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

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 262 

To authorize testimony, documents, and representation in United States v. 

Dodd. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 8, 2021 

Mr. SCHUMER (for himself and Mr. MCCONNELL) submitted the following 

resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

To authorize testimony, documents, and representation in 

United States v. Dodd. 

Whereas, in the case of United States v. Dodd, Cr. No. 18– 

243, pending in the United States District Court for the 

Western District of Louisiana, the prosecution has requested the production of testimony, and, if necessary, 

documents from Laura Bowen, an employee of the Senate Post Office, a department of the Office of the Senate 

Sergeant at Arms; 

Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 704(a)(2) of the 

Ethics in Government Act of 1978, 2 U.S.C. §§ 288b(a) 

and 288c(a)(2), the Senate may direct its counsel to represent current and former employees of the Senate with 

respect to any subpoena, order, or request for testimony 

or documents relating to their official responsibilities; 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

SRES 262 ATS 

Whereas, by the privileges of the Senate of the United States 

and Rule XI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, no evidence under the control or in the possession of the Senate may, by the judicial or administrative process, be 

taken from such control or possession but by permission 

of the Senate; and 

Whereas, when it appears that evidence under the control or 

in the possession of the Senate may promote the administration of justice, the Senate will take such action as will 

promote the ends of justice consistent with the privileges 

of the Senate: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That Laura Bowen and any other current 

2 or former employee of the Senate Post Office from whom 

3 relevant evidence may be necessary are authorized to tes4 tify and produce documents in the case of United States 

5 v. Dodd, except concerning matters for which a privilege 

6 should be asserted. 

7 SEC. 2. The Senate Legal Counsel is authorized to 

8 represent any current or former employee of the Senate 

9 Post Office in connection with the production of evidence 

10 authorized in section one of this resolution. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Jeffery HARRIS v. STATE

CR-17-0024

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

January 16, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
EXHIBIT 32.1



Certification of Chief Executive Officer



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer
of Pan Pacific Retail Properties, Inc. (the Company) hereby certifies that:



(i) the accompanying annual report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2005 (the Report)
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



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



Date: February 21, 2006



/s/ Stuart A. TanzStuart A. TanzChairman, Chief Executive Officer and President




---

Certification of Chief Financial Officer



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Pan Pacific Retail Properties, Inc. (the Company) hereby certifies that:



(i) the accompanying annual report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2005 (the Report)
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



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



Date: February 21, 2006



/s/ Joseph B. TysonJoseph B. Tyson, CPAExecutive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
STATE of Louisiana v. Michael LUCIEN

No. 2018-KH-1630

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 28, 2019

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE CRIMINAL, DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF ORLEANS**

PER CURIAM:

Denied. Applicant fails to show that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel during plea negotiations under the standard of *Strickland v. Washington* , 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). As to his remaining claims, applicant fails to satisfy his post-conviction burden of proof. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.2.

Applicant has now fully litigated his application for post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, *see*28 U.S.C. § 2244, Louisiana post-conviction procedure envisions the filing of a second or successive application only under the narrow circumstances provided in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and within the limitations period as set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Notably, the legislature in 2013 La. Acts 251 amended that article to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Applicant's claims have now been fully litigated in accord with La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is final. Hereafter, unless he can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, applicant has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.
!

"

#

$

%

&

'

(

 )

 

!

"

#

$

%

&

'

(

!)

 

!

"

#

$

%

&

'



 *+,-./0-1-.0/,0-2,3-34*2-  +42-5.2+/,0-2,3-46317,642+,1 

    89:;<:==>?@A

 BC

      D=D;E9;<>?@C

F

GHIJKLMNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN



1OO7,31-,4+642

1/P,00,4+461--42+.Q

O24513R,3.

>S


T
UUVW@



A A9;9X<:BDYDYZD[:;\]]E?<9;E:;\]=<^DZ9[]=

   A^D[DZ_[D?`DX<=a88_9``8_=][9EY:??:];<]`[9X<:XDbcdefghigj:;<^D

][<^D[;:?<[:X<]=98:=][;:9[D`[D?D;<:;\k     :;<^D

9Z]BDVD;<:<8DE9X<:];Cl_8]X98X]VX]a;?D8:;<^:?X9?D:?mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmA9;

9<<][;D_n^]:?9YDYZD[]=<^DZ9[]=<^:?]a[<:;\]]E?<9;E:;\9;En^]Y9:;<9:;?9;]==:XD

n:<^:;<^Do<9<D]=98:=][;:9C

lpooqk 

VTo
roooqk

 

lp
stqk 

VTo
ro
stqk

 

lpl
ooqk 

VTo
rol
ooqk

 

9Y9;9X<:BDYDYZD[:;\]]E?<9;E:;\]=9T;:<DEo<9<D?]a[<][]=<^D^:\^D?<X]a[<]=

9;]<^D[o<9<D][<^D:?<[:X<]=]8aYZ:9A9?:;E:X9<DE9Z]BDuY_Z9[;aYZD[:?k  v

<[aD9;EX][[DX<X]`_]=9XD[<:=:X9<D]=\]]E?<9;E:;\][Dwa:B98D;<]==:X:98E]XaYD;<=[]Y?9:E

Z9[:?9<<9X^DE<]<^:?9``8:X9<:];C

9\[DD<]=9Y:8:9[:xDY_?D8=n:<^A9;E9Z:EDZ_A<^D
]X98a8D?]=<^:?]a[<AD?`DX:988_<^D

o<9;E9[E?]=[]=D??:];98];EaX<=][9<<][;D_?9;E<^D8<D[;9<:BD:?`a<DD?]8a<:];
]X98a8D?C

yzjg{fcj|}zjcbj}f{~dbjc|c~ef~~ejdcjdi}i~c|jf}zgdccjg~v

9<DEk     


   42/.221+-,+1OO7,31-,4+ 6421/P,00,4+461--42+.QO24513R,3.

osps<^D9``8:X9<:];]=    :?\[9;<DEA

?aZDX<<]<^D<D[Y?9;EX];E:<:];?]=:B:8
CCUUVWC88`9`D[?=:8DEZ_<^D9<<][;D_Ya?<:;E:X9<D

9``D9[9;XDbcdefghigjCoD[B:XD]=`9`D[?a`];A9;EX]YYa;:X9<:];n:<^A8]X98X]VX]a;?D8

ED?:\;9<DE:;<^D9``8:X9<:];n:88X];?<:<a<D;]<:XD<]<^D`9[<_C

9<DEk 

 ToooloT



 

 ¡ ¢

£¢£

£¢£

£¢£

£¤ ¥¦

§ ̈©a«§ ̈¡ ¬

a­® ̄

°±23 ̈«­¬ ́±¬μ¬ μ£¶ ́¤· ̧ ̧ ̧®a ́a ̧

1 ̈ ́« ̧°o

»1⁄41⁄2 »·1⁄4·°

 3⁄4¦¥¢¬  £ ̄3⁄4¦¥¢¬ 

°°o ̧

¿¿ ̧

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1168 Filed 01/07/19 Page 1 of 1

January 7, 2019

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1171 Filed 01/07/19 Page 1 of 1
Cedric KING, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-3535

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed June 4, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 13 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

<DOC>
117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. J. RES. 13

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
   United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Equal Employment 
      Opportunity Commission relating to ``Update of Commission's 
                       Conciliation Procedures''.

    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 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission relating 
to ``Update of Commission's Conciliation Procedures'' (86 Fed. Reg. 
2974; published January 14, 2021), and such rule shall have no force or 
effect.

            Passed the Senate May 19, 2021.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
117th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                             S. J. RES. 13

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
   United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Equal Employment 
      Opportunity Commission relating to ``Update of Commission's 
                       Conciliation Procedures''.
```
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 Athena Silver Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John C. Power, Chief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting 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/ John C. Power________ John C. Power, Chief Financial Officer, Principal Accounting Officer August 16,  2010
---

EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Victory Eagle
Resources Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended October 31,
2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Kelly Dodge, the President, Secretary, Treasurer and Director
(Principal Executive Officer, Principal Financial Officer and Principal
Reporting 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; and

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

Dated: December 18, 2009

|Kelly Dodge                                                         | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|                                                                    | 
|/s/ Kelly Dodge                                                     | 
|(Principal Executive Officer, Principal Financial Officer
      and | 
|Principal Accounting Officer)                                       | 

---
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Nos.
333-38330, effective June 1, 2000, 333-42744, effective August 1, 2000,
333-51084, effective December 1, 2000 and 333-116227, effective on June 23,
2004) on Form S-3 and on Form S-8 (No. 333-42145, effective December 12, 1997 as
amended on June 24, 1998) of The A Consulting Team, Inc. and Subsidiaries of our
report dated February 15, 2006 relating to our audit of the consolidated
financial statements, and Schedule II, which appear in the Annual Report on Form
10-K of The A Consulting Team, Inc. and Subsidiaries for the year ended December
31, 2005.


/s/ Mercadien P.C., Certified Public Accountants
Hamilton, New Jersey
March 23, 2006
Luis LA-CASSE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D18-2528

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed February 6, 2019 Rehearing Denied February 27, 2019

Luis La-Casse, in proper person.

Ashley Brooke Moody, Attorney General, and Sandra Lipman, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

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

PER CURIAM.

In two previous decisions, this court found procedural deficiencies in the process leading up to the trial court's orders precluding Luis La-Casse from filing any further pro se pleadings in lower court case number F04-29879. *See**La-Casse v. State*, 255 So.3d 507 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) and *La-Casse v. State*, 223 So.3d 1129 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017). In each of those previous decisions, this court reversed and remanded, ultimately directing the trial court to consider La-Casse's responses to the order to show cause and thereafter to enter an appropriate order either permitting or precluding further pro se filings by La-Casse.

Upon remand, a successor trial judge was assigned to this cause. The successor judge conducted a thorough review of the record, including all of La-Casse's responses to the show cause order, and issued an order on November 8, 2018 (and a supplemental order on November 14, 2018) precluding further pro se filings.1

La-Casse has now filed a petition seeking this court's issuance of a writ of certiorari, asserting that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law in entering the November 8 and November 14 orders prohibiting La-Casse "from filing any petitions and/or motions, unless accompanied by a certificate of merit signed by a member in good standing of the Florida Bar." La-Casse further contends that the entry of these orders constitutes irreparable harm, resulting in a manifest injustice that must be corrected.

We treat La-Casse's petition as a direct appeal from the trial court's orders of November 8 and November 14, rather than a petition for writ of certiorari. Having reviewed the thoughtful and thorough orders of the trial court, as well as the record below, which amply support the trial court's determinations, we affirm.

1

The supplemental order was necessitated by La-Casse's filing of a supplemental response to the show cause order. La-Casse's supplemental response was docketed with the clerk on November 7, 2018, but the trial court was unaware of this pleading until after it entered its November 8, 2018 order. Once the trial court was made aware of this supplemental response, the trial court considered the merits of the supplemental response and thereafter entered its supplemental order on November 14, 2018.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-2540

PYLORD P. DOE, M.D.

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

DONNA E. SHALALA, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-95-

153-AMD)

Submitted: January 30, 1998 Decided: March 24, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Pylord P. Doe, Appellant Pro Se. Allen F. Loucks, OFFICE OF THE

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment to Donna Shalala, Secretary of the Department of Health and

Human Services, on his Title VII claims. The district court found

that Appellant cannot avail himself of Title VII's protections

because he was not a government employee or an applicant for

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

opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant Appellee's motion to strike exhibits attached to Appellant's brief to

the extent that they were not part of the record below, deny Appellant's motion not to strike, and affirm on the reasoning of the

district court. Doe v. Shalala, No. CA-95-153-AMD (D. Md. Aug. 27,

1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
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 BankFinancial Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, F. Morgan Gasior, Chairman of
the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President 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.



|                                                             |  |  |  |                    
|------------------------------------------------------------ |  |  |  | -------------------
|/s/    F. MORGAN GASIOR                                      |  |  |  | Dated: May 10, 2011
|F. Morgan Gasior                                             |  |  |  |                    
|Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President |  |  |  |                    

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





66
**EXHIBIT 31.2**
**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**
I, Timothy A. Marcotte, certify that:
     1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of VNUS Medical Technologies, 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 statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered 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 financial condition, resultsof operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;
     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:
     (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;
     (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, 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 financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.
     5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
     (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
     (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.         /s/ TIMOTHY A. MARCOTTE   Timothy A. Marcotte   Vice President and Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)   Date: March 31, 2005
Dominique Shaker GOODEN v. STATE

CR-16-1208

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

January 26, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Reh. denied.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 21, 2020

No. 04

- 20

- 00502

- CR

Kevin Arick Brice O'DELL, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 198th Judicial District Court

, Bandera County, Texas

Trial Court No. CR

- 20

- 010

Honorable M. Rex Emerson , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

On February 12, 2020, the trial court signed an order of deferred adjudication, pursuant to a plea bargain. On September 28, 2020, appellant filed with the trial court clerk a request for forms to appeal the order of deferred adjudication. A copy of appellant’s request for forms was filed with our court and docketed as a notice of appeal.

Appellant filed his request for forms well after the p rescribed time limit for perfecting an appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 26.1; see also R. 26.3 (providing for a fifteen

- day grace period). “[O]nce the period for granting a motion for exten sion of time under Rule [26.3] has passed, a party can no lo nger invok e the appellate court’ s jurisdiction. Verburgt v. Dorner , 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997) (construing the predecessor to Rule 26). Accordingly, appellant is ORDERED to show cause in writing within fourteen (14) days fro m the date of this order why

this a ppeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

In addition, t he trial court’s certification in this appeal states that this criminal case, “ is a plea

- bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” Rule 25.2(d) of the Texas Rules of App ellate Procedure provides, “The appeal must be dismissed if a certification that shows the defendant has a right of appeal has not been made part of the record under these rules.” T EX

. R.

A PP

. P . 25.2(d). It is therefore ORDERED that this appeal will be dismissed pursuant to R ule 25.2(d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure unless appellant causes an amended trial court

certification to be filed within thirty (30) days from the date of this order, showing appellant has the right of appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 25.2(d); 37.1; see also Dears v. State , 154 S.W.3d610 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); Daniels v. State ,110 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. Ap p.

— San Antonio 2003,

no pet.).

All other appellate deadlines are SUSPEND ED pending further order of this court.

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 21st day of October, 2020

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court