |   |
|                |   | Chief Financial Officer                                    |   |
|                |   |                                                       |   |
**Exhibit 31.3**

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

Required by Rule 13a-14(a), created by Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act 

I, Roque A. Santi, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of ECC Capital Corporation; 

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 suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this 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 ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures 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 whichthis report is being prepared; 

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report ourconclusions 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 fiscalquarter 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 ofthe registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign 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 financialreporting. 

Dated: April 14, 2006
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

BALAKANAPATHY RAJARATNAM,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE 

LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR 

UNIVERSITY,

Defendant.

Case No.16-cv-07413-VKD 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE 

SETTLEMENT

The Court having been informed that the parties have agreed to a settlement, all previously 

scheduled deadlines and appearances are VACATED.

On or before May 28, 2019, plaintiff shall file a voluntary dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(i). Rule 41(a)(1) permits a plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss a case without a court 

order (i) by notice if the defendants have not filed an answer or motion for summary judgment, or 

(ii) by stipulation signed by all parties who have appeared. Because defendant has not yet filed an 

answer or motion for summary judgment, plaintiff may file a notice of dismissal pursuant to Rule 

41(a)(1)(i).

If a dismissal is not filed by the specified date, then the parties shall appear in Courtroom 

2, 5th Floor, 280 South First Street, San Jose, California on June 11, 2019, 10:00 a.m. and show 

cause, if any, why the case should not be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a). 

Additionally, the parties shall file a statement in response to this Order to Show Cause no later 

than June 4, 2019 advising as to (1) the status of the activities of the parties in finalizing 

settlement; and (2) how much additional time, if any, is requested to finalize the settlement and 

file the dismissal. If a dismissal is filed as ordered, the Order to Show Cause hearing will be 
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

automatically vacated and the parties need not file a statement in response to this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 29, 2019

VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI

United States Magistrate Judge
**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 PokerTek, Inc. (the
“Company”) for the period ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Christopher J.C.
      Halligan, 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, 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; 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 15, 2008/s/ Christopher
                J.C. HalliganChristopher
                J.C. HalliganChief
                Executive Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

OP 24-0377

_______________ 

HON. ROBERT J. WHELAN, Presiding 

 Respondent. 

_______________ 

ORDER 

_______________ 

 Plaintiff, Frank Raiser, M.D. (“Raiser”) has moved the Court for an order 

granting leave to file the Montana Second Judicial District Court’s Response to St. 

James Healthcare’s Petition for a Writ of Supervisory Control under seal pursuant 

to Mont. R. App. P. 10(7)(d). 

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that motion is GRANTED. The Montana 

Second Judicial District Court’s Response filed with this Court on June 28, 2024, 

shall be under seal without redaction.

ST. JAMES HEALTHCARE, 

 Petitioner, 

 v. 

MONTANA SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

COURT, BUTTE-SILVER BOW COUNTY, 

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

June 28 2024

06/28/2024

Case Number: OP 24-0377
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 report of Ironclad Performance Wear Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Thomas Kreig, 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, 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 Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








/s/ Thomas Kreig


Thomas Kreig


Principal Financial Officer


May 13, 2010
June 30, 2016 December 31, 2015

Assets

Cash and Cash Equivalents 8,836,205 $ 148,788,084 $ 

Investments in U.S. Treasury Obligations 4,036,353,326 3,615,304,532 

Accrued Interest Receivable 12,950,661 14,045,309 

Premium Receivable 175,964,250 260,634,000 

Other Receivables - - 

Prepaid Expenses 1,183 - 

Total Assets 4,234,105,625 $ 4,038,771,925 $ 

Liabilities and Insurance Fund

Accounts Payable and Accrued Expenses 547,938 $ 530,913 $ 

Farm Credit Insurance Fund

 Unallocated Insurance Fund Balance 4,233,557,687 4,038,241,012 

Total Insurance Fund 4,233,557,687 4,038,241,012 

Total Liabilities and Insurance Fund 4,234,105,625 $ 4,038,771,925 $ 

June 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015

Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation

Statement of Financial Condition

(Unaudited)
Calendar Year to Date Calendar Year to Date

June 30, 2016 June 30, 2015

Income

Premiums 175,869,250 $ 127,321,000 $ 

Interest Income on Investments 21,364,368 13,541,117 

Total Income 197,233,618 $ 140,862,117 $ 

Expenses

Administrative Operating Expenses 1,916,943 $ 1,725,765 $ 

$ 1,725,765 1,916,943 $ 

Net Income 195,316,675 $ 139,136,352 $ 

Balance at January 1, 2016 $ 4,038,241,012

Net Income 195,316,675 

Balance at June 30, 2016 4,233,557,687 $ 

(Unaudited)

Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation

Statement of Revenue and Expense

Period Ended June 30, 2016

Statement of Changes in Insurance Fund

Period Ended June 30, 2016

(Unaudited)
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 Genesis Electronics Group,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Edward C. Dillon, 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:
            (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.

/s/Edward C. Dillon
-----------------------------
Edward C. Dillon
Chief Executive Officer

May 13, 2010


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 Genesis Electronics Group,
Inc.(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Nelson Stark, 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:
            (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.

/s/Nelson Stark
-----------------------------
Nelson Stark
Chief Financial Officer

May 13, 2010