alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.2

Dover Motorsports, Inc.

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Dover Motorsports, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company), on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the Report), I, Timothy R. Horne, Senior Vice President-Finance and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that to my 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: March 6, 2009                                    
|                                                        
|/s/ Timothy R. Horne                                    
|Timothy R. Horne                                        
|Senior Vice President-Financeand Chief Financial Officer

This certification shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), or incorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except as shall be expressly set forth by specific reference in
such a filing.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 214 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 214

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify that tar sands 
   are crude oil for purposes of the Federal excise tax on petroleum.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 8, 2015

Mr. Blumenauer (for himself, Mrs. Capps, Mr. DeFazio, Mr. Pascrell, Mr. 
    Van Hollen, Mr. Nadler, Mr. Murphy of Florida, Mr. Sherman, Mr. 
   Grayson, Mr. Quigley, Mr. Cartwright, Ms. Lee, and Mr. Connolly) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify that tar sands 
   are crude oil for purposes of the Federal excise tax on petroleum.

    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 ``Tar Sands Tax Loophole Elimination 
Act''.

SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION OF TAR SANDS AS CRUDE OIL FOR EXCISE TAX 
              PURPOSES.

    (a) In General.--Section 4612(a)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 is amended to read as follows:
            ``(1) Crude oil.--The term `crude oil' includes crude oil 
        condensates, natural gasoline, any bitumen or bituminous 
        mixture, any oil derived from a bitumen or bituminous mixture, 
        and any oil derived from kerogen-bearing sources.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to oil and petroleum products received or entered during calendar 
quarters beginning more than 60 days after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
                                 <all>
```
## In T he Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07
- 22
- 00194
- CR

MICHAEL DANIEL RODRIGUEZ , A PPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , APPELLEE On Appeal from the 207th District Court Comal County, Texas Trial Court No
. CR2020
- 095 , Honorable Stephanie Bascon , Presiding



### November 2 , 2022 ORDER OF ABATEMENT AND REMAND Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and YARBROUGH, JJ. Appellant, Michael Daniel Rodriguez, appeals his conviction for aggravated robbery 1 and sentence to thirty

- five years’ confinement. 2 Appellant ’ s brief was originally due August 29, 2022, but we granted Appellant’s appointed counsel two extensions to file a brief. By letter of October 3, 2022 , we admonished counsel that failure to file a brief by

1 See T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN . § 29.03(a)(3)(A).

2 Originally appealed to the Third Court of Appeals, this appeal was transferred to this Court by the Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalizations efforts. See T EX

. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN . § 73.001.2

October 28 c ould result in the appeal being abated and the cause remanded to the trial court for further proceedings without further notice. On October 28 , 2022, Appellant ’ s counsel filed a third motion for an extension of time to file a brief

. W e deny the motion f or extension , abate this appeal , and remand the cause to the trial court for further proceedings. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 38.8(b)(2), (3). Upon remand, the trial court shall determine the following: (1) whether Appellant still desires to prosecute the appeal; (2) w hether A ppellant is indigent; (3) why a timely appellate brief has not been filed on A ppellant ’s behalf ; (4) whether A ppellant ’ s counsel has abandoned the appeal; (5) whether A ppellant has been denied the effective assistance of counsel; (6) whether new counsel should be appointed; and (7) if A ppellant desires to continue the appeal, the date the C ourt may expect A ppellant ’ s brief to be filed.
T he trial court is directed to enter such orders necessary to address the aforementioned questions. So too shall it include its findings on those matters in a supplemental record and cause that record to be filed with this C ourt by December 2, 2022

. If it is determined that A ppellant desires to proceed with the appeal, is indigent, and has been denied the effective assistance of counsel, the trial court may appoint him new counsel; the name, address, email address, tele phone number, and state bar number of any newly appointed counsel shall be included in the aforementioned findings. It is so ordered. Per Curiam Do not publish.
1 The Honorable John B. Jones, United States District Judge for the District of

South Dakota, sitting by designation.



## United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

________________ No. 98-4120

________________ Steve Mehdi Ghassemlou,

Appellant,

v. Hen nepin County; Hennepin County Medical Center,

Appellees. * * * * * * * * * Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. [UNPUBLISHED]

________________ Submitted: June 14, 1999 Filed: September 15, 1999

________________ Before HANSEN and MAGILL, Circuit Judges, and JONES, 1 District Judge.

________________ PER CURIAM. Steve Mehdi Ghassemlou, a resident alien from Iran, was hired as a nursing assistant by Hennepin County Medical Center. He began his employment as a probationary employee. Ghassemlou was terminated after only two months of employment. Ghassemlou brought an action against Hennepin County and the2

Hennepin County Medical Center alleging gender and national origin discrimination in violationof Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1), and the Minnesota Human Rights Act, Minn. Stat. § 363.03. The district court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and Ghassemlou appeals. Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties' briefs, we conclude an extended discussion is not warranted and affirm for the reasons set out in the district court's opinion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT
114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2270 

AN ACT 

To redesignate the Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge, located in the State of Washington, as the Billy Frank 

Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge, to establish the 

Medicine Creek Treaty National Memorial within the 

wildlife refuge, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 2270 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Billy Frank Jr. Tell 

3 Your Story Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. REDESIGNATION OF THE NISQUALLY NATIONAL 

5 WILDLIFE REFUGE. 

6 (a) REDESIGNATION.—The Nisqually National Wild7 life Refuge, located in the State of Washington, is redesig8 nated as the ‘‘Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife 

9 Refuge’’. 

10 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in any statute, 

11 rule, regulation, Executive Order, publication, map, paper, 

12 or other document of the United States to the Nisqually 

13 National Wildlife Refuge is deemed to refer to the Billy 

14 Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge. 

15 SEC. 3. MEDICINE CREEK TREATY NATIONAL MEMORIAL, 

16 WASHINGTON. 

17 (a) ESTABLISHMENT.—There is established the Med18 icine Creek Treaty National Memorial within the Billy 

19 Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge to com20 memorate the location of the signing of the Medicine 

21 Creek Treaty of 1854 between the United States Govern22 ment and leaders of the Muckleshoot, Nisqually, Puyallup, 

23 and Squaxin Island Indian Tribes. 

24 (b) ACREAGE AND ADMINISTRATION.—The Secretary 

25 of the Interior shall establish the boundaries of the Medi26 cine Creek Treaty National Memorial and provide for ad-
3 

•HR 2270 EH

1 ministration and interpretation of the memorial by the 

2 United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 

3 (c) COORDINATION.—The Secretary of the Interior 

4 shall coordinate with representatives of the Muckleshoot, 

5 Nisqually, Puyallup, and Squaxin Island Indian Tribes in 

6 providing for the interpretation of the Medicine Creek 

7 Treaty National Memorial. 

Passed the House of Representatives November 30, 

2015. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2270 

AN ACT 

To redesignate the Nisqually National Wildlife Reffor other purposes. tional Memorial within the wildlife refuge, and uge, to establish the Medicine Creek Treaty Na- Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Ref- uge, located in the State of Washington, as the
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Joseph Clark, Appellant.

— Yesawich, Jr., J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Rensselaer County (Dwyer, Jr., J.), rendered July 2, 1985, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crime of grand larceny in the third degree.

Defendant was arrested on a charge of grand larceny in the third degree, stealing plywood from a lumber company, for which he was indicted on May 25, 1984. A year later, on the eve of trial, the People delivered a copy of an "oral admission report” to defense counsel. This report contained a statement, allegedly voluntarily blurted out by defendant in the presence of police officers and before *Miranda*warnings were administered, that, "I asked the kid how much the wood was and gave him one-hundred bucks. If you look in his pockets you will find a one-hundred dollar bill.”

Defense counsel sought to have the statement suppressed because it had not been furnished within 15 days after arraignment *(see,*CPL 710.30 [2]). The prosecutor maintained the statement was exculpatory, hence no CPL 710.30 notice was required to be served, to which defendant responded that if exculpatory, it should have been made available in reply to his omnibus motion made and determined shortly after indictment wherein disclosure of *Brady*material was requested.

At the suppression hearing which was thereupon held, County Court ruled that the ambiguous nature of the statement, coupled with the prosecutor’s sincere belief that it was indeed exculpatory, constituted "good cause” within the meaning of CPL 710.30 for the prosecution’s delay. Before the court *879issued its ruling that the statement could be used in the prosecution’s case-in-chief, defendant rejected the court’s offer to declare a mistrial to afford defendant additional time to prepare his defense, provided double jeopardy claims were waived. Upon completion of the suppression hearing, the trial proceeded forthwith and defendant was convicted. This appeal ensued.

Failure to strictly comply with CPL 710.30 is not cause for reversal for defendant received notice before trial of the People’s intention to use the statement and was granted a suppression hearing with respect thereto *(see, People v Bowden,*104 AD2d 695, 696). Moreover, with a view in mind to protecting the rights of both defendant and the prosecution, defendant was offered the option of a mistrial.

We are not unmindful of the special sensitivities presented where a prosecutor’s office, as representative of the People, fails to adhere to statutorily imposed guidelines, but here, in significant contrast to *People v Briggs*(38 NY2d 319), the statement involved is not one which clearly inculpates the defendant. At best, the statement herein is only marginally probative of defendant’s commission of the crime charged.

Judgment affirmed. Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Levine, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael J. Windnagle, Appellant.

Memorandum: Defendant contends that the indictment was fatally defective under CPL former 200.40 (1), which provided that each defendant must be jointly charged with every offense alleged in the indictment. The first three counts of the indictment jointly charged defendant and his two codefendants with assault in the second degree whereas the *1007fourth count, charging criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, named only the two codefendants. Defendant claims that the misjoinder under count four invalidated the entire indictment. On this record, we disagree. While the record is silent as to disposition of the fourth count of the indictment, defendant concedes that no reference was ever made at trial to such count by either the prosecutor or the court. Hence the misjoinder in no way prejudiced the defendant or deprived him of a fair trial on the counts of the indictment upon which he ‘was charged. (Appeal from judgment of Orleans County Court, Miles, J. — assault, second degree.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Doerr, Boomer and Schnepp, JJ.
Skip to main content

Privacy Policy•Site map

# About the Court

The United States Court of Federal Claims is a court of record with national jurisdiction. The United States Court of Federal Claims was recreated in October 1982 by the Federal Courts Improvement Act pursuant to Article 1 of the United States Constitution. The court consists of sixteen judges nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate for a term of fifteen years. After 1982, the court retained all the original jurisdiction of the Court of Claims and continues, uninterrupted, a judicial tradition more than 140 years old. The court has since been given new equitable jurisdiction in the area of bid protests, as well as jurisdiction in vaccine compensation. The Court of Federal Claims is authorized to hear primarily money claims founded upon the Constitution, federal statutes, executive regulations, or contracts, express or implied in fact, with the United States. Many cases before the court involve tax refund suits, an area in which the court exercises concurrent jurisdiction with the United States district courts. The cases generally involve complex factual and statutory construction issues in tax law. Another aspect of the court's jurisdiction involves government contracts. It was within the public contracts jurisdiction that the court was given new equitable authority in late 1996. In recent years, the court's Fifth Amendment takings jurisdiction has included many cases raising environmental and natural resources issues. Another large category of cases involves civilian and military pay claims. In addition, the court hears intellectual property, Indian tribe, and various statutory claims against the United States by individuals, domestic and foreign corporations, states and localities, Indian tribes and nations, and foreign nationals and governments. While many cases pending before the court involve claims potentially worth millions or even billions of dollars, the court also efficiently handles numerous smaller claims. Its expertise, in recent years, has been seen as its ability to efficiently handle large, complex, and often technical litigation.
                                    - Court History Brochure
                                    - Frequently Asked Questions
                                    - Job Opportunities/ Employment
                                    - Reports/Statistics
                                    - Seminars Disclosure
                                    - Surveys

Howard T. Markey National Courts Building • 717 Madison Place, NW, Washington, DC 20439 • 202-357-6400
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 246 Engrossed in House (EH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 246

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
      To improve the response to victims of child sex trafficking.

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

SECTION 1. RESPONSE TO VICTIMS OF CHILD SEX TRAFFICKING.

    Section 404(b)(1)(P)(iii) of the Missing Children's Assistance Act 
(42 U.S.C. 5773(b)(1)(P)(iii)) is amended by striking ``child 
prostitution'' and inserting ``child sex trafficking, including child 
prostitution''.

            Passed the House of Representatives January 27, 2015.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
114th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 246

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

      To improve the response to victims of child sex trafficking.
```
114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2146 

AN ACT 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow Federal law enforcement officers, firefighters, and air traffic 

controllers to make penalty-free withdrawals from governmental plans after age 50, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 2146 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Defending Public Safe3 ty Employees’ Retirement Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. EARLY RETIREMENT DISTRIBUTIONS TO FEDERAL 

5 LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS, FIRE6 FIGHTERS, AND AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS 

7 IN GOVERNMENTAL PLANS. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 72(t)(10)(B) of the Inter9 nal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended— 

10 (1) by striking the period at the end and insert11 ing ‘‘, or’’; 

12 (2) by striking ‘‘means any employee’’ and in13 serting the following: ‘‘means— 

14 ‘‘(i) any employee’’; and 

15 (3) by adding at the end the following new 

16 clause: 

17 ‘‘(ii) any Federal law enforcement of18 ficer described in section 8331(20) or 

19 8401(17) of title 5, United States Code, 

20 any Federal customs and border protection 

21 officer described in section 8331(31) or 

22 8401(36) of such title, any Federal fire23 fighter described in section 8331(21) or 

24 8401(14) of such title, or any air traffic 

25 controller described in 8331(30) or 

26 8401(35) of such title.’’. 
3 

•HR 2146 EH

1 (b) APPLICATION TO DEFINED CONTRIBUTION

2 PLANS.—Section 72(t)(10)(A) of such Code is amended 

3 by striking ‘‘which is a defined benefit plan’’. 

4 (c) DISTRIBUTIONS NOT TREATED AS MODIFICATION

5 OF SUBSTANTIALLY EQUAL PAYMENTS.—Section 

6 72(t)(4)(A)(ii) of such Code is amended by inserting ‘‘or 

7 a distribution to which paragraph (10) applies’’ after 

8 ‘‘other than by reason of death or disability’’. 

9 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

10 this section shall apply to distributions after December 31, 

11 2014. 

12 SEC. 3. BUDGETARY EFFECTS. 

13 The budgetary effects of this Act shall not be entered 

14 on either PAYGO scorecard maintained pursuant to sec15 tion 4(d) of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010. 

Passed the House of Representatives May 12, 2015. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2146 

AN ACT 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to 

after age 50, and for other purposes. alty-free withdrawals from governmental plans fighters, and air traffic controllers to make penallow Federal law enforcement officers, fire-
#### Gross Plumbing and Heating Company, Inc., Petitioner, v Department of Labor of State of New York, et al., Respondents.

— Determination unanimously confirmed and petition dismissed without costs. Memorandum: Respondent’s determination that petitioner willfully failed to pay an employee prevailing wages and supplements in violation of Labor Law § 220 (3) is supported by substantial evidence. Petitioner knew, or should have known, that the employee was working on a public works water project and was being paid less than the prevailing wage rate. Petitioner’s good faith in cooperating in the investigation and promptly remedying the violation does not preclude a finding of willfullness *(see, Matter of CamFul Indus. [Roberts],*128 AD2d 1006, 1007). (Original proceeding pursuant to Labor Law § 220 [8].) Present — Dillon, P. J., Denman, Green, Balio and Davis, JJ.
SMALL BUSINESSES ONLY

The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 requires Hearing Officers to consider 

that you may be a small entity and, under some circumstances, reduce or waive the civil penalty. “Small 

entity” is defined in 5 U. S. C. § 601, 15 U. S. C. § 632 and in the Small Business Administration 

regulations found at 13 C. F. R. Part 121. If you think your company may be a small entity, you may 

provide the Hearing Officer with supporting evidence (number of employees, current balance sheet, annual 

receipts). To qualify for a waiver or reduction, you must also show that you have spent money to correct any 

discrepancies. Small entities that have been the subject of multiple enforcement actions, have committed 

violations involving willful or criminal conduct, or have committed violations that pose serious health, 

safety or environmental threats are not entitled to special consideration.
##### 



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 accompanying Annual Report of The viaLink Company
(the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Robert I. Noe, 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,
to my knowledge, that:  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and result of
operations of the Company. /s/ Robert I. Noe
Robert I. Noe
Chief Executive Officer
March 26, 2004