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

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1214

To amend the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 to eliminate the requirement

that a Federal budget deficit must exist in order for the President

to use the line-item veto authority.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

SEPTEMBER 24, 1997

Mr. ALLARD introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

jointly pursuant to the order of August 4, 1977, as modified by the order

of April 11, 1986, to the Committees on the Budget and Governmental

Affairs, with instructions that if one Committee reports, the other Committee have thirty days to report or be discharged

A BILL

To amend the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 to eliminate

the requirement that a Federal budget deficit must exist

in order for the President to use the line-item veto authority.

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

3 That section 1021(a)(3)(A) of the Congressional Budget

4 Act of 1974 is amended by striking clause (i) and by re5 designating clauses (ii) and (iii) as clauses (i) and (ii),

6 respectively.

Æ
EX-32
                          SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Sonic Jet Performance,
Inc. ("Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("Report"), the
undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby
certifies pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(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.


Dated: August 18, 2003                 By: /s/ Madhava Rao Mankal
                                       Madhava Rao Mankal,
                                       President/Secretary/Chief
                                       Financial Officer
#### Woods *v.*Mays *et al.*

February 20, 1915.

Complaint. Before Judge Daniel. Butts superior court. October 11, 1913.

*W. E. Watlcins,*for plaintiff. *John B. L. Smith,*for defendants.

Per Curiam.

1. When considered in connection with the evidence of the notary public who issued a certificate of protest on the paper sued on, the certificate not having been filed in court and permitted to remain there as provided in the Civil Code § 5822, it was not error to reject the certificate from evidence when offered by the plaintiff.

2. The grounds of the motion for new trial which complained of the omission to charge without request, when considered in connection with the pleadings and the evidence and the charge as given, show no error requiring the grant of a new trial.

3. All other questions raised in this case are controlled by the rulings in the cases of *Fidelity Trust Co.*v. *Mays,*142 *Ga.*821 (83 S. E. 961), and *Park*v. *Mays,*143 *Ga.*71 (84 S. E. 426).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Fish, O. J., absent.*
# C_2014194EN.01003803.xml

| 24.6.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 194/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.6.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 194/38

---

Order of the General Court of 28 April 2014 — Omega v OHIM — Omega Engineering (Ω OMEGA)

(Case T-175/13) (1)

1

2014/C 194/53

Language of the case: French

The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 147, 25.5.2013.

1

---
#### STUDWELL et al., Appellants, v. PALLISER et al., Respondents.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

October 4, 1907.)

Action by George H. Studwell and another against Melvin G. Palliser and another.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.
# Official Journal C 131/12 A

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 131 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6112 April 2018 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 131

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6112 April 2018

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Auditors |
| 2018/C 131/01 | Report on Budgetary and Financial Management for 2017 | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Auditors

2018/C 131/01

Report on Budgetary and Financial Management for 2017

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
#### In the Matter of Robert Fisher, Respondent, v Richard Condon, as Commissioner of the Division of Criminal Justice Services, Appellant.

—Yesawich, Jr., J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court at Special Term (Kahn, J.), entered February 20, 1985 in Albany County, which granted petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to compel respondent to return to petitioner all records of a prior arrest.

*901In March 1976, petitioner, then 17 years of age, was arrested for criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree *(see,*Penal Law § 220.03). His plea of guilty to that offense in the Justice Court of the Town of Cairo, Greene County, resulted in a small fine and youthful offender status. With respect to that adjudication and pursuant to CPL 160.50 (1) , an order dated April 22, 1983 of the Cairo Town Justice directed respondent to return to petitioner or his attorney "every photograph of such person or photographic plate, proof and all palm prints and fingerprints taken or made of such person * * * and all duplicates and copies thereof’. Respondent never initiated any judicial proceeding challenging that order. Instead, respondent sent the Town Justice an "official inquiry” seeking further information and, on the basis of his answer, which consisted of marking a box on a preprinted form, refused to return petitioner’s fingerprints. Petitioner thereupon commenced the instant CPLR article 78 proceeding in the nature of mandamus. Special Term granted the petition.

Respondent now appeals, urging that the Town Justice’s order is facially inconsistent. Be that as it may, as Special Term pointed out, there is no question that the order went unchallenged by a motion to intervene or by direct appeal via an article 78 proceeding. The order’s unambiguous directive that respondent hand over the fingerprints is, therefore, final and binding on respondent.

Parenthetically, were we to address the merits, it is clear that the underlying proceeding falls within the definition of a termination in favor of the accused as defined by CPL 160.50 (2) . The accusatory instrument alleged a violation of Penal Law article 220 prior to the taking effect of Penal Law article 221 *(see,*CPL 160.50 [2] [k] [i]); the sole controlled substance involved was marihuana *(see,*CPL 160.50 [2] [k] [ii]); the conviction, though the proceeding terminated in a youthful offender adjudication, was nonetheless only for a violation *(see,*CPL 160.50 [2] [k] [iii]); and at least three years have passed since the offense occurred *(see,*CPL 160.50 [2] [k] [iv]).

Judgment affirmed, without costs. Main, J. P., Casey, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Harvey, JJ., concur.
III 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 364 

Recognizing the goals of National Catholic Schools Week and honoring the 

valuable contributions of Catholic schools in the United States. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 31, 2012 

Mr. VITTER (for himself, Ms. LANDRIEU, and Mr. JOHANNS) submitted the 

following resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing the goals of National Catholic Schools Week 

and honoring the valuable contributions of Catholic 

schools in the United States. 

Whereas Catholic schools in the United States have received 

international acclaim for academic excellence while providing students with lessons that extend far beyond the 

classroom; 

Whereas Catholic schools present a broad curriculum that 

emphasizes the lifelong development of moral, intellectual, physical, and social values in the young people of 

the United States; 

Whereas Catholic schools in the United States today educate 

more than 2,000,000 students and maintain a student-toteacher ratio of 14 to 1; 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 364 ATS 

Whereas the faculty members of Catholic schools teach a 

highly diverse body of students; 

Whereas the graduation rate for all Catholic school students 

is 99 percent; 

Whereas 97 percent of Catholic high school graduates go on 

to college; 

Whereas Catholic schools produce students strongly dedicated 

to their faith, values, families, and communities by providing an intellectually stimulating environment rich in 

spiritual character and moral development; and 

Whereas, in the 1972 pastoral message concerning Catholic 

education, the National Conference of Catholic Bishops 

stated, ‘‘Education is one of the most important ways by 

which the Church fulfills its commitment to the dignity 

of the person and building of community. Community is 

central to education ministry, both as a necessary condition and an ardently desired goal. The educational efforts 

of the Church, therefore, must be directed to forming 

persons-in-community; for the education of the individual 

Christian is important not only to his solitary destiny, 

but also the destinies of the many communities in which 

he lives.’’: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) recognizes the goals of National Catholic 

3 Schools Week, an event cosponsored by the National 

4 Catholic Educational Association and the United 

5 States Conference of Catholic Bishops that recog6 nizes the vital contributions of thousands of Catholic 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•SRES 364 ATS 

1 elementary and secondary schools in the United 

2 States; and 

3 (2) commends Catholic schools, students, par4 ents, and teachers across the United States for their 

5 ongoing contributions to education, and for the vital 

6 role they play in promoting and ensuring a brighter, 

7 stronger future for the United States. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit  32.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

Pursuant  to  Section  906 of the Corporate Fraud Accountability Act of 2002 (18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted), Richard B. Slansky, Chief Financial Officer of
SpaceDev,  Inc.  (the  "Company"),  hereby  certifies  that,  to the best of his
knowledge:

The  Company's  Quarterly  Report  on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31,
2004, and to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.2 (the "Periodic
Report"), fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or section 15(d)
of  the  Securities  Exchange  Act  of  1934,  as  amended,  and the information
contained  in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial  condition  and  results  of  operations  of  the  Company.

IN  WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have set their hands hereto as of this 10th
day  of  May  2004.




By:  /s/  Richard  B.  Slansky
-----------------------------------
          Richard  B.  Slansky
          Chief  Financial  Officer
#### WELLS v. BROOKLYN UNION ELEVATED R. CO. et al.

(No. 2.)

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

October 4, 1907.)

Appeal from Special Term, Kings County.

Action by Oliver J. Wells against the Brooklyn Union Elevated Railroad Company and another. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Modified and affirmed..

Argued before HIRSCHBERG, P. J., and HOOKER, RICH, MILLER, and GAYNOR, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment modified by reducing the amount of damages to two-fifths of the sum allowed, with a proportionate reduction of the extra allowance, and, as modified, affirmed, without costs, on the authority of Wells v. Brooklyn Union Elevated Railroad Company and Another (decided herewith) 106 N. Y. Supp. 77.
II

Calendar No. 161

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1144

Disapproving the cancellation transmitted by the President on August 11,

1997, regarding Public Law 105–33.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

SEPTEMBER 3, 1997

Mr. MOYNIHAN (for himself and Mr. D’AMATO) introduced the following bill;

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance for seven

days of session pursuant to section 1023 of Public Law 93–344

SEPTEMBER 15, 1997

Committee discharged and placed on the calendar

A BILL

Disapproving the cancellation transmitted by the President

on August 11, 1997, regarding Public Law 105–33.

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

3 That Congress disapproves of cancellation 97–3 as trans4 mitted by the President in a special message on August

5 11, 1997, regarding Public Law 105–33.
Calendar No. 161

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1144

A BILL

Disapproving the cancellation transmitted by the

Law 105–33.President on August 11, 1997, regarding Public

SEPTEMBER 15, 1997

Committee discharged and placed on the calendar
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

OMAR AVILA

 Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 02-cr-464-8

Judge Ronald A. Guzmán

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

The Court denies Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration of Previous Filed Motion for 

Reduction of Sentence [613] and his Motion to Reduce Sentence Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 

3582(c)(2) [624]. 

STATEMENT

On November 3, 2004, Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of drug conspiracy and 

racketeering (18 U.S.C. § 1962(c)) and one count of murder (18 U.S.C. § 848(e)(1)(A)). (Def.’s 

Plea Agreement [Dkt. # 362] at 2.) As part of his plea agreement, he admitted to various 

egregious acts beyond murder and drug trafficking, such as abducting, torturing, sodomizing, 

murdering, and burning his victim. (Id.) He now moves to reduce his sentence pursuant to 18 

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), claiming that Amendment 782 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines 

reduced the applicable sentencing range.

Under Section 3582(c)(2), courts may reduce a defendant’s previously imposed sentence 

where “[he] has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has 

subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 994(o).” 18 §
U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). But that has not happened here. While Amendment 782 indeed lowered the 

penalties for most drug offenses in Guidelines Section 2D1.1, see U.S.S.G App. C., Amend. 782,

Defendant was not sentenced under that provision. Rather, the parties agree that he was 

sentenced under Guidelines Section 2A1.1, (see Gov’t’s Br. in Opp’n [Dkt # 626] at 5; Def.’s 

Mot. [Dkt # 613] at 1), which applies if a defendant’s victim is killed under circumstances that 

constitute murder, see U.S.S.G. §§ 2A1.1(a), 2D1.1(d). Accordingly, Amendment 782 did not 

lower Defendant’s applicable sentencing range, and his motion therefore fails as a matter of law.

See United States v. Taylor, 778 F.3d 667, 672 (7th Cir. 2015) (explaining that if a defendant’s

applicable guideline range was not lowered by amendment, then courts must deny relief under 18 

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)); United States v. Hatfield, No. 08-CR-30020-DRH-2, 2015 U.S. Dist.

LEXIS 115604, at *3 (S.D. Ill. Aug. 31, 2015) (rejecting a defendant’s Amendment 782

argument because he was sentenced under the first-degree murder guidelines rather than the drug

quantity table).

CONCLUSION

The Court denies Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration of Previous Filed Motion for 

Reduction of Sentence [613] and his Motion to Reduce Sentence Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 

3582(c)(2) [624].

SO ORDERED. ENTERED: March 29, 2016

____________________________________

HON. RONALD A. GUZMÁN

United States District Judge

2
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ronald P. Bensching, Appellant.

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: On defendant’s prior appeal from convictions of multiple sex offenses, we reserved decision and remitted for a hearing to explore the assignment of counsel issue and to determine under what circumstances the defendant "waived” a preliminary hearing *(see, People v Bensching,*105 AD2d 1054). At the hearing, it was to be determined whether defendant’s waiver of a preliminary hearing was " 'an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege’ ” *(supra,*p 1055).

The record of the hearing on remittitur reveals that when placed under arrest, defendant indicated that he wanted an attorney and instructed his wife, in the presence of the arresting officers, to get him an attorney. Thereafter, the police "scrupulously honored” that request and did not question defendant further *(see, People v Cunningham,*49 NY2d 203; *People v Grant,*45 NY2d 366, 376). It appears that upon his arraignment in the local Town Court, defendant was advised of his right to counsel and his right to a preliminary hearing. It is apparent that counsel was not assigned to represent him at that time because of defendant’s representations that his wife would be obtaining counsel from Buffalo. Thus, neither the police nor the court denied or abridged defendant’s right to counsel.

Defendant’s claim that he is entitled to a new trial because he was denied the right to a preliminary hearing is without merit. There is no constitutional or statutory right to a preliminary hearing *(see, People ex rel. Hirschberg v Close,*1 NY2d 258; *People v Aaron,*55 AD2d 653, 654; *People v Abbatiello,*30 AD2d 11, 12), nor is it a jurisdictional predicate to indictment *(see, People v Hodge,*53 NY2d 313, 319-320; *People ex rel. Hirschberg v Close, supra; see also, Matter of*
      *972
      *Molea v Marasco,*64 NY2d 718, 722 [Simons, J., dissenting]). Here, the Judge who arraigned defendant in the local criminal court fully advised defendant of his right to a prompt hearing to determine whether there was sufficient evidence to hold him for the Grand Jury *(see,*CPL 180.10). While failure to afford a timely preliminary hearing would entitle defendant, upon application, to be released on his own recognizance *(see,*CPL 180.80), it does not require that the indictment be dismissed or a new trial be held *(see, People v Phillips,*88 AD2d 672; *People v Aaron, supra).*(Resubmission of appeal from judgment of Cattaraugus County Court, Crowley, J.— rape, first degree, and other offenses.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Doerr, Boomer and Pine, JJ.
**Exhibit 23.1****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-4 (No.333-108036) and in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-124771, 333-120018,333-110093, 333-102049, 333-84846, 333-50942, 333-49182, 333-62275, 333-38871 and 333-10697) ofHyperion Solutions Corporation of our report dated August 26, 2005 relating to the consolidatedfinancial statements and financial statement schedule, management’s assessment of the effectivenessof internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control overfinancial reporting which appear in this Form 10-K.   /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP San Jose, California  August 30, 2005
___________

No. 95-2044

___________

Ethyel M. Clark, widow of *

Walter Clark, *

 *

Petitioner, *

 * Petition for review of an

v. * Order of the

 * Benefits Review Board.

Director, Office of Workers' *

Compensation Programs, * [UNPUBLISHED]

 *

Respondent. *

___________

 Submitted: April 1, 1996

 Filed: April 4, 1996

___________

Before BEAM, LOKEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Ethyel M. Clark, widow of Walter E. Clark, requested modification of

a prior denial of benefits under the Black Lung Benefits Act, 30 U.S.C.

§§ 901-962 (1988) (the Act). An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied her

request, the Benefits Review Board (BRB) affirmed the ALJ, and this appeal

followed. We affirm.

We previously affirmed the denial of benefits under the Act in

connection with a claim filed in 1980 by Clark's husband and a survivor's

claim Clark filed in 1984 after her husband died of colon cancer with

metastasis. See Clark v. Director, OWCP, 917 F.2d 374 (8th Cir. 1990).

In her modification proceeding under 20 C.F.R. § 725.310 (1995), Clark

submitted as new evidence two medical reports on her late husband's

condition. 
 Moreover, Clark has presented nothing to rebut the evidence 1

showing that her husband died of colon cancer with metastasis. 

Clark, 917 F.2d at 375 (for successful survivor's claim, miner's

death must be attributable to pneumoconiosis).

-2-

Our review "is limited to an evaluation of whether the decisions of

the ALJ and [BRB] are `rational, supported by substantial evidence and

consistent with applicable law.'" Clark, 917 F.2d at 376 (quoted case

omitted). We conclude, after reviewing the record as a whole, that the

refusal to modify the prior denial of benefits is supported by substantial

evidence. 

The ALJ noted that one of the medical reports did not address the

issue of disability. See Barnes v. ICO Corp, 31 F.3d 678, 680 (8th Cir.

1994) (claimant must prove total disability caused at least in part by

pneumoconiosis, and arising out of coal-mine employment). The second

report, written in 1992, contained the conclusion of Dr. Rasmussen that

Clark's husband had been disabled due to coal-mine work, based on his

sixteen years of coal-mine employment and an X-ray report showing scarred

lungs. The ALJ found, among other things, that Dr. Rasmussen's conclusion

was unreasoned and failed to discuss the evidence upon which it was based.

The report also is contradicted by a prior report from the same doctor.

See Risher v. OWCP, 940 F.2d 327, 331 (8th Cir. 1991) (ALJ may disregard

medical opinion that does not adequately explain basis for its conclusion);

Clark, 917 F.2d at 376 (second opinion was contradicted by first, and was

not sufficiently documented by new studies). As to the survivor's claim,

we previously upheld the ALJ's finding that Clark abandoned that claim,

rejecting her contention that it merged with her husband's claim. Clark,

917 F.2d at 375 & n.2.1

Accordingly, we affirm.
-3-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Exhibit 12.3

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 302
OF THE U.S. SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Dionisio Romero P., certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on
Form 20-F of Credicorp Ltd.;



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; and



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial
statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report.



|Dated: November 7, 2012        | 
|------------------------------ | 
|/S/  DIONISIO ROMERO P.        | 
|Name: Dionisio Romero P.       | 
|Title: Chief Executive Officer |