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

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1576 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 1576

 Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that a National 
  Day of Recognition for Parents of Special Needs Children should be 
                              established.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 29, 2010

Mr. Burton of Indiana (for himself, Mr. Turner, Mrs. McMorris Rodgers, 
 Mr. Faleomavaega, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Buyer, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Reichert, 
Mr. Hill, and Mr. Pence) submitted the following resolution; which was 
            referred to the Committee on Education and Labor

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that a National 
  Day of Recognition for Parents of Special Needs Children should be 
                              established.

Whereas children with special health care needs are defined as those children 
        who have a chronic physical, developmental, behavioral, or emotional 
        condition that requires special health-related services of a type or 
        amount beyond that required by children generally;
Whereas the Department of Health and Human Services most recent National Survey 
        of Children with Special Health Care Needs estimates 14 percent of 
        children between the ages of 0 and 17 in the United States are diagnosed 
        as having special health care needs;
Whereas active and supportive parents serve a critical role in the development 
        of special needs children and in preparing them to succeed in school and 
        in life;
Whereas parents of special needs children deserve annual national recognition 
        for their selfless dedication, compassion, and sacrifice; and
Whereas it is appropriate that the Nation reserve a special day each year to 
        celebrate and honor the parents of special needs children across the 
        United States: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) recognizes the importance of honoring the Nation's 
        parents of special needs children;
            (2) expresses its sense that a National Day of Recognition 
        for Parents of Special Needs Children should be established to 
        honor such parents; and
            (3) urges the President to issue a proclamation calling on 
        the people of the United States to observe such a day with 
        appropriate ceremonies, programs, and activities.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>
                                                                   Exhibit 11  

                     GOVERNMENT TECHNOLOGY SERVICES, INC.
                       COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                   (In thousands, except per share amounts)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                          Three Months Ended
                                                               March 31,
                                                          -------------------
                                                            1998       1997
                                                          --------   --------
<S>                                                       <C>        <C>

Net loss. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $  (3,509) $ (3,404)
                                                          ========   ========

Weighted average shares of common
   stock outstanding. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .     6,756     6,725
                                                           ========  ========

Net loss per common share and common
   share equivalent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $   (0.52) $  (0.51)
                                                           ========  ========

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.2



CYBERSOURCE CORPORATION



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO



18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO



SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of CyberSource Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date therein specified (the Report), I, Steven D. Pellizzer, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of 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; and



(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the dates and for the periods indicated.



This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.



|                     |  |  |  |                           
|-------------------- |  |  |  | --------------------------
|                     |  | 
|Date: March 10, 2005 |  |  |  | /s/    STEVEN D.
PELLIZZER
|                     |  |  |  | Steven D. Pellizzer       
|                     |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer
#### VALENTINE, CHAIRMAN OF THE IOWA STATE BOARD OF ASSESSMENT AND REVIEW, et al. *v.*GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA CO.*

No. *13.*

Argued October 14, 1936.

Decided November 9, 1936.

*Mr. Frank F. Messer*and *Mr. Edward L. O’Connor,*Attorney General of Iowa, with whom *Mrs. W. E. Wallace*and *John Connolly, Jr.,*were on the brief, for appellants.

*Mr. Joseph G. Gamble,*with whom *Messrs. Ralph L. Read, Alden B. Howland,*and *Joseph F. Rosenfield*were on the brief, for appellees.

*

 Together with No. 14, *Valentine, Chairman, et al.*v. *Graham Department Stores Co. et al.;*and No. 15, *Valentine, Chairman, et al.*v. *Walgreen Co. et al.*Appeals from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Iowa.

Per Curiam.

Appellees brought these suits to restrain the enforcement of a statute of Iowa known as the “Chain Store *33Tax Act of 1935” (Iowa Code of 1935, c. 329 G-l). The District Court, composed of three judges, held that the provision of § 4 (b) of the statute, imposing a tax based on gross receipts from sales according to an accumulative graduated scale, was invalid under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States as creating an arbitrary discrimination. 12 F. Supp. 760. The case comes here upon direct appeal from a final decree granting a permanent injunction. 28 U. S. C. 380.

The decree is affirmed upon the authority of *Stewart Dry Goods Co.*v. *Lewis,*294 U. S. 550.

*Affirmed.*

Mr. Justice Brandéis and Mr. Justice Cardozo dissent.

Mr. Justice Stone took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: HOWARD RANDOLPH RANDOLPH FOODS, INC., JAMES P. HOBAN HOBAN AND COMPANY, 

AND ROBERT M. ZADRA 

DOCKET NUMBER: 100 

DOCUMENT TYPE: ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Commodity Exchange Authority 

Washington 25, D. C. 

ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT - CEA. DOCKET NO. 100 

(Administrative Hearing under the Commodity Exchange Act) 

A complaint and. notice of hearing has been signed by the Assistant Secretary 

of Agriculture, charging the following respondents with violation of the 

Commodity Exchange Act: 

Howard Randolph 

Randolph Foods, Inc. 

(Guthrie Center, Iowa) 

James P. Hoban 

Hoban and Company 

(Detroit, Michigan) 

Robert M. Zadra 

(New York, New York) 

The complaint charges that the respondents, by transactions on the spot call 

of the New York Mercantile Exchange, attempted to manipulate and did manipulate 

the price of eggs in interstate commerce. The charges against Howard Randolph, 

Randolph Foods, Inc. and Robert M. Zadra relate to transactions on January 13 

and 16, 1961, while those against James P. Hoban and Hoban and Company relate to 

transactions on January 16, 1961. 

The issuance of a complaint under the Commodity Exchange Act does not 

constitute proof of violation of the law. Such violation is established only 

when the Judicial Officer of the Department has made a determination that the 

evidence substantiates allegations in the complaint. Complaints are filed in 

the Office of the Hearing Clerk of the Department of Agriculture and. are a 

matter of public record. Pending disposition by the Judicial Officer, it is the 

policy of the Commodity Exchange Authority not to comment or elaborate on 

charges contained in complaints or to discuss evidence on which they are based. 

A public hearing on the complaint is scheduled to be held, before a referee 

at 10:00 a.m., local time, August 22, 1961, in New York, New York. 

LOAD-DATE: June 12, 2008 
Page 2
#### Melwanche ARIEF, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 09-71825.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 21, 2012.*

Filed March 2, 2012.

David M. Haghighi, Vhf Law Group, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.

Sunah Lee, OIL, Michelle Gorden Lat-our, Esquire, Assistant Director, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

*620Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Melwanche Arief, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, *Santos-Lemus v.*Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 742 (9th Cir.2008), and we review de novo due process claims, *Iturribarria v. INS,*321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition for review.

Arief does not challenge the agency’s dispositive finding that his application is time-barred. *See Martinez-Serrano v. INS,*94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (issues not supported by argument are deemed abandoned). Accordingly, his asylum claim fails.

With respect to his withholding of removal claim, substantial evidence supports the agency’s findings that Arief s beating by five unknown individuals does not constitute persecution because the government was not involved, and petitioner did not establish that police were unwilling or unable to control his attackers. *See Castro-Perez v. Gonzales,*409 F.3d 1069, 1072 (9th Cir.2005). Furthermore, substantial evidence supports the agency’s findings that Arief has not met his burden in establishing that it is more likely than not he will suffer future persecution if returned to Indonesia. *See Nagoulko v. INS,*333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir.2003); *Fakhry v. Mukasey,*524 F.3d 1057, 1065-66 (9th Cir.2008) (evidence of Senegalese applicant’s severe beating and his membership in an opposition group did not compel a finding that it was more likely than not he would be persecuted upon return).

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s findings that Arief has not established that he will be tortured by or with the acquiescence of the Indonesian government. *See Silaya v. Mukasey,*524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir.2008). Accordingly, his CAT claim fails.

Finally, we x-ejeet Arief s contention that the IJ should have recused himself and that the IJ impermissibly referred back to the old hearing. *See Lata v. INS,*204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error and prejudice to prevail on due process claim).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

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

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-7605

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TIMOTHY WAYNE EDDINGTON,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock 

Hill. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge. (0:07-cr-01149-CMC-1)

Submitted: December 16, 2022 Decided: June 28, 2023

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and KING and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Timothy Wayne Eddington, Appellant Pro Se. Elliott Bishop Daniels, Assistant United 

States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7605 Doc: 8 Filed: 06/28/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Timothy Wayne Eddington appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate release. We review a district court’s order 

granting or denying a compassionate release motion for abuse of discretion. See United 

States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir.) (stating standard of review), cert. denied, 142 

S. Ct. 383 (2021). We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court did 

not abuse its discretion. The court denied the compassionate release motion after assuming 

that Eddington had demonstrated extraordinary and compelling circumstances, discussing 

the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and sufficiently explaining the reasons for the 

denial. See United States v. High, 997 F.3d 181, 188-91 (4th Cir. 2021) (discussing amount 

of explanation required for denial of straightforward compassionate release motion). We 

therefore affirm the district court’s order. We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7605 Doc: 8 Filed: 06/28/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 19
- 0 699 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. BRUCE HOWARD HOSEA,

Defendant and Appellant
.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including September 21 , 20 20 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 11 2020

08/11/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0699
**Exhibit 32**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002

 

Theundersigned, M. Dendy Young, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of GTSI Corp.(“the Company”) and Thomas A. Mutryn, Senior Vice President and Chief FinancialOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that

 

1.                 The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of theCompany for the quarter ended September 30, 2005 (“the Report”) fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.                 The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

Date:                    November 14, 2005

 

 
| /s/    | M.  DENDY YOUNG                                    |   |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | M.  Dendy Young                                    |
|   | Chairman  and Chief Executive Officer              |
|   |                                               |
|   |                                               |
| /s/    | THOMAS  A. MUTRYN                                  |   |
|   | Thomas  A. Mutryn                                  |
|   | Senior  Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |

 

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished tothe Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

1

----
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 of Defense Solutions Holding, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (“Report”), I, Timothy D.
Ringgold, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
to the best of my knowledge:





(1)
            The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities 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.




August
      19, 2009
              
              /s/
      Timothy D. RinggoldTimothy
      D. RinggoldChief
      Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 32.2



Exhibit 32.2



Certification by the Chief Financial Officer 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. Section 1350, I, Robert W. Raiford, hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 10-K
of ENGlobal Corporation for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003 (the Report) 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
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of ENGlobal Corporation.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Robert W. Raiford  
|Robert W. Raiford      
|Chief Financial Officer
|March 25, 2004         



This certification accompanies this
Report on Form 10-K pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
Exchange Act). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by
reference.
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE V. CORN PRODUCTS REFINING COMPANY 

DOCKET NUMBER: 16 

DATE: 1940 

DOCUMENT TYPE: SUMMARY OF CASE 

Secretary vs. Corn Products Refining Company 

Docket No. CE-A 16 

1. Complaint and Notice of Hearing under Section 6(b) signed by Secretary on 

July 28, 1939. 

Charges: Respondent held on June 9, 1939 a position in the Chicago September 

1939 corn future in excess of the 2,000,000 bushel speculative limit fixed by 

order of the Commodity Exchange Commission, effective December 31, 1938. 

2. As a result of a conference August 4, 1939 with attorney of respondents at 

which it was indicated that respondents would be willing to waive hearing and 

stipulate as to the facts in the complaint so that any adverse ruling of the 

Secretary might be appealed immediately to the courts for an interpretation of 

the Section of the act involved, it was decided to withdraw the original 

complaint and draw a new one in such a way as not to disclose to the public the 

operations of the respondent in the futures markets. Respondent was not served 

with original complaint. (See letter of August 5, 1939 from Acting Chief to 

Solicitor.) 

3. On September 5, 1939, new Complaint and Notice of Hearing was signed by 

the Assistant Secretary, returnable September 18, 1939 at Department of 

Agriculture, Washington, D. C. 

4. On September 11, 1939, in reply to request of respondents for additional 

time, hearing was adjourned without date. 

5. On November 22, 1939, respondents were granted additional time to prepare 

statement of facts. 

6. On December 22, 1939, respondents submitted revised set of 204 forms and 

copies of contracts covering sales of starch and other corn products in amounts 

which indicated that their long futures were for the most part hedges and that 

their long speculative futures position had at no time exceeded the prescribed 

limits. 

7. On May 24, 1940, after investigation by the Commodity Exchange 

Administration, the complaint issued on September 3, 1939 was withdrawn and the 

proceeding discontinued. 

LOAD-DATE: June 11, 2008 
Page 2
#### Edward G. MUMPOWER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gordon R. ENGLAND, Secretary of the Navy, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 07-55037.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 26, 2008.*

Filed Sept. 8, 2008.

*568Maury Mills, Jr., Esq., Ventura, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Debra W. Yang, Esq., USLA-Office of the U.S. Attorney Civil & Tax Divisions, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before: SCHROEDER, KLEINFELD, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument and therefore denies appellant's request. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Edward G. Mumpower appeals from the district court’s order dismissing his employment discrimination action for failure to serve the summons and complaint in a timely manner. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. *Townsel v. County of Contra Costa,*820 F.2d 319, 320 (9th Cir. 1987). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in the context of this case in dismissing Mumpower’s action without prejudice because the circumstances did not compel the conclusion that his attorney’s admitted failure to review the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure excused his failure to effect timely service. *See id.*(holding that counsel’s ignorance of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure does not constitute good cause).

AFFIRMED.

**

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

February 2004 Timeline

2004 Position Summary v. TEPPCO Inventory v. C3 Price

-

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

1/5

1/7

1/9

1/11

1/13

1/15

1/17

1/19

1/21

1/23

1/25

1/27

1/29

1/31 2/2

2/4

2/6

2/8

2/10

2/12

2/14

2/16

2/18

2/20

2/22

2/24

2/26

(MB

BLS

)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

(CPG

)

TEPPCO Inv. Feb C3 Position Feb / Mar Spread

TEPPCO Pipeline goes down

- BU Inventory & Hedge EvaluationApril 15, 2004
- Net Inventory profit/loss: 2003-04
- Inventory vs BU Hedge Bridge: February ’04
- Hedged Inventory – Hedging Philosophy
- Entrepreneurial  Trading Review 
- February 2004 Timeline
- Actual Outcome
- Possible Value of Trade
- Key Lessons & Actions
- NGLNABU Structural Discussion
- Gross Margin by Segment
- NGL North American Propane
- Flat Price Exposure
- Discretionary Inventory + Current Hedge