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

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 18 

Expressing support for prayer at school board meetings. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 25 (legislative day, JANUARY 5), 2011 

Mr. VITTER submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing support for prayer at school board meetings. 

Whereas the freedom to practice religion and to express religious thought is acknowledged to be a fundamental and 

unalienable right belonging to all individuals; 

Whereas the United States was founded on the principle of 

freedom of religion and not freedom from religion; 

Whereas the Framers intended that the First Amendment to 

the Constitution would prohibit the Federal Government 

from enacting any law that favors one religious denomination over another, not prohibit any mention of religion 

or reference to God in civic dialogue; 

Whereas in 1983 the Supreme Court held in Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783, that the practice of opening legislative sessions with prayer has become part of the fabric 

of our society and invoking divine guidance on a public 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 18 IS 

body entrusted with making the laws is not a violation 

of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, 

but rather is simply a tolerable acknowledgment of beliefs 

widely held among the people of the Nation; 

Whereas voluntary prayer in elected bodies should not be limited to prayer in State legislatures and Congress; 

Whereas school boards are deliberative bodies of adults, similar to a legislature in that they are elected by the people, 

act in the public interest, and hold sessions that are open 

to the public for voluntary attendance; and 

Whereas voluntary prayer by an elected body should be protected under law and encouraged in society because voluntary prayer has become a part of the fabric of our society, voluntary prayer acknowledges beliefs widely held 

among the people of the Nation, and the Supreme Court 

has held that it is not a violation of the Establishment 

Clause for a public body to invoke divine guidance: Now, 

therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) recognizes that prayer before school board 

3 meetings is a protected act in accordance with the 

4 fundamental principles upon which the Nation was 

5 founded; and 

6 (2) expresses support for the practice of prayer 

7 at the beginning of school board meetings. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with BILLS
#### Patricia Roebuck, Respondent, v Peter Weir, Appellant.

— Orders, Family Court of the State of New York, New York County (Sara Schechter, J.), entered, respectively, on August 10, 1983 and on January 30, 1984, unanimously affirmed for the reasons stated by Schechter, J., without costs and without disbursements. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Ross, Carro, Lynch and Ellerin, JJ.
**Exhibit 8****List of Principal Subsidiaries****•** Niugini Mining Limited, incorporated under the laws of Papua New Guinea, became a100% owned subsidiary of Lihir onFebruary 2, 2000. **•** Niugini Mining (Australia) Pty Limited, incorporated under the laws of Australia, isa 100% owned subsidiary of Niugini MiningLimited. **•** Lihir Management Company Limited, incorporated under the laws of Papua New Guinea,became a 100% owned subsidiary ofLihir on October 10, 2006. **•** Lihir Business Development Limited, incorporated under the laws of Papua New Guinea,is a 100% owned subsidiary of LihirManagement Company Limited. **•** Lihir Services Australia Pty Limited, incorporated under the laws of Australia onSeptember 2, 2005, became a 100% ownedsubsidiary of Lihir on November 7, 2005. **•** Lihir Australian Holdings Pty Limited, incorporated under the laws of Australia onSeptember 4, 2007, became a 100% ownedsubsidiary of Lihir on October 16, 2007. **•** Ballarat Goldfields Pty Ltd, incorporated under the laws of Australia, became a 100%owned subsidiary of Lihir AustralianHoldings Pty Limited on March 8, 2007, with effective control being February 26, 2007. **•** Berringa Resources Pty Limited, incorporated under the laws of Australia, is a 100%owned subsidiary of Ballarat GoldfieldsPty Ltd. **•** Ballarat West Goldfields Pty Limited, incorporated under the laws of Australia, is a100% owned subsidiary of BallaratGoldfields Pty Ltd. **•** New Resources Pty Limited, incorporated under the laws of Australia, is a 100% ownedsubsidiary of Ballarat Goldfields PtyLtd. **•** Corpique (No. 21) Pty Limited, incorporated under the laws of Australia, is a 100%owned subsidiary of Ballarat Goldfields PtyLtd.
124
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

,

Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

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.

August 21 , 2020 

# Order

Clerk August 2 1 , 2020

1 60 034 ( 92 )

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

SC: 160 034

v COA: 345268

Saginaw CC: 84

- 000570

- FC

ROBIN RICK MANNING

,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_______________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of Robert Crummie to file a brief amicus

curiae and to waive the fee i s GRANTED

. The amicus b rief submitted on August 17 , 2020

, is accepted for filing

.
EXHIBIT 32.2



Certification



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)



Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a)
and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of Entrust, Inc., a Maryland corporation (the Company), hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:



The quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2004
(the Report) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.



|                       |  |                                 
|---------------------- |  | --------------------------------
|Date: November 5, 2004 |  | /s/ David J. Wagner             
|                       |  | Name: David J. Wagner           
|                       |  | Title:   Chief Financial Officer
B3A (Official Form 3A) (12/07)

Northern District of Illinois

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

In re Kathleen M DiGiuseppi

Debtor

, Case No.

Chapter 13

APPLICATION TO PAY FILING FEES IN INSTALLMENTS

1. In accordance with Fed. R. Bankr. P. 1006, I apply for permission to pay the filing fee amounting to $ 274.00 in installments.

3. Until the filing fee is paid in full, I will not make any additional payment or transfer any additional property to an attorney or any other person for

 services in connection with this case.

2. I am unable to pay the filing fee except in installments.

4. I propose the following terms for the payment of the Filing Fee.*

$ 68.50 Check one  With the filing of the petition, or

  On or before

$ 68.50 on or before 02/12/2010

$ 68.50 on or before 03/12/2010

$ 68.50 on or before 04/12/2010

* The number of installments proposed shall not exceed four (4), and the final installment shall be payable not later than 120 days after filing the

 petition. For cause shown, the court may extend the time of any installment, provided the last installment is paid not later than 180 days after filing

 the petition. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 1006(b)(2).

5. I understand that if I fail to pay any installment when due, my bankruptcy case may be dismissed and I may not receive a discharge of my debts.

/s/ Laura L McGarragan 1/12/2010 1/12/2010 /s/ Kathleen M DiGiuseppi

Signature of Attorney Date

Laura L McGarragan, 6199753

Name of Attorney 

(In a joint case, both spouses must sign.)

Signature of Debtor Date

Laura L McGarragan Kathleen M DiGiuseppi

Case 10-70081 Doc 4 Filed 01/12/10 Entered 01/12/10 11:22:42 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 2
B3A (Official Form 3A) (12/07) - Cont.

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

Northern District of Illinois

Case No. In re ,

Chapter 13

Kathleen M DiGiuseppi

Debtor

ORDER APPROVING PAYMENT OF FILING FEE IN INSTALLMENTS

 IT IS ORDERED that the debtor(s) may pay the filing fee in installments on the terms proposed in the foregoing application.

 IT IS ORDERED that the debtor(s) shall pay the filing fee according to the following terms:

 

 

$ Check one With the filing of the petition, or

 On or before

 68.50





$ 68.50 on or before 02/12/2010

$ 68.50 on or before 03/12/2010

$ 68.50 on or before 04/12/2010





 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that until the filing fee is paid in full the debtor(s) shall not make any additional payment or transfer 

any additional property to an attorney or any other person for services in connection with this case.

 

Date:

BY THE COURT

United States Bankruptcy Judge

Case 10-70081 Doc 4 Filed 01/12/10 Entered 01/12/10 11:22:42 Desc Main

 Document Page 2 of 2
#### In the Matter of Hubert S. Pearlman, Petitioner, v Nathan Mark, as Vice-Chairman of the Traffic Violations Appeals Board of the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles, et al., Respondents.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Department of Motor Vehicles Appeals Board, dated September 7, 1984, which affirmed (1) a determination of a hearing officer that petitioner was guilty of speeding and (2) the penalty of a $100 fine and mandatory license revocation.

Determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, with costs.

The determination is supported by substantial evidence and the penalty imposed was neither arbitrary, capricious, nor an abuse of discretion. Lazer, J. P., Thompson, Rubin and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.
# C_2019312EN.01004701.xml

| 16.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 312/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 312/47

---

Action brought on 29 July 2019 — Artur Florêncio & Filhos, Affsports v EUIPO — Anadeco Gestion (sflooring)

(Case T-533/19)

(2019/C 312/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Artur Florêncio & Filhos, Affsports Lda (Sintra, Portugal) (represented by: D. Martins Pereira Soares, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Anadeco Gestion, SA (Cartagena, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark sflooring in colours black, white and grey — Application for registration No 11 943 586

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 May 2019 in Case R 1870/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | totally admit this appeal |
| --- | --- |

—

totally admit this appeal

| — | completely revoke the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

completely revoke the contested decision;

| — | amend the contested decision, based on the grounding in this appeal and declare the granting of European Union trademark No 11 943 588 sflooring; |
| --- | --- |

—

amend the contested decision, based on the grounding in this appeal and declare the granting of European Union trademark No 11 943 588 sflooring;

| — | condemn the EUIPO in the costs incurred by the appellant, including in the costs made in the case that run before EUIPO; |
| --- | --- |

—

condemn the EUIPO in the costs incurred by the appellant, including in the costs made in the case that run before EUIPO;

| — | condemn the other party to bear the appellant’s costs in the EUIPO proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

condemn the other party to bear the appellant’s costs in the EUIPO proceedings.

Pleas in law

| — | Insufficiency of the proofs of genuine use of earlier trademark T-FLOORING |
| --- | --- |

—

Insufficiency of the proofs of genuine use of earlier trademark T-FLOORING

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
# Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Lebanon

On August 1, 2007, by Executive Order 13441, the President declared a national emergency with respect to Lebanon pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706) to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States constituted by the actions of certain persons to undermine Lebanon's legitimate and democratically elected government or democratic institutions; to contribute to the deliberate breakdown in the rule of law in Lebanon, including through politically motivated violence and intimidation; to reassert Syrian control or contribute to Syrian interference in Lebanon; or to infringe upon or undermine Lebanese sovereignty. Such actions contribute to political and economic instability in that country and the region.

Certain ongoing activities, such as Iran's continuing arms transfers to Hizballah—which include increasingly sophisticated weapons systems—serve to undermine Lebanese sovereignty, contribute to political and economic instability in the region, and continue to constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States. For this reason, the national emergency declared on August 1, 2007, must continue in effect beyond August 1, 2021. Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency with respect to Lebanon declared in Executive Order 13441.

                        This notice shall be published in the                         *Federal Register*                         and transmitted to the Congress.                    

[FR Doc. 2021-15808

Billing code 3295-F1-P
‘Mingle Order Form (06/97)

f United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
d med Judge Sitting Judge if Other
Pteemeetantettetee | __Soan H. Lefkow tn ee Oe
CASE NUMBER 02 C 9124 DATE 5/6/2004
CASE Mary Jo Vera vs. University of Chicago
TITLE

[In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature
‘of the motion being presented.]

MOTION:

DOCKET ENTRY:

qd) o Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]

(2) a Brief in support of motion due

(3) im Answer brief to motion due___. Reply to answer brief due.

(4) o Ruling/Hearingon____—_—setfor___—_at

(5) oO Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on__setfor__at

(6) Qo Pretrial conference[held/continued to] (set for/re-set for]on__setfor___sat__.

(7) Qo Trial[set for/re-set for]on__at

(8) a [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to__ at

(9) oa This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]
COFRCP4(m) CLocal Rule 41.1 OFRCP41(a)(1) 1 FRCP41(a)(2).

(0) ~x— [Other docket entry] | Enter Memorandum Opinion and Order. For the reasons stated in the

Memorandum Opinion and Order, defendant’s motion for summary judgment [10-1] is granted.
Judgment is entered in favor of the defendant.

(i) [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

No notices required, advised in open court.

No notices required.

o | Notices mailed by judge's staff.

Notified counsel by telephone.

Docketing to mail notices.
Mail AO 450 form.

Copy to judge/magistrate judge.

courtroom
MD deputy’s
initials

, ._« _ Rateltime fegeived in ; 7
An central Clerk's Office tvalling depoty inate
#### MID-COAST MARINE, INC.; Saif Corporation, Petitioners, v. DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS COMPENSATION PROGRAMS; United States Department of Labor, Respondents, and Jerry W. Utterback, Claimant.

No. 10-72798.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 13, 2011.*

Filed July 19, 2011.

Norman Cole, Sather, Byerly *&*Holloway, LLP, Portland, OR, for Petitioners.

Charles Robinowitz, Portland, OR, for Claimant.

Matthew W. Boyle, Rae Ellen James, Associate Solicitor, Mark A. Reinhalter, Counsel, Thomas O. Shepherd, Jr., Esquire, LABR — U.S. Department of Labor Office of the Solicitor, Washington, DC, for Respondents.

*117Before: PREGERSON, WARDLAW, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Petitioners Mid-Coast Marine, Inc. and SAIF Corporation appeal a final Order of the Benefits Review Board of the United States Department of Labor (the Board) that awarded employer-paid attorney’s fees to Claimant-Respondent Jerry Utter-back and his attorney Charles Robinowitz. Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history of this case, we repeat only those facts necessary to resolve issues raised in the appeal. We have jurisdiction under 33 U.S.C. § 921(c), and we affirm.

In this case, the Board followed its published decision on reconsideration in a May 2010 Order in *Christensen v. Stevedoring Services of America,*44 Ben. Rev. Bd. Serv. 39 (2010). Not every fee award warrants an exhaustive recitation of competing evidence. *Christensen v. Stevedoring Servs, of Am.,*557 F.3d 1049, 1055 (9th Cir.2009). No such recitation was required here. The relevant community and reasonable rate in this case were not distinct from those the Board identified in Christensen. The Oregon Bar Survey takes into account two key factors, “relevant community” (Portland) and “market rate” (plaintiffs civil litigation), that we directed the Board to use in *Christensen,*557 F.3d at 1054-55. The Board explained why it discounted Petitioners’ evidence as well as the reasons to adhere to the May 2010 *Christensen*Order. The Board also had a sufficient record from which to conclude that insurance defense rates were not representative of Robinowitz’s practice, especially in light of volume discounts and statutory caps.

We have considered Petitioners’ remaining arguments and hold that they do not alter our conclusions. Accordingly, the Order of the Benefits Review Board is AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0001031002
<NAME>                        MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED CAPITAL TRUST II
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000

<S>                                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                       OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                DEC-26-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                  JUN-25-1999
<CASH>                                                  0
<SECURITIES>                                      363,884
<RECEIVABLES>                                       7,204
<ALLOWANCES>                                            0
<INVENTORY>                                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  371,088
<PP&E>                                                  0
<DEPRECIATION>                                          0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    371,088
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               7,204
<BONDS>                                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                       309,278
<COMMON>                                           54,606
<OTHER-SE>                                              0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      371,088
<SALES>                                                 0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   14,504
<CGS>                                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                           0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    14,504
<INCOME-TAX>                                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                14,504
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                       14,504
<EPS-BASIC>                                           0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           0


</TABLE>
Exhibit  99.10

          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 Annual Report of Colmena Corp.  (the  "Company") on
Form 10-KSB for the year ended  September 30, 2003 as filed with the  Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Adam C. Wasserman,
Chief Financial Officer and Controller of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  ss. 1350, as adopted  pursuant to ss. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of
2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

/s/ Adam C.  Wasserman /s/
Adam C. Wasserman, Chief Financial Officer and Controller
February 9, 2004
#### BRODERICK, Respondent, v. DELAWARE, L. & W. R. CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

November 13, 1907.)

Action by John D. Broderick against the Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad Company.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment and order reversed, and new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide event, upon the ground that the finding of the jury that the plaintiff was free from contributory negligence is against the weight of evidence.

COCHRANE, J., dissents. SEWELL, J., not sitting.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                    JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                          1,836,324
<SECURITIES>                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                   962,999
<ALLOWANCES>                    0
<INVENTORY>                     12,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                2,811,323
<PP&E>                          247,745
<DEPRECIATION>                  19,176
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  3,397,299
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           36,621
<BONDS>                         3,803,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0
<PREFERRED>                     0
<COMMON>                        1,000
<OTHER-SE>                      0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    3,397,299
<SALES>                         0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                136,614
<CGS>                           0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                266,971
<LOSS-PROVISION>                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              161,428
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 (291,785)
<INCOME-TAX>                    0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             (291,785)
<DISCONTINUED>                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0
<CHANGES>                       0
<NET-INCOME>                    (291,785)
<EPS-BASIC>                   (291.79)
<EPS-DILUTED>                   (291.79)



</TABLE>