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

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2416

To amend title 38, United States Code, to eliminate reductions of basic 

pay for eligibility for basic educational assistance for veterans under 

the Montgomery GI Bill. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 17, 2005

Mr. SNYDER (for himself and Mr. BOOZMAN) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently 

determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL

To amend title 38, United States Code, to eliminate reductions of basic pay for eligibility for basic educational 

assistance for veterans under the Montgomery GI Bill.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Fairness in Veterans 

5 Education Act of 2005’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF REDUCTIONS OF BASIC PAY. 

7 (a) REPEALS.—Sections 3011(b) and 3012(c) of title 

8 38, United States Code, are each amended by adding at 
2

•HR 2416 IH 

1 the end the following new sentence: ‘‘This subsection shall 

2 cease to have effect beginning on the first day of the first 

3 month that begins after the date of the enactment of the 

4 Fairness in Veterans Education Act of 2005.’’. 

5 (b) TERMINATION OF REDUCTIONS IN PROGRESS.—

6 Any reduction in the basic pay of an individual referred 

7 to in section 3011(b) of title 38, United States Code, by 

8 reason of such section 3011(b), or of any individual re9 ferred to in section 3012(c) of such title by reason of such 

10 section 3012(c), as of the date of the enactment of this 

11 Act shall cease commencing with the first month begin12 ning after such date, and any obligation of such individual 

13 under such section 3011(b) or 3012(c), as the case may 

14 be, as of the day before such date shall be deemed to be 

15 fully satisfied as of such date. 

16 (c) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 3034(e)(1) 

17 of title 38, United States Code, is amended in the second 

18 sentence by striking ‘‘as soon as practicable’’ and all that 

19 follows through ‘‘such additional times’’ and inserting ‘‘at 

20 such times’’.

Æ
#### HURLEY, Respondent, v. HODGES, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

March 27, 1912.)

Action by Isaac Hurley against Isaac K. Hodges.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment and order reversed, and new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide event. Held, that the finding of the jury that the defendant agreed to pay $25 per acre as commission for the sale of his farm is contrary to and against the weight of the evidence.

FOOTE, J., not sitting.
Exhibit 32.1




CERTIFICATION OF CEO 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 Annual Report of Green Energy Management Services Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael Samuel, as Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 to the best of my knowledge, 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/Michael Samuel


Michael Samuel


Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer





March 31, 2011




This Certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
Exhibit
      32





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


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





Pursuant
      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63
      of
      Title 18 of the United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of
      Commerce Bancorp, Inc. (the “ Company ”) ,
      does
      hereby certify with respect to the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form
      10-Q
      for the period ended June 30, 2005 (the “ Report ” )
      that:




1.
              The
                  Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
                  15(d) of
                  the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
              The
                  information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
                  respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the
                  Company.


Date:
                August 5, 2005
            /s/
                Vernon W. Hill, IIVernon
                W. Hill, IIChief
                Executive OfficerDate:
                August 5, 2005
            /s/
                Douglas J. PaulsDouglas
                J. PaulsChief
                Financial Officer




The
      foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of
      the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United
      States Code) and is not being filed as a separate disclosure
      document.
#### WARREN, Appellant, v. SIEGEL COOPER CO., Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

March 29, 1912.)

Action by Joseph Warren against the Siegel Cooper Company. L. Hicks, for appellant. T. H. Lord, for respondent. No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. Order filed.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2198 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2198

   To suspend temporarily the duty on fixed ratio speed changers for 
                     truck-mounted concrete mixers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 5, 2005

    Mr. Petri (for himself, Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin, and Mr. Green of 
  Wisconsin) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To suspend temporarily the duty on fixed ratio speed changers for 
                     truck-mounted concrete mixers.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. FIXED RATIO SPEED CHANGERS.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.84.01      Fixed ratio speed   Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         changers for                                                       31/2008
                         truck-mounted
                         concrete mixer
                         drums (provided
                         for in subheading
                         8483.40.50)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 235 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to protect the religious free 

exercise and free speech rights of churches and other houses of worship. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 4, 2005 

Mr. JONES of North Carolina introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to protect 

the religious free exercise and free speech rights of 

churches and other houses of worship. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Houses of Worship 

5 Free Speech Restoration Act of 2005’’. 

6 SEC. 2. HOUSES OF WORSHIP PERMITTED TO ENGAGE IN 

7 RELIGIOUS FREE EXERCISE AND FREE 

8 SPEECH ACTIVITIES, ETC. 

9 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 501 of the Internal Rev10 enue Code of 1986 is amended by redesignating subsection 
2 

•HR 235 IH 

1 (q) as subsection (r) and by inserting after subsection (p) 

2 the following new subsection: 

3 ‘‘(q) An organization described in section 

4 170(b)(1)(a)(1) or section 508(c)(1)(A) shall not fail to 

5 be treated as organized and operated exclusively for a reli6 gious purpose, nor shall it be deemed to have participated 

7 in, or intervened in any political campaign on behalf of 

8 (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office, for 

9 purposes of subsection (c)(3) or section 170(c)(2), 2055, 

10 2106, 2522, or 4955 because of the content, preparation, 

11 or presentation of any homily, sermon, teaching, dialectic, 

12 or other presentation made during religious services or 

13 gatherings.’’. 

14 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

15 subsection (a) shall apply to taxable years ending after 

16 the date of enactment of this Act. 

17 SEC. 3. CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAWS UNAFFECTED. 

18 No member or leader of an organization described in 

19 section 501(q) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as 

20 added by section 2) shall be prohibited from expressing 

21 personal views on political matters or elections for public 

22 office during regular religious services, so long as these 

23 views are not disseminated beyond the members and 

24 guests assembled together at the service. For purposes of 

25 the preceding sentence, dissemination beyond the members 
3 

•HR 235 IH 

1 and guests assembled together at a service includes a mail2 ing that results in more than an incremental cost to the 

3 organization and any electioneering communication under 

4 section 304(f) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 

5 1971 (2 U.S.C. 434(f)). Nothing in the amendment made 

6 by section 2 shall be construed to permit any disburse7 ments for electioneering communications or political ex8 penditures prohibited by the Federal Election Campaign 

9 Act of 1971. 

Æ
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7353

EMORY ALVIN MICHAU,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

BRUCE ORR, Detective, Charleston County

Sheriff's Office; JERRY JELLICO, Detective,

Charleston County Sheriff's Office; MR.

TANNER, Detective, Charleston County Sheriff's

Office; MR. FIELDS, Detective, Charleston

County Sheriff's Office; JACK GUEDALIA, Magistrate of Charleston County; SERGEANT TAGUE,

Charleston County Sheriff's Office; DETECTIVE

BUHLE, Charleston County Sheriff's Office;

DETECTIVE HALE, Charleston County Sheriff's

Office; DETECTIVE TITTLE, Charleston County

Sheriff's Office; LEROY LINEN, Magistrate of

Charleston County,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Charleston. Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior District

Judge. (CA-96-442-2-8-AK, CA-96-443-2-8-AK)

Submitted: November 21, 1996 Decided: December 6, 1996

Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Emory Alvin Michau, Appellant Pro Se.
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying his motion to appoint counsel and adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation to dismiss two Defendants with prejudice in this action

filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994). We dismiss the appeal for lack

of jurisdiction because the order is not appealable. This court may

exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291

(1994), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C.

§ 1292 (1994); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus.

Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is neither

a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.

We deny Appellant's motion for enlargement of the record and

dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. 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
----

**Exhibit 32.2**

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  

In connection with the Annual Reportof China Agritech, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period endedDecember 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the "Report"), I, Li Jun Peng, the Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

(1) The Report fully complies withthe requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and 

(2) The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresult of operations of the Company. 

|   | /s/ Li Jun Peng                             |
|--------|---------------------------------------------|
|   |                                        |
|   | Li Jun Peng                                 |
|   | *Chief Financial    Officer and Controller* |

April 2,2007 ****
#### FEALY, Respondent, v. BULL, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

March 8, 1898.)

Action by Joanna Fealy against John Bull.

No opinion. The motion to amend the order entered in this court on the 10th day of January, 1898, so that it will show 'that the decision of this court was not unanimous upon the question whether there is evidence supporting or tending to sustain the verdict in the action, is granted. So much of the motion as asks to amend the order entered in the action April 22, 1897, is denied. See 42 N, Y. Supp. 569, and 49 N. Y. Supp. 1134.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Petitioner

v.
CLAUDE DESCARDES, Respondent : : : : : : : : : : : No. 775 MAL 2014 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 7 th day of April, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED , LIMITED TOthe issue set forth below. Allocatur is DENIED as to the remaining issue. The issue, as stated by petitioner, is: Whether the Superior Court’s conclusion that [respondent] was entitled to coram nobis review conflicts with the holdings of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Commonwealth v. Ahlborn and Commonwealth v. Hall as well as prior Superior Court precedent?
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v D’Sean Woods, Appellant.

[942 NYS2d 831]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Russell P Buscaglia, A.J.), rendered November 10, 2010. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of manslaughter in the first degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed *(see People v Hidalgo,*91 NY2d 733, 737 [1998]). Present — Scudder, P.J., Fahey, Lindley and Martoche, JJ.
ex10-9.htm






  





  











  








TODAYS’S DATE: _February 3, 2015___________


 







 


Dear Edward C Orr III.:


 


Per your discussions with Michael Kelly, we will require $5,000.00 before we can begin working on your new beverage product.


 


Upon Receipt of the retainer, Allen Flavors will:


 



	
·  

	
Create finished beverage prototypes based on the agreed upon concepts







 



	
·  

	
Use you feedback to fine-tune the final beverage formulation (maximum 2 revisions)







 



	
·  

	
Provide you with nutritional and/or supplement labeling for your individual packaging







 



	
·  

	
Generate batching instructions for your bottler / co-packer







 


This retainer will be applied to your first ingredient order placed within the next two (2) years. For example, if your initial order amounts to $20,000.00, the retainer would be applied, leaving a balance due of $15,000.00. Please not that until a credit history is established, we require a 50% down payment with your order and payment in full prior to shipping


 


Allen Flavors recommends the following:


 



	
1.  

	
Stability testing of your products for up to a year before manufacturing. Allen Flavors will not accept liability for issues relating to any beverage that has not been tested.







 



	
2.  

	
Have label claims reviewed by an FDA / regulatory consultant. Allen Flavors is not responsible or liable for label claims made by the brand owner.







 



	
3.  

	
If packaging is in aluminum cans, be sure to have corrosive testing done by the can vendor.







 


Please note: Our Company accepts no liability for the amount of material that is ordered and the number of units filled. Any advice & guidance that is given on quantities to order is provided as a courtesy service only. It is the customer’s sole responsibility to review all purchase orders and to order the correct quantities needed for production runs.


 


Please make your check payable to “Allen Flavors, Inc.” and send to the attention of Carolyn Vallarta, Allen Flavors, Inc., 23 Progress St., Edison, NJ 08820. We also accept Visa, MasterCard and wire transfers.


 


We look forward to a very successful business relationship.


 







 


Sincerely,


 


/S/Joe Moran


 


Joe Moran


 


Vice president Sales & Marketing


 







 


SIGN AND RETURN THIS LETTER WITH YOUR PAYMENT TO ACCEPT TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF WORKING WITH ALLEN FLAVORS AS SET FORTH IN THIS LETTER.


 



Edward C. Orr III                                                                                                                   /S/Edward C Orr III                                                                      2/5/15





	
Print Name/Title

	
Signature

	
Date
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6060

JOHN WAYNE TRICE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus WARDEN KELLY, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (1:06-cv-00857-GBL) Submitted: July 24, 2007 Decided: July 27, 2007 Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Wayne Trice, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: John Wayne Trice seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. 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 any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Trice 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
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Douglas J. Pauls, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Commerce Bancorp, 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 quarterly 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 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 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]

     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; and

     d) 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 officer(s) 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; and

     b) 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.



        /s/  Douglas J. Pauls                            Date:  November 8, 2004
        ---------------------
        Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


                             [END OF CERTIFICATION]

                                       26

<PAGE>