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

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 328 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 328

      Designating August 1, 2021, as ``Gold Star Children's Day''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 29, 2021

   Mr. Wicker (for himself and Mr. Manchin) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
      Designating August 1, 2021, as ``Gold Star Children's Day''.

Whereas the recognition of Gold Star Families in the United States dates back to 
        World War I, when the families of fallen service members displayed a 
        service flag in the window of their homes with a gold star;
Whereas, in 1936, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed into law legislation 
        declaring Gold Star Mother's Day, a national observance honoring the 
        mothers of fallen service members annually on the last Sunday of 
        September;
Whereas, since 2010, the Senate has honored Gold Star Spouses by resolution 
        annually on April 5, recognizing the unique sacrifices made by spouses 
        of fallen service members;
Whereas thousands of sons and daughters of military families have lost mothers 
        or fathers who served in the Armed Forces and also deserve national 
        recognition for the burden and legacy they carry; and
Whereas no date has existed to specifically recognize the children of fallen 
        service members of the United States as part of a national debt of 
        gratitude that the people of the United States owe to the service 
        members who sacrificed all in protecting the freedom of the United 
        States and the people of the United States: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) designates August 1, 2021, as ``Gold Star Children's 
        Day'';
            (2) honors the sacrifices and hardships of the children of 
        fallen service members; and
            (3) encourages the people of the United States to observe 
        Gold Star Children's Day in support of children of the fallen 
        men and women of the Armed Forces of the United States.
                                 <all>
```
Charles JONES, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D19-1045

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 17, 2019

Charles Jones, pro se, Petitioner.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.

The petition for belated appeal is denied.

Lewis, Wetherell, and Jay, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 31.2

                                  Certification
            Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

                  I, Edwin Winiarz, certify that:

         1. I have reviewed this Form 10-K of Intelli-Check, Inc.;

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

         3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual 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 am responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

                  (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or
caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant,
including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within
those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;

                  (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation;

                  (c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's
most fourth fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely
to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial
reporting; and

         5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's
board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

                  (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in
the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and

                  (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's
internal controls over financial reporting.

Date:    March 29, 2006

                                        /s/ Edwin Winiarz
                                        ---------------------------
                                        Name: Edwin Winiarz
                                        Title:   Chief Financial Officer
Stephen D. WHELAN, Appellant, v. CITY OF TREASURE ISLAND, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-3912

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed June 14, 2019.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, John M. Piecuch, as Chief Executive Officer of MMI Products, Inc. (the "Company") certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(1) the accompanying Form 10-K as amended by this Form 10-K/A report for the period ending January 3, 2004 as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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:  September 7, 2004 | By:  /s/ John M. Piecuch      
|------------------------- | ------------------------------
|                          | John M. Piecuch, President    
|                          | and Chief Executive Officer of
|                          | MMI Products, Inc.            
|                          |
EXHIBIT 9

REDACTED VERSION OF

DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 23-15 Filed 02/09/17 Page 1 of 1
1United States District Judge for the Western District of

Louisiana, sitting by designation.

2Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________________

No. 96-31149

________________________

DOUGLAS R. WHITTINGTON, SR., JEAN WHITTINGTON, TONI WHITTINGTON &

JUSTIN WHITTINGTON, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

OVERSEAS BULKTANK CORPORATION,

Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for

the Eastern District of Louisiana

(94-CV-3851)

_________________________________________________________________

March 26, 1998

Before JONES, SMITH, Circuit Judges, and SHAW, District Judge.1

PER CURIAM:2

Douglas R. Whittington, his wife, and their two children

appeal from the judgment in their action under the Longshoremen

Harbor Workers Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C. § 905(b), against the

Overseas Bulktank Corporation for injuries Douglas Whittington
2

sustained during the mooring of the M/V OVERSEAS ARCTIC at the

Murphy Oil Company Facility on the Mississippi River. The

Whittingtons contend that the district court’s factual findings are

clearly erroneous and that the district court applied the incorrect

legal standard to their case. 

We have reviewed the briefs and the pertinent portions of

the record, and we find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm for essentially the reasons relied upon by the district

court. See Whittington v. Overseas Bulk Tank, No. 94-CV-3851 (E.D.

La. June 18, 1996).

AFFIRMED.
Executive Order 14174

# Revocation of Certain Executive Orders

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:

**Section 1**                    .                     *Revocation.*                     The following Executive Orders are hereby revoked:                

(a) Executive Order 14042 of September 9, 2021 (Ensuring Adequate COVID Safety Protocols for Federal Contractors); and

(b) Executive Order 14043 of September 9, 2021 (Requiring Coronavirus Disease 2019 Vaccination for Federal Employees).

**Sec. 2**                    .                     *General Provisions.*                     (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:                

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

[FR Doc. 2025-02098

Billing code 3395-F4-P
Edwin L. DEMPS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D18-1095

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed April 24, 2019.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
# **Exhibit 32.1**

 

**SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Ronald G. Farrell, Chairman of the Boardand Chief Executive Officer of Tri-S Security Corporation (the “Company”), dohereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

 

1.                                       The Qurterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Companyfor the period ended June 30, 2005 (the “Periodic Report”) fully complieswith the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. §§78m or 78o(d)); and

 

2.                                       The information contained in the Periodic Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 
| Dated: August 10, 2005 |                    |
|-----------------------------|-------------------------|
|                        |                    |
|                        | /s/Ronald G. Farrell    |   |
|                        | Ronald G. Farrell,      |
|                        | Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
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 Victory Eagle Resources Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended April 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ludvik Rolin, 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: June 23, 2005



/s/ Ludvik Rolin		(Principal Executive Officer, Principal Financial Officer and
Principal Accounting Officer)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MILTON A MASS-ALVARADO,

 Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 13-73600

Agency No. A200-885-293

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted November 18, 2015** 

Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

Milton A Mass-Alvarado, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal

from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum,

withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture

FILED

NOV 25 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial

evidence the agency’s factual findings, Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1018 (9th

Cir. 2006), and we deny the petition for review.

Mass-Alvarado’s opening brief refers to eligibility for asylum, but he does

not challenge the BIA’s conclusion that his asylum application was untimely, and

that he failed to establish changed or extraordinary circumstances to excuse the

delay. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Issues

raised in a brief that are not supported by argument are deemed abandoned.”).

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that the 2001 incident

did not rise to the level of persecution. See Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179,

1182 (9th Cir. 2003). Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s finding that

Mass-Alvarado failed to establish it is more likely than not he will be persecuted

on account of his political opinion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir.

2000) (fear undermined by continued presence of applicant without further harm);

Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (possibility of future

persecution “too speculative”). Thus, Mass-Alvarado’s withholding of removal

claim fails.

Further, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of Mass-Alvarado’s

CAT claim because he failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be

2 13-73600
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to

Honduras. See Alphonsus v. Holder, 705 F.3d 1031, 1049-50 (9th Cir. 2013). We

reject his contentions that the BIA did not sufficiently consider his CAT claim and

did not explain its reasons for denying it. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983,

990 (9th Cir. 2010).

In reaching these conclusions, we do not consider the 2013 country

conditions referenced in Mass-Alvarado’s opening brief. See Fisher v. INS, 79

F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (the court’s review is limited to the

administrative record).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

3 13-73600
**Exhibit 32.2**CERTIFICATION     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned officer of Novelis Inc. (the“Company”), hereby certifies that the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for theperiod ended March 31, 2005 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,and that 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, 2006/s/Geoffrey P. Batt
Ismael SANCHEZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D18-2596

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed March 20, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           3,061
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,429
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,985
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 8,345
<PP&E>                                          23,997
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,583
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  66,908
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           34,365
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        41,710
<OTHER-SE>                                     (20,095)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    66,908
<SALES>                                         61,656
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                61,656
<CGS>                                           75,544
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   75,544
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    21
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,526
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (15,393)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       944
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (16,337)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (18,215)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (1.68)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (1.68)


</TABLE>
BOCA STEL 2, LLC, Appellant, v. FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION; Cedar Creek Master Association, Inc.; Citibank, N.A.; and Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, Appellees.

Case No. 2D17-2198

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 24, 2019

Mark P. Stopa of Stopa Law firm, Tampa (withdrew after briefing); Richard J. Mockler, III of Stay In My Home, P.A., St. Petersburg; and Angela L. Leiner of The Law Office of Angela L. Leiner, P.A., St. Petersburg, for Appellant.

Victor Petrescu, Stephanie Reed Traband, and Jeffrey C. Schneider of Levine Kellogg Lehman Schneider & Grossman LLP, Miami, for Appellee Federal National Mortgage Association.

No appearance for remaining Appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

LaROSE, C.J., and MORRIS and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.
Paul JEREMIE, Appellant, v. FAMILY DOLLAR STORES OF FLORIDA, INC., Appellee.

No. 3D18-2136

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed May 15, 2019.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
STATE of Louisiana v. Raymond M. CLAY

NO. 2018-K-1028

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 28, 2019

*308Denied.

GUIDRY, J., would grant.

CRICHTON, J., would grant.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

KELLY DUTTON,

Petitioner

v.

TENILLE TIMBERS,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 429 EAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 6th day of February, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
**EXHIBIT 23**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consentto the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-136821 on Form S-8 pertaining to the Syntel, Inc. Amended and Restated Stock Option and Incentive Plan, Syntel Inc., Amended and Restated Employee Stock Purchase Plan andRegistration Statement No. 333-162060 on Form S-3A pertaining to Syntel, Inc. of our report dated March 10, 2010 with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Syntel, Inc. and subsidiaries and the effectiveness of internalcontrol over financial reporting, which report is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for Syntel, Inc. and subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 2009. 

/s/    Crowe Horwath LLP 

Oak Brook, Illinois 

March 10, 2010
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 22-11102

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Adam Contreras, 

Defendant—Appellant.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:22-CR-43-1

______________________________

Before Wiener, Stewart, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Adam Contreras pleaded guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, 

to possessing with the intent to distribute a controlled substance. The district 

court sentenced him to 240 months of imprisonment and three years of 

supervised release. On appeal, Contreras argues that the district court 

committed plain error by not allowing him the opportunity to allocute at 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 18, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-11102 Document: 108-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/18/2024
No. 22-11102

2

sentencing, in violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 

32(i)(4)(A)(ii). Though Contreras’s plea agreement contains an appellate 

waiver, he argues that this court should not enforce the appeal waiver under 

a miscarriage-of-justice exception.

Whether an appeal waiver bars an appeal is a question we review de 

novo. United States v. Keele, 755 F.3d 752, 754 (5th Cir. 2014). Although 

some other circuits have recognized the possibility of a miscarriage-of-justice 

exception to appeal waivers, “we have declined explicitly either to adopt or 

to reject it.” United States v. Barnes, 953 F.3d 383, 389 (5th Cir. 2020). 

Nevertheless, Contreras has failed to explain the scope of a potential 

miscarriage-of-justice exception or why it should apply to his unpreserved 

allocution challenge. See id. Accordingly, Contreras’s appeal waiver bars 

this appeal. See United States v. Story, 439 F.3d 226, 230-31 & n.5 (5th Cir. 

2006).

APPEAL DISMISSED.

Case: 22-11102 Document: 108-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/18/2024