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

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 573 

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

et al. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 31, 2022 

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

resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

To authorize testimony and representation in United States 

v. Robertson, et al. 

Whereas, in the case of United States v. Robertson, et al., Cr. 

No. 21-34, pending in the United States District Court 

for the District of Columbia, the prosecution has requested the production of testimony from Daniel 

Schwager, a former employee of the Office of the Secretary of the Senate, and from Nate Russell and Diego 

Torres, custodians of records in the Senate Recording 

Studio, a department of the Office of the Sergeant at 

Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate; 

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 officers and employees of the 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

SRES 573 ATS 

Senate with respect to any subpoena, order, or request 

for evidence relating to their official responsibilities; 

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 Daniel Schwager, a former employee 

2 of the Office of the Secretary of the Senate, and Nate Rus3 sell and Diego Torres, custodians of records in the Senate 

4 Recording Studio, are authorized to provide relevant testi5 mony in the case of United States v. Robertson, et al., ex6 cept concerning matters for which a privilege should be 

7 asserted. 

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

9 represent Messrs. Schwager, Russell, and Torres, and any 

10 current or former officer or employee of their offices, in 

11 connection with the production of evidence authorized in 

12 section one of this resolution. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
A.M., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEPT. OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-4945

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 05, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Appeal is dismissed.
Diana WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. Marc LAKIN, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-1724

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed June 18, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Zeth TRAWICK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-499

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed June 18, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
The, SWHt oflefos § SN TtiF F^STCoukj-0£Appals

Jeffrey S+efe*/ m/lX § t-ause #*; oJ-W-ao)oq-W 3 TRm) Cou#± Cause m>< yyqj

tKOhou- t> AB/frF The. Appeal QMj „tie*

HdOo toMes/ 3ef£Aey SjeVe*/ MM Tb&S-TD no,*?)U13, as

MvzMt wd Would Piequcs-h flB&teMeflH- aM he/fa*ki Back -ho

PRoccdufa ffl<h3d.ZlL$3(*)0~*)* **d mom 5/iM+he

Pef/V/V/ve^ hos sf&teA //i/ hi£ Appeal hheAe uoas A/a Jft£)<g0Aj;

eWo hearty held oH his Sj-Q+emet)^ )N CQUSe Not *7fy3 a/i/J

he S7/)T£ OF Tetos has A/of ShouoN atiy AlpURevf- Q/od

-c&tfJ/Vfc -h SocHsoa/ V. DeNNQ atoA fl(H- 38-22 Pe+*V/oA/e/l /s

'ti-Mcd-te SUth c\. hea/Vty *ri to 5Wh he<rfty has b&/i/

wduc+eJj //i/ abuse No; 11Z3 ^ P&ti/MfcA is e/fefej }€>

%UCh A heakitoq beMc his siptiemenif tw be us^

\§4in£+hi/fi }H 0. cotiRj- 6% Law t*C<P°®f\f. 12>2X§L*

~h
n

SMtA'. «Z+ »ms cmluJet Hm- we 5h>a0 lately ahai* iu* ftppul ad OH* ^ \uA^ *Z^T^J/

OeNNO he*A**3 «a/<J $U))M,f his -P//id>>9s o-P £acf />/iri CONc\\tSb/t$ o$ kt>L\A +0 +h# Com?*

A/ouj ~hh,S f/baHM*rth <*n& eMefi i* Conduct- Such <\ heaR?^

t^C* p&hMoriejl by $>V}ty h?n his ^onSH/M^o^) QNd Si/94Uf-oAy R'shh

-k> $i40h ct heating 2<) Wfitild give the FitfrCjMM- e£ fypeq)$

/?// pht fttete W wo«/d S<AVe #>^ -/-//»?e £/\d P>eSouQ.£eS cxvd twlfjd

<XNSk>e/L -hh<L<jUeSh'3A/ o$ VduhfrWNeSS of ^ SifijeM^* Thus tfvfy

nx

UhiM M ££M to IBM QmkL

0% 4hc +Atal CouR+ oMte «W Qoil all if $fatihe\ Wot /-P

Sti^emrit w&S VoluNj-alty oooujd e/vj( -hh(L &/>}**! 8di~ if- /V-

\#b& p>coqf tfiiVoluNtflAy Mould -&us Be, fieMa^ed &>R AW

Pfticil Ooifhou-f- +he S+fHweiHr*

~Thus /ecu/Sty Q/i Co/yshiu-hi^l awd S+ft+lftoRy Qjtffe )NHW.

~Thi£ hsMRable Coc\tih booulk txW$ti- ^m SUCh ^ he*tiu$ Loh>dh

5Mel We bee/V he/A iN ±he~ he.^wty o-P Phis CQ££ buf- loUS friof */»c) p&h4ie>A/eA 00a£> j/fy/lied +o %&i\d\ a hzaRitiq k^e^

-2-
MliKNe/'s d-d hie. &£ Such Cl W/#5 but; // ^<xS VeyeJt do/Ve; So pet-l+hticR, should a/0ou he em-iHeA -h SUch IX he^'%

A>ow i-o heMMrie j'f SM+e/He/fj- was Vdu/v+cfy/ ^J ^veM H!<ih+ ic

•jAcJ&w/fimio hUhfi5i -hhus if suck £//9*>Ate4/fi he Jeered

iNYtlkfftmy A/eu) i-A'Al defied M-f-hotih the. S^MeHnWh

LOhe/te-bA-., bkk PftoM',£es CovstieR^, P&m.'mcA PAays -thaJ-

.vcompUMce- ui-fh the, Co%^ oP M/yiMtrlPPoc&luRe AjyL&az 5J* wA oikteK T<*h& ik> Md a h&yz,^ cu/d Matt f/^s of

Relief hetf in pftzyej #>* »V iht &RM op AEfH&afr

$Weekly SVbmd

BShlle Uto)+

AM? Yil)ey f€MT7330

-3-
ibt The FimcodXt- oQA/peate

561 FMMa/ stAe-eh

%£! Cause M ohH-#>w-®l- °CT %*m

nn CHR,STOPf^P^

Ml W'foe X ux>m<k Aeyuefr M*+ you BK#$ +his

fo*K6N -fo m'Aeb&ux Huddle &R heU CeA/sMefah'oA/

foA }£ She Ri\k$ on />, 1-hMocy chwqe, hhe. ck&H o£ hhe

DocHe-h Sheeh <W We P Bac-X aM Save +he CoaRJhiMt W PesoaK&zs /£' She 9o Chooses he $R<vm- s/Ad\

f] fvio+lofi) hd^MdSp So pjeaft Bfa3 hh'5 io heU ftfteMif)

&S Soon as R<x$sMe,«

"X 4mtik pay, iaJc^Vmic^ Po£ poliR OSSspR-AlCe*

ftyelle. UN/+-
TDC#

NAME.

i~\\[f)\ji'Xb

ESTELLE USSSIT

264 FM 3478

JHJUWTSVILLE, TX 7732©

RECEIVED

FIRST COURT OF 

HOUSTON, TE

OCT 2 7 2

CHRISTOPHER A

CLERK

_''Jj
Exhibit 32(a)



                             TXU US Holdings Company
                       Certificate Pursuant to Section 906
                         of Sarbanes - Oxley Act of 2002
                              CERTIFICATION OF CEO


         The undersigned, Erle Nye, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive of
TXU US Holdings Company (the "Company"), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that:

1.       The Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
         September 30, 2003 (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.       Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
         respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the
         Company.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this instrument to be
executed this 12th day of November, 2003.




                                                   /s/ Erle Nye
                                         ------------------------------------
                                         Name:  Erle Nye
                                         Title: Chairman of the Board and Chief
                                                Executive



A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 has been provided to TXU US Holdings Company and will be
retained by TXU US Holdings Company and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C.  20549

 

Form 10-Q

 

(MarkOne)

[X]   QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TOSECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

 

For the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011

 

or

 

[]   TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THESECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

 

 

For the transition period from _________to _________

 

Commission file number 0-11864

 

 

NATIONAL PROPERTY INVESTORS6 

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

 

 

 

55 Beattie Place, PO Box 1089

Greenville, South Carolina  29602

(Address of principal executive offices)

 

(864) 239-1000

(Registrant's telephone number, including area code)

 

Indicateby check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to befiled by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during thepreceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was requiredto file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements forthe past 90 days.  

[X]Yes  [ ] No

 

Indicateby check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted onits corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to besubmitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (232.405 of thischapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that theregistrant was required to submit and post such files). [ ] Yes  [ ] No

 

Indicateby check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, anaccelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reportingcompany.  See the definitions of “large accelerated filer”, “acceleratedfiler” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

 

 

Indicateby check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule12b-2 of the Exchange Act). [ ] Yes  [X] No
##### 



QUEST ENERGY PARTNERS, L.P.
ANNUAL CERTIFICATION
 I, David Grose, certify that:1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Quest Energy Partners, L.P.;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 report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the registrant 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 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)
    
    [intentionally omitted pursuant to SEC Release No. 34-47986];c)
    
    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; andd)
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
(the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
 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; andb)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
  By:
    
    /s/ David E. GroseDavid E. GroseChief Financial Officer
Oui SAYTHANOM, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-3291

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 17, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
#### Alfred SHINARD-BEY, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Joseph P. SACCHET, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 04-6344.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 29, 2004.

Decided May 6, 2004.

Alfred Shinard-Bey, Appellant pro se. Mary Ann Rapp Ince, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM.

Alfred Shinard-Bey seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely filed his petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional- right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Shinard-Bey has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED*
Francisco VENTURA, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D18-2411

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed April 17, 2019. Rehearing Denied May 9, 2019

Francisco Ventura, in proper person.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, LOGUE, and MILLER, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

*1068The trial court's order denying Appellant's motion to dismiss on the basis of Stand-Your-Ground immunity, which was entered after an evidentiary hearing, is affirmed. The appeals of the orders denying the motion to dismiss for violations of *Brady v. Maryland*, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), the motion to protect all of the accused's constitutional rights, and the motion to identify subject matter jurisdiction are dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Affirmed.
**Exhibit      32.2**

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

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|   | 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                Registrant. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                    |                                                               |                                   |
|-----------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|
|                               |                                                          |                              |
| Date:              April 16, 2007  | By:                                                      | /s/ Michel              St-Pierre |
|                                    | Name: Michel              St-Pierre                           |
|                                    | Title:    Chief              Financial Officer |
Billy DAVIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-4828

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed July 3, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

May 28, 2013

p0520 

# Order

Clerk May 28, 2013

146673

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 146673

COA: 313595

Saginaw CC: 11

- 036598

- FC

JOSEPH JEQUAN

- ANTON GONZALES,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 2, 2013 order

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
EXHIBIT 19

REDACTED VERSION OF

DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 23-35 Filed 02/09/17 Page 1 of 1
##### 



Exhibit 12
 RSC Holdings III, LLC & Subsidiaries
 
  Years Ended December 31,2007
    
    2006
    
    2005
    
    2004
    
    2003Ratio of earnings to fixed charges
    
    
    1.8x
    
    
    
    2.1x
    
    
    
    2.4x
    
    
    
    2.9x
    
    
    
    1.6xRatio of earnings to fixed charges and preferred dividends
    
    
    1.8x
    
    
    
    2.0x
    
    
    
    2.0x
    
    
    
    2.2x
    
    
    
    1.5x
EXHIBIT 11


                                   EXHIBIT XI
                            U.S.B. HOLDING CO., INC.
                    COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE

                   THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 2002 AND 2001


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                        2002             2001
                                                                   ---------------------------------
                                                                       (000's, except share data)
NUMERATOR:
<S>                                                                <C>               <C>
  Net income for basic and diluted earnings per common share
   -- net income available to common stockholders                  $     6,009       $     5,071

DENOMINATOR:
  Denominator for basic earnings per common share -
    weighted average shares                                         18,351,870        18,204,449
  Effects of dilutive securities:
    Director and employee stock options                                516,495           445,767
    Restricted stock not vested                                             --             2,971
                                                                   -----------       -----------
 Total effects of dilutive securities                                  516,495           448,738
                                                                   -----------       -----------
 Denominator for diluted earnings per common share -
   adjusted weighted average shares                                 18,868,365        18,653,187
                                                                   ===========       ===========

Basic earnings per common share                                    $      0.33       $      0.28
                                                                   ===========       ===========
Diluted earnings per common share                                  $      0.32       $      0.27
                                                                   ===========       ===========

</TABLE>
1 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief J udge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 09-2370

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Northern District of Iowa. David Lee Koebele, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: March 3, 2010 Filed: March 5, 2010

___________ Before BYE, RILEY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. In this direct criminal appeal, David Koebele challenges the sentence the district court 1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to an attempted sex offense, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). Counsel has moved to w ithdraw, and has file d a brief under Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the district court committed plain error in imposing an excessive term of supervised release.-2- We hold that the district court did not commit plain error in sentencing Koebele to a 25-year term of supervis ed release, which is well within the statutory limit of life. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(k); United States v. Ristine , 335 F.3d 692, 694 (when defendant fails to raise timely objection to term of supe rvised release, review is for plain error). Further, having reviewed the recordindependently unde r Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment and we grant counsel leave to withdraw.

______________________________