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

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 97 Introduced in House (IH)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 97

Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to require that the 
      expenses of special-order speeches be paid from the Members 
    Representational Allowance of the Members making such speeches.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 13, 1997

 Ms. Rivers submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                         the Committee on Rules

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to require that the 
      expenses of special-order speeches be paid from the Members 
    Representational Allowance of the Members making such speeches.

    Resolved, That (a) rule XIV of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives is amended by adding at the end the following new 
clause:
    ``10. Expenses of any special-order speech shall be paid from the 
Members Representational Allowance of the Member making such speech.''.
    (b) The amendment made by subsection (a) shall take effect on the 
first day beginning after the date of adoption of this resolution.
                                 <all>
```
#### Gard Entertainment, Inc., Respondent-Appellant, v Country in New York, LLC, Defendant, and Adam R. Block, Appellant-Respondent.

[948 NYS2d 42]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (O. Peter Sherwood, J.), entered August 29, 2011, awarding plaintiff the total amount of $391,578.92 as against defendant Adam R. Block and dismissing the complaint as against defendant Country in New York, LLC (Country) pursuant to an order, same court and Justice, entered May 3, 2011, which, inter alia, granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint as against Block, denied plaintiff’s motion as against Country, and dismissed the complaint as against Country, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeals from the above order, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.

“[A] guarantee agreement is separate and distinct from the contract between lender and borrower” *(Kinville v Jarvis Real Estate Holdings, LLC,*38 AD3d 1225, 1227 [2007] [internal quotation marks omitted]). “While ordinarily the liability of a guarantor will not exceed in scope that of his principal, the guarantee is a separate undertaking and may impose lesser or even greater collateral responsibility on the guarantor” *(American Trading Co. v Fish,*42 NY2d 20, 26 [1977]). Where a guarantee specifically imposes liability on the guarantor, it will be enforceable even though the principal escapes liability *(see Bank of N. Am. v Shapiro,*31 AD2d 465, 466 [1969]).

Here, plaintiff established its entitlement to summary judgment as against Block by demonstrating proof of the guarantee he made in connection with a note executed by Country and his failure to make payments called for by its terms. The burden *684shifted to Block to come forward with evidentiary proof sufficient to raise an issue as to an affirmative defense to the payment on the guarantee *(see e.g. Gateway State Bank v Shangri-La Private Club for Women,*113 AD2d 791, 792 [1985], *affd*67 NY2d 627 [1986]; *Kornfeld v NRX Tech.,*93 AD2d 772, 773 [1983], *affd*62 NY2d 686 [1984]). Contrary to Block’s contention, the guarantee he signed unconditionally guaranteed the payment of amounts due pursuant to the note signed by Country on the third anniversary date of the note, should Country fail to do so *(see Standard Brands v Straile,*23 AD2d 363 [1965]).

Plaintiff, however, failed to establish its entitlement to summary judgment as to Country. The note states that it is subordinated to senior indebtedness as outlined therein and the record demonstrates that the conditions precedent for payment by Country have not been met *(see e.g. Morse, Zelnick, Rose & Lander, LLP v Ronnybrook Farm Dairy, Inc.,*92 AD3d 579 [2012]).

Point I of plaintiff’s reply brief contains an impermissible surreply and those arguments have been stricken. Concur — Saxe, J.P., Friedman, Renwick, DeGrasse and Richter, JJ.
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 on Form 10-Q of Franklin Street Properties
Corp. (the “Company”) for the period ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the
undersigned, George J. Carter, President and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to his
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 results of operations of the
      Company.













Date:  April
      29, 2008
            /s/ George J.
      Carter
              George
      J. Carter
              President
      and Chief Executive Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v John Somarriba, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Rettinger, J., at sentence; George Roberts, J., at plea), rendered on August 14, 1984, affirmed.

Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted. *(See, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Saunders, 52*AD2d 833.) Appellant has fully served his and has indicated that he does not wish to raise a issue, the only possibly nonfrivolous issue identified by assigned counsel. We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no other nonfrivolous points which could be raised on this appeal. Concur&emdash;Kupferman, J. P., Sullivan, Ross, Kassal and JJ.
### IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 19

- 00358

- CV

IN RE TROY DALE CHAS TEEN

Original Proceeding

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The petition for a writ of mandamus is denied. T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 52.8(d). Relator's

"Amended Emergency Motion for Temporary Relief to Stay Trial Court Proceedings" is

d ismissed as moot

.

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Neill

Petition denied

Opinion delivered and filed January 29, 2020

[ OT 06]
#### Bobby Eugene RODDY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Evelyn SEIFERT, Warden, Northern Correctional Facility, Respondent-Appellee, and David Ballard, Warden, Respondent.

No. 11-6437.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 28, 2011.

Decided: Aug. 2, 2011.

Bobby Eugene Roddy, Appellant Pro Se.

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Bobby Eugene Roddy, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West 2006 & Supp.2011) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). A certificate of ap-pealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct.1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Roddy has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Roddy’s motion for appointment of counsel, deny a certificate of ap-pealability, 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.*
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Pollinating Insect-Biology, Management, Systematics Research: Logan, UT
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us






Docsheadline bar Cucurbita
               About Us
               Directions
               Business
               Main
               Main (1)
               Popular Publications
               Small Fruit Pollination
               Squash Pollination
               Research Strategy
               Research Objectives
               Blue Orchard Bee
               Alfalfa Leafcutting Bee (ALCB)
               Chalkbrood
               Pollen Balls
               Raspberries
               Cranberries
               Blueberries
               Bumble Bees (Bombus)
               Status of Pollinators
               bees
               pollinatormain
               How To's
               Build a Nesting Block
               ID a Bumble Bee
               Is It or Isn't It a Bee?
               Stick Nests
               U.S. National Pollinating Insects Collection
               Reed Nests
               Pollen Traps


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
Exhibit 32

Certification Furnished 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 on Form 10-Q of Gulf Island Fabrication, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended September 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), the undersigned, who are the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify 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 Section 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 for the period covered by the
Report.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



By:

/s/ Kerry J. ChauvinKerry J. ChauvinChief Executive OfficerOctober 27, 2008By:

/s/ Robin A. SeibertRobin A. SeibertChief Financial OfficerOctober 27, 2008


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Gulf Island
Fabrication, Inc. and will be retained by Gulf Island Fabrication, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Southwest Watershed Research Center: Tucson, AZ
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                                    Software
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    About SWRCSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Pacific West Area Tucson, Arizona SWRC Docs





- Find a person
- Find a location
- ARS Organizational Chart
- People
- Maps
- David Goodrich
- Philip Heilman
- Chandra Holifield Collins
- Mark Nearing
- Mary Nichols
- Russell Scott
- Jason Williams

Mapsheadline bar To Get to the Southwest Watershed Research Center:Map to get to the SWRCTo get to the Walnut Gulch Experimental Watershed Field Office:Map to the WGEW


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
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


In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Franklin Street
Properties Corp. (the "Company") for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
the undersigned, Barbara J. Corinha, Vice President and Chief Operating Officer
(equivalent of Chief Financial Officer), Treasurer and Secretary of the Company,
hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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 operation
            of the Company.


Dated:  May 6, 2004                  /s/ Barbara J. Corinha
                                     ---------------------------
                                     Vice President and Chief Operating Officer
                                     (equivalent of Chief Financial Officer),
                                     Treasurer and Secretary


                                       35
II

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1008

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that the tax incentives for alcohol used as a fuel shall be extended as part of any extension

of fuel tax rates.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 11, 1997

Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN, Mr. JOHNSON, and Mr.

WELLSTONE) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide

that the tax incentives for alcohol used as a fuel shall

be extended as part of any extension of fuel tax rates.

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

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF INCENTIVES FOR ALCOHOL

4 USED AS A FUEL.

5 (a) EXTENSION OF INCOME TAX CREDIT.—Para6 graph (1) of section 40(e) of the Internal Revenue Code

7 of 1986 (relating to credit for alcohol used as fuel) is

8 amended—
2

•S 1008 IS

1 (1) by striking ‘‘2000’’ and inserting ‘‘2007 (or,

2 if later, the day before the date specified in section

3 4081(d)(1))’’, and

4 (2) by striking ‘‘2001’’ and inserting ‘‘2008 (or,

5 if later, the day before the date specified in section

6 4081(d)(1))’’.

7 (b) FUEL TAX RATE REDUCTIONS.—

8 (1) Subparagraph (C) of section (b)(2) of such

9 Code is amended by striking ‘‘2000’’ and inserting

10 ‘‘2007 (or, if later, the day before the date specified

11 in section 4081(d)(1))’’.

12 (2) Paragraph (3) of section 4041(k) of such

13 Code is amended by striking ‘‘2000’’ and inserting

14 ‘‘2007 (or, if later, the day before the date specified

15 in section 4081(d)(1))’’.

16 (3) Paragraph (8) of section 4081(c) of such

17 Code is amended by striking ‘‘2000’’ and inserting

18 ‘‘2007 (or, if later, the day before the date specified

19 in subsection (d)(1))’’.

20 (4) Paragraph (5) of section 4091(c) is amend21 ed by striking ‘‘2000’’ and inserting ‘‘2007 (or, if

22 later, the date specified in subsection (b)(3)(A)(i))’’.

23 (c) REFUNDS.—Paragraph (4) of section 6427(f) of

24 such Code is amended by striking ‘‘1999’’ and inserting
3

•S 1008 IS

1 ‘‘2006 (or, if later, the day before the date specified in

2 section 4081(d)(1))’’.

3 (d) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS TO TARIFF SCHED4 ULE.—

5 (1) Heading 9901.00.50 of the Harmonized

6 Tariff Schedule of the United States (19 U.S.C.

7 3007) is amended in the effective period column by

8 striking ‘‘10/1/2000’’ each place it appears and in9 serting ‘‘10/1/2007 (or, if later, the date specified in

10 section 4081(d)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of

11 1986)’’.

12 (2) Heading 9901.00.52 of the Harmonized Tariff

13 Schedule of the United States is amended in the ef14 fective period column by striking ‘‘10/1/2000’’ each

15 place it appears and inserting ‘‘10/1/2007 (or, if

16 later, the date specified in section 4081(d)(1) of the

17 Internal Revenue Code of 1986)’’.

18 (e) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

19 this section shall take effect on the date of the enactment

20 of this Act.

Æ
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Alex G. Schmidt, Also Known as Alexander George Schmidt, Deceased. Ann L. McLaughlin, Respondent; Thomas E. Webb, Jr., as Executor of Alex G. Schmidt, Also Known as Alexander George Schmidt, Deceased, Appellant, et al., Respondents.

(Appeal No. 1.)

[946 NYS2d 516]

Appeal from an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Erie County (Barbara Howe, S.), entered March 15, 2011. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted the motion of petitioner for a protective order with respect to certain interrogatories.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated in the decision by the Surrogate. Present — Scudder, P.J, Centra, Fahey, Peradotto and Sconiers, JJ.
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-07-00334-CV

BOBBY WAYNE O'NEAL,

Appellant

v.

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 2

McLennan County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2007-1772-CV2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant has filed a “Motion to Dismiss Appeal,” stating that he no longer 

wishes to pursue this appeal. Dismissal of this appeal would not prevent a party from 

seeking relief to which it would otherwise be entitled. The motion to dismiss is granted, 

and the appeal is dismissed. TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1).

REX D. DAVIS

Justice
O'Neal v. Texas Department of Public Safety Page 2

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Reyna, and

Justice Davis

Appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed March 4, 2009

[CV06]
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Spyro Germenis, Appellant.

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Boklan, J.), rendered June 3, 1983, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

The defendant challenges the validity of his waiver of his right to challenge on appeal the partial denial of his pretrial suppression motion. The record indicates that at the time of the entry of his plea, the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to challenge that ruling on appeal. The defendant was fully informed of the consequences of the waiver, which was an integral part of a negotiated plea arrangement *(see, People v Williams,*36 NY2d 829, *cert denied*423 US 873). Under the circumstances of this case, we find the waiver valid. Bracken, J. P., Lawrence, Fiber and Kooper, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Stephen Sileo, Appellant.

—Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Aronin, J.), rendered July 16, 1984, convicting him of criminal possession of stolen property in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

Defendant contends that his plea was not voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently made. He attempted to withdraw his plea at the time of sentencing, but his application was denied. Although the record does indicate that defendant complained of dizziness at the time of the plea, claiming he had been hit on the head in the holding cell, the court thoroughly questioned defendant as to whether the incident had any effect on his plea and defendant unequivocally responded that it did not. The record as a whole indicates that defendant voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently pleaded guilty *(see, People v Harris,*61 NY2d 9). Furthermore, the court elicited a sufficient factual basis for the plea.

We have considered defendant’s claim that he was denied effective assistance of counsel, and find it to be without merit *(see, People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137). Mollen, P. J., Gibbons, Brown, Niehoff and Fiber, JJ., concur.