alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
H. Res. 1736 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

November 30, 2010. 

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall 

be in order to take from the Speaker’s table the bill (H.R. 

4783) to accelerate the income tax benefits for charitable 

cash contributions for the relief of victims of the earthquake 

in Chile, and to extend the period from which such contributions for the relief of victims of the earthquake in Haiti may 

be accelerated, with the Senate amendments thereto, and to 

consider in the House, without intervention of any point of 

order, a single motion offered by the chair of the Committee 

on Natural Resources or his designee that the House concur 

in the Senate amendments. The Senate amendments shall be 

considered as read. The motion shall be debatable for one 

hour, with 50 minutes equally divided and controlled by the 

chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 

Natural Resources and 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 

Committee on Ways and Means. The previous question shall 

be considered as ordered on the motion to its adoption with-
2 

•HRES 1736 EH 

out intervening motion or demand for division of the question. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7282

CHARLES GENE ROGERS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

M. A. MUNNS, Sergeant; FRANKLIN E. FREEMAN,

JR.; GARY DIXON; TED PERRY,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District

Judge. (CA-93-435)

Submitted: February 7, 1996 Decided: February 22, 1996

Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles Gene Rogers, Appellant Pro Se. William McBlief, NORTH

CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. Rogers v. Munns, No. CA-93-435 (E.D.N.C. Aug. 3, 1995). We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE CONSOLIDATED
BALANCE SHEETS AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOUND IN THE COMPANY'S
FORM 10-K FOR THE PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          31,498
<SECURITIES>                                    20,600
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,179
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                54,667
<PP&E>                                           4,671
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,806)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  59,886
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,148
<BONDS>                                             21
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       108,974
<OTHER-SE>                                    (52,257)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    59,886
<SALES>                                              5
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,598
<CGS>                                                5
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   22,113
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  34
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (16,142)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (16,142)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (16,142)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.37)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.37)


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 31.1**Written Certification of Chief Executive OfficerI, James J. Leto, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of GTSI Corp.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)), for the registrant and have: a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b. Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused suchinternal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, toprovide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and thepreparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generallyaccepted accounting principles;  c. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  d. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarterthat has materially affected, or is reasonable likely to materially affect, theregistrants’ internal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based upon our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors: a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and  b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.Date: May 7, 2008   /s/ JAMES J. LETO James J. Leto  Chief Executive Officer
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PINBIN ZHAO,

 Petitioner,

v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 13-73959

Agency No. A089-886-745

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 15, 2016**

Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

Pinbin Zhao, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board 

of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s 

(“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. 

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence 

 

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without 

oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

MAR 21 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

13-73959

the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility 

determinations created by the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 

1039-1040 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review. 

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination 

based on discrepancies the IJ identified between Zhao’s testimony and declaration 

about his encounter with family planning officials. See id. at 1048 (adverse 

credibility determination was reasonable under the REAL ID Act’s totality of the 

circumstances standard). In reaching this conclusion we do not rely on any alleged 

discrepancy as to the diamond ring. In the absence of credible testimony, Zhao’s 

asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, F.3d 1153, 

1156 (9th Cir. 2003). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
IV 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1603 

Expressing support for designation of September 2010 as National 

Craniofacial Acceptance Month. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 30, 2010 

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

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing support for designation of September 2010 as 

National Craniofacial Acceptance Month. 

Whereas there are 100,000 children born each year in the 

United States with a craniofacial anomaly affecting the 

head, neck, extremities, or organs; 

Whereas craniofacial treatment will often last from infancy to 

adulthood; 

Whereas it is not uncommon for one to undergo multiple surgeries before reaching adulthood; 

Whereas most craniofacial conditions affect individuals and 

their families physically, mentally, and socially; 

Whereas in the past 30 years, many medical procedures have 

been developed to help improve the quality of life for 

those affected by craniofacial anomalies; 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 1603 IH 

Whereas the number of physicians specializing in treating 

these rare and complex conditions is very small; 

Whereas many groups have developed to help advocate on the 

behalf of those with craniofacial anomalies and to encourage greater acceptance and support of individuals with 

craniofacial anomalies; and 

Whereas September 2010 would be an appropriate month to 

designate as National Craniofacial Acceptance Month: 

Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives supports 

2 the designation of National Craniofacial Acceptance 

3 Month to encourage all citizens to become better informed 

4 of craniofacial conditions and advances in medical treat5 ment. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32

RULE 1350 CERTIFICATION

Each of the undersigned hereby certifies in his capacity as an officer of Community Financial Corporation (the "Company") that the quarterly report of the Company on Form 10-QSB for the periodended June 30, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of such period and the results of operations of the Company for such period.

| Dated:  August 14, 2003           |  | /s/ P. Douglas RichardP. Douglas RichardChief Executive Officer/s/ R. Jerry GilesR. Jerry GilesChief Financial Officer |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
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 Annual Report of The Bank of Kentucky Financial Corporation
(BKFC) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert W. Zapp, Chief Executive Officer and President of BKFC,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, 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 conditions and results of operations of BKFC.



/s/ Robert W. ZappRobert W. ZappChief Executive Officer and PresidentMarch 13, 2009
#### Great American Insurance Company of New York et al., Appellants, v Simplexgrinnell LP, Respondent.

[874 NYS2d 465]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael D. Stall-man, J.), entered January 8, 2008, which granted defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The court properly found that the waiver of subrogation provision in the underlying sprinkler system servicing agreement was neither overreaching nor procedurally or substantively unconscionable *(see Gillman v Chase Manhattan Bank,*73 NY2d 1, 10 [1988]). We reject plaintiffs’ contention that the waiver does not bar a claim for gross negligence. As the Court of Appeals has held, “[a] distinction must be drawn between contractual *457provisions which seek to exempt a party from liability . . . and contractual provisions . . . which in effect simply require one of the parties to the contract to provide insurance for all of the parties” *(Board of Educ., Union Free School Dist. No. 3, Town of Brookhaven v Valden Assoc.,*46 NY2d 653, 657 [1979]). We discern no public policy basis for limiting freedom of contract *(Oppenheimer & Co. v Oppenheim, Appel, Dixon & Co.,*86 NY2d 685, 695 [1995]) so as to preclude parties from agreeing that a waiver of subrogation bars not only claims of negligence but also claims of gross negligence. Thus, the waiver conclusively established a defense to plaintiff insurer’s claim *(Goldman v Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.,*5 NY3d 561, 571 [2005]; *Held v Kaufman,*91 NY2d 425, 430-431 [1998]). Moreover, we hold as well that plaintiffs’ allegations of tortious conduct fail to allege the necessary violation of a legal duty independent of the contract with defendant *(Clark-Fitzpatrick, Inc. v Long Is. R.R. Co.,*70 NY2d 382, 389 [1987]). We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Friedman, Gonzalez, Sweeny and McGuire, JJ.



































Asset

Liability

AR

AP

Alternative Investment

Bond Issue

Canadian Asset

Canadian Liability

Commercial Real Estate

Compensating Balance

Contingent Liability

Cutoff Statement

Derivatives

Escrow Trust

Letter of Credit

Line of Credit

Money Market Fund

Mortgage Debt

Obligation to Lessor

Pension Plan Assets

Register Capital Stock

Safe Deposit

Securities - Broker

Securities -Custodian

Signature Card

Time Deposit

Transfer Agent Capital Stock

Treasury














II-00291

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Phil Broncucia <kriyalog@comcast.net>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 2:37 PM

dfadefinitions <dfadefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

1) Securities and Exchange Commission/Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Commercial Risk (CFTC RIN

3235-AK65, SEC File Number $7-12-10)

Dear Commissioners Shapiro and Gensler: Don’t let the American Bankers Association (ABA) redefine important terms like

"commercial risk" to keep banks that engage in risky derivatives trading from complying with transparency and business

conduct requirements. Commercial risk should not be expanded to include financial risk. Accepting the ABA argument

would open the door for exemptions for risky hedge funds and insurance companies.

2) Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Position Limits (RIN 3038-AD 17 )

Dear Commissioner Gensler: The CFTC needs to set strong position limits to crack down on the energy and food commodity

speculation that serves no productive purpose. I urge the Commission to define limits that will address not only manipulation,

but also excessive speculation, which will require a stricter approach.

3) U.S. Department of the Treasury, Re: FX Swaps (75 FR 66426 Document Number 2010-27274)

Dear Secretary Geithner: Just say "no" to foreign exchange traders who want to exempt foreign currency derivatives from the

clearing and transparency requirements of the

Dodd-Frank Act. $4 trillion dollars a day is traded in these highly-leveraged swaps and this number may increase to over $10

trillion in a decade. As the head of the Financial

Stability Oversight Board your job is to decrease risk in the system, not encourage off-book trading and opaque markets.

Phil Broncucia

2095 Tabor Drive

Lakewood, CO 80215
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 PLX Technology, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Ralph H. Schmitt, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely
for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code,
that to the best of my knowledge:
  1.
              the
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
      applicable, 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: November
4, 2009
  By: /s/ Ralph H.
Schmitt
 Ralph H.
Schmitt
 Chief
Executive Officer
  41
Frederick W. SMITH, Jr., petitioner, v. CONNECTIONS CSP, INC., et al.

No. 16-5885.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 14, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Delaware denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                       3,427,939
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,427,939
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,038,665
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,389,274
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,427,939
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                35,935
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (23,573)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (23,573)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (23,573)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.14)


</TABLE>
# C_2010221EN.01001302.xml

| 14.8.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 221/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.8.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 221/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 25 March 2010 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-169/09) (1)

1

(Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations - Ecodesign requirements for energy-using products - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

2010/C 221/21

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: S. Schønberg and M. Karanasou Apostolopoulou, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: N. Dafniou, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to take, in the prescribed period, the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/32/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 2005 establishing a framework for the setting of ecodesign requirements for energy-using products and amending Council Directive 92/42/EEC and Directives 96/57/EC and 2000/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2005 L 191, p. 29)

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/32/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 2005 establishing a framework for the setting of ecodesign requirements for energy-using products and amending Council Directive 92/42/EEC and Directives 96/57/EC and 2000/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/32/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 2005 establishing a framework for the setting of ecodesign requirements for energy-using products and amending Council Directive 92/42/EEC and Directives 96/57/EC and 2000/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

| 2. | Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 153, 4.7.2009

1

---
Dashaun WRIGHT, petitioner, v. Renee BAKER, et al.

No. 16-6283.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 28, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.