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

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 40 

Establishing procedures for access to the galleries of the Senate Chamber 

during impeachment proceedings against Donald John Trump, former 

President of the United States. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 8, 2021 

Mr. SCHUMER submitted the following resolution; which was considered and 

agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Establishing procedures for access to the galleries of the 

Senate Chamber during impeachment proceedings 

against Donald John Trump, former President of the 

United States. 

1 Resolved, 

2 SECTION 1. ACCESS TO GALLERIES OF THE SENATE CHAM3 BER. 

4 During the impeachment proceedings against Donald 

5 John Trump, former President of the United States, the 

6 following procedures relating to access to the galleries of 

7 the Senate Chamber shall apply: 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 40 ATS 

1 (1) PRESS GALLERIES.—The press galleries of 

2 the Senate Chamber shall remain open and available 

3 for members of the press under established proce4 dures. 

5 (2) OTHER GALLERIES.—Access to all galleries 

6 of the Senate Chamber not described in paragraph 

7 (1) shall be available only to Senators and Members 

8 of the House of Representatives. 

9 SEC. 2. ENFORCEMENT BY THE SERGEANT AT ARMS. 

10 The Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate 

11 shall enforce this resolution and take such other actions 

12 as necessary to fulfill the responsibilities of the Sergeant 

13 at Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate under this resolu14 tion. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT - 1

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

SCOTT J. SAGARIA (SBN 217981)

sjsagaria@sagarialaw.com

ELLIOT W. GALE (SBN 263326)

egale@sagarialaw.com

JOE ANGELO (SBN 268542)

jangelo@sagarialaw.com

SAGARIA LAW, P.C.

3017 Douglas Blvd., Ste. 100

Roseville, CA 95661

408-279-2288 ph: 408-279-2299 fax

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Julie Greenhow

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – OAKLAND DIVISION

JULIE GREENHOW,

Plaintiff,

v.

EQUIFAX, INC.; et. al.,

 

 Defendants.

Case No.: 4:17-CV-00417-JSW

NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT WITH 

DEFENDANT EQUIFAX, INC.

TO THE COURT, CLERK OF COURT, AND ALL PARTIES:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT plaintiff Julie Greenhow and defendant Equifax, Inc., 

by and through their respective counsel of record, have reached a settlement in principle of the 

above captioned case and are in the process of documenting said settlement. The parties believe 

the settlement should be finalized within 45 and a dismissal shall be filed. 

Sagaria Law, P.C.

Dated: July 20, 2017 /s/ Elliot Gale 

Elliot Gale

 Attorneys for Plaintiff

Case 4:17-cv-00417-JSW Document 43 Filed 07/20/17 Page 1 of 1
EX PARTE Charles GRAHAM

CR-17-0063

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

January 16, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. dismissed.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-4898

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. JUAN NUNEZ-TISCARENO, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (5:07-cr-00002-RLV) Submitted: June 30, 2008 Decided: August 6, 2008 Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Claire J. Rauscher, Raquel Wilson, FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA, INC., Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Gretchen C. F. Shappert, United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina; Amy E. Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.* Under § 1326(a), an alien who illegally returns to the United States after being removed may be imprisoned for up to two years. 8 U.S.C. § 1 326(a). H owever, § 1326(b)(2) provides that, if the alien’s removal was subsequent to an aggravated felony, he faces a maximum prison term of twenty years. 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2). -2- PER CURIAM: Juan Nunez-Tiscareno pled guilty to illegal reentry subsequent to a conviction for an aggravated felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a),(b) (2000), and was sentenced to seventy-one months’ imprisonment. He appeals, claiming that his sentence was increased based on a prior conviction not alleged in the indictment and, therefore, was unconstitutional. *We affirm.At sentencing, the district court increased NunezTiscareno’s base offense level of 8 by 16 levels because a prior state court conviction for trafficking in cocaine constituted an aggravated felony within the meaning of U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(I) (2006). After a three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility, Nunez-Tiscareno’s total offense level was determined to be 21. With a criminal history category of IV, the resulting guidelines range was 57-71 months imprisonment; the district court imposed a sentence at the top of the range. Nunez-Tiscareno asserts that the district court’s factual finding with respect to his prior conviction violates the rule announced in Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000). NunezTiscareno’s argument is foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 233-36, 243-44-3- (1998), which specifically held that, for purposes of § 1326, prior convictions need not be determined by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Additionally, this court has reaffirmed the continuing validity of Almendarez-Torres after Apprendi and its progeny. See United States v. Cheek , 415 F.3d 349, 351-54 (4th Cir. 2005). We therefore conclude that Nunez-Tiscareno’s claim is without merit and affirm his sentence. 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 32.2

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Carbiz Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended July 31, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Stanton
C. Heintz, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

| | (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/
      Stanton C. Heintz                 
| | --------------------------------------------
| | Stanton C. Heintz                           
| | Chief Financial Officer                     
| | (principal financial and accounting officer)
| | September 14, 2007                          

---
Exhibit 31.2

              CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION

I, Stephen Cartisano, certify that:

1.     I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Elite Artz,
Inc.;

2.     Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any
untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary
to make the statement made, in light of the circumstances under which
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by
this quarterly report;

3.     Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects
the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small
business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report.

4.     The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) 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
small business issuer and 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 small business issuer,
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 small business issuer'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 small business issuer's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small
business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business
issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and

5.     The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit
committee of small business issuer'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 small business issuer'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 small business issuer's
internal control over financial reporting.



                               /s/ Stephen Cartisano
Date: August 8, 2005          ___________________________________________
                              Stephen Cartisano, Chief Financial Officer
Gervase JOHNSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D17-618

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed April 24, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 18-0667

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

NATASHA LOPEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including October 26, 2020, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 11 2020

08/11/2020

Case Number: DA 18-0667
ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP


                REPORT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

To the Stockholders of
Homeside Lending, Inc.:

We have examined management's assertion about HOMESIDE LENDING,  INC. (a Florida
corporation)  AND  SUBSIDIARIES'  compliance with  the  minimum   servicing
standards identified Mortgage Bankers Association of AMERICA'S UNIFORM
SINGLE ATTESTATION PROGRAM FOR MORTGAGE BANKERS (USAP) and that the Company
had in effect a fidality bond and errors and omissions policy in the amount
of $76 million and $20 million, respectively,  as of February 10, 1998 and for
the period from March 1, 1997 to February 10, 1998, included in the accompanying
management  assertion  letter.  Management is responsible for the Company's
compliance with those minimum servicing standards and for maintaining a fidelity
bond and errors and  omissions  policy.  Our  responsibility is to  express  an
opinion on  management's  assertion based on our  examination.

Our examination was made in accordance  with standards  established  by the
American  Institute of Certified Public Accountants and,  accordingly,  included
examining, on a test basis,  evidence about the Company's  compliance with the
minimum servicing standards and  performing  such other procedures  as we
considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our examination
provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.  Our examination does not provide a
legal  determination on the Company's  compliance with the minimum servicing
standards.

In  our  opinion,   management's  assertion  that  HomeSide  Lending,  Inc.  and
subsidiaries  complied with the aforementioned  minimum servicing  standards and
that Company had in effect a fidelity  bond and errors and  omissions  policy in
the amount of $76 million and $20  million,  respectively,  as of February  10,
1998 and for the  period  from  March 1,  1997 to  February  10,  1998 is fairly
stated, in all material respects.


/s/Arthur Anderson LLP
Jacksonville, Florida
April 15, 1995
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to the requirement set forth in 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Corporate Fraud Accountability Act of 2002, Edward M. Jamison and Cathy Robinson each hereby certify as follows:



| | 1. | They are the duly appointed Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, respectively, of Community Bancorp, a Nevada Corporation (the Company).
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Based on their knowledge, the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2006, and to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1
(the Periodic Report), fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have set their hands
hereto as of this 9thday of November, 2006.



/S/  EDWARD M. JAMISONEdward M. JamisonPresident and Chief Executive Officer/S/  CATHY ROBINSONCathy RobinsonExecutive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OAKLAND BULK & OVERSIZED 

TERMINAL, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF OAKLAND,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-07014-VC 

ORDER DENYING CROSS-MOTIONS 

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE 

BREACH OF CONTRACT CLAIM

Re: Dkt. Nos. 135, 145, 156

For the reasons stated at the hearing, the cross-motions for summary judgment on the 

breach of contract claim are denied. The cross-motions for summary judgment on the 

constitutional and federal preemption claims remain under submission and will be decided, if 

necessary, after the breach of contract claim is adjudicated.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 12, 2018

______________________________________

VINCE CHHABRIA

United States District Judge
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 24.6

Power of Attorney of Gerald Tellefsen



STATE OF GEORGIA

COUNTY OF COBB


                                POWER OF ATTORNEY
                                -----------------


KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that I, Gerald Tellefsen, Director of
     EDUTREK INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Georgia corporation, do constitute and
     appoint Steve Bostic and Donald J. Blankers jointly and severally, my
     true and lawful attorneys-in-fact, each with full power of substitution
     and resubstitution, for me in any and all capacities, to sign the
     Annual Report on Form 10-K for EDUTREK INTERNATIONAL, INC. for the
     fiscal year ended May 31, 1998, pursuant to the requirements of the
     Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and to file such document with the
     Securities and Exchange Commission, together with all exhibits thereto
     and other documents in connection therewith, and to sign on my behalf
     and in my stead, in any and all capacities, any amendments to said
     Annual Report, incorporating such changes as any of the said
     attorneys-in-fact deems appropriate, hereby ratifying and confirming
     all that each of said attorneys-in-fact, or his substitute or
     substitutes, may do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

   IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 26th day of 
August 1998.


                                       /s/   Gerald Tellefsen
                                       ----------------------
                                      Gerald Tellefsen




                                 ACKNOWLEDGMENT
                                 --------------

BEFORE   me this 26th day of August 1998, came Gerald Tellefsen, personally
         known to me, who in my presence did sign and seal the above and
         foregoing Power of Attorney and acknowledged the same as his true act
         and deed.


                                       /s/   Cynthia Gardere
                                       ---------------------
                                       NOTARY PUBLIC


                                       State of Georgia
                                                -------

                                       My Commission Expires:

                                       September 11, 1999
                                       ------------------
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                           SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY

          Name of Subsidiary                Jurisdiction of Organization
          ------------------                ----------------------------

  Mercator Software Australia Pty Ltd                Australia
  Mercator Software France, s.a.r.l.                   France
      Mercator International GmbH                     Germany
       Mercator Software PTE Ltd                     Hong Kong
          Mercator Japan K.K.                          Japan
       MCTR Software B.V. (i.o.)                    Netherlands
       Mercator Software PTE Ltd                     Singapore
         Mercator Software SL                          Spain
           MCTR Software AB                            Sweden
        Mercator Software GmbH                      Switzerland
       Mercator Software Limited                        U.K.
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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID CHAD GLOW,

Plaintiff,

 v.

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO. et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C-05-1933 MMC

ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT TO

LODGE CHAMBERS COPIES IN

COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL

ORDER 45 AND THE COURT’S

STANDING ORDERS

On June 1, 2005, defendant Union Pacific Railroad Company (“Union Pacific”)

electronically filed its answer to plaintiff’s complaint. Defendant has violated General Order

45 and the Court’s standing orders, however, by failing to deliver to the Clerk’s Office “no

later than noon on the business day following the day that the papers are filed

electronically, one paper copy of each document that is filed electronically . . . marked

‘Chambers Copy’ and . . . clearly marked with the judge’s name, case number, and

‘Chambers Copy-Do Not File.’” See General Order 45 § VII.G; see also Standing Orders

For Civil Cases Assigned to The Honorable Maxine M. Chesney ¶ 2.

Defendant Union Pacific is hereby ORDERED to comply with General Order 45 and

the Court’s standing orders by immediately submitting a chambers copy of the abovereferenced document. The parties are hereby advised that if either party fails in the future

to comply with the Court’s order to provide chambers copies of electronically-filed

Case 3:05-cv-01933-MMC Document 5 Filed 06/08/05 Page 1 of 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

2

documents, the Court may impose sanctions on the noncomplying party, including, but not

limited to, striking from the record any electronically-filed document of which a chambers

copy has not been timely provided to the Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 8, 2005 

/s/ Maxine M. Chesney 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-01933-MMC Document 5 Filed 06/08/05 Page 2 of 2
FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNIT E D ST AT E S CO URT O F APPE AL S FO R T H E NINT H CIRCUIT
E L IZ AB E T H AIDA H ASKE L L ; RE G INAL D E NT O ; JE FFRE Y PAT RICK L Y O NS, Jr .; AAK ASH DE SAI, on be half of the m se l ve s and othe r s sim ilar ly situate d, Plaintiffs - Appe lla nts,
v. K AM AL A D. H ARRIS, Attor ne y G e ne r al; E V A ST E INB E R G E R, Assistant B ur e au Chie f for DNA Pr ogr am s, Califor nia De par tm e nt of Justic e , De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 10-15152 D.C . No. 3:09-c v-04779-C RB

O R DE R

K O Z I NSKI , C hie f Judge : In light of M a

ry la n d v. King, 569 U.S. ___ , No. 12-207 (June 3, 2013) a

nd the p artie s’ supple m e nta l brie fs, this c a se will be re -argue d be fore the e n ba nc c ourt during the

we e k of De c e m

be r 9, 2013, in Sa

n Franc isc o , C a lifornia . The date
and tim e will be de te rm ine d by se pa ra te orde r. For furthe r inform ation or spe c ia l



# FIL ED AUG 14 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALSpa ge 2

re que s ts re ga

rding sc he duling, ple a se c onta c t De puty C le rk Pa ul Ke lle r at pa ul_ke l le r@c a 9.usc ourts.gov or (415) 355-8026. The c ourt gra

nts le ave pursua

nt to Fe d. R . App. P. 29(a ) to a ny am ic u s wishing to file a

brie f be aring on theissue s to be re -argue d, so long a s it is file d no late r tha n Oc tobe r 28, 2013, a

nd doe s not e x c e e d

2,500 words.
Case 5:17-cv-00291-NC Document 2 Filed 01/20/17 Page 1 of 1