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

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 23 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

<DOC>
117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. CON. RES. 23

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That in recognition of the long and distinguished service rendered to 
the Nation by Robert Joseph Dole, a Senator from the State of Kansas, 
his remains be permitted to lie in state in the rotunda of the Capitol 
on Thursday, December 9, 2021, and the Architect of the Capitol, under 
the direction of the President pro tempore of the Senate and the 
Speaker of the House of Representatives, shall take all necessary steps 
for the accomplishment of that purpose.

            Passed the Senate December 7, 2021.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
117th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                            S. CON. RES. 23

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

  Authorizing the use of the rotunda of the Capitol for the lying in 
  state of the remains of the Honorable Robert Joseph Dole, a Senator 
                       from the State of Kansas.
```
Gregory T. FLEMING, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-2460

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 3, 2019.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Exhibit 31.1I, Richard L. Federico, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of P.F. Chang’s China Bistro, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, 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 establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and wehave: a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b. Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or causedsuch internal control over financial reporting to be designed underour supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding thereliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financialstatements for external purposes in accordance with generally acceptedaccounting principles;  c. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report; and  d. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter inthe case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors: a. All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarizeand report financial information; and  b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.        Date: February 14, 2007 /s/ RICHARD L. FEDERICO   Chairman and Chief Executive Officer     
79
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 41 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. J. RES. 41

  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
 United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Health 
    and Human Services relating to ``Ensuring Access to Equitable, 
    Affordable, Client-Centered, Quality Family Planning Services''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 16, 2022

Mr. Rubio (for himself, Mr. Risch, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Cruz, Ms. Ernst, Mr. 
   Scott of South Carolina, Mr. Boozman, Mr. Thune, Mr. Daines, Mrs. 
Blackburn, Mr. Barrasso, Mr. Braun, Mr. Hoeven, Mr. Hawley, Ms. Lummis, 
 Mr. Cramer, Mrs. Fischer, Mr. Scott of Florida, Mrs. Hyde-Smith, Mr. 
Lankford, Mr. Cotton, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Hagerty, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Cornyn, 
   Mr. Wicker, Mr. Moran, Mr. Tuberville, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Lee, Mr. 
 Marshall, Mr. Tillis, and Mr. Cassidy) introduced the following joint 
   resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                 Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
 United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Health 
    and Human Services relating to ``Ensuring Access to Equitable, 
    Affordable, Client-Centered, Quality Family Planning Services''.

    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 Department of Health and Human Services relating 
to ``Ensuring Access to Equitable, Affordable, Client-Centered, Quality 
Family Planning Services'' (86 Fed. Reg. 56144 (October 7, 2021), and 
such rule shall have no force or effect.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32
  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO
 
 18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350,
 
 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT
TO
 
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002
 
 In connection with the interim 
report of Ecotality, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the three months
ended March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jonathan R. Read, acting in the capacity as
the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and I, Barry S. Baer, acting in the
capacity as the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify to the best of
our knowledge, pursuant to18 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/ Jonathan R.
      ReadJonathan R.
      ReadChief Executive
      OfficerMay 18,
  2009/s/ Barry S.
      BaerBarry S.
    BaerChief Financial
      OfficerMay 18, 2009
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

DERRICK CHAPPELL,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 694 MAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 14th day of April, 2020, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
Case 3:06-cv-00175-G Document 3 Filed 01/27/06 Page 1 of 4 PageID 82
Case 3:06-cv-00175-G Document 3 Filed 01/27/06 Page 2 of 4 PageID 83
Case 3:06-cv-00175-G Document 3 Filed 01/27/06 Page 3 of 4 PageID 84
Case 3:06-cv-00175-G Document 3 Filed 01/27/06 Page 4 of 4 PageID 85
Case 3:06-cv-00261-M Document 14 Filed 07/12/06 Page 1 of 1 PageID 263
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council

          - [Docket No. AS25-01]

# AGENCY:

Appraisal Subcommittee of the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council.

# ACTION:

Notice of special closed meeting.

*Description:*                     In accordance with section 1104(b) of title XI of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989, codified at 12 U.S.C. 3333(b), notice is hereby given that the Appraisal Subcommittee (ASC) met for a Special Closed Meeting on this date.                

*Location:*                     Virtual meeting via Teams.                

*Date:*                     January 15, 2025.                

*Time:*                     10:28 a.m. ET.                

## Discussion Item

### Personnel Matter

The ASC convened a Special Closed Meeting to discuss a personnel matter pursuant to section 1104(b) of title XI (12 U.S.C. 3333(b)). No action was taken by the ASC.

Loretta Schuster,

Management & Program Analyst.

[FR Doc. 2025-01706 Filed 1-23-25; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6700-01-P
 Ryan Smith – Policy Advisor for the Office of Regional Affairs and Data 

Evolution Lead for EDA

 EDA is seeking candidates for a Chief Data Officer position (rsmith2@eda.gov

& EDACareer@eda.gov) 

 https://eda.gov/careers/opportunities/

US Economic Development Administration –

“Data Needs from an Implementing Bureau’s Perspective”

EDA is seeking to hire a CDO. 
 US EDA is a bureau within the US Dept. of Commerce

 Mission: “To lead the federal economic development agenda by promoting 

innovation and competitiveness, preparing American regions for growth and 

success in the worldwide economy.”

 Investment Priorities: https://eda.gov/about/investment-priorities/

 Core Business Lines –

Grant Making and Capacity Building in Economically Distressed Areas (Public Works, EAA)

Build-to-Scale investments supporting Innovation and Entrepreneurship

Disaster Recovery via the Economic Recovery Support Functions and Di$a$ter $upplemental

US Economic Development Administration 

EDA 101 

EDA is seeking to hire a CDO. 
 EDA typically measures outcomes based on Jobs Created or Retained and 

Private Investment Dollars Leveraged

 Supported by EDA’s Logic Model

 EDA Geographic Eligibility is dependent on Economic Distress

 Investment Priorities – In Particular Equity/Underserved

 Reporting happens at 3-6-9 years after award, Validated and Verified

Government Performance and Results Act – GPRA 101 

EDA is seeking to hire a CDO. 
Prototype library of indirect program impact 

metrics

Category Measure Data source name

Demographic Population characteristics American Community Survey, decennial census

Demographic/ business Business and owner characteristics Annual Business Survey, Nonemployer Statistics by 

Demographics

Economic indicators New business starts Business Formation Statistics and Business Dynamics 

Statistics

Economic indicators Manufacturing Manufacturers’ Shipments, Inventories, and Orders 

(M3)

Environment/ Climate Coastal communities and 

businesses

American Community Survey; Annual Business 

Survey; Business Register

Jobs Labor force participation rate Current Population Survey, American Community 

Survey

Other economic Tax revenues Census of Governments

Socioeconomic Poverty Rate CPS ASEC, ACS, administrative data

Underserved communities 

index

At-risk neighborhoods Community Resilience Estimates

4
 Evidence Building for Program Effectiveness and Future Appropriations

 Inputs for Other Projects and Public Data Products (NERDE) – Understanding 

Eligibility and Impact

 Tying administrative data via DOC-wide investments in IT 

systems/infrastructure will connect EDA’s mission space and project 

information with other DOC equities

 EDA is recruiting for and seeking to hire a Chief Data Officer

 Ryan Smith - (rsmith2@eda.gov)

Policy Advisor for the Office of Regional Affairs and Data Evolution Lead for EDA

How We Hope to Use Data & Linkages

EDA is seeking to hire a CDO.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO18 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 China Housing & Land Development, Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-Q for the quarter ending September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned, in the
capacities and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
to his 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.
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|                         |     |                                    
|------------------------ | --- | -----------------------------------
|Dated: November 13, 2008 | By: | /s/ LU PINGJI                      
|                         |     | Lu Pingji
(Chief Executive Officer)
|                         |     |                                    

---
Eric J. CHAMBERLIN v. Amanda J. CHAMBERLIN

2160657

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

February 2, 2018

Affirmed.
Exhibit 23.1
**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**
     We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3(Nos. 333-93713, 333-84702, 333-108270) and the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos.333-74742, 333-40039, 333-40033, 333-40035, and 333-91696) of Pegasus Solutions, Inc. of ourreports dated March 8, 2005 relating to the financial statements, management’s assessment of theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, the effectiveness of internal controlover financial reporting, and financial statement schedule, which appear in this Annual Report onForm 10-K. We also consent to the reference to us under the heading “Selected Financial Data” inthis Annual Report on Form 10-K.
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Willie JONES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D17-1941

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed March 6, 2019

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Susan S. Lerner, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Christina L. Dominguez, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before EMAS, C.J., and SCALES and HENDON, JJ.

HENDON, J.

Willie Jones appeals from a final judgment of conviction and sentence on the charges of trafficking in cocaine, possession of marijuana with intent to sell, and possession of drug paraphernalia. Jones argues on appeal that certain of the trial court's comments shifted the burden of proof and prejudiced his defense at trial. None of these comments were objected to at trial. Thus, we will reverse only if the comment was fundamental error, i.e., "error that 'reaches down into the validity of the trial itself to the extent that a verdict of guilty could not have been obtained without the assistance of the alleged error.' " *Brooks v. State*, 762 So.2d 879, 899 (Fla. 2000) ; *see also* *Jones v. State*, 612 So.2d 1370 (Fla. 1992) (holding that the contemporaneous objection rule applies to such comments and an appellate court will not reverse in the absence of an objection unless the comment is so prejudicial as to be fundamental error); *Pope v. Wainwright*, 496 So.2d 798 (Fla. 1986) (concluding that errors other than those constituting fundamental error are waived unless timely raised in the trial court).

After a thorough examination of the record on appeal, we find no fundamental error in the trial court's comments. Indeed, not every act or comment that might be interpreted as demonstrating less than neutrality on the part of the judge will be deemed fundamental error.

*111*Mathew v. State*, 837 So.2d 1167 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). Accordingly, we affirm Jones' convictions.

Finally, Jones asserts that there is a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement of sentence and the written sentencing order. This error was not preserved by a contemporaneous objection during the sentencing hearing or by raising the issue under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b), which precludes Jones from raising the error on direct appeal. *See* *Brannon v. State*, 850 So.2d 452, 456 (Fla. 2003) ; *Green v. State*, 224 So.3d 252 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017). As we find that Jones has neither properly preserved the trial court's alleged sentencing error, nor demonstrated fundamental error on appeal, we affirm his sentence without prejudice to Jones to raise this issue in an appropriately filed rule 3.800 motion with the trial court.

Affirmed.
Dahlia HARRISON, Appellant, v. The DELTONA CORPORATION, Appellee.

No. 1D18-1215

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 11, 2019 Rehearing Denied May 28, 2019

Dahlia Harrison, pro se, Appellant.

H. Matthew Fuqua of Fuqua & Milton, P.A., Marianna, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED .

Wolf, Bilbrey, and Winsor, JJ., concur.
### IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2023 ND 241

Kelly Mathisen and Char Mathisen, Plaintiffs and Appellees

v. Marvin Becker

- Johner, Defendant and Appellant

No. 20230263

Appeal from the District Court of McKenzie County, Northwest Judicial District, the Honorable Daniel S

. El

- Dweek , Judge.
AFFIRM ED

. Per Curiam

. Thomas E. Kalil, Williston, ND , for plaintiffs and appellees.
Marvin Becker

- Johner, self

- represented, Watford City, ND , defendant and appellant.1 Mathisen v. Becker

- Johner No. 20230263
Per Curiam

. [¶1] Marvin Becker

- Johner appeals from a district court order granting a motion for summary judgment in favor of the Mathisens after he failed to respond to the motion . Becker

- Johner contends the court erred because he had previously responded to similar motions and the judgment fails to adequately define the easement ’ s boundaries. Becker

- Johner’s appellate brief does not include a legal argument, does not include any supporting authorities for his assertions , fails to provide any reference to the evidentiary record, and does not contain the minimum requirements provided in N.D.R.App.P. 28. See State v. Noack , 2007 ND 82, ¶ 9, 732 N.W.2d 389 (“[A] brief mus t contain a statement of the issues presented for review; a statement of the facts and, where those facts are disputed, references to the evidentiary record supporting the appellant’s statement of the facts; and the appellant’s legal argument, including th e authorities on which the appellant relies.”)

. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(8)

. [¶2] Jon J. Jensen, C.J. Daniel J. Crothers Lisa Fair McEvers Jerod E. Tufte Douglas A. Bahr
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

TIMOTHY L. DANNER, §

 §

Plaintiff, §

 § Civil Action No. 3:05-CV-1817D

VS. §

 §

AL RICHARD, et al., § 

 §

Defendants. §

ORDER

After making an independent review of the pleadings, files, and records in this case, and the

December 14, 2005 supplemental findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the magistrate

judge, the court concludes that the supplemental findings and conclusions are correct. It is therefore

ordered that the supplemental findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the magistrate judge

are adopted.

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma paupiers is denied. This action will be

dismissed as barred by three strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) unless plaintiff tenders the $250.00

filing fee to the District Clerk within 20 days of the date this order is filed.

SO ORDERED.

December 27, 2005.

_________________________________

SIDNEY A. FITZWATER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

 Case 3:05-cv-01817-D Document 9 Filed 12/27/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 60
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

TERESA WILSON, §

 §

Plaintiff §

 §

v. § Civil No. 3:05-CV-1210-K (BH)

 §

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL §

SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, §

 §

Defendant. §

ORDER

After making an independent review of the pleadings, files and records in this

case, the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the of the United States

Magistrate Judge, and Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration and, alternatively,

Objections to Magistrate’s Recommendation, filed on August 24, 2007, I am of the

opinion that the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge

are correct and are adopted as the Findings and Conclusions of the Court. Plaintiff’s

Motion for Reconsideration and, alternatively, Objections to Magistrate’s

Recommendation, filed on August 24, 2007, are OVERRULED.

It is therefore ORDERED that the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation

of the United States Magistrate Judge are adopted. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for
summary judgment is hereby DENIED, and Defendant’s motion for summary judgment

is hereby GRANTED.

SO ORDERED.

Siogned: August 28 , 2007.

th

____________________________________

ED KINKEADE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE