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

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1195 

Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to require a threefifths majority to designate spending as emergency spending, except 

spending for the Department of Defense. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 18, 2010 

Mr. MARSHALL submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Rules 

RESOLUTION 

Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to 

require a three-fifths majority to designate spending as 

emergency spending, except spending for the Department 

of Defense. 

1 Resolved, That rule XXI of the Rules of the House 

2 of Representatives is amended by adding at the end the 

3 following new clause: 

4 ‘‘Votes to designate spending as emergency spending 

5 ‘‘11. (a) Any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or 

6 conference report designating any direct spending or ap7 propriation as an emergency requirement may not be con8 sidered as passed or agreed to unless so determined by 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 1195 IH 

1 a vote of not less than three-fifths of the Members voting, 

2 a quorum being present. 

3 ‘‘(b) Paragraph (a) shall not apply to spending for 

4 the Department of Defense or any spending from a des5 ignated emergency fund.’’. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
Exhibit No. 31.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

      I, Thomas Diemer, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Greenstar
International, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4. The small business issuer's other certifying officers and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and
have:

      (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer,
including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within
those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is
being prepared;

      (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

      (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small
business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth
fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or
is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting; and

5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of
the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent functions):

      (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and

      (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting.

Date: June 16, 2008

By: /s/ Thomas Diemer
    -----------------
    Thomas Diemer, Chief Financial Officer,
    principal accounting and financial officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Christian Dilone, Appellant.

[874 NYS2d 374]—

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berk-man, J), rendered December 20, 2006, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second and third degrees, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to concurrent terms of nine and seven years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence sup*532porting his conviction of second-degree weapon possession is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also find that the evidence of defendant’s intent to use the weapon unlawfully was legally sufficient in light of the statutory presumption of unlawful intent (Penal Law § 265.15 [4]), which the court properly submitted to the jury. We further find that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Danielson,*9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]).

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s mistrial motion, made on the basis of a portion of the prosecutor’s summation that allegedly misstated the law. Any possible confusion in this regard was prevented by the court’s correct and thorough jury instruction on the particular subject at issue.

We decline to vacate the third-degree possession conviction in the interest of justice.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Tom, J.P., Saxe, Sweeny, Acosta and Freedman, JJ.
#### UNITED STATES of America v. Alberto Luis BOTA, Appellant.

No. 09-3397.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) May 28, 2010.

Opinion Filed: June 3, 2010.

Christy H. Fawcett, Esq., Office of United States Attorney, Harrisburg, PA, for Appellee.

Ronald A. Krauss, Esq., Office of Federal Public Defender, Harrisburg, PA, for Appellant.

BEFORE: McKEE, Chef Judge, RENDELL and STAPLETON, Circuit Judges.

*OPINION OF THE COURT*

STAPLETON, Circuit Judge:

Alberto Bota appeals his conviction, following a guilty plea, of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute powder cocaine, crack cocaine, and marijuana. His attorney has moved to withdraw his representation under *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). We will grant the motion to withdraw and will affirm the District Court’s judgment.

This Court’s rules provide that “[wjhere, upon review of the district court record, trial counsel is persuaded that the appeal presents no issue of even arguable merit, counsel may file a motion to withdraw and supporting brief pursuant to *Anders.”*3d Cir. LAR 109.2(a). If we concur with trial counsel’s assessment, we “will grant [the] *Anders*motion, and dispose of the appeal without appointing new counsel.” *Id.*Accordingly, our “inquiry when counsel submits an *Anders*brief is thus twofold *209... :(1) whether counsel adequately fulfilled the rule’s requirements; and (2) whether an independent review of the record presents any nonfrivolous issues.” *United States v. Youla,*241 F.3d 296, 300 (3d Cir.2001).

Our review of the record has convinced us that trial counsel’s *Anders*brief is adequate and that there are no nonfrivolous grounds on which to challenge the judgment of conviction. Accordingly, we will grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and will affirm the judgment of the District Court. In addition, we certify that the issues presented in this appeal lack legal merit and thus that counsel is not required to file a petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court. 3d Cir. LAR 109.2(b).
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ivan GUERRERO-MELCHOR, Defendant-Appellant.

Nos. 08-10062, 08-10553.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 25, 2010.*

Filed June 11, 2010.

Lynne Ingram, Assistant U.S., Emory Thomas Hurley, Assistant U.S., Leta M. Hollon, Assistant U.S., USPX-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Lynn T. Hamilton, Esquire, Hamilton Law Office, PC, Mesa, AZ, Ivan Guerrero-Melchor, Adelanto, CA, Phillip A. Trevino, Esquire, Law Offices of Phillip A. Trevino, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

*660Before: 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 **

In these consolidated appeals, Ivan Guerrero-Melchor appeals from the 92-month sentence imposed following his jury-trial conviction for illegal reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Guerrero-Melchor contends that the district court procedurally erred by treating the Sentencing Guidelines as mandatory and by failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. The record reflects that the district court was aware of its discretion under the advisory Sentencing Guidelines, adequately considered the § 3553(a) sentencing factors, and provided a reasoned explanation for the sentence imposed. *See United States v. Carty,*520 F.3d 984, 992-96 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc); *see also United States v. Diaz-Argueta,*564 F.3d 1047, 1051-52 (9th Cir.2009).

AFFIRMED.

**

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

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 

I, Larry Kristof, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

|(1) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Mantra Venture Group
      Ltd. for the period ended August 31, 2010 (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 Mantra Venture Group Ltd.                                                                  

Dated: October 15, 2010

| | /s/
      Larry Kristof                        
| | -----------------------------------------------
| | Larry Kristof                                  
| | President, Chief Executive Officer and Director
| | (Principal Executive Officer)                  
| | Mantra Venture Group Ltd.                      

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Mantra Venture
Group Ltd. and will be retained by Mantra Venture Group Ltd. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>
 
 
<ARTICLE> 6 
<CIK> 0000744822
<NAME> Fidelity Investment Trust
<SERIES>
 <NUMBER> 51
 <NAME> Fidelity International Growth & Income Fund
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>
<C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 year          
 
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             oct-31-1997   
 
<PERIOD-END>                  oct-31-1997   
 
<INVESTMENTS-AT-COST>         946,702       
 
<INVESTMENTS-AT-VALUE>        1,042,053     
 
<RECEIVABLES>                 37,369        
 
<ASSETS-OTHER>                0             
 
<OTHER-ITEMS-ASSETS>          0             
 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                1,079,422     
 
<PAYABLE-FOR-SECURITIES>      1,954         
 
<SENIOR-LONG-TERM-DEBT>       0             
 
<OTHER-ITEMS-LIABILITIES>     10,299        
 
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES>           12,253        
 
<SENIOR-EQUITY>               0             
 
<PAID-IN-CAPITAL-COMMON>      877,206       
 
<SHARES-COMMON-STOCK>         51,120        
 
<SHARES-COMMON-PRIOR>         52,749        
 
<ACCUMULATED-NII-CURRENT>     22,267        
 
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-NII>        0             
 
<ACCUMULATED-NET-GAINS>       72,251        
 
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-GAINS>      0             
 
<ACCUM-APPREC-OR-DEPREC>      95,445        
 
<NET-ASSETS>                  1,067,169     
 
<DIVIDEND-INCOME>             20,074        
 
<INTEREST-INCOME>             19,912        
 
<OTHER-INCOME>                (2,023)       
 
<EXPENSES-NET>                12,545        
 
<NET-INVESTMENT-INCOME>       25,418        
 
<REALIZED-GAINS-CURRENT>      73,244        
 
<APPREC-INCREASE-CURRENT>     33,690        
 
<NET-CHANGE-FROM-OPS>         132,352       
 
<EQUALIZATION>                0             
 
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-INCOME>     15,358        
 
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-GAINS>      19,594        
 
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OTHER>         0             
 
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-SOLD>       70,794        
 
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-REDEEMED>   74,211        
 
<SHARES-REINVESTED>           1,787         
 
<NET-CHANGE-IN-ASSETS>        60,093        
 
<ACCUMULATED-NII-PRIOR>       21,693        
 
<ACCUMULATED-GAINS-PRIOR>     33,340        
 
<OVERDISTRIB-NII-PRIOR>       0             
 
<OVERDIST-NET-GAINS-PRIOR>    0             
 
<GROSS-ADVISORY-FEES>         8,153         
 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            0             
 
<GROSS-EXPENSE>               12,752        
 
<AVERAGE-NET-ASSETS>          1,090,095     
 
<PER-SHARE-NAV-BEGIN>         19.090        
 
<PER-SHARE-NII>               .480          
 
<PER-SHARE-GAIN-APPREC>       1.970         
 
<PER-SHARE-DIVIDEND>          .290          
 
<PER-SHARE-DISTRIBUTIONS>     .370          
 
<RETURNS-OF-CAPITAL>          0             
 
<PER-SHARE-NAV-END>           20.880        
 
<EXPENSE-RATIO>               117           
 
<AVG-DEBT-OUTSTANDING>        0             
 
<AVG-DEBT-PER-SHARE>          0
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Keith Ramone MELVIN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-4963.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 14, 2008.

Decided: June 3, 2008.

*216Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. George E.B. Holding, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Keith Ramone Melvin pled guilty, without a plea agreement, to possession of firearms and ammunition by a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000). Melvin was sentenced to 120 months’ imprisonment. Finding no error, we affirm.

On appeal, Melvin initially contends that the district court erred in sentencing him based on facts that were neither charged, admitted, nor found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. However, after *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), sentencing courts are still required to calculate the applicable advisory guideline range based on appropriate findings of fact. *United States v. Moreland,*437 F.3d 424, 432 (4th Cir.2006). We have previously noted that sentencing factors should continue to be evaluated based on the preponderance of the evidence. *United States v. Morris,*429 F.3d 65, 72 (4th Cir.2005). Thus, we conclude the district court properly determined Melvin’s advisory guideline range based on facts found by a preponderance of the evidence.

Melvin also contends that his sentence is unreasonable. When determining a sentence, the district court must calculate the appropriate advisory guideline range and consider it in conjunction with the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2000). *United States v. Davenport,*445 F.3d 366, 370 (4th Cir.2006). Appellate review of a district court’s imposition of a sentence is for abuse of discretion. *Gall v. United States,*- U.S.-, 128 S.Ct. 586, 597, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); *see also United States v. Pauley,*511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir.2007). Sentences within the applicable Guidelines range may be presumed reasonable. *Pauley,*511 F.3d at 473.

The district court followed the necessary procedural steps in sentencing Melvin, appropriately treating the Sentencing Guidelines as advisory, properly calculating and considering the applicable Guidelines range, and weighing the relevant § 3553(a) *217factors. Furthermore, Melvin’s sentence, which is no greater than either the Guidelines range or the maximum, may be presumed Thus, we conclude Melvin has failed to establish that the district court abused its discretion in imposing the chosen

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 12 (Thursday, January 18, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5349-5350]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-1504]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

48 CFR Chapter 1


Federal Acquisition Regulation; Small Entity Compliance Guide

AGENCIES: Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration 
(GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

ACTION: Small entity compliance guide.

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

SUMMARY: This document is issued under the joint authority of the 
Secretary of Defense, the Administrator of General Services and the 
Administrator for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 
This Small Entity Compliance Guide has been prepared in accordance with 
Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
of 1996 (Public Law 104-121). It consists of a summary of the rule 
appearing in Federal Acquisition Circular (FAC) 97-23 which amends the 
Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). Interested parties may obtain 
further information regarding this rule by

[[Page 5350]]

referring to FAC 97-23 which precedes this document. This document is 
also available via the Internet at http://www.arnet.gov/far.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laurie Duarte, FAR Secretariat, (202) 
501-4225. For clarification of content, contact Ralph De Stefano, 
Procurement Analyst, General Services Administration, at (202) 501-
1758.

Prohibition of Acquisition of Products Produced by Forced or 
Indentured Child Labor (FAC 97-23, FAR Case 1999-608)

    This final rule amends the FAR by adding a new FAR subpart on 
prohibition of acquisition of products produced by forced or indentured 
child labor (Subpart 22.15), adding a new certification regarding 
knowledge of child labor for listed end products (FAR 52.212-3 and 
52.222-18), and adding a clause at 52.222-19, which requires 
cooperation with authorities if the solicitation included the 
certification provision and provides remedies for violations relating 
to use of forced or indentured child labor.

    Dated: January 12, 2001.
Al Matera,
Acting Director, Federal Acquisition Policy Division.
[FR Doc. 01-1504 Filed 1-17-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-EP-P
Exhibit 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Peter Wardle, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Protosource Corporation;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business
issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and
have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the small business issuer , including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business
issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal
quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over
financial reporting; and

5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the small
business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
which could adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the small
business issuer's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the small business issuers internal
control over financial reporting..

March 30, 2006

/s/ PETER WARDLE
-----------------------
Peter Wardle
Chief Executive Officer
```

[Federal Register: March 17, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 51)]
[Notices]
[Page 12684]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr17mr03-49]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

Time and Date: 11 a.m., Friday, April 18, 2003.

Place: 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th floor of conference
room.

Status: Closed.

Matters to be Considered: Surveillance matters.

FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.

Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 03-6451 Filed 3-13-03; 3:07 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-P-M
```