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

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 414 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 414

Commemorating the 125th anniversary of the University of North Carolina 
                              at Pembroke.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 29, 2012

     Mr. Burr (for himself and Mrs. Hagan) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Commemorating the 125th anniversary of the University of North Carolina 
                              at Pembroke.

Whereas the University of North Carolina at Pembroke (referred to in this 
        preamble as ``the University'') was founded on March 7, 1887, in Robeson 
        County, North Carolina by an act of the General Assembly of North 
        Carolina;
Whereas the University, originally named the Croatan Normal School, was created 
        in response to a petition from the Indian people of Robeson County;
Whereas the University was founded for the purpose of training American Indian 
        school teachers;
Whereas the University opened in the fall of 1887 with 15 students and 1 
        teacher;
Whereas the University moved to its present location in Pembroke, North Carolina 
        in 1909;
Whereas a 2-year program beyond high school was added to the University in 1926;
Whereas the length of the program of college studies at the University was 
        extended to 4 years in 1939;
Whereas, in 1941, the General Assembly of North Carolina changed the name of the 
        University to Pembroke State College for Indians;
Whereas, until 1953, the University was the only State-supported 4-year college 
        for Indians in the United States;
Whereas, in 1969, the General Assembly of North Carolina changed the name of the 
        University to Pembroke State University and made the University a 
        regional State university that provided instruction at both the 
        undergraduate level and the graduate level;
Whereas, in 1972, the General Assembly of North Carolina established the 17-
        campus University of North Carolina system and made Pembroke State 
        University 1 of the constituent institutions of the system;
Whereas, on July 1, 1996, Pembroke State University became the University of 
        North Carolina at Pembroke;
Whereas, today, approximately 6,000 students from diverse backgrounds are 
        enrolled in 41 undergraduate programs and 17 graduate programs at the 
        University of North Carolina at Pembroke; and
Whereas March 7, 2012, marks the 125th anniversary of the founding of the 
        University of North Carolina at Pembroke: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate commemorates the 125th anniversary of the 
University of North Carolina at Pembroke.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________________

Consolidated Cases Nos. 02-60734, 02-60778,

02-60746, 02-60766, 02-60762, 02-60745,

02-60786, 02-60752, 02-60747, 02-60779,

02-60802

Summary Calendar 

_______________________

Case No. 02-60734

BANK ONE NA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

MICHELLE JONES,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________

Case No. 02-60778

 

BANK ONE NA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

GREGORY LEDELL THOMAS; PRINCELLA THOMAS,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________

Case No. 02-60746

BANK ONE NA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

VELMA GREEN,

Defendant-Appellant.
2

_________________________

Case No. 02-60766

 

BANK ONE NA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

MACK ARTHUR PICKENS, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________

Case No. 02-60762

BANK ONE NA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

J. C. ROBERSON,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________

Case No. 02-60745

 

BANK ONE NA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

MARILYN NAILER, A/K/A MARILYN NAILOR;

BARRY NAILER, A/K/A BARRY NAILOR,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________

Case No. 02-60786

 

BANK ONE NA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

THOMAS WRIGHT; ANNIE WRIGHT,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________

Case No. 02-60752

BANK ONE NA,
3

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

JOANN NEWSON,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________

Case No. 02-60747

BANK ONE NA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

GLORIA JOHNSON,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________

Case No. 02-60779

 

BANK ONE NA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

LOYD WALTON, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________

Case No. 02-60802

BANK ONE NA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

CLARA BUTLER, A/K/A CLARA BULTER,

Defendant-Appellant.

_____________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

(3:01-CV-39)

_____________________________________________

February 25, 2003
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstancesset forth in 5THCIR. R. 47.5.4.

1

288 F.3d 181 (5th Cir. 2002).

2 No. 01-60051 (5th Cir. April 5, 2002) (unpublished).

3

125 F. Supp. 2d 819 (S.D. Miss. 2001).

4 No. 4:01CV15-D-B (N.D. Miss. May 7, 2002) (order granting petition to compel

arbitration).

4

Before JONES, STEWART and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appellants challenge the district court’s rulings

granting Bank One’s motions to compel arbitration and to stay the

Appellants’ pending state law claims. This case is

indistinguishable from those that we reviewed and ruled on in the

related cases of Bank One, N.A. v. Boyd1 and Bank One, N.A. v.

Lake.

2 For essentially the same reasons that are set forth in our

opinion in Boyd and in the district court’s opinion in Bank One,

N.A. v. Coates,

3 and Bank One, N.A. v. Taylor,4 the judgment of the

district court in this case is, in all respects, AFFIRMED.
734 A.2d 1287

#### COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant, v. William M. VILLA, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Submitted Aug. 11, 1999.

Decided Sept. 9, 1999.

Joseph C. Madenspacher, Dist. Atty., Susan E. Moyer, Asst. Dist. Atty., District Attorney’s Office, for Com.

James J. Karl, Sam Encarnación, Lancaster, Public Defender’s Office, for William M. Villa.

Before FLAHERTY, C.J., and ZAPPALA, CAPPY, CASTILLE, NIGRO, NEWMAN and SAYLOR, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Based upon our disposition in *Commonwealth v. Williams,*557 Pa. 285, 733 A.2d 593 (1999), we affirm the Order of the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas dated May 20, 1999. Furthermore, we remand the matter to the common pleas court for disposition of any remaining issues.

Jurisdiction is relinquished.
Exhibit
      32.1





**CERTIFICATIONS
      PURSUANT TO**


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


**(18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**








In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of IBSG International, Inc. (the “Company”)
      on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ending June 30, 2005 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael
      Rivers, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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, as amended; and





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





Date: June
                    13, 2006
            
            **IBSG
                INTERNATIONAL, INC.**
              
              
              BY:
                /S/ Michael Rivers
              ——————————————
              Michael
                Rivers
              President,
                Chief Executive Officer
----

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on concentrations given at its 129th meeting on 19 October 2004 concerning a draft decision relating to Case COMP/M.3436 — Continental/Phoenix

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2006/C 303/06)

----
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Harrell Bonner, Also Known as Damien Prophet, Also Known as Pete Waller, Appellant.

(Appeal No. 2.)

[942 NYS2d 856]

Appeal from a judgment of the Erie County Court (Michael L. D’Amico, J.), rendered January 28, 2008. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of murder in the second degree (three counts).

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Same memorandum as in *People v Bonner*(94 AD3d 1500 [2012]). Present — Scudder, P.J., Centra, Garni, Lindley and Martoche, JJ.
**Exhibit99.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Reportof Sontra Medical Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Thomas W. Davison,President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge: 

 

(1)    The Report fully complies with therequirements 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/ Thomas W. Davison

Thomas W. Davison 

President and ChiefExecutive Officer 

May 15, 2003 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by §906 has been provided to the Company and will be obtained by the Company andfurnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

In re: 

STEVEN ALBERT HAINES

JAIME LYNN HAINES

Debtor(s)

Case No. 10-01042

CHAPTER 13 STANDING TRUSTEE’S FINAL REPORT AND ACCOUNT

Glenn Stearns, chapter 13 trustee, submits the following Final Report and Account of the 

administration of the estate pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1302(b)(1). The trustee declares as follows:

1) The case was filed on 01/13/2010.

2) The plan was confirmed on NA .

3) The plan was modified by order after confirmation pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1329 on

 NA .

4) The trustee filed action to remedy default by the debtor in performance under the plan 

on NA .

5) The case was dismissed on 02/12/2010.

6) Number of months from filing to last payment: 0.

7) Number of months case was pending: 3.

8) Total value of assets abandoned by court order: NA .

9) Total value of assets exempted: NA .

10) Amount of unsecured claims discharged without payment: $0.00.

11) All checks distributed by the trustee relating to this case have cleared the bank.

UST Form 101-13-FR-S (9/1/2009)

Case 10-01042 Doc 19 Filed 04/20/10 Entered 04/20/10 07:57:01 Desc Page 1

 of 3
Receipts:

Total paid by or on behalf of the debtor $0.00

Less amount refunded to debtor $0.00

NET RECEIPTS: $0.00

Expenses of Administration:

Attorney’s Fees Paid Through the Plan $0.00

Court Costs $0.00

Trustee Expenses & Compensation $0.00

Other $0.00

TOTAL EXPENSES OF ADMINISTRATION: $0.00

Attorney fees paid and disclosed by debtor: $0.00

Scheduled Creditors:

Creditor

Name Class

Claim

Scheduled

Claim

Asserted

Claim

Allowed

Int.

Paid

Principal

Paid

Summary of Disbursements to Creditors:

Secured Payments:

Mortgage Ongoing

Mortgage Arrearage

Debt Secured by Vehicle

All Other Secured

TOTAL SECURED:

Priority Unsecured Payments:

Domestic Support Arrearage

Domestic Support Ongoing

All Other Priority

TOTAL PRIORITY:

GENERAL UNSECURED PAYMENTS:

Claim

Allowed

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

Principal

Paid

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

Interest

Paid

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

UST Form 101-13-FR-S (9/1/2009)

Case 10-01042 Doc 19 Filed 04/20/10 Entered 04/20/10 07:57:01 Desc Page 2

 of 3
Disbursements:

Expenses of Administration $0.00

Disbursements to Creditors $0.00

TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS : $0.00

12) The trustee certifies that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 5009, 

the estate has been fully administered, the foregoing summary is true and complete, and all 

administrative matters for which the trustee is responsible have been completed. The trustee 

requests a final decree be entered that discharges the trustee and grants such other relief as may 

be just and proper.

Dated: 04/20/2010

STATEMENT: This Unified Form is associated with an open bankruptcy case, therefore, Paperwork Reduction 

Act exemption 5 C.F.R. § 1320.4(a)(2) applies.

By: /s/ Glenn Stearns

Trustee

UST Form 101-13-FR-S (9/1/2009)

Case 10-01042 Doc 19 Filed 04/20/10 Entered 04/20/10 07:57:01 Desc Page 3

 of 3
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-17331 on Form S-8 pertaining to the Broadway Financial CorporationStock Option Plan for Outside Directors and the Broadway Financial Corporation Long Term Incentive Plan and Registration Statement No. 333-102138 on Form S-8 pertaining to the Broadway Financial Corporation Long Term Incentive Plan of ourreport dated June 17, 2010 on the consolidated financial statements of Broadway Financial Corporation and subsidiaries, which report is included in Form 10-K for Broadway Financial Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2009.

/s/ Crowe Horwath LLP 

South Bend, Indiana 

June 17, 2010
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>        5
<LEGEND>
                       Financial Data Schedule

     This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Company's audited financial statements at December 31, 1998 and 1999, and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.


<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                    YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                    DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                              93,521                   79,220
<SECURITIES>                     1,289,025                  834,065
<RECEIVABLES>                       17,998                   22,135
<ALLOWANCES>                             0                        0
<INVENTORY>                         79,681                   88,012
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                 1,845,523                1,134,270
<PP&E>                             150,918                  161,379
<DEPRECIATION>                      92,378                  124,288
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                   1,952,349                1,223,276
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               35,504                   20,671
<BONDS>                                  0                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                    0                        0
<PREFERRED>                              0                        0
<COMMON>                             2,925                    2,925
<OTHER-SE>                       1,913,920                1,199,680
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>     1,952,349                1,223,276
<SALES>                          3,934,847                1,665,129
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                 3,934,847                1,665,129
<CGS>                              644,823                  285,915
<TOTAL-COSTS>                    3,650,788                2,141,355
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                    87,675                   73,245
<LOSS-PROVISION>                         0                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       0                        0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   (273,089)                (688,896)
<INCOME-TAX>                          (850)                 (25,350)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>               (273,939)                (714,246)
<DISCONTINUED>                           0                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                          0                        0
<CHANGES>                                0                        0
<NET-INCOME>                      (273,939)                (714,246)
<EPS-BASIC>                          (0.09)                   (0.24)
<EPS-DILUTED>                        (0.09)                   (0.24)


</TABLE>
III 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 245 

Designating November 2011 as ‘‘Stomach Cancer Awareness Month’’ and 

supporting efforts to educate the public about stomach cancer. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 29, 2011 

Mr. KERRY (for himself and Mr. DURBIN) submitted the following resolution; 

which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Designating November 2011 as ‘‘Stomach Cancer Awareness 

Month’’ and supporting efforts to educate the public 

about stomach cancer. 

Whereas stomach cancer is 1 of the most difficult cancers to 

detect and treat in the early stages of the disease, which 

contributes to high mortality rates and human suffering; 

Whereas stomach cancer is the second-leading cause of cancer 

mortality worldwide; 

Whereas, in 2009, an estimated 21,000 new cases of stomach 

cancer were diagnosed in the United States; 

Whereas, in 2010, it was estimated that 10,000 people in the 

United States would die from stomach cancer; 

Whereas the estimated 5-year survival rate for stomach cancer is only 26 percent; 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 245 IS 

Whereas approximately 1 in 113 individuals will be diagnosed 

with stomach cancer in their lifetimes; 

Whereas an inherited form of stomach cancer carries a 67- 

to 83-percent risk that an individual will be diagnosed 

with stomach cancer by 80 years of age; 

Whereas, in the United States, stomach cancer is more prevalent among racial and ethnic minorities; 

Whereas better patient and health care provider education is 

needed for the timely recognition of stomach cancer risks 

and symptoms; 

Whereas more research into effective early diagnosis, screening, and treatment for stomach cancer is needed; and 

Whereas November 2011 is an appropriate month to observe 

‘‘Stomach Cancer Awareness Month’’: Now, therefore, be 

it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) designates November 2011 as ‘‘Stomach 

3 Cancer Awareness Month’’; 

4 (2) supports efforts to educate the people of the 

5 United States about stomach cancer; 

6 (3) recognizes the need for additional research 

7 into early diagnosis and treatment for stomach can8 cer; and 

9 (4) encourages the people of the United States 

10 and interested groups to observe and support No11 vember 2011 as ‘‘Stomach Cancer Awareness 

12 Month’’ through appropriate programs and activities 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•SRES 245 IS 

1 to promote public awareness of, and potential treat2 ments for, stomach cancer. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1055 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1055

  To amend title 23, United States Code, to extend the Interstate 4R 
                         discretionary program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 23, 1997

  Mr. Durbin (for himself, Ms. Moseley-Braun, and Mr. Reid of Nevada) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
               Committee on Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 23, United States Code, to extend the Interstate 4R 
                         discretionary program.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Interstate System Improvement Act of 
1997''.

SEC. 2. SET ASIDE FOR 4R PROJECTS.

    Section 118(c)(2)(A) of title 23, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in the first sentence--
                    (A) by striking ``$54,000,000'' and all that 
                follows through ``1997'' and inserting ``$800,000,000 
                for each fiscal year''; and
                    (B) by striking ``any highway designated as a part 
                of the Interstate System under section 139 and'';
            (2) by striking the second sentence; and
            (3) in the last sentence, by striking ``The remainder of 
        such'' and inserting ``The''.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-1886

L. RUTHER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

COMPANY,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District

Judge. (CA-01-671-A)

Submitted: November 8, 2001 Decided: November 15, 2001

Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

L. Ruther, Appellant Pro Se. August William Steinhilber, BRAULT,

PALMER, GROVER, ZIMMERMAN, WHITE & MIMS, Fairfax, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

L. Ruther appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his

civil action under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (West Supp. 2001)

and motion to reconsider. We have reviewed the record and the

district court’s opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Ruther

v. State Farm Mutual Ins. Co., No. CA-01-671-A (E.D. Va. June 18 &

22, 2001). 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.

AFFIRMED