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

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1167 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 1167

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                        March 17, 2010.
Whereas social work is a profession of hope, grounded in practical problem-
        solving expertise;
Whereas social workers inspire community action, and are dedicated to the 
        successful functioning of American society;
Whereas social workers have education and experience to guide individuals, 
        families, and communities through complex issues and choices;
Whereas social workers stand up for others to make sure everyone has access to 
        the same basic rights, protections, and opportunities, and have been an 
        important force behind important social movements in the United States;
Whereas social workers work through private practices, agencies and 
        organizations, hospitals, the military, government, and educational 
        institutions to provide resources and guidance that support social 
        functioning;
Whereas social workers are on the frontlines, responding to such human needs as 
        homelessness, poverty, family break-up, mental illness, physical and 
        mental disability, substance abuse, domestic violence, and many other 
        issues;
Whereas Professional Social Work Month and World Social Work Day, which is March 
        16, 2010, will build awareness of the role of professional social 
        workers and their wide range of social contributions throughout their 
        careers; and
Whereas the 2010 Social Work Month theme--``Social Workers Inspire Community 
        Action''--showcases the expertise and dedication of professional social 
        workers in helping to improve community life: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) supports the goals and ideals of Professional Social Work Month 
        and World Social Work Day;
            (2) acknowledges the diligent efforts of individuals and groups who 
        promote the importance of social work and who are observing Professional 
        Social Work Month and World Social Work Day;
            (3) encourages the American people to engage in appropriate 
        ceremonies and activities to further promote awareness of the life-
        changing role of social workers; and
            (4) recognizes with gratitude the contributions of the millions of 
        caring individuals who have chosen to serve their communities through 
        social work.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
| **--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| DOCUMENT: | **CL** | **1** |
|-----------|--------|-------|

|  | **Rolfe and Nolan Systems     Inc.** |
|--|---------------------------------------|

| DATE: | 5/28/2004 | FR PAGE: | N/A | PAGES: | 1 | PDF SIZE: | 16 KB | PDF LINK: | /files/foia/c |
|-------|-----------|----------|-----|--------|---|-----------|-------|-----------|---------------|

|  | **--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** |
|--|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

FirstPreviousNextLast
No. 99.

#### Cities Service Co. *v.*Armsby et al.

October 14, 1935.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Cir*584cuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

*Messrs. Benjamin F. Bledsoe*and *Elvon Musick*for petitioner.

No appearance for respondent.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1111 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 1111

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                         March 4, 2010.
Whereas reading is a basic requirement for quality education and professional 
        success, and is a source of pleasure throughout life;
Whereas the people of the United States must be able to read if the United 
        States is to remain competitive in the global economy;
Whereas Congress has placed great emphasis on reading intervention that has been 
        proven effective through scientifically valid research and providing 
        additional resources for reading assistance; and
Whereas more than 50 national organizations concerned about reading and 
        education have joined with the National Education Association to use 
        March 2 to celebrate reading and the birth of Theodor Geisel, also known 
        as Dr. Seuss: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) honors Theodor Geisel, also known as Dr. Seuss, for his success 
        in encouraging children to discover the joy of reading;
            (2) honors the 13th anniversary of Read Across America Day;
            (3) encourages parents to read with their children for at least 30 
        minutes on Read Across America Day in honor of the commitment of the 
        House of Representatives to building a Nation of readers; and
            (4) encourages the people of the United States to observe the day 
        with appropriate ceremonies and activities.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert ROLLINS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-2341.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 4, 2010.*

Decided Nov. 1, 2010.

Matthew F. Madden, Office of the United States Attorney, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Robert Rollins, Terre Haute, IN, pro se.

Before RICHARD D. CUDAHY, Circuit Judge, DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge and TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge.

*

 This successive appeal has been submitted to the original panel under Operating Procedure 6(b). After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); Cir. R. 34(f).

ORDER

On December 15, 2009, the defendant filed in the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois what is styled a “Motion to Dismiss Counts One through Eight of the Indictment Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2) of the FRCP and Affidavit in Support.” On April 6, 2010, he filed a “Post-Trial Motion to Dismiss” the conviction or the indictment for lack of jurisdiction. Both motions were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and both of these rulings are now challenged on appeal.

Both of the defendant’s motions challenge the jurisdiction of the district court over the defendant and seek the vacation of the conviction and the reduction of his sentence. These claims fall squarely within the ambit of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a), and should be construed as § 2255 motions.

The government in its argument here has incorrectly identified the filing deadline for the defendant’s appeal. It is true that the deadline for filing an appeal from the denial of habeas corpus relief is governed by Fed. R.App. P. 4(a), which prescribes a default filing deadline of thirty *118days in civil cases. Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). But where the United States is a party to a civil case the applicable deadline is sixty days. Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1)(B). Therefore, an appeal from the denial of a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, in which the United States is a party, enjoys a sixty day deadline. *See Edwards v. United States,*266 F.3d 756, 757 (7th Cir.2001). Here, the district court entered its final judgment denying the defendant’s April 6 motion on April 14, 2010, and the defendant filed this appeal approximately fifty days later on June 2, 2010. Given our determination to construe the defendant’s motions as having been made pursuant to § 2255, the appeal was not untimely.

Nevertheless, this appeal must be dismissed. The defendant has already filed a § 2255 motion which was denied on November 20, 2006. The defendant’s present motions are therefore successive motions for relief under § 2255. The defendant has not obtained the necessary authorization, pursuant §§ 2255(h) and 2244, to file successive motions.

For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is DISMISSED.
================================================================================

EXHIBIT 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       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 of Kahzam, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the period ending May 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, JAMES LINDSEY, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss.1350, as
adopted pursuant toss.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 result of
              operations of the Company.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
17th day of July, 2009.


/s/ JAMES LINDSEY
-----------------------
Chief Financial Officer






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
/ 

/~ 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

NATHANIEL SMITH THURSTON, JR., ) 

) 

Plaintiff, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, et al., ) 

) 

Defendants. ) 

Civil Action No. 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

FILED 

MAY 1 7 2010 

Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy 

Courts tor the District of Columbia 

10 0798 

This matter is before the Court on plaintiff s application to proceed in forma pauperis 

and pro se complaint. The application will be granted, and the complaint will be dismissed. 

Plaintiff brings this action under 42 U.S.c. § 1983, and alleges that he has been convicted 

and sentenced as a result of a vast conspiracy among federal judges and assorted federal 

government agencies designed to deprive plaintiff of rights protected under the First, Fifth, Sixth 

and Eighth Amendments to the United States Constitution. In addition to demanding an 

investigation of the allegedly corrupt judicial system, plaintiff demands monetary damages 

totalling $204,002,000. 

Because plaintiffs claims go to the fact of his confinement, he cannot recover damages in 

this civil rights action under 42 U.S.c. § 1983 without showing that his confinement has been 

invalidated by "revers[al] on direct appeal, expunge[ment] by executive order, declar[ation of 

invalidity] by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or ... a federal court's 

issuance ofa writ of habeas corpus." Heckv. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994); accord 

White v. Bowie, 194 F.3d 175 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (table). Plaintiff has not satisfied this prerequisite 

.3 
and therefore fails to state a claim upon which relief can granted. This action will be dismissed 

under 28 U.S.c. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A(b)(1). An Order is issued separately. 

United States District Judge
**Exhibit No. 32.1**

Form 10-Q

BTHC XV, Inc.

File No. 0-52808

**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 of BTHC XV, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Timothy P. Halter, Chief Executive 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 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 23, 2009 |   |   | By: /s/ Timothy P. Halter   |   |   |
|----------------------|--------|--------|-----------------------------|--------|--------|
|                      |   |   | Timothy P. Halter           |   |   |
|                      |   |   | Chief Executive Officer     |   |   |
|                      |   |   | and Chief Financial Officer |   |   |

----

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to BTHC XV, Inc. and will be retained by BTHC XV, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
|   |  (1) |   |  The Company’s quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009 (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. |   |
|--------|-----|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|

|                       | BISCAYNE ACQUISITION GROUP, INC.(Registrant) |                                                                                       |
|----------------------------|----------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                       |                                         |                                                                                       |   |
| Date: August 18, 2009 | By:                                          | /s/ Luz M. Weigel                                                                     |   |
|                       |                                         | Luz M. Weigel                                                                              |   |
|                       |                                         | President, Secretary, Treasurer, and Chief Financial Officer(Principal Accounting Officer) |   |
|                       |                                         |                                                                                       |   |
No. 458.

#### Peerless Stages, Inc. *v.*Railroad Commission of California et al.

Motion to dismiss submitted September 20, 1935.

Decided October 14, 1935.

*Per Curiam:*

*541
      *Mr. Chauncey F.' Trarrvutolo*for appellant.

*Messrs. Herman Phleger, Ira*

*H. Rowell, Maurice E. Harrison,*and *James S. Moore, Jr.,*for appellees.

The motion of the appellees to dismiss the appeal herein is granted, and the appeal is dismissed for the want of a substantial federal question, *Aetna Insurance Co.*v. *Hyde,*275 U. S. 440, 447; *Puget Sound Co. v. Seattle,*291 U. S. 619, 625-626; *Public Service Comm’n*v. *Utilities Co.,*289 U. S. 130, 134.
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 of Platinum Studios, Inc. (the “Company”)
on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Brian Altounian,
President, Chief Operating Officer&
Principal Financial and Accounting Officer


of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 and 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.





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.





May
      15, 2008
              By:
              /s/ Brian
      AltounianBrian
      AltounianPresident, Chief Operating
      Officer &
      Principal Financial and Accounting Officer
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION





Washington, D.C. 20549





FORM 8-K


CURRENT REPORT





Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the


Securities Exchange Act of 1934


Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported) May 18, 2018





GREAT-WEST LIFE & ANNUITY INSURANCE COMPANY


(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)


Colorado333-0117384-0467907(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation)(Commission File No.)(IRS Employer Identification No.)


8515 East Orchard Road, Greenwood Village, Colorado80111(Address of principal executive offices)(Zip Code)





(303) 737-3000(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)








Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously satisfy the filing obligation of the registrant under any of the following provisions (see General Instruction A.2):


[  ]  Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)


[  ]  Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)


[  ]  Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR                                                                                                   240.14d-2(b))


[  ]  Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR                                                                                                   240.13e-4(c))


Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is an emerging growth company as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act of 1933 (§230.405 of this chapter) or Rule 12b-2 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (§240.12b-2 of this chapter).


Emerging growth company [  ]


If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. [  ]


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





-1-


---












ITEM 5.02 DEPARTURE OF DIRECTORS OR CERTAIN OFFICERS; ELECTION OF DIRECTORS; APPOINTMENT OF CERTAIN OFFICERS; COMPENSATORY ARRANGEMENTS OF CERTAIN OFFICERS





Effective May 18, 2018, Jerry E.A. Nickerson and Raymond Royer retired from the Board of Directors of Great-West Life & Annuity Insurance Company.


























SIGNATURE





Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized.








Date: May 22, 2018


GREAT-WEST LIFE & ANNUITY INSURANCE COMPANY








By: /s/ Richard G. Schultz


Name: Richard G. Schultz


Title: General Counsel and Chief Legal Officer





-2-
#### Dorothy Hudson, Respondent, v Tower Elevator, Appellant.

[876 NYS2d 117]—

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Harkavy, J.), dated October 31, 2007, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

*907Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

“An elevator company which agrees to maintain an elevator in safe operating condition may be liable to a passenger for failure to correct conditions of which it has knowledge or failure to use reasonable care to discover and correct a condition which it ought to have found” *(Rogers v Dorchester Assoc.,*32 NY2d 553, 559 [1973]; *see Fyall v Centennial El. Indus., Inc.,*43 AD3d 1103, 1104 [2007]; *Oxenfeldt v 22 N. Forest Ave. Corp.,*30 AD3d 391, 392 [2006]). The defendant, an elevator company, established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of its responsibility for maintaining the elevator by proffering evidence that, at the time of the plaintiffs accident, it did not have a contract to maintain the elevator in which she was allegedly injured *(see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). In opposition, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant was contractually obligated to maintain the subject elevator in a safe operating condition on the date her accident occurred *(see Rogers v Dorchester Assoc.,*32 NY2d at 559).

Additionally, the defendant failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of the defect alleged by the plaintiff by showing either that the elevator was not in a defective condition at the time of the plaintiffs accident, or that it lacked constructive notice of the defect which allegedly caused the plaintiffs injuries *(see Gilbert v Kingsbrook Jewish Ctr., 4*AD3d 392 [2004]; *Proctor v Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst.,*277 AD2d 536, 538 [2000]; *cf. Lasser v Northrop Grumman Corp.,*55 AD3d 561, 592-593 [2008]; *Lee v City of New York,*40 AD3d 1048, 1049 [2007]). Accordingly, we need not examine the sufficiency of the plaintiffs papers on this issue *(see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; *Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr.,*64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]). Rivera, J.P., Florio, Dickerson and Chambers, JJ., concur.