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

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2409 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 10, 2019 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and 

Urban Affairs 

AN ACT 

To amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to expand 

access to capital for rural-area small businesses, 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, 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 2409 RFS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Expanding Access to 

3 Capital for Rural Job Creators Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. ACCESS TO CAPITAL FOR RURAL-AREA SMALL BUSI5 NESSES. 

6 Section 4(j) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 

7 (15 U.S.C. 78d(j)) is amended— 

8 (1) in paragraph (4)(C), by inserting ‘‘rural9 area small businesses,’’ after ‘‘women-owned small 

10 businesses,’’; and 

11 (2) in paragraph (6)(B)(iii), by inserting 

12 ‘‘rural-area small businesses,’’ after ‘‘women-owned 

13 small businesses,’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives July 9, 2019. 

Attest: CHERYL L. JOHNSON, 

Clerk. 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
SAMSON LOYNACHAN V. CAUSE*

STATE OF TEXAS MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE PDR TO THE HONORABLE COURT, 

### Comes now, Samson M. Loynachan, Appellant Pro Se and.files this motion for an extension of time and in support shows the following. I. 

### On 25 June, 2015, Appellants NOTICE OF APPEAL, 02-15-00135-CR was dis 

### missed by the 2nd Court of Appeals for lack of jurisdiction. Appellant wishes to petition this court on the question of jurisdiction. The Pe tition for Discretionary Review is currently due on 2k Duly, 2015. II. 

### Appellant asserts that he needs more time to file his PDR due to the 

### complexity of Texas' jurisdictional statutes and the corresponding judicial rulings. PRAYER 

### Wherefore, premises considered, Appellant prays this court grants this motion''and' extends filing deadline 60 days to give the Appellant the opportunity to properly file his PDR. Respectfully submitted, COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

SAMSON M. L0Y^CHANf#1 789266 FRENCH ROBERTSON UNIT 12071 FM 3522 

### FILEDIN COURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALS 

## JUL1020(5 AbelAcosta,Clerk ABILENE, TX 79601
V I S

T

A

D

R A

L



### U



### M 

## N



## I 

## D 

## R A 

### I



## K



## M



## A 

## N 

## D 

## R

R A

G

U

E

T

S

T 

# E C O L L E G E S T

N O R T H S T ( U S 5 9 )



# G R I F F I T H B L V D 

# Visitor Booth Rusk Building

Baker Pattillo

Student Center 

# Aikman

Garage
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. CP01-79-000]

On May 30 and 31, 2001, the staff of the Office of Energy Projects (OEP) will conduct a pre-certification site visit of ANR Pipeline Company's (ANR) Badger Pipeline Project in Racine and Kenosha Counties, Wisconsin. The project area will be inspected by automobile and on foot, as appropriate. The site visit will start each day at 8:00 am at the lobby of the Country Inns & Suites at 7011 122nd Ave., Kenosha, Wisconsin. Representatives of ANR will accompany the OEP staff.

All interested parties may attend. Those planning to attend must provide their own transportation. For additional information, contact the Commission's Office of External Affairs (202) 208-1088.

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01-13358  Filed 5-25-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
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 Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q for the  three-month
period ending August 31, 2009 of River  Exploration,  Inc., a Nevada corporation
(the  "Company"),  as filed with the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the
date hereof (the "Quarterly Report"),  I, Andrew Aird,  Chairman,  President and
Chief Financial  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:

     1.   The Quarterly  Report fully complies with the  requirements of Section
          13(a) or15(d) of the  Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
          and

     2.   The information contained in this Quarterly Report fairly presents, in
          all  material  respects,   the  financial  condition  and  results  of
          operation of the Company.


/s/ ANDREW AIRD
________________________________________
Andrew Aird
President, Secretary Treasurer,
Principal Executive Officer,
Principal Financial Officer and Director


Date: October 13, 2009
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

CYCLE COUNTRY ACCESSORIES CORP.

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Inconnection with the Amendment No. 1 to the report of Cycle CountryAccessories Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the twelve monthsended September 30, 2008 (the “Report”), I, Jeffrey M. Tetzlaff, Presidentand Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 18U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002, that to my knowledge:

 

(1)                                    The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

 
| /s/  Jeffrey M. Tetzlaff               |   |
|----------------------------------------|--------|
| Jeffrey  M. Tetzlaff                   |   |
| President  and Chief Executive Officer |   |
| February 23,  2010                |   |

 

----
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 filing of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2007 (the Report) by CapSource Financial, Inc.
(Registrant), I, Fred C. Boethling, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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 Registrant.

| |                         |  |                          |                       | 
| | ----------------------- |  | ------------------------ | --------------------- | 
| | DATE: November 19, 2007 |  | By:                      | /s/ Fred C. Boethling | 
| |                         |  | Name: Fred C. Boethling 
| |                         |  | Chief
 Executive Officer

---
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANTONIO HARRIS, Petitioner - Appellant,
v. T. FELKER, Respondent - Appellee. No. 09-15884 D.C. No. 3:07-cv-02084-CRB
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Charles R. Breyer, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted February 16, 2012 San Francisco, California Before: GRABER, BERZON, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges. Petitioner-appellant Antonio Harris appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging his California conviction for firstdegree murder with a robbery-murder special circumstance, Cal. Penal Code § 190.2(d). We have jurisdiction pursu ant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm. 

# FILED
FEB 22 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS1 We do not decide whether Harris alleges a violation of clearly established Supreme Court law, as require d to obtain habeas relief under § 2254(d), because the issue has not been raised, a nd, regardless, Harris’s claim fails on the merits. 2 Harris also appears to argue that the trial court’s admission of his third statement was itself improper because, as the State concedes, the sole purpose of the interview was to preserve Harris’s confession without implicating Lockhart. However, the Supreme Court has never he ld that such interview tactics are unconstitutional, and Harris has provided nothing to suggest that his third statement was not knowing and voluntary. 2 Harris claims that his constitutional right to present a complete defense to the special circumstance allegation was violated by the trial court’s denial of his severance motion and exclusion of two of his three pretrial statements to the police. 1 The exclusion of Harris’s first two statements to the police did not result in prejudice great enough to render the trial “fundamentally unfair.” See Grisby v. Blodgett , 130 F.3d 365, 370 (9th Cir. 1997). Contrary to Harris’s assertion, nothing in the third statement suggests that Harris was the shooter or implies that Harris knew that co-defendant Eric Lockhart was armed. 2 Even if there were error, the trial c ourt’s decision to try Harris and Lockhart jointly and admit only Harris’s third statement did not have a “‘substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict.’” Pulido v. Chrones, 629 F.3d 1007, 1011 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 623 (1993)), cert. denied , 132 S. Ct. 338 (2011). The excluded statements3 would not have provided an adequate defense to the special circumstance allegation. If anything, they actually would have supported the finding of guilt. There was sufficient evidence inthe record as a whole to justify the jury’s verdict, and the admission of Harris’s other two st atements would not have altered the result. AFFIRMED.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bobby Wayne WILKINS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 13-6797.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Sept. 25, 2013.

Decided: Oct. 2, 2013.

Bobby Wayne Wilkins, Appellant Pro Se. Ethan A. Ontjes, Assistant United States Attorney, Seth Morgan Wood, Office of the United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before GREGORY, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Bobby Wayne Wilkins seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2013) motion and denying his Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion. The district court’s orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Wilkins has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the *273materials before this Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
### TEXA S COU RT O F AP PEAL S, THIR D DISTRIC T, AT AU STIN NO. 03-01-00456-CR Ex pa rte B ill R ut herf

ord

FROM THE COUN TY COUR T AT LAW N O. 2 OF

BELL COUN TY NO. 31-1995-C-07411, H ONORABLE JOHN BARINA, JR. , JUDGE PRESIDING PER CURIAM

BillRut her for d filed a p os t -c onvict ion ap plicat ion fo r w rit of ha beas co rp us p ur sua nt to co de o f cri

m i na l procedu re arti cle 11.0 9. Tex . Code Cri m . Proc. A

nn . art. 11.09(We st 1977 ). On Nov em b er 28 , 20 00 , the c oun

ty court at law di sm

is sed the applic ation. Rutherf

ord gave notice of appeal from this order o n Jul

y 5, 2001. The no t ice o f ap pe al w as no t t imely . Se e Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a). We lac k j urisd i cti on to dis pose of the purport ed appeal in any ma nne r ot her than

by di sm i ss i ng i t f or wa nt of jurisd ictio n. See Slato n v. State , 9 81 S .W. 2d 2 08 ( Te x. Crim. App. 199 8); Olivo v. State , 918 S.W.2d 519, 52 2-23 (Tex. C

ri m . App. 1996 ). The appeal

is dis mi ssed.
Be f ore C hi ef Ju sti ceA bou ss i e, J us ti ce s Y ea

ke l an d Pa tters on Di sm i ss ed f or Wan t of Ju ri sd i cti on File d: August 30, 2001 Do No t Publis

h
# C_2018166EN.01003201.xml

| 14.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 166/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 166/32

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 20 March 2018 — Hércules Club de Fútbol v Commission

(Case T-134/17 R)

((Interim proceedings - Access to documents - Documents relating to the administrative procedure prior to the adoption of a Commission decision on State aid implemented by Spain in favour of three professional football clubs - Rights of the defence - Refusal of access - Application for provisional measures - Lack of urgency))

(2018/C 166/41)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Hércules Club de Fútbol, SAD (Alicante, Spain) (represented by: S. Rating and Y. Martínez Mata, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: B. Stromsky, G. Luengo and P. Němečková, and subsequently by: J. Baquero Cruz, G. Luengo and P. Němečková, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application on the basis of Articles 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU seeking an order that the Commission grant access to the documents in the file relating to State aid SA.36387 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) (ex 2013/CP) granted by Spain to Valencia Club de Fútbol, SAD, Hércules Club de Fútbol and Elche Club de Fútbol, SAD, in so far as they concern the applicant and fundamental to the proper defence of its interests.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is rejected. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is rejected.

| 2. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The costs are reserved.

---
Exhibit 5


                           CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of CP Ships Limited (the "Company") on
Form 40-F for the period ended 31st December 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we, Ray Miles, the
Chief Executive Officer, and Ian Webber, the Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, 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/ Ray Miles
                                        ---------------------------
                                        Ray Miles
                                        Chief Executive Officer



                                        /s/ Ian Webber
                                        ---------------------------
                                        Ian Webber
                                        Chief Financial Officer



Date:  7th April 2004

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to CP Ships Limited and will be retained by CP Ships Limited and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Ledger Holdings Inc

January 28, 2019

VIA COMMISSION PORTAL

Christopher J. Kirkpatrick

Secretary, Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Three Lafayette Centre

1155 21st Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20581

Re: Commission Regulation 40.2(a) – Certification of BTC Block Height Options

LedgerX LLC Submission No. [2019-04]

Dear Mr. Kirkpatrick:

LedgerX LLC (“LedgerX”) hereby amends the Certification of BTC Block Height Options 

(Submission No. [2019-04]) in order to provide a revised no earlier than date. 

LedgerX will list the Exchange Contract no earlier than February 11, 2019, which is amended from 

the previous submission which stated no earlier than January 31, 2019.

* * * *

Please contact the undersigned at (917) 267-2381 or juthica@ledgerx.com with any questions.

Sincerely,

Juthica Chou

Chief Risk Officer

LedgerX LLC
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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q /A of SinoHub, Inc.
(the “Company”) for the quarter ending September 30, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Tracy A.
Edwards, 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 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:  March
      16, 2009
                    By:
                    /s/
      Li De HaiLi
      De HaiChief
      Financial
Officer
153 So. 287

#### Glenn KERSH v. STATE.

6 Div. 490.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Jan. 18, 1934.

Rehearing Denied March 22, 1934.

Crampton Harris, of Birmingham, and Foster, Rice & Foster, of Tuscaloosa, for petitioner.

Tbos. B. Knight, Jr., Atty. Gen., for the State.

THOMAS, Justice.

Petition of Glenn Kersh, for certiorari to the Court of Appeals to review and revise the judgment and decision of that Court in Kersh v. State (6 Div. 318) 153 So. 284.

Writ denied.

ANDERSON, C. J., and BROWN and KNIGHT, JJ., concur.
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-17-00011-CR

JOSEPH WARREN POLK, JR.,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 52nd District Court

Coryell County, Texas

Trial Court No. 16-23752

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Joseph Warren Polk, Jr. appeals his conviction. However, the certification of 

defendant's right of appeal which Polk signed indicates that he has no right to appeal. 

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d); Monreal v. State,

 

1 A motion for rehearing may be filed within 15 days after the judgment or order of this Court is rendered. 

TEX. R. APP. P. 49.1. If the appellant desires to have the decision of this Court reviewed by the Court of 

Criminal Appeals, a petition for discretionary review must be filed in the Court of Criminal Appeals within 

30 days after either the day the court of appeals' judgment was rendered or the day the last timely motion 

for rehearing was overruled by the court of appeals. TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2 (a).
Polk v. State Page 2

99 S.W.3d 615, 622 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003).

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Appeals dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed January 25, 2017

Do not publish

[CR25]
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



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 (as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), I, the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of National Presto Industries, Inc. (the Company), hereby certify that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended April 2, 2006 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that 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 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.



Date:   October 9, 2007
        /s/   M.J. CohenM.J. CohenInterim Chief Financial Officer


---