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

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1953 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

  1st Session
                                H. R. 1953

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           November 18, 1999

                                Received

                           November 19, 1999

       Read twice and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To authorize leases for terms not to exceed 99 years on land held in 
     trust for the Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians and the 
  Guidiville Band of Pomo Indians of the Guidiville Indian Rancheria.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF 99-YEAR LEASES.

    (a) In General.--The first section of the Act entitled ``An Act to 
authorize the leasing of restricted Indian lands for public, religious, 
educational, residential, business, and other purposes requiring the 
grant of long-term leases'', approved August 9, 1955 (25 U.S.C. 
415(a)), is amended by inserting ``lands held in trust for the Torres 
Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians, lands held in trust for the 
Guidiville Band of Pomo Indians of the Guidiville Indian Rancheria, 
lands held in trust for the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian 
Reservation'' after ``Sparks Indian Colony,''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to any lease entered into or renewed after the date of the 
enactment of this Act.

SEC. 2. REVOCATION OF CHARTER OF INCORPORATION.

    The request of the Stockbridge-Munsee Community of Wisconsin to 
surrender the charter of incorporation issued to the Community on May 
21, 1938, pursuant to section 17 of the Act of June 18, 1934, (commonly 
known as the ``Indian Reorganization Act'') is hereby accepted and that 
charter of incorporation is hereby revoked.

            Passed the House of Representatives November 17, 1999.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 14

- 10770 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:10

- cr - 00519

- AT

- AJB

- 1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus MOSES A. DAMIANI, Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia

________________________ (January 7, 2015) Before HULL , ROSENBAUM, and ANDERSON , Circuit Jud ges. PER CURIAM: Moses Damiani appeals his convictions for conspiracy to commit bank fraud Case: 14-10770 Date Filed: 01/07/2015 Page: 1 of 32 and bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1349, 1344, respectively. On appeal, Damiani argues that the district court abused its discretion by admitting extrin sic evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) regarding a New York real estate transaction in which he participated. Damiani contends that, although not entirely lacking in probative value, the evidence was highly prejudicial because he could have ex plained the differences between the New York transaction and the instant transaction only by waiving his right not to testify. We review a district court’s admission of other bad acts under Rule 404(b) for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Ellisor , 522 F.3d 1255, 1267 (11th Cir. 2008). Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) prohibits the admission of evidence of other bad acts to prove a defendant’s character, but permits the admission of such evidence for other purposes such as showing intent. Fed.R.Evi d. 404(b). We apply a three

- part test to determine the admissibility of 404(b) evidence: (1) the evidence must be relevant to an issue other than the defendant’s character; (2) sufficient evidence must be presented for a jury to find that the defendant

co mmitted the extrinsic act; and (3) the probative value of the evidence must not be substantially outweighed by its undue prejudice, and the evidence must satisfy Federal Rule of Evidence 403. United States v. Edouard , 485 F.3d 1324, 1344 (11th Cir. 2007). In reviewing issues under Rule 403, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to its admission, maximizing its probative value and

Case: 14-10770 Date Filed: 01/07/2015 Page: 2 of 33 minimizing its prejudicial impact. United States v. Jernigan , 341 F.3d 1273, 1284 (11th Cir. 2003). Additionally, any unfair prejudice caused by the admission of 404(b) evidence can be diminished by appropriate limiting instructions. United
States v. Brown , 665 F.3d 1239, 1247

- 48 (11th Cir. 2011). Upon review of the record and consideration of the parties’ briefs, we affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the 404(b) evidence regarding the New York transaction. The New York transaction evidence was highly probative of Damiani’s intent, which was a contested issue at trial. Furthermore, the district court diminished the potential prejudicial impact of the New York transaction evidence by providing multiple limiting instructions to the jury. Accordingly, we affirm. AFFIRMED. Case: 14-10770 Date Filed: 01/07/2015 Page: 3 of 3
David Louis WHITEHEAD, petitioner, v. NETFLIX, et al.

No. 18-45.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Charles CLARK, petitioner, v. Joe COAKLEY, Warden.

No. 18-8708.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
Russell BUCKLEW, petitioner, v. Anne L. PRECYTHE, Director, Missouri Department of Corrections, et al.

No. 17-8151.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Motion of petitioner to file Volume III of the joint appendix under seal with redacted copy of transcript for public record granted.
<PAGE>
                                                                EXHIBIT 10.2(A)


                               FIRST AMENDMENT TO
                              EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

         THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT ("Amendment") is made as
of the 1st day of June, 2001, by and between DANIEL H. POPKY ("Employee") and
ALLIED HOLDINGS, INC. ("Employer").

         WHEREAS, Employer and Employee have entered into an Employment
Agreement dated February 23, 2000; and

         WHEREAS, Employer and Employee desire to amend the Employment
Agreement as set forth herein;

         NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the covenants and
conditions hereafter set forth, and other good and valuable consideration, the
receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, Employee and Employer
hereby agree as follows:

         1.       Notwithstanding anything in the Employment Agreement to the
contrary, Employer shall pay to Employee a bonus for the calendar year ending
December 31, 2001, in an amount not less than One Hundred Twenty-Five Thousand
Dollars ($125,000.00), with such bonus to be due and payable on or before
January 5, 2002. Employer and Employee acknowledge and agree that Employee
shall be entitled to participate in the Allied Holdings, Inc. EVA based
incentive plan and any other bonus plan utilized by Employer for calendar year
2001, and that the bonus paid pursuant to this First Amendment shall be
credited toward any bonus due to Employee under the EVA Plan or any other bonus
plan of the Company. Employer shall not be required to pay such bonus if
Employee terminates his employment on or before December 31, 2001 (other than a
termination by Employee pursuant to Paragraph 9(b) or 9(d) of the Employment
Agreement). In the event of termination of Employee for Cause, as defined by
the Employment Agreement, Employer shall pay to Employee a pro rata portion of
such bonus calculated from January 1, 2001 through the date of termination for
Cause.

         2.       Section 4(a) of the Employment Agreement shall be amended to
provide that the annual salary of Employee shall be Two Hundred Fifty Thousand
($275,000.00) and the remaining terms and conditions of Section 4(a) of the
Employment Agreement shall remain in effect without amendment.

         3.       All remaining terms and conditions of the Employment
Agreement which are not amended by this First Amendment shall remain in full
force and effect.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Amendment this
1st day of June, 2001.


                                    Employer:


                                    ALLIED HOLDINGS, INC.


                                    By:
                                       ----------------------------------------
                                    Title:
                                          -------------------------------------


                                    Employee:


                                    -------------------------------------------
                                    DANIEL H. POPKY
In Re Ramsey RANDALL, petitioner.

No. 18-9388.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 17, 2019.

Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.
Richard GRAMM, petitioner, v. DEERE & COMPANY.

No. 18-88.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Petition for writ of certiorari granted. Judgment vacated, and case remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for further consideration in light of *SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu,* 584 U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 1348, 200 L.Ed.2d 695 (2018).
Alexander Jesus SANTIAGO, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-5614.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
Exhibit 31.1

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 302(a) OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, David Uppal, certify that:

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

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual 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 annual report;

4. The registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c) presented in this annual report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5. The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants 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 registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrants 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 registrants internal controls; and

6. The registrants other certifying officers and I have indicated in this annual report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: March 7, 2006

/s/ David Uppal

David Uppal

Chief Executive Officer and Principal Accounting Officer
Bernard Roosevelt SHAW, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-9258.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 17, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
Sean P. REILLY, petitioner, v. Jennifer DAVIS.

No. 18-5101.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied, and petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District dismissed. See Rule 39.8.
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas** MEMORANDUM OPINION
N o. 04

- 14

- 00702

- CR & 04

- 14

- 00703

- CR Charlotte A. LEAL , Appellant

v. The The STATE of Texas, Appellee
From the 379th Judicial District Court , Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No s . 2013 CR5723 & 2103CR5724 Honorable Ron Rangel , Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Delivered and Filed: November 19, 2014
DIS MISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
On O ctober 3 , 2014 , t he trial court denied appellant Charlotte Leal’ s “Motion to S uppress Blood Evidence

. ” Five days later, on October 8, 2014 , appellant filed a notice of appeal. We conclude we lack jurisdiction over the appeal. The right to appeal in a cri minal case is a statutorily created right. See McKinney v. State , 207 S.W.3d 366, 374 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); s ee also T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC . 44.02 art. (West 2006) (providing right of appeal for defendant); T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 25.2(a)(2) (rules for appeal by defendant). As a general rule, appellate courts may consider appeals by criminal de fendants only04

- 14

- 00702

- CR & 04

- 14

- 00703

- CR

after conviction. Wright v. State , 969 S.W.2d 588, 589 (Tex. App.

— D allas 1998, no pet.). Intermediate appellate courts have no jurisdiction to review interl ocutory orders absent express
auth ority. Ex parte Apolinar , 820 S.W.2d 792, 794 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Wright , 969 S.W.2d
at 5 89

. Orders denyi ng pretrial motions to suppress are not appealable interlocutory orders

. See Wright , 969 S.W.2d at 5 89 (identifying types of appealable interlocutory orders). T herefore, we have n o jurisdiction over this appeal, and order the appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM
DO NOT PUBLISH

- 2

-
Michael A. WEISS, Individually and as Executor of the Estate of Jane L. Marsh, Deceased, petitioner, v. Stephen D. MARSH, as Executor of the Estate of Monroe F. Marsh, Deceased, et al.; and Michael A. Weiss, Individually and as Executor of the Estate of Jane L. Marsh, Deceased, petitioner, v. Stephen D. Marsh, as Executor of the Estate of Monroe F. Marsh, Deceased, et al.

No. 18-1060.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 24, 2019.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Tamara COTMAN and Angela Williamson, petitioners, v. GEORGIA.

No. 18-82.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Georgia denied.
**Exhibit 32.2****Certification Pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350)**     The undersigned, as the Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of AlliedSystems Holdings, Inc., certifies that, to the best of his knowledge and belief, the Quarterly Report onForm 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2007, which accompanies this certification fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the informationcontained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of Allied Systems Holdings, Inc. at the dates and for the periods indicated. Theforegoing certification is made pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §1350) and shall not be relied upon for any other purpose.     This 14th day of November, 2007.         /s/Thomas H. King   *Thomas H. King*   *Executive Vice President and*
LUCKY BRAND DUNGAREES, INC., et al., petitioners, v. MARCEL FASHIONS GROUP, INC.

No. 18-1086.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 28, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted.
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 FuelNation, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10QSB for the quarter ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Chris R.
Salmonson, Chief 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: (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of
section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and result of operations of the Company as of, and for
the periods covered in the report.

                                FUELNATION, INC.
                                     (Registrant)

                              Dated: April 06, 2005

                         /s/ CHRIS R SALMONSON
                         -------------------------------------
                         Name: CHRIS R SALMONSON
                         Title:   President
Exhibit 99.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Kevin A. DeNuccio, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Redback Networks Inc. on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Redback Networks Inc.



|
|
|
|





I, Thomas L. Cronan III, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that the Annual Report of Redback Networks Inc. on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in
such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Redback Networks Inc.



|
|
|
|
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1593

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the exemption

from the self-employment tax for certain termination payments received

by former life insurance salesmen.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 28, 1999

Mr. WELLER (for himself, Mr. KLECZKA, Mr. MCCRERY, Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts, Mr. RAMSTAD, and Ms. BALDWIN) introduced the following bill;

which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify

the exemption from the self-employment tax for certain

termination payments received by former life insurance

salesmen.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Former Insurance

5 Agents Tax Equity Act of 1999’’.
2

•HR 1593 IH

1 SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OF EXEMPTION FROM SELF-EM2 PLOYMENT TAX FOR CERTAIN TERMINATION

3 PAYMENTS RECEIVED BY FORMER INSUR4 ANCE SALESMEN.

5 (a) INTERNAL REVENUE CODE.—Paragraph (4) of

6 section 1402(k) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (re7 lating to codification of treatment of certain termination

8 payments received by former insurance salesmen) is

9 amended to read as follows:

10 ‘‘(4) the amount of such payment depends pri11 marily on policies sold by or credited to the account

12 of such individual or the extent to which such poli13 cies remain in force for some period after such ter14 mination, or both.’’.

15 (b) SOCIAL SECURITY ACT.—Paragraph (4) of sec16 tion 211(j) of the Social Security Act is amended to read

17 as follows:

18 ‘‘(4) the amount of such payment depends pri19 marily on policies sold by or credited to the account

20 of such individual or the extent to which such poli21 cies remain in force for some period after such ter22 mination, or both.’’.

23 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

24 this section shall apply to payments after December 31,

25 1999.

Æ
Leroy Dean DENNIS, petitioner, v. OKLAHOMA.

No. 18-5403.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 9, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma denied.
In Re Michael BOONE, petitioner.

No. 18-6054.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 15, 2018.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied, and petition for writ of habeas corpus dismissed. See Rule 39.8.

Justice KAGAN took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion and this petition.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                   Certification of Periodic Financial Report
                       Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350


     In connection with Amendment No. 2 to the Annual Report of Extensions, Inc.
(the  "Company")  on  Form 10-K, for the period ended December 31, 2008 as filed
with  the  Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, BB Tuley, the chief financial officer of the company hereby certify as of the
date  hereof, solely for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to  Section  906  of  the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of 2002, that, to the best of my
knowledge:


     (i)  the Annual Report on Form 10-K, of the Company for the year ended
          December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
          Commission on the date hereof (the "Report") fully complies with the
          requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
          of 1934; and

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


Date:  June 18, 2009

/s/  BB  Tuley
--------------
BB  Tuley
Principal  Financial  Officer