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

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 115 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to give 

States the right to repeal Federal laws and regulations when ratified 

by the legislatures of two-thirds of the several States. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 21, 2014 

Mr. BISHOP of Utah (for himself, Mr. WALBERG, Mrs. LUMMIS, Mr. LAMBORN, Mr. CHAFFETZ, Mr. CAMPBELL, Mr. BROUN of Georgia, Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina, Mr. WEBER of Texas, Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Mr. SCHWEIKERT, Mr. JORDAN, Mr. MULVANEY, 

Mr. YOHO, Mr. GOHMERT, Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia, Mr. STEWART, Mr. 

MCCLINTOCK, Mr. SALMON, and Mr. GRAVES of Georgia) introduced the 

following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the 

Judiciary 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United 

States to give States the right to repeal Federal laws 

and regulations when ratified by the legislatures of twothirds of the several States. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives 

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all 


dlhill on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HJ 115 IH 

1 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 

2 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several 

3 States within seven years after the date of its submission 

4 for ratification: 

5 ‘‘ARTICLE— 

6 ‘‘Any provision of law or regulation of the United 

7 States may be repealed by the several States, and such 

8 repeal shall be effective when the legislatures of two-thirds 

9 of the several States approve resolutions for this purpose 

10 that particularly describe the same provision or provisions 

11 of law or regulation to be repealed.’’. 

Æ 


dlhill on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
# 153.2-/? FILE COPY


## COA# 08-13-00132-CR OFFENSE: 49.04 Valerie Renee Crane v. The 

## STYLE: stateofTexas COUNTY: Tarrant COA DISPOSITION: Affirm DATE: 10/15/2014 

## TRIALCOURT: CountyCrim Ct No 9 Publish: No TC CASE #: 1257243



## IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ELECTRONIC RECORD Valerie Renee Crane v. The STYLE: State ofTexas 

# APSjELLAjA/T^ Petition FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS: DATE: JUDGE: CCA#: 

### CCA Disposition: DATE: JUDGE: 

### SIGNED:. PUBLISH:

REHEARING IN CCA IS: JUDGE: 

# \SML-H

PC: DNP:

MOTION FOR
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)



In connection with the
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2018 (the “Report”) of Pharos Capital BDC, Inc. (the “Registrant”),
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Kneeland Youngblood, the Chief Executive Officer of
the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|/s/ Kneeland Youngblood   | 
|------------------------- | 
|Name: Kneeland Youngblood | 
|Date: March 26, 2019      |
Exhibit 21



G&L Realty Corp.

List of Subsidiaries

November 1, 2004



|1. | G&L Realty Partnership, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | 435 N. Roxbury Drive, Ltd., a California limited partnership
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------



|3. | G&L Grabel San Pedro, LLC
|-- | -------------------------



|4. | G&L Holy Cross, LLC
|-- | -------------------



|5. | G&L Holy Cross Managers Corp., a California corporation
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------



|6. | G&L Tustin, LLC
|-- | ---------------



|7. | G&L Tustin Managers Corp., a California corporation
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------



|8. | G&L Valencia, LLC
|-- | -----------------



|18. | G&L Lyons, LLC
|--- | --------------



|19. | G&L Coronado (1998), LLC
|--- | ------------------------



|20. | Lakeview Associates, LLC
|--- | ------------------------



|21. | Tustin Heritage Place, LLC
|--- | --------------------------



|22. | G&L Massachusetts, LLC
|--- | ----------------------



|23. | G&L Aspen, LLC
|--- | --------------



|24. | G&L Tustin II, LLC
|--- | ------------------



|25. | G&L Tustin III, LLC
|--- | -------------------



|26. | G&L Senior Care Partnership, L.P.
|--- | ---------------------------------



|27. | GLR/Yorba Linda, LLC
|--- | --------------------



|28. | 405 Bedford, LLC
|--- | ----------------



|29. | 415 Bedford, LLC
|--- | ----------------



|30. | 416 Bedford, LLC
|--- | ----------------



|31. | 435 Bedford, LLC
|--- | ----------------



|32. | G&L 436 Bedford, LLC
|--- | --------------------



|33. | G&L Sherman Oaks, LLC
|--- | ---------------------



|34. | G&L 4150 Regents, LLC
|--- | ---------------------
Frederick BANKS, Petitioner, v. Scooter BRAUN, et al.

No. 19-8211.

Supreme Court of the United States.

May 18, 2020

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied, and petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit dismissed. See Rule 39.8.
Charles SINGLETARY, Jr., Petitioner v. GEORGIA.

No. 19-5618

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Georgia denied.
Christopher Devon JACKSON, Petitioner v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

No. 19-5430

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 4, 2019

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



EXHIBIT 32.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    The Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Date: November 8, 2007
    
    By
    
    /s/ J. Reid PorterJ. Reid Porter
Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
# C_2017428EN.01003201.xml

| 13.12.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 428/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.12.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 428/32

---

Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries

(2017/C 428/12)

In accordance with Article 35(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Union control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), a decision has been taken to close the fishery as set down in the following table:

1

| Date and time of closure | 10.10.2017 |
| --- | --- |
| Duration | 10.10.2017 – 31.12.2017 |
| Member State | Denmark |
| Stock or Group of stocks | LIN/04-C. |
| Species | Ling (Molva molva) |
| Zone | Union waters of IV |
| Type(s) of fishing vessels | — |
| Reference number | 20/TQ127 |

Date and time of closure

10.10.2017

Duration

10.10.2017 – 31.12.2017

Member State

Denmark

Stock or Group of stocks

LIN/04-C.

Species

Ling (Molva molva)

Molva molva

Zone

Union waters of IV

Type(s) of fishing vessels

—

Reference number

20/TQ127

---

(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1

1

---
*This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. The court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

MAY 25 2000

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

NELSON BEGAY,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 99-4153

(D.C. No. 99-CV-123)

(Utah)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before SEYMOUR, Chief Judge, EBEL, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The cause is

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Nelson Begay brought this action under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 attacking a

district court order dated October 2, 1998, which revoked his supervised release

and sentenced him to nine months incarceration to be followed by twenty-seven
-2-

months of supervised release. The district court dismissed the section 2255

proceeding on the ground that Mr. Begay had not brought a direct appeal of the

above order and had failed to show cause for his failure to do so. Mr. Begay

appeals.

The order denying Mr. Begay’s section 2255 petition was filed July 13,

1999. On October 21, 1999, the district court entered an order finding excusable

neglect for Mr. Begay’s failure to file a timely appeal under Federal Rule of

Appellate Procedure 4(b) of the October 2, 1998 order resentencing him after

revocation of his supervised release. We have on this date issued an order and

judgment in the appeal from the resentencing in which we affirm the sentence

imposed by the district court on the basis of the Supreme Court’s opinion in

Johnson v. United States, No. 99-5153, 2000 WL 574359 (U.S. May 15, 2000). 

See United States v. Begay, No. 98-4195, 2000 WL (10th Cir. ). 

Our decision in that case rejecting the same argument Mr. Begay makes here

renders this proceeding moot.

Accordingly, we DISMISS this appeal.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Stephanie K. Seymour

Chief Judge
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
                          JPS Automotive Products Corp.


                             Financial Data Schedule

This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from JPS
Automotive Products Corp. balance sheet at December 27, 1997, and such is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>0000919233
<NAME>JPS AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS CORP.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-27-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-27-1997
<CASH>                                              $1
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     1
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       1
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           1
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         1
<SALES>                                             $0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>BASIC
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

| (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. |
|-----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:                  November 14, 2006 | By: /s/                  David                  A. Gillespie                          |
|------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                     | David                  A. Gillespie                                                                  |
|                                     | President                  and Chief Executive Officer                                               |
|                                     | Principal                  executive and principal financial officer of the                  Company |
|                                     |                                                                                                 |
[Cite as Zanesville v. Rouse , 126 Ohio St.3d 1227, 2010-Ohio-3754.]

T HE C ITY OF Z ANESVILLE , A PPELLANT , v . R OUSE , A PPELLEE . [Cite as Zanesville v. Rouse , 126 Ohio St.3d 1227, 2010-Ohio-3754.] Motion for reconsideration granted in part, judgment reinstating the judgment of the trial court vacated, and cause remanded to the court of appeals. (No. 2009-1282

— Submitted August 10, 2010

— Decided August 17, 2010.)
A PPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Muskingum County, No. CT08-0035, 2009-Ohio-2689.
O N M OTION FOR R ECONSIDERATION

__________________ {¶ 1} On May 26, 2010, the court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals in this case and reinstated the judgment of the trial court. Zanesville v.
Rouse , 126 Ohio St.3d 1, 2010-Ohio-2218, 929 N.E.2d 1044. {¶ 2} Appellee filed a motion for reconsider ation, arguing in part that the court of appeals did not consider several assignments of error raised by appellee. {¶ 3} The motion for reconsideration is granted to the following extent: The portion of the court’s May 26, 2010 judgme nt reinstating the judgment of the trial court is vacated, and the cause is remanded to the court of appeals for consideration of appellee’ s assignments of error held to be moot below.
B ROWN , C.J., and L UNDBERG S TRATTON , O’C ONNOR , O’D ONNELL , L ANZINGER , and C UPP , JJ., concur.
P FEIFER , J., dissents.

__________________ Scott T. Hillis, Zanesville Law Director, and Susan E. Small, Assistant Law Director, for appellant. Elizabeth N. Gaba and David T. Spencer, for appellee.

______________________
Independent Auditors' Report


To the Shareholders and Board of Trustees of
Consulting Group Capital Markets Funds:

In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements
of the Consulting Group Capital Markets Funds (the Fund) for
the year ended August 31, 2002, we considered its internal
control, including control activities for safeguarding
securities, in order to determine our auditing procedures for the
purpose of expressing our opinion on the financial statements and
to comply with the requirements of Form N-SAR, not to provide
assurance on internal control.

The management of the Fund is responsible for establishing and
maintaining internal control.  In fulfilling this responsibility,
estimates and judgments by management are required to assess the
expected benefits and related costs of controls.  Generally,
controls that are relevant to an audit pertain to the entity's
objective of preparing financial statements for external purposes
that are fairly presented in conformity with accounting
principles generally accepted in the United States of America.
Those controls include the safeguarding of assets against
unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition.

Because of inherent limitations in internal control, error or
fraud may occur and not be detected.  Also, projection of any
evaluation of internal control to future periods is subject to
the risk that it may become inadequate because of changes in
conditions or that the effectiveness of the design and operation
may deteriorate.

Our consideration of internal control would not necessarily
disclose all matters in internal control that might be material
weaknesses under standards established by the American Institute
of Certified Public Accountants.  A material weakness is a
condition in which the design or operation of one or more of the
internal control components does not reduce to a relatively low
level the risk that errors or fraud in amounts that would be
material in relation to the financial statements being audited
may occur and not be detected within a timely period by employees
in the normal course of performing their assigned functions.
However, we noted no matters involving internal control and its
operation, including controls for safeguarding securities that we
consider to be material weaknesses as defined above as of August
31, 2002.

This report is intended solely for the information and use of
management and the Board of Trustees of the Fund and the
Securities and Exchange Commission and is not intended to be and
should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties.


                                                       KPMG LLP

New York, New York
October 11, 2002
Jason L. CLARK, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-5995.

Supreme Court of the United States.

March 23, 2020.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
# C_2018250EN.01000101.xml

| 17.7.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 250/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 250/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8911 — Samvardhana Motherson Automotive Systems/Reydel Automotive)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2018/C 250/01)

On 11 July 2018, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32018M8911. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32018M8911. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
AMENDMENT NO 2 TO CHANGE OF CONTROL SEVERENCE AGREEMENT



 Exhibit 10.10.2 
  
 AMENDMENT NO. 2 
 TO 
 CHANGE OF CONTROL SEVERANCE AGREEMENT 
  
 This Amendment (the “Amendment”), dated as of April 8, 2003, to that certain Change of Control Severance
Agreement, dated as of April 8, 1999 (the “Agreement”), as amended as of April 3, 2001, is by and between Maxwell Shoe Company Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and Richard J. Bakos (the
“Employee”). Initially capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the Agreement. 
  
 RECITALS 
  
 The Company and the Employee wish to amend the Agreement to extend the term during which the Employee may be entitled to Severance Benefits upon a Change
of Control. 
  
 The parties hereto agree as follows: 

 
 AGREEMENT 
  
 1. Amendment. The first sentence of Section 1 of the Agreement is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows: 
  
 “In the event of a Change of Control of the Company during the six-year
period from the date of this Agreement, the Employee shall be entitled to the benefits set forth in Section 2 (the “Severance Benefits”), but only if: 
  
 (a) Employee’s employment by the Company or the successor owner of its business is terminated by the Company or such
successor without Cause (as defined in Section 4) during the two years after the occurrence of the Change of Control; or 
  
 (b) the Employee terminates his employment with the Company or its successor for Good Reason (as defined in Section 5) during the two years after the
occurrence of the Change of Control.” 
  
 2. General. 
  
 (a) This Amendment may be executed in two counterparts each of which shall
be deemed an original but both of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. 
  
 (b) This Amendment shall be construed in accordance with and governed for all purposes by the laws of The Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 







 (c) Except as set forth herein, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 
  
 This Amendment has been executed by the parties on this 8th day of
April, 2003. 
  

	 MAXWELL SHOE COMPANY INC.
	 	 	 	EMPLOYEE
				
	 By:
	 	/s/    Mark J. Cocozza        	 	 	 	  
 /s/    Richard J.
Bakos        

	 	
	 	 	

	 	 	Mark J. Cocozza,	 	 	 	Richard J. Bakos
	 	 	Chairman of the Board	 	 	 	 
	 	 	and Chief Executive Officer	 	 	 	 

  

 2
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-60809

Conference Calendar

 

ABNER LAGUERRE,

Petitioner,

versus

IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION

SERVICE,

Respondent.

- - - - - - - - - -

Petition for Review of an Order

of the Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A72-041-448

- - - - - - - - - -

August 14, 1997

Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Abner Laguerre appeals the Board of Immigration Appeals’

decision dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s

decision to deny Laguerre’s application for asylum and for a

withholding of deportation. We have reviewed the record and the

briefs and determine that the Board’s decision is supported by
No.

- 2 -

substantial evidence. See Carbajal-Gonzalez v. INS, 78 F.3d 194,

197 (5th Cir. 1996). The petition for review is DENIED.