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

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 203 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 203

To amend the Job Training Partnership Act to allow certain funds under 
  that Act to be used for payment of incentive bonuses to certain job 
   training providers that place large percentages of individuals in 
              occupations for which a high demand exists.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 6, 1999

Mr. Moran of Virginia introduced the following bill; which was referred 
            to the Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Job Training Partnership Act to allow certain funds under 
  that Act to be used for payment of incentive bonuses to certain job 
   training providers that place large percentages of individuals in 
              occupations for which a high demand exists.

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

SECTION 1. INCENTIVE BONUSES UNDER THE JOB TRAINING PARTNERSHIP ACT FOR 
              CERTAIN SERVICE PROVIDERS THAT PLACE LARGE PERCENTAGES OF 
              INDIVIDUALS IN HIGH DEMAND OCCUPATIONS.

    (a) In General.--Section 108 of the Job Training Partnership Act 
(29 U.S.C. 1518) is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(f)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, funds 
made available for direct training services under parts A and C of 
title II and under title III may be made available for payment by 
private industry councils for incentive bonuses to providers of direct 
training services described in paragraph (3) that place large 
percentages of individuals in occupations for which a high demand 
exists in accordance with section 141(d)(1) of this Act.
    ``(2) The total amount of incentive bonuses paid to service 
providers under paragraph (1) for a program year may not exceed 5 
percent of the total amount of funds allocated to a service delivery 
area.
    ``(3) Direct training services described in this paragraph are 
services provided under any of the following:
            ``(A) Subparagraphs (B), (C), (K) and (L) of section 
        204(b)(1).
            ``(B) Subparagraphs (H) and (I) of section 264(c)(1).
            ``(C) Subparagraphs (A), (B), (C), and (I) of section 
        314(d)(1).''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply with respect to program years beginning on or after the date of 
the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

March 7, 2007

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 06-11841

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 01-02323-CV-IJP-TMP

DANIEL SIEBERT, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

versus 

RICHARD F. ALLEN, Commissioner, 

Alabama Department of Corrections, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Alabama

_________________________

(March 7, 2007)

Before TJOFLAT, BARKETT, and WILSON, Circuit Judges.

BARKETT, Circuit Judge:

Daniel Siebert filed a federal habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254

on September 14, 2001 challenging the validity of his conviction and sentence for
2

the murder of Linda Jarman. The district court dismissed it as being untimely filed

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). This court reversed and remanded, finding that

his state petition had been properly filed so that his one year federal statute of

limitations was tolled, making his federal petition timely. We thus remanded for

further proceedings. Siebert v. Campbell, 334 F.3d 1018 (11th Cir. 2003)

(“Siebert I”). However, instead of further proceedings, the district court revisited

the timeliness issue and again dismissed the petition as untimely, finding that Pace

v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408 (2005), superseded our decision in Siebert I. We

find that the law of the case applies, noting that Pace did not address the question

presented in Siebert I, to wit: a statute of limitations that operated as an affirmative

defense. However, rather than continuing piecemeal litigation and revisiting our

opinion in Siebert I in light of Pace, we again reverse and remand for further

proceedings, including questions of procedural bar and the resolution of claims

which were exhausted on direct appeal.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Mohamed Idris AHMED, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-248.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 29, 2018.

*425Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
rbcaa_Ex_1088


		
			Exhibit 10.88
		

		
			WRITTEN CONSENT
		

		
			This Written Consent is provided as of September 1, 2016 (the “Effective Date”), by Republic Bank & Trust Company, a Kentucky banking corporation (“RB”) to Elevate@Work, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“E@W”) pursuant to Section 2(f) of the Amended and Restated Joint Marketing Agreement entered into as of July 1, 2015 between RB and E@W (the “Agreement”).
		

		
			1.    Except as provided in this Written Consent, all capitalized terms used herein will have the meanings attributed to them in the Agreement. 
		

		
			2.    Pursuant to Section 2(f) of the Agreement, E@W shall use good faith efforts to limit marketing of the Accounts so that the maximum aggregate principal amount of Accounts outstanding under the Program (on a fully-advanced basis) during the calendar year 2016 does not exceed [****] (the “Limit”), without the prior written consent of RB. 
		

		
			3.    By virtue of this Written Consent, RB hereby consents to E@W increasing the Limit to [****].  
		

		
			4.    It is understood and agreed by the parties that all other terms and conditions of the Agreement and all related documentation, shall remain in full force and effect and, to the extent not inconsistent with the terms agreed to herein, shall also apply to this Written Consent. 
		

		
			IN WITNESS WHEREOF, RB has executed this Written Consent to be binding as of the Effective Date set forth above, regardless of the actual date of the execution and delivery hereof.
		

			
					
						By:

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						REPUBLIC BANK & TRUST COMPANY

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						By:

					
					
						/s/ William R. Nelson

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						Name:

					
					
						William R. Nelson

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						Title:

					
					
						President

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						Acknowledged By:

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						ELEVATE@WORK, LLC

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						By:

					
					
						/s/ Kenneth E. Rees

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						Name:

					
					
						Kenneth E. Rees

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						Title:

					
					
						CEO

					
					
						 

				



		
			 
		

		
			[****] = CERTAIN CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT,  MARKED BY BRACKETS,  HAS BEEN OMITTED AND FILED SEPARATELY WITH THE  SECURITIES AND  EXCHANGE  COMMISSION PURSUANT TO RULE 24B-2 OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Swift Energy
Pension  Partners  1993-A,  Ltd.'s  balance  sheet and  statement of  operations
contained  in its Form 10-Q for the  quarter  ended  September  30,  1998 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                         1,115
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  33,392
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               34,507
<PP&E>                                         4,251,072
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (2,613,295)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,672,284
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          152,942
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     1,519,342
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1,672,284
<SALES>                                        104,380
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               104,495
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  598,881<F1>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (537,810)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (537,810)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (537,810)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
<FN>
<F1>Includes  lease  operating  expenses,  production  taxes  and  depreciation,
depletion and  amortization  expense.  Excludes general and  administrative  and
interest expense.
</FN>

        

</TABLE>
Hamerton JEANTY, petitioner, v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE.

No. 17-9295.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied. Petitioner allowed *308until October 22, 2018, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6635

JEROME MYERS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

GREGORY KNOWLIN, Warden of Turbeville Correctional 

Institution,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Greenville. Cameron McGowan Currie, District 

Judge. (6:09-cv-01076-CMC)

Submitted: July 29, 2011 Decided: August 11, 2011

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jerome Myers, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter, III, 

Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Jerome Myers seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The 

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A)

(2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and 

conclude that Myers has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss 

the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 
3

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED
---

---

Exhibit 13.1

# 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 Silicom Ltd. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the period ending December 31,
2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I the undersigned, being the 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 to my knowledge:

|1) | The
Report fully complies with the requirements of sections 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.
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Signature: /S/ Shaike Orbach
Shaike Orbach, Chief ExecutiveOfficer
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: May 31, 2005



---

---
**EXHIBIT 32**

 

**SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS**

 

Each of theundersigned hereby certifies that to his knowledge the quarterly report on Form 10-Qfor the fiscal period ended March 31, 2008 of Lincoln Benefit Life Companyfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result ofoperations of Lincoln Benefit Life Company.

 

May 13, 2008

 
|   | /s/ James E. Hohmann      |   |
|--------|---------------------------|--------|
|   | James E. Hohmann          |
|   | Chairman of the Board and |
|   | Chief Executive Officer   |
|   |                      |
|   | /s/ John C. Pintozzi      |   |
|   | John C. Pintozzi          |
|   | Senior Vice President and |
|   | Chief Financial Officer   |

 

E-4

----
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-13-00409-CR

SAMUEL RIVERA APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM THE 396TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

----------

We have considered appellant’s “Motion To Dismiss Appeal.” The motion 

complies with rule 42.2(a) of the rules of appellate procedure. Tex. R. App. P.

42.2(a). No decision of this court having been delivered before we received this 

motion, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P.

42.2(a), 43.2(f).

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

PER CURIAM

PANEL: DAUPHINOT, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: September 26, 2013
Exhibit 32.1

                                MIAD SYSTEMS LTD.
                            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 MIAD Systems Ltd.(the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending September 30, 2004, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Michael A.S. Green, the President, Chief Financial Officer and Director of
the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant
to ss. 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.



                                       /s/ MICHAEL A. S. GREEN
                                       ----------------------------------
                                       Michael A.S. Green
                                       President, Chief Financial Officer
                                       (Principal Accounting Officer) and
                                       Director

December 16, 2004

The foregoing certifications are made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, subject to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for
any other purpose.
# United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 22-3524

___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v. Anthony Jackson, Jr. lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis

____________ Submitted: March 10, 2023 Filed: March 15, 2023 [Unpublished]

____________ Before BENTON, SHEPHERD, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM.Anthony Jackson, Jr. appeals after the district court 1 revoked his supervised

release and sentenced him to 24 months in prison. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief challenging the sentence. After careful review of the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Jackson, see United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 915-18 (8th Cir. 2009) (substantive reasonableness of revocation sentence is reviewed under deferential abuse-of-discretion standard); see also United States v. Perkins, 526 F.3d 1107, 1110 (8th Cir. 2008) (district court need not make specific findings on § 3553(a) factors; all that is generally required to satisfy appellate court is evidence that court was aware of relevant factors); and the sentence was within the advisory Guidelines range, and below the statutory limit, see 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (maximum revocation prison term is 2 years if underlying offense is Class C felony); Perkins, 526 F.3d at 1110 (revocation sentence within Guidelines range is accorded presumption of reasonableness on appeal). Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and affirm.

______________________________

1 The Honorable Henry E. Autrey, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. -2-
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                              QUALITY DINING, INC.

                            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 Quality Dining, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the period ending October 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John C. Firth,
Executive Vice President and General Counsel (Principal Financial 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 results of operations of the
Company.

/s/ John C. Firth
-----------------
John C. Firth,
Executive Vice President and
General Counsel (Principal Financial Officer)
February 15, 2005

                                       99
N'Dama Miankanze BAMBA, petitioner, v. Kimberly FENTON, et al.

No. 18-1391.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 24, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
Matthew Vaughn HAWKS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-6391.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 19, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

I, John C. Pintozzi, certify that:

1. I havereviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Lincoln Benefit Life Company;

2. Based on my knowledge,this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect 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 allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and Iare responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:

a)                        Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

b)                       Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

c)                        Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and Ihave disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

a)                        Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

b)                       Any fraud,whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

August 8,2006
|        | /s/ John C. Pintozzi       |   |   |
|--------|----------------------------|--------|--------|
|   |                       |
|   | John C. Pintozzi           |
|   | Senior Vice President  and |
|   | Chief Financial Officer    |

 

E-4

----