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

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1207 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 1207

 Recognizing the National Museum of World War II Aviation in Colorado 
 Springs, Colorado, as America's National World War II Aviation Museum.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 23, 2010

 Mr. Lamborn (for himself, Ms. Bordallo, Mr. McCaul, Mr. Courtney, Ms. 
    Markey of Colorado, Mr. Kingston, and Mr. Boren) submitted the 
  following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Armed 
                                Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Recognizing the National Museum of World War II Aviation in Colorado 
 Springs, Colorado, as America's National World War II Aviation Museum.

Whereas World War II was one of the most important events in the history of the 
        Nation, a time of moral clarity and common purpose that remains today as 
        an inspiration to all people in the United States;
Whereas the role of aviation was a critical factor in the success of winning 
        World War II and defeating the enemies worldwide;
Whereas the bravery, courage, dedication, and heroism of World War II aviators 
        and support personnel was an important element in the winning of World 
        War II;
Whereas the National Museum of World War II Aviation in Colorado Springs, 
        Colorado, is the only museum in the United States that exists to 
        exclusively preserve and promote an understanding of the role of 
        aviation in winning World War II; and
Whereas the National Museum of World War II Aviation is dedicated to celebrating 
        the spirit of the United States, recognizing the teamwork, 
        collaboration, patriotism, and courage of the men and women who fought, 
        as well as those on the home front who mobilized and supported the 
        national aviation effort: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives recognizes the National 
Museum of World War II Aviation in Colorado Springs, Colorado, as 
America's National World War II Aviation Museum.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.1 - President Certification (Section 906)

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


I am the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of No Show, Inc.,
a Nevada corporation (the "Company").  I am delivering this certificate in
connection with the Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended October 31,
2008 and filed with the U. S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("Form 10-Q").

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge,
the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that 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/ Doreen E. Zimmerman
-----------------------
    Doreen E. Zimmerman
    President/CFO


Date  December 1, 2008
      ----------------


<PAGE>
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF ODENBERG, ULLAKKO,
MURANISHI & CO. LLP,INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form
S-8 (Reg. Nos. 333-12087, 333-68637, 333-94111, 333-42210, 333-56274, 333-90504
and 333-116740) pertaining to the 1993 Stock Option Plan, the 1996 Equity
Incentive Plan, the 1996 Non-Employee Directors Stock Option Plan, the 1997
Employee Stock Purchase Plan, the 2000 Equity Incentive Plan and the 2006 Equity
Incentive Plan, and Registration Statement on Form S-3 (Reg. No. 333-144153) of
our reports dated March 13, 2009, with respect to the financial statements of
Avigen, Inc. and our assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over
financial reporting of Avigen, Inc., included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 2008.

| | /s/ ODENBERG,
      ULLAKKO, MURANISHI & CO. LLP
| | ------------------------------------------------

San Francisco, CaliforniaMarch 13,
2009

---
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.6

                             THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE
                           U.S. ROBOTICS CORPORATION
                          EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN


     The U.S. Robotics Corporation Employee Stock Purchase Plan (the "Plan") is
hereby amended, effective January 1, 1997, as follows:

     1. Section 3(c) of the Plan shall be amended to read as follows:

        "An employee shall be eligible to participate in the Plan:

                 (i) Who has been employed for three consecutive months;

                 (ii) Whose customary employment is more than 20 hours
            per week; or

                 (iii) Whose customary employment is for more than five
            months in any calendar year.

      2. Any reference to "full" shares in the Plan shall be deemed to include
      fractional shares as well.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, U.S. Robotics Corporation has caused this Amendment to
be executed by its officer hereto duly authorized this 14th day of November,
1996.
                                                                
                               U.S. ROBOTICS CORPORATION,                      
                               a Delaware corporation                          
                                                                               
                                                                               
                               By:      /s/ Mark Remissong                     
                                     ------------------------------------------
                                                                               
                               Its:  Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
No. 444.

#### Walter *v.*Indiana.

Jurisdictional statement distributed October 31, 1936.

Decided November 9, 1936.

*Mr. P. H. Marshall*for appellant.

*Per Curiam:*

The appeal herein is dismissed for the want of jurisdiction. Section 237 (a), Judicial Code, as amended by the Act of February 13, 1925 (43 Stat. 936, 937). Treating the papers whereon the appeal was allowed as a petition for a writ of certiorari, as required by § 237 (c), Judicial Code, as amended (43 Stat. 936, 938), certiorari is denied.

*514No appearance for appellee.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Terry McVale WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 08-51241

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 29, 2010.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Terry McVale Williams, Big Spring, TX, pro se.

Before WIENER, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Terry McVale Williams, federal prisoner # 58056-080, moves this court for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in this appeal from the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for reduction of sentence based on the retroactive amendment to the crack cocaine Sentencing Guideline. Williams was convicted of two counts of aiding and abetting the distribution of five grams or more of cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B) and sentenced to concurrent terms of 120 months of impris*944onment and eight years of supervised release.

The district court determined that Williams was ineligible for a sentence reduction because he had received a statutory mandatory minimum sentence and denied the § 3582(c)(2) motion. The district court also denied the request to proceed IFP on appeal, stating that the appeal was not taken in good faith because Williams failed to present a nonfrivolous, arguable appellate issue.

The district court correctly determined that Williams was ineligible for a sentence reduction based on the amendment to the crack cocaine Guideline because he was subject to the mandatory minimum statutory penalty in § 841(b)(1)(B). *See United States v. Carter,*595 F.3d 575, 577, 579-81 (5th Cir.2010). Williams’s efforts on appeal to relitigate whether the penalty was properly applied are not cognizable under § 3582(c)(2). *See United States v. Shaw,*30 F.3d 26, 29 (5th Cir.1994).

Given the foregoing, Williams has failed to show that his appeal involves “legal points arguable on their merits.” *Howard v. King,*707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir.1983) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Accordingly, his motion to proceed IFP on appeal is denied, and his appeal is dismissed as frivolous. *See Baugh v. Taylor,*117 F.3d 197, 202 & n. 24 (5th Cir.1997); 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th 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.
IV 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1378 

Condemning the theft from the Mojave National Preserve of the national 

Mojave Cross memorial honoring American soldiers who died in World 

War I. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 19, 2010 

Mr. LEWIS of California (for himself, Mr. MCKEON, Mr. CALVERT, and Mr. 

YOUNG of Alaska) submitted the following resolution; which was referred 

to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by 

the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

RESOLUTION 

Condemning the theft from the Mojave National Preserve 

of the national Mojave Cross memorial honoring American soldiers who died in World War I. 

Whereas in 1934, World War I veterans placed a cross memorial on Sunset Rock near Barstow, California, with a 

wooden plaque proclaiming the simple monument honored 

the lives of all who have defended America and freedom; 

Whereas in 2002, Congress declared the Mojave Cross a national memorial, the only such memorial dedicated to the 

war dead of World War I; 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 1378 IH 

Whereas in 2003, Congress passed legislation to protect the 

Mojave Cross memorial by providing for a land swap that 

would leave the cross on private land, to be maintained 

by the Veterans of Foreign Wars; 

Whereas, on April 28, 2010, the United States Supreme 

Court, in Salazar v. Buono, reversed a Court of Appeals 

judgment that invalidated an effort by Congress to preserve the Mojave Cross memorial through a land transfer 

and remanded the case for further proceedings; and 

Whereas, on May 9, 2010, the Mojave Cross memorial was 

reportedly vandalized and stolen: Now therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) condemns the illegal removal of the Mojave 

3 Cross memorial by vandals as a repulsive act that is 

4 an insult to the brave men and women who have 

5 served in the Armed Forces and who have given 

6 their lives to defend the country; and 

7 (2) urges the National Park Service and Fed8 eral law enforcement to continue working with the 

9 Veterans of Foreign Wars to recover the Mojave 

10 Cross memorial. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-30750 Conference Calendar

__________________ R. L. HALL AND ASSOC., INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. CA-93-CV-455 - - - - - - - - - - April 18, 1996 Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * R.L. Hall and Associates, Inc., appeals from the district court’s dismissal of its Federal Tort Claims Act suit for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The district court did not err in dismissing the premium-increase claim under Rule 12(b)(6). See Johnson v. Sawyer , 47 F.3d 716, 727, 729 (5th Cir. 1995)( en banc ) (this court will not fashion new state-law causes of action). AFFIRMED.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CHARLES BENTON BAGWELL, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

 v. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Respondent-Appellee.

No. 18-35675

18-35676

D.C. Nos. 1:16-cv-00264-BLW 

1:05-cr-00174-BLW-1

1:16-cv-00265-BLW 

1:05-cr-00132-BLW-1

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Idaho

B. Lynn Winmill, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 15, 2017**

Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges. 

In these consolidated appeals, Charles Benton Bagwell appeals from the 

district court’s judgments denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motions. We have 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. Reviewing de novo, see United States v. 

Reves, 774 F.3d 562, 564 (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

JUL 18 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 18-35675 

In both appeals, Bagwell contends that his conviction for armed bank 

robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d), is not a crime of violence for 

purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3). This argument is foreclosed. See United States 

v. Watson, 881 F.3d 782, 784 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 139 S. Ct. 203 (2018)

(federal armed bank robbery by force and violence or by intimidation is 

categorically a crime of violence under the force clause of section 924(c)(3)). 

Moreover, contrary to Bagwell’s contention, Watson is not “clearly irreconcilable”

with Stokeling v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 544 (2019). See Miller v. Gammie, 335 

F.3d 889, 900 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).

In light of this disposition, we do not reach the parties’ remaining 

arguments. 

AFFIRMED.
#### In the Matter of Epdi Associates, Respondent, v New York City Loft Board, Appellant, et al., Respondent.

[874 NYS2d 450]

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy L. Kahn, J.), entered December 20, 2007, which granted the owner’s petition to the extent of annulling that part of a Loft Board order that required amendment of an abandonment application to list former tenants as affected parties to be served with notice of the application, rejected the administrative law judge’s recommendation that the former tenants’ units were abandoned, and remanded the application for further proceedings, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the petition denied in its entirety, the proceeding dismissed, and the Loft Board order reinstated and confirmed.

The Loft Board properly interpreted its own regulation *(see Matter of IG Second Generation Partners L.P. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, Off. of Rent Admin.,*10 NY3d 474, 481 [2008]). It also correctly understood its own prior order in implicitly finding that it did not decide the rights of the departed Brower, Koch and Roussin tenants, so the order at issue was neither irrational nor inconsistent with the administrative body’s own precedent *(cf. Matter of Charles A. Field Delivery Serv. [Roberts],*66 NY2d 516 [1985]). We note that the obituary of a departed tenant was not part of the administrative record, and was thus improperly considered by the court *(see Matter of Rizzo v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal,*6 NY3d 104, 110 [2005]), and that the *473Loft Board was justifiably skeptical about other evidence submitted by petitioner. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Nardelli, DeGrasse and Freedman, JJ.
# FCM DATA AUGUST 2008
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 Maiden Holdings, Ltd.
      (the
“Company”) for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Max Caviet, President
      and Chief Executive Officer (Principal 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:




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




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






By: /s/
      Max
      Caviet




Max
      Caviet




President
      and Chief Executive Officer




(Principal
      Executive Officer)








June
      19,
      2008
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. RT01-75-003]

Take notice that on May 25, 2001, Entergy Services, Inc., on behalf of the five Entergy Operating Companies: Entergy Arkansas, Inc., Entergy Gulf States, Inc., Entergy Louisiana, Inc., Entergy Mississippi, Inc., and Entergy New Orleans, Inc., (together Entergy), submitted a compliance filing in response to the Commission's March 28, 2001 order in the above-captioned proceedings.

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions and protests should be filed on or before June 18, 2001. Protests  will be considered by the Commission to determine the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​efi/​doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01-14758  Filed 6-11-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
IV 

House Calendar No. 7 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 107 

[Report No. 110–10] 

Providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 2) 

to amend title XXI of the Social Security Act to extend and improve 

the Children’s Health Insurance Program, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 3, 2009 

Mr. POLIS of Colorado, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 

resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to the 

bill (H.R. 2) to amend title XXI of the Social Security 

Act to extend and improve the Children’s Health Insurance Program, and for other purposes. 

1 Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it 

2 shall be in order to take from the Speaker’s table the bill 

3 (H.R. 2) to amend title XXI of the Social Security Act 

4 to extend and improve the Children’s Health Insurance 

5 Program, and for other purposes, with the Senate amendVerDate Nov 24 2008 23:33 Feb 03, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\HR107.RH HR107

smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 107 RH 

1 ment thereto, and to consider in the House, without inter2 vention of any point of order except those arising under 

3 clause 10 of rule XXI, a motion offered by the chair of 

4 the Committee on Energy and Commerce or his designee 

5 that the House concur in the Senate amendment. The 

6 Senate amendment and the motion shall be considered as 

7 read. The motion shall be debatable for one hour equally 

8 divided among and controlled by the chair and ranking 

9 minority member of the Committee on Energy and Com10 merce and the chair and ranking minority member of the 

11 Committee on Ways and Means. The previous question 

12 shall be considered as ordered on the motion to adoption 

13 without intervening motion. 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS

smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
House Calendar No. 7 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 107 

[Report No. 110–10] 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the Senate amendfor other purposes. the Children’s Health Insurance Program, and the Social Security Act to extend and improve ment to the bill (H.R. 2) to amend title XXI of 

FEBRUARY 3, 2009 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
U.S. COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION
Three Lafayette Centre
1155 21st Street, NW, Washington, DC 20581
Telephone: (202) 418-5000
Facsimile: (202) 418-5521
www.cftc.gov

January 22, 2016

Mr. Gregory Dumark

Chief Compliance Officer
Bloomberg SEF LLC

731 Lexington Ave.

New York, New York 10022

Re: Application of Bloomberg SEF LLC for Registration as a Swap Execution Facility

Dear Mr. Dumark:

By submissions dated June 4, 2013 through January 21, 2016, Bloomberg SEF LLC
(“BSEF”) has applied to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“Commission”),
pursuant to Section 5h of the Commodity Exchange Act (“Act”), 7 U.S.C, § 7b-3, and
Commission Regulation 37.3(b), 17 C.F.R. § 37.3(b), for registration as a swap execution facility
(“SEF”).

The Commission has reviewed BSEF’s application and has determined to grant BSEF
registration as a SEF, subject to the terms and conditions specified in the accompanying Order of
Registration,

Sincerely,

Christopher J, Kirkpatrick
Secretary of the Commission