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

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1047 

Commending The Ohio State University Buckeyes football team for its victory 

in the 2010 Rose Bowl. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 27, 2010 

Ms. KILROY (for herself, Mr. DRIEHAUS, Mrs. SCHMIDT, Mr. TURNER, Mr. 

JORDAN of Ohio, Mr. LATTA, Mr. WILSON of Ohio, Mr. AUSTRIA, Ms. 

KAPTUR, Mr. KUCINICH, Ms. FUDGE, Mr. TIBERI, Ms. SUTTON, Mr. 

LATOURETTE, Mr. BOCCIERI, Mr. RYAN of Ohio, Mr. SPACE, Mr. 

BECERRA, Mr. COURTNEY, Mr. KLEIN of Florida, Mr. MASSA, Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut, Mr. PERRIELLO, Mr. SNYDER, Ms. TITUS, and Mr. 

TONKO) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Education and Labor 

RESOLUTION 

Commending The Ohio State University Buckeyes football 

team for its victory in the 2010 Rose Bowl. 

Whereas The Ohio State University (Ohio State) Buckeyes 

football team achieved many historic accomplishments 

during the 2009 regular season; 

Whereas Ohio State defeated favored Oregon 26–17 in the 

Rose Bowl on January 1, 2010; 

Whereas Ohio State won its seventh Rose Bowl all-time; 

Whereas Ohio State won its fifth consecutive Big Ten title 

and played in its fifth consecutive BCS bowl; 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 1047 IH 

Whereas Ohio State finished the season at 11–2, ranked fifth 

nationally; 

Whereas Ohio State led the Big Ten for the eighth consecutive season in academic all-conference honorees; 

Whereas Ohio State Coach Jim Tressel became only the second coach in Ohio State history to win both a NCAA National Championship and a Rose Bowl (Woody Hayes); 

Whereas the Ohio State defense ranked in the Top 5 nationally in 4 different categories; 

Whereas Quarterback Terrelle Pryor threw for 266 yards, 

ran for 72 yards, and scored two touchdowns, leading all 

players for both teams in these categories; and 

Whereas Quarterback Terrelle Pryor was the Rose Bowl 

MVP: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) commends The Ohio State University (Ohio 

3 State) Buckeye football team for its victory in the 

4 2010 Rose Bowl; 

5 (2) congratulates Coach Jim Tressel, winner of 

6 five Big Ten titles; and 

7 (3) recognizes the accomplishments of the Ohio 

8 State Buckeye football team, which has played in 

9 more BCS Bowl Games than any other team in col10 lege football. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
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 of Covenant Group of China Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Kenneth Wong, President of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
  (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; 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 16, 2010
By: /s/ Kenneth WongKenneth WongPresident
  This certification accompanies each Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
  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 Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Frederick HINES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GEO GROUP, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 09-7888.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 30, 2010.

Decided: May 11, 2010.

Frederick Hines, Appellant Pro Se. Robert T. Numbers, II, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Frederick Hines appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on his complaint, which alleged violations of (1) the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 to § 12213 (2006), (2) Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794 (2006), (3) his Eighth Amendment right to reasonable medical care, and (4) North Carolina negligence laws, and denying his motion for appointment of counsel. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Hines’s motion for appointment of counsel and motion “to hear full and original record,” and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Hines v. GEO Group, Inc.,*No. 5:08-ct-03056-D (E.D.N.C. Dec. 23, 2008; Sept. 24, 2009; Sept. 30, 2009). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
9 August 2023 

Via CFTC Portal

Assistant Secretary of the Commission for FOI, Privacy and Sunshine Acts Compliance 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

Three Lafayette Centre

1155 21st Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20581 

201-418-5000

Re: FOIA Confidential Treatment Request

Dear Sir or Madam:

ICE Clear Europe Limited (“Submitter”) hereby respectfully requests that the Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission (the “CFTC”) accord confidential treatment under 17 C.F.R. §145.9 in relation to the documents 

submitted today ‘Liquidity and Investment Management Policy and Investment Management Procedures’ which 

bears the bates number 09.08.2023-000001-CFTC and 09.08.2023-000029-CFTC and all information derived 

therefrom (collectively, the “Confidential Information”).

This request for confidential treatment is made pursuant to 17 C.F.R. §145.9(d) (1) because Submitter believes 

that the Confidential Information is covered by one or more exemptions in the Freedom of Information Act (the 

“FOIA”) (5 U.S.C. §552(b)) and is therefore exempt from the CFTC’s public disclosure requirements pursuant 

to 17 C.F.R. §145.5. In particular, 5 U.S.C. §552(b) (4) and 17 C.F.R. §145.9(d) (1) (ii) exempts disclosure that 

would reveal the Submitter’s trade secrets or confidential commercial or financial information. Submitter 

believes that the Confidential Information contains confidential commercial and financial information as well as 

proprietary information regarding business procedures and systems that should be protected from public 

disclosure pursuant to this exemption. Confidential treatment is requested for a period of five years. 

This request is not to be construed as a waiver of any other protection from disclosure or confidential treatment 

accorded by law, and Submitter will rely on and invoke any such confidentiality protection. Submitter requests 

that the CFTC advise the undersigned, pursuant to 17 C.F.R. §145.9(e) (1), in advance of any disclosure of the 

Confidential Information pursuant to the FOIA, so that this request for confidential treatment may be 

substantiated. 

If you should have any questions or comments or require further information, please do not hesitate to contact the 

undersigned at giulia.honorati@ice.com.

Very truly yours, 

Giulia Honorati 

Senior Compliance Manager
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**Certification of Executive Vice President and ChiefOperating Officer**

**Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As Adopted**

**Pursuant to Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of DanversBancorp, Inc. (the “Company”) for the Three Months Ended March 31,2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I hereby certify, to the best knowledge and belief of thesignatory, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

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 consolidatedfinancial condition and results of operations of the Company as of, and for,the period covered by the Report.

 

This statement is authorized to be attached as an exhibit to the Reportso that this statement will accompany the Report at such time as the Report isfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission, pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2202, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350.  It is not intended that this statement bedeemed to be filed for purposes of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, asamended.

 

A signal original of this written statement required by Section 906has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

 
| /s/ James J. McCarthy                                 |   |
|-------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| James J. McCarthy                                     |
| Executive  Vice President and Chief Operating Officer |

 

----
##### 



EXHIBIT
2.9
 (James Hardie Logo)3 May 2006
(Financier) #1#
    
    James Hardie International Finance BV.
Atrium, Unit 08
Strawinskylaan 3077
1077 ZX Amsterdam 
The Netherlands
Tel +31 20 3012980
Fax +31 20 4042544
 Strictly Private & Confidential
  Extension of Facilities and other matters
  
    
    James Hardie  Common Terms Deed Poll dated 15 June 2005 between
the Financier, #1# (Borrower) and James Hardie Industries N.V.
(CTDP), as amended by the CTDP Amendment Deed and New Borrower
Deed Poll executed by James Hardie Building Products, Inc. (US),
the Borrower and James Hardie Industries N.V. (JHINV) on 12
January 2006 (CTDP Amendment);
    
    James Hardie  Term Facility Agreement (Term Facility Agreement)
and the James Hardie  364-day Facility Agreement (364-day
Facility Agreement), each dated #2# June 2005 between the Financier
and the Borrower, as amended by the CTDP Amendment;
    
    our letters dated 16 June 2005 and 17 January 2006 in relation to
the proposed utilisation of the Facilities to repay all or some of
the US$121,733,333 Guaranteed Senior Notes issued by the Borrower on
5 November 1998 (Notes).
  1
    
    Extension request  Term Facility AgreementAs the Maturity Date of the Facility made available under the Term Facility Agreement may
not be extended automatically prior to the first anniversary of the date of the Term
Facility Agreement, namely 16 June 2006, we request that the current definition of Maturity
Date in the Details section of the Term Facility Agreement be deleted in its entirety and
replaced with the following words:31 December 2006 with automatic extension to the fifth anniversary of the date of this
agreement if the Extension Events occur on or before 31 December 2006.2
    
    Formal request for consentAs you know, there is a 30 day period during which you must respond to our formal request
for your consent to the terms of the Final Funding Agreement and the Guarantee and
Subordination Documents for the purposes of sub-paragraph (e) of the definition of
Extension Events in the Term Facility Agreement. Our current intention is not to trigger
this 30 day period until 15 May 2006 at the earliest.




---



##### 



3
    
    Prepayment of Guaranteed Senior NotesWe wish to inform you that we have given notice to the holders of the Notes that we intend
to prepay the Notes in full on 8 May 2006. We intend to use our available cash reserves to
fund the prepayment and will not be drawing down on the Facilities for this purpose.
 
   /s/ Russell Chenu
    
    /s/ Karen HughesRussell Chenu being an 
Authorised Officer of
    
    Karen Hughesbeing an
Authorised Officer of
 James Hardie International Finance BV,  James Hardie Building Products Inc (US)
#### Travis Ray THOMPSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jeanne S. WOODFORD, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 07-56721.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 5, 2010.*

Filed April 22, 2010.

Travis Ray Thompson, Tehachapi, CA, pro se.

Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, San Diego, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

California state prisoner Travis Ray Thompson appeals from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2258, and we affirm.

Thompson contends that the trial court violated his rights under *Faretta v. California,*422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975), when it revoked his pro per status mid-trial. The California Court of Appeal’s decision rejecting this claim was neither contrary to, nor involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); *see also Faretta,*422 U.S. at 834 n. 46, 95 S.Ct. 2525.

Thompson also contends that the introduction of extrinsic evidence into the jury deliberations violated his Sixth Amendment rights. The California Court of Appeal’s decision rejecting this claim was neither contrary to, nor involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); *see also Bayramoglu v. Estelle,*806 F.2d 880, 887 (9th Cir.1986) (citing *Fahy v. Connecticut,*375 U.S. 85, 86-87, 84 S.Ct. 229, 11 L.Ed.2d 171 (1963)). We reject Thompson’s contention that an evidentiary hearing was required with regard to this matter. *See Smith v. Phillips,*455 U.S. 209, 215, 102 S.Ct. 940, 71 L.Ed.2d 78 (1982); *see also Tracey v. Palmateer,*341 F.3d 1037, 1044-45 (9th Cir.2003).

We construe Thompson’s uncertified claim, that his *Faretta*advisements were inadequate, as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability. So construed, the motion is denied. *See*9th Cir. R. 22-Re); *see also Hiivala v. Wood,*195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir.1999) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6259 VICTOR KIRKLAND, a/k/a Victor Kirkland-Bey, Petitioner - Appellant, versus THOMAS R. CORCORAN, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA97-708-PJM) Submitted: December 30, 1998 Decided: February 10, 1999 Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Victor Kirkland, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Annabelle Louise Lisic, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate ofappealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Kirkland v. Corcoran , No. CA-97-708-PJM (D. Md. Feb. 11, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
# CE2011004EN.01006602.xml

| 7.1.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 4/66 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 4/66

---

Thursday 25 March 2010Appointment of a member of the Court of Auditors - Ms Kersti Kaljulaid

P7_TA(2010)0076

European Parliament decision of 25 March 2010 on the nomination of Kersti Kaljulaid as a Member of the Court of Auditors (C7-0016/2010 – 2010/0804(NLE))

2011/C 4 E/15

(Consultation)

The European Parliament,

The European Parliament

having regard to Article 286(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C7-0016/2010),

having regard to the fact that, at its meeting of 16 March 2010, the Committee on Budgetary Control heard the Council’s nominee for membership of the Court of Auditors,

having regard to Rule 108 of its Rules of Procedure,

having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A7-0045/2010),

| A. | whereas Kersti Kaljulaid fulfils the conditions laid down in Article 286(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, |
| --- | --- |

A.

whereas Kersti Kaljulaid fulfils the conditions laid down in Article 286(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU,

| 1. | Delivers a favourable opinion on the nomination of Kersti Kaljulaid as a Member of the Court of Auditors; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Delivers a favourable opinion on the nomination of Kersti Kaljulaid as a Member of the Court of Auditors;

| 2. | Instructs its President to forward this decision to the Council and, for information, the Court of Auditors, the other institutions of the European Union and the audit institutions of the Member States. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Instructs its President to forward this decision to the Council and, for information, the Court of Auditors, the other institutions of the European Union and the audit institutions of the Member States.

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Steven Lashway, Appellant.

Submitted January 23, 2012;

decided March 27, 2012

Reported below, 90 AD3d 1178.

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution.
```

[Federal Register: February 1, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 21)]
[Notices]
[Page 4807]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr01fe00-35]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING:  Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

TIME AND DATE:  11:00 a.m., Friday, February 4, 2000.

PLACE:  1155 21st St., NW, Washington, DC, 9th Floor Conference Room.

STATUS:  Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:  Surveillance Matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:  Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.

Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 00-2217 Filed 1-28-00; 1:23 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```

----

**======== RETURN TO INDEX    ========**

----
H. Res. 1087 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

March 10, 2010. 

Whereas Jack Ruffin left a lasting impact on his State and 

the United States during his distinguished legal career as 

a civil rights attorney and as the first African-American 

chief judge of the Georgia Court of Appeals; 

Whereas Jack Ruffin was born in the rural town of Waynesboro, Georgia, in 1934, where he spent his formative 

years and where today his portrait hangs in the Burke 

County Courthouse; 

Whereas Jack Ruffin graduated from Morehouse College in 

1957 and from Howard University School of Law in 

1960; 

Whereas Jack Ruffin became, in 1961, the first AfricanAmerican admitted to the Augusta Bar Association, 

against the wishes of his mother who feared for his safety; 

Whereas Jack Ruffin fought with great courage against injustices in his community throughout his life, most notably when he filed the lawsuits that desegregated the public school systems of Richmond County and of Burke 

County; 
2 

•HRES 1087 EH 

Whereas Jack Ruffin honorably served, from 1986 to 1994, 

as the first African-American Superior Court judge in the 

Augusta Judicial Circuit; 

Whereas Jack Ruffin, having been appointed by Governor 

Zell Miller to the Georgia Court of Appeals in 1994, honorably served as a member of that Court until 2008; 

Whereas Jack Ruffin became the first African-American 

Chief Judge of the Georgia Court of Appeals in 2005 and 

served honorably in that position until 2006; 

Whereas the new Richmond County judicial center in Augusta, Georgia, will be named in Jack Ruffin’s honor, a 

decision made by the Augusta-Richmond County Commission in 2009; 

Whereas Jack Ruffin retired from the Georgia Court of Appeals in 2008 and spent the rest of his life giving back 

to his community by teaching students at his alma mater, 

Morehouse College; 

Whereas Jack Ruffin died the night of January 29, 2010, at 

the age of 75, in Atlanta, Georgia, and is survived by his 

wife, Judith Ruffin, his father, John Ruffin, Sr., his son, 

Brinkley Ruffin, and two grandsons; 

Whereas the passing of Jack Ruffin is a great loss to the 

legal community and to the State of Georgia, and his life 

should be honored with great praise and appreciation for 

the many contributions he made to the legal system in 

the United States and to the civil rights movement; and 

Whereas it is the intent of the House of Representatives to 

recognize and pay tribute to the life of Jack Ruffin, his 

achievements for civil rights, his zeal for justice, and his 

passion for the law: Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 
3 

•HRES 1087 EH 

(1) recognizes Jack Ruffin as a great jurist in the 

State of Georgia and as an important figure in the civil 

rights movement; and 

(2) recognizes the selfless and brave contributions 

that Jack Ruffin made to his community and to the law. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
#### Michael J. LOOMIS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Randy BLADES, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 08-35676.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 25, 2010.*

Filed June 11, 2010.

Michael J. Loomis, Boise, ID, pro se.

Jessica Marie Lorello, Office of the Idaho Attorney General, Boise, ID, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Idaho state prisoner Michael J. Loomis appeals pro se from the district court’s *655judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Loomis contends that the state trial court’s denial of his request for DNA testing deprived him of his constitutional right to present a defense. The trial court’s determination that the expense of testing was not justified because the DNA test at issue was not sufficiently related to the charged offenses, and a negative test result would not have supported Loomis’ argument that he fabricated his confession, is supported by the record. Thus, the state court of appeals’ decision affirming the trial court’s denial of Loomis’ request for DNA testing was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); *see also Crane v. Kentucky,*476 U.S. 683, 689-91, 106 S.Ct. 2142, 90 L.Ed.2d 636 (1986); *Ake v. Oklahoma,*470 U.S. 68, 77, 105 S.Ct. 1087, 84 L.Ed.2d 53 (1985).

We deny Loomis’ motion to expand the certificate of appealability. *See*9th Cir. R. 22-1; *see also Hiivala v. Wood,*195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir.1999) (per curiam).

We also deny Loomis’ motion for confirmation of documents and request for augmentation of the record.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.