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

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5825 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5825

  To review, update, and revise the factors to measure the severity, 
   magnitude, and impact of a disaster and to evaluate the need for 
               assistance to individuals and households.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 22, 2010

   Mr. Hill introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To review, update, and revise the factors to measure the severity, 
   magnitude, and impact of a disaster and to evaluate the need for 
               assistance to individuals and households.

    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 ``Multi-State Disaster Relief Act''.

SEC. 2. INDIVIDUAL ASSISTANCE FACTORS.

    (a) In General.--In order to provide more objective criteria for 
evaluating the need for assistance to individuals and households and to 
speed a declaration of a major disaster or emergency under the Robert 
T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 
5121 et seq.), not later than one year after the date of enactment of 
this Act, the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency 
(referred to in this Act as the ``Administrator''), in cooperation with 
representatives of State and local emergency management agencies, shall 
review, update, and revise through rulemaking the factors considered 
under section 206.48(b) of title 44, Code of Federal Regulations, to 
measure the severity, magnitude, and impact of a disaster.
    (b) Consideration of a Contiguous County.--In reviewing, updating, 
and revising the factors referenced in subsection (a) the Administrator 
shall include as a factor whether a contiguous county in an adjacent 
state has been designated in a major disaster or emergency as a result 
of the same incident.
    (c) Report.--Not later than 3 months after the date of enactment of 
this Act, the Administrator shall submit to the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and 
the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the 
Senate a report on the Federal Emergency Management Agency's current 
regulations, policies, procedures, and practices on--
            (1) recommending major disaster or emergency declarations 
        in order to provide assistance to individuals and households; 
        and
            (2) making post-declaration designations of the need for 
        assistance to individuals and households in a county that is 
        contiguous to a State that has received a major disaster or 
        emergency declaration for the same incident.
                                 <all>
```
#### In the Matter of Thomas J. Meehan et al., Appellants, v George Wolf et al., Respondents.

In a proceeding to invalidate a petition designating Anthony Noto, Raye R. D’Ambramo, Carol Canning, Jack Pellicano, Jr., Louis J. Maestri, William A. Dal Col, and Marquette L. Floyd as candidates in the Conservative Party primary election to be held on September 15, 1987, for the respective public offices of Supervisor of the Town of Babylon, Babylon Town Clerk, Babylon Town Receiver of Taxes, Babylon Town Superintendent of Highways, Babylon Town Councilman (respondents Maestri and Dal Col), and District Court Judge, 2nd District, Town of Babylon, the appeal is from so much of an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gowan, J.), dated August 7, 1987, as denied the application.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The record reveals that the cover sheet of the instant designating petition lists seven Conservative Party candidates, all of whom seek public office within the same geographical area of the Town of Babylon. Immediately preceding the list of candidates is a paragraph which, in part, contains the following language: "I the undersigned * * * do hereby designate the following named person (or persons) as a candidate (or candidates) for the nomination of such party for public office or for election to a party position of such party”. The cover sheet also includes a statement as to the total number of signatures and the total number of pages contained therein. Given these circumstances, we find that the cover sheet lists the specific office which each candidate is seeking and sufficiently indicates that all the signatures within the petition are for each of the seven candidates for their respective offices *(see generally, Matter of Potter v Dudek,*68 NY2d 154; *Matter of Keane v New York State Bd. of Elections,*122 AD2d 966, *lv denied*68 NY2d 605; *Matter of Swift v Lefever,*122 AD2d 922, *lv denied*68 NY2d 605). As such, the cover sheet meets the requirement that "data must be set forth in a manner reasonably calculated to give the requisite notice and information to the reader” *(Matter of Ruiz v Saez,*68 NY2d 154, 161; *see,*Election Law § 6-134 [2]). Mollen, P. J., Mangano, Thompson, Lawrence and Sullivan, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

I, Nathanael V. Lentz, President and Chief Executive Officer of Verticalnet, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation (the Company), hereby certify to my knowledge
that:



| | (1) | The Companys quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2006 (the Form 10-Q) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ NATHANAEL V. LENTZNathanael V. LentzPresident and Chief Executive OfficerDate: May 15, 2006


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Verticalnet,
Inc. and will be retained by Verticalnet, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION — NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]

United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 00-1267

MARIA MARCANO-ARROYO,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

K-MART, INC., ETC.,

Defendant, Appellee.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

[Hon. Héctor M. Laffitte, U.S. District Judge]

Before

 Selya, Circuit Judge,

Coffin, Senior Circuit Judge,

and Stahl, Circuit Judge.

Miguel A. Pérez Vargas and Daliah Lugo Auffant on brief for

appellant.

María T. Ferrán Pérez-Benitoa, Juan B. Soto Bálbas, and

Mercado & Soto on brief for appellee.
September 20, 2000
-3-

Per Curiam. In this appeal, the plaintiff challenges

the district court's dismissal of her civil action on the ground

of res judicata. See Marcano-Arroyo v. K-Mart, Inc., No. 97-

1986 (HL), slip op. (D.P.R. Dec. 22, 1999). We previously have

acknowledged that when a trial judge accurately takes the

measure of a case and articulates a convincing rationale, "an

appellate court should refrain from writing at length to no

other end than to hear its own words resonate." Lawton v. State

Mut. Life Assur. Co., 101 F.3d 218, 220 (1st Cir. 1996); accord

Cruz-Ramos v. Puerto Rico Sun Oil Co., 202 F.3d 381, 383 (1st

Cir. 2000); Ayala v. Union de Tronquistas, Local 901, 74 F.3d

344, 345 (1st Cir. 1996); Holders Capital Corp. v. California

Union Ins. Co. (In re San Juan Dupont Plaza Hotel Fire Litig.),

989 F.2d 36, 38 (1st Cir. 1993). This is such a case.

Consequently, we affirm the judgment below for substantially the

reasons elucidated in Chief Judge Laffitte's thoughtful

rescript.

We add only that subsequent to the date of Chief Judge

Laffitte's decision, this court decided Boateng v. Interamerican

Univ., 210 F.3d 56 (1st Cir. 2000). The principles enunciated

in Boateng are controlling here, and leave no doubt but that

Marcano's action is barred under the doctrine of res judicata.

See id. at 61-63. We need go no further.
-4-

Affirmed. See 1st Cir. R. 27(c).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         174,917
<SECURITIES>                                   921,018
<RECEIVABLES>                                  820,410
<ALLOWANCES>                                    74,901
<INVENTORY>                                     85,467
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,101,586
<PP&E>                                       4,922,080
<DEPRECIATION>                                 371,334
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,810,152
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,347,076
<BONDS>                                      4,473,566
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          240,524
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,636
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,984,328
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,810,152
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,582,269
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,520,940
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (1,234)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                28,385
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             264,377
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (152,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    98,093
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (250,093)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                     (25,377)
<NET-INCOME>                                 (275,470)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.59)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.59)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2

              CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
    AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     In connection with the annual report of Trycera Financial, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2006, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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


Date:  April 2, 2007

/S/ Bryan Kenyon
-------------------------------------
Bryan Kenyon, Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 32.1



Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Section 906 of

the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



We, David C. Collins and Gary R. Wright, certify that the periodic report, to which this Statement is attached, fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the periodic report to which this Statement is attached, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the registrant at the dates and for the periods indicated.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Statement as of the date first written below.



Dated August 8, 2003



/s/    DAVID C.
COLLINSDavid C. Collins Chief Executive Officer






/s/    GARY R.
WRIGHTGary R. Wright Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 32.2


                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Amendment No. 1 to China Energy Savings Technology,  Inc.
Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended September 30, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kam
Wah Poon, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of
2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

(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 results of operations of the Company.

A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906,  another
document authenticating,  acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to China Energy  Savings  Technology,
Inc. and will be retained by China Energy Savings Technology, Inc. and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



                                           /s/ Kam Wah Poon
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Kam Wah Poon
                                           Chief Financial Officer
                                           (Principal Accounting Officer)
                                           Date: January 30, 2005
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6014 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6014

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 212 Main Street in Hartman, Arkansas, as the ``M.R. `Bucky' Walters 
                             Post Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 30, 2010

    Mr. Boozman (for himself, Mr. Berry, Mr. Ross, and Mr. Snyder) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                    Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 212 Main Street in Hartman, Arkansas, as the ``M.R. `Bucky' Walters 
                             Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. M.R. ``BUCKY'' WALTERS POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 212 Main Street in Hartman, Arkansas, shall be known and 
designated as the ``M.R. `Bucky' Walters Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``M.R. 
`Bucky' Walters Post Office''.
                                 <all>
```
# Green Card Eligibility Categories

To apply for a Green Card, you must be eligible under one of the categories listed below. Once you find the category that may fit your situation, click on the link provided to get information on eligibility requirements, how to apply, and whether your family members can also apply with you.

You may be eligible to register for a Green Card if you have resided continuously in the U.S. since before Jan. 1, 1972.

07/11/2022

0 / 2000To protect your privacy, please do not include any personal information in your feedback. Review our Privacy Policy.
|   | Exhibit      32.2 |
|--------|-------------------|

| 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 in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the      financial condition and results of operations of the    Company. |

| Dated:  September      18, 2008 |                                           |
|-------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------|
|                                      | By:  /s/ Michael A.      Maltzman    |
|                                      | Michael      A. Maltzman                       |
|                                      | Vice      President and Chief FinancialOfficer |
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARTIN MORENO RUIZ, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

JUAN N. SILVA MEZA; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 20-17492 

D.C. No. 2:20-cv-02008-DWLESW 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Dominic Lanza, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 21, 2021**

Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges. 

Martin Moreno Ruiz appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment 

dismissing his action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Carolina Cas. Ins. Co. v. Team 

Equip., Inc., 741 F.3d 1082, 1086 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

JUN 30 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 20-17492 

The district court properly dismissed Ruiz’s action because Ruiz failed to 

satisfy his burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction. See Ashoff v. City of 

Ukiah, 130 F.3d 409, 410 (9th Cir. 1997) (the plaintiff has the burden of 

establishing subject matter jurisdiction); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the 

court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must 

dismiss the action.”); Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1116 (9th Cir. 

2004) (the court is obligated to consider sua sponte whether it has subject matter 

jurisdiction).

AFFIRMED.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Shelby BOLDEN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-60587

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

May 6, 2011.

Curtis Ivy, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, Chad Malcom Doleac, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Oxford, MS, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

David L. Calder, Law Office Of David L. Calder, Oxford, MS, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JOLLY, GARZA, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Shelby Bolden appeals the statutory mandatory minimum 10-year sentence he received after pleading guilty to possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of a mixture and substance containing cocaine base (crack) in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Bolden argues that the district court erred in denying a safety valve reduction because the Government’s assertion that he was untruthful was based on mere conjecture. He further asserts that the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (FSA) should be applicable to his case because *345his appeal was still pending at the time Congress enacted the provision. Additionally, Bolden argues that because the FSA imposed only a procedural change, it is exempt from the Savings Clause. Bolden’s motion to file his reply brief and record excerpts under seal is GRANTED.

This court reviews the district court’s decision whether to grant a safety valve adjustment for clear error. *United States v. McCrimmon,*443 F.3d 454, 457 (5th Cir.2006). Here, the district court made an “independent determination,” concluding that Bolden’s testimony was not credible and that, as evidenced by the credibility and demeanor of all the witnesses, Bolden had not been completely truthful with the Government. *See United States v. Miller,*179 F.3d 961, 968 (5th Cir.1999). We afford great deference to the district court’s credibility determination. *United States v. Powers,*168 F.3d 741, 753 (5th Cir.1999). Moreover, the district court’s factual determination is plausible in light of the entire record. *See United States v. Davis,*76 F.3d 82, 84 (5th Cir.1996). Accordingly, the district court did not clearly err in denying a safety valve reduction based on Bolden’s failure to truthfully and fully disclose to the Government. *See Miller,*179 F.3d 961 at 968.

Bolden’s assertion that the FSA is applicable to his case is equally without merit. We have held that pursuant to the federal Savings Clause, which requires courts to apply the penalties in place at the time the defendant committed the offense unless the relevant act expressly states otherwise, *see*1 U.S.C. § 109, the FSA’s reduction of statutory penalties in § 841 was not retroactive. *United States v. Doggins,*633 F.3d 379, 384 (5th Cir.2011). Bolden committed the instant offense on July 24, 2008; therefore, the FSA is of no benefit to him in spite of the fact that his appeal was still pending when the FSA was enacted. *See id.*Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to *5m*Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.