alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Salvatore J. MORETTI, Petitioner v. BERGEN COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE

No. 19-5284

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied, and the petition for a writ of certiorari to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division dismissed. See Rule 39.8.

Justice Alito took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion and this petition.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

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

**AS REQUIRED BY**

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

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Steinway Musical Instruments, Inc. (the “Company”) for the fiscal period ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Dana D. Messina, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify that to the best of my knowledge:

 

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/   Dana D. Messina                   |
|--------|-----------------------------------------|
|   |                                    |
|   | President   and Chief Executive Officer |
|   | (Principal   Executive Officer)         |

 

 

May 10, 2011

 

----
---

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 SeaBright Insurance Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, John G. Pasqualetto, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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.





Dated:  May 10, 2010





/s/ John G. PasqualettoJohn G. PasqualettoChairman, President and Chief Executive Officer





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to SeaBright Insurance Holdings, Inc. and will be retained by SeaBright Insurance Holdings, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Shawn M. THOMAS, Petitioner v. Karen SLUSHER, et al.

No. 19-5845

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 12, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
• IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

F . PR 20-0005 .0., „v: OW LV

IN RE THE MOTION OF THOMAS M. MELTON FOR

ADMISSION TO THE BAR OF THE STATE OF

MONTANA

AUG 1 8 2020

Bowen •

Clerk of Supreme. Coun.

State of Montana

ORDER

Thomas M. Melton has filed a motion for admission to the Bar of the State of

Montana pursuant to Rule V of the Rules for Admission, Admission on Motion. The Bar

Admissions Administrator of the State Bar of Montana has informed the Court that the

Commission on Character and Fitness has certified that Melton has provided the necessary

documentation and has satisfied the requirements prerequisite to admission on motion

under Rule V. Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that upon payment of any application fees and

completion of any other processing requirements as set forth by the Bar Admissions

Administrator, Thornas M. Melton may be sworn in to the practice of law in the State of

Montana. Arrangements for swearing in rnay be made by contacting the office of the Clerk

of the Montana Suprerne Court.

The Clerk is directed to provide copies of this order to Petitioner and to the State

Bar of Montana.

DATED this c day of August, 2020.

/46

08/18/2020

Case Number: PR 20-0005
Justices
IN RE Jeffrey S. COLLIER, Petitioner

No. 19-6066

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 21, 2019

Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.
Exhibit
      32.2





**CERTIFICATION**




In
      connection with the quarterly report of Modigene Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
      10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Steve Schaeffer, the
      Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, to the best of my
      knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(3)
            The
                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
                of
                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
                and




(4)
            The
                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
                Company.




/s/
                Steve SchaefferSteve
                SchaefferPrincipal
                Financial OfficerModigene
                Inc.




August
      14, 2008
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-02-00329-CV

Mark Beers, Appellant

v.

Shannon Beers, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, 395TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 00-2155-F395, HONORABLE MICHAEL JERGINS, JUDGE PRESIDING

Appellant Mark Beers has informed this Court that he does not wish to pursue his appeal. 

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution on our own motion.

 

Mack Kidd, Justice

Before Justices Kidd, B. A. Smith and Yeakel

Dismissed for Want of Prosecution

Filed: October 3, 2002

Do Not Publish
C O U R T O F A P P E A LS EI GHTH D I STRI CT OF TEXAS ELPASO, TEXAS AZU C ENA M AR T I

NE Z, Ap pe lla nt,
v. H A RV E S T C R E D IT M A N A G E M E N T IV B, Appellee
. § § § § § § No . 0 8- 09 -0 00 74 -C V

Appea l from the County Court at L aw No. 6 of El Pa so County , T e xas (TC# 2006-076)

M EM OR

AN DU M OP IN ION Pe nd ingbe fo re the Court is A pp e lla nt’ s mo tio n to dis mis s th is a pp e a l pu rs ua nt t o T EX .R.A PP .P. 42 .1 (a )( 2) (A ). Ap pe lla nt r e pr e se nts that th e pa

rt ie s h ave re a c he d a

n a g re e me nt t o settle and c ompromise the dispute and re quests that this Court di smiss t he appe al. Appellee has agree d to the motion and there is no indication that dismissal would prevent Appe llee fr om seekingthe re lief to which it would otherwise be entitled. SeeT EX .R.A PP . P. 4 2
. 1 ( a ) ( 1 )
. We there fore g rant Appe llant’s motion and dismi ss the appea l pursuant to the par ties settlement agree ment. As the motion does not indicate the pa rties have agree d otherwise, c osts will be taxed ag ainst Appellant. SeeT EX .R.A PP .P. 42.1(d). August 12, 2009 DAVI D WEL L I NGTONCHEW, C hief Just ice B e f o r e C h e w , C
. J. , M c C l ur e , a n d R i v e r a , JJ.
Henry P. ALFANO and William Hird, Petitioners v. UNITED STATES

No. 18-1552

Supreme Court of the United States.

December 9, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
# C_2018345EN.01000102.xml

| 27.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 345/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 345/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8956 — Biogen/Samsung BioLogics/Bioepis JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2018/C 345/02)

On 10 September 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:

| — | 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 32018M8956. 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 32018M8956. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

---
Oscar Ernesto MELENDEZ, Petitioner, v. Kevin K. MCALEENAN, Acting Secretary of Homeland Security, et al.

No. 19-415

Supreme Court of the United States.

Nov. 25, 2019

*562Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Gerald Lynn BOSTOCK, Petitioner v. CLAYTON COUNTY, GEORGIA

No. 17-1618

Supreme Court of the United States.

September 11, 2019

The joint motion of petitioner in No. 17-1618 and respondent in No. 17-1623 for divided argument is denied. The motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as *amicus curiae* and for divided argument is granted.
IN RE D'Angelo Hildan SHIPMAN, Petitioner

No. 19-6317

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 12, 2019

Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.
----

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.4080 — G+J/Sanoma/JV)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(2006/C 5/05)

(Text with EEA relevance)

----

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

(2)OJ C 56, 5.3.2005, p. 32.

----
Happy Stompingbear, petitioner, v. Sergeant Brown, et al.

No. 19-6047

Supreme Court of the United States.

Nov. 25, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
Doran Wilburn WALKER, Petitioner v. TEXAS

No. 19-6417

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 13, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas denied.
EXHIBIT 32.b



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 Boston Capital Tax Credit Fund V L.P. (the "Fund") on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Marc N. Teal, Principal Financial Officer of the Fund's general partner, Boston Capital Associates V L.L.C., certify, pursuant to 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, after due inquiry:



|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)-15 or 15(d)-15 of the Securities and 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 Fund.



|                  |  |                            
|----------------- |  | ---------------------------
|Date:             |  |                            
|February 17, 2009 |  | /s/ Marc N. Teal           
|                  |  |                            
|                  |  | Marc N. Teal               
|                  |  | Principal Financial Officer
|                  |  |                            
|                  |  |                            



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Fund and will be retained by the Fund and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the Court has determined that this

opinion sh o uld not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

_________________
No. 95-10658

(Summary Calendar)

_________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

SAM MERIT, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court For the Northern District of Texas

(3:87-CR-153-T)

March 7, 1996 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHÉ, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Sam Merit appeals the district court’s denial of a successive

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion. We have reviewed the appeal and find

it without arguable merit. Accordingly, Merit’s appeal is

DISMISSED as frivolous. H oward v. King
, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th

Cir. 1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

Merit previously has been warned by this court that he may be

sanctioned for any frivolous appeals filed by him or on his behalf.

Additionally, Merit has continued to abuse the courts by the

successive filing of postjudgment motions and appeals of the

denials of those motions. Accordingly, Merit is barred from-2-

filing, or having anyone file on his behalf, any pro se, in forma

p auperis , civil appeal in this court, or any p ro se , in forma

pauperis
, initial civil pleading or motion in any court which is

subject to this court’s jurisdiction, without the advance written

permission of a judge of the forum court or of this court; the

clerk of this court and the clerks of all federal district courts

in this Circuit are directed to return to Merit, unfiled, any
attempted submission inconsistent with this bar.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Government’s motion to dismiss

Merit’s appeal is DENIED as unnecessary, and Merit’s application

for release pending appeal and Joyce E. Merit’s motion to file an

amicus curiae brief are also DENIED.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

SANCTION IMPOSED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7477

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

GEORGE CHAMBERS, a/k/a Dave,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge.

(CR-94-89, CA-97-753)

Submitted: March 11, 1999 Decided: March 17, 1999

Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

George Chambers, Appellant Pro Se. Joan Elizabeth Evans, Assistant

United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

George Chambers seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp.

1998). 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. See United States v. Chambers,

Nos. CR-94-89; CA-97-753 (E.D. Va. Sept. 3, 1998). We deny Chambers’ motion for an evidentiary hearing and 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
**CERTIFICATION**

|   | (3) | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)                of                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;                and |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (4) | The                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Company. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | /s/                Steve Schaeffer         |
|--------|--------------------------------------------|
|   | Steve                Schaeffer             |
|   | Principal                Financial Officer |
|   | Modigene                Inc.               |

----
##### 



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 CEA Acquisition Corporation
(the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2004 (the
Report), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof, I J. Patrick Michaels, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 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, as amended; and 2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Company. By:  /s/ J. Patrick Michaels, Jr.
    
    Dated: November 9, 2004J. Patrick Michaels, Jr.Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 33 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 33

  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
  prohibit a law increasing the compensation for the services of the 
 Senators and Representatives from taking effect until an election of 
 Representatives has intervened, and to permit a law otherwise varying 
            such compensation to take effect upon enactment.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 6, 2013

Mr. Barrow 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 
  prohibit a law increasing the compensation for the services of the 
 Senators and Representatives from taking effect until an election of 
 Representatives has intervened, and to permit a law otherwise varying 
            such compensation to take effect upon enactment.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled   (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

                              ``Article--

    ``Section 1. No law increasing the compensation for the services of 
the Senators and Representatives shall take effect until an election of 
Representatives shall have intervened.
    ``Section 2. The twenty-seventh article of amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.''.
                                 <all>
```
IA 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 51 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating 

to marriage. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 28, 2013 

Mr. HUELSKAMP (for himself, Mr. BROUN of Georgia, Mr. PITTS, Mr. JORDAN, Mr. WESTMORELAND, Mr. PITTENGER, Mr. SAM JOHNSON of 

Texas, Mr. BARTON, Mr. GOHMERT, Mr. BROOKS of Alabama, Mr. 

FRANKS of Arizona, Mr. JONES, Mr. MEADOWS, Mr. PEARCE, Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina, Mr. FLEMING, Mr. NEUGEBAUER, Mr. HARRIS, 

Mr. WALBERG, Mr. PALAZZO, Mr. SHUSTER, Mr. HALL, Mr. 

BRIDENSTINE, Mr. SCHWEIKERT, Mr. WOLF, Mr. SMITH of New Jersey, 

Mr. STOCKMAN, Mr. HULTGREN, and Mr. LANKFORD) 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 relating to marriage. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives 

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two3 thirds of each House concurring therein), 

4 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

5 This joint resolution may be cited as the ‘‘Marriage 

6 Protection Amendment’’. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HJ 51 IH 

1 SEC. 2. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. 

2 The following article is proposed as an amendment 

3 to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 

4 valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitu5 tion when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of 

6 the several States within seven years after the date of its 

7 submission for ratification: 

8 ‘‘ARTICLE— 

9 ‘‘Marriage in the United States shall consist only of 

10 the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitu11 tion, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed 

12 to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be 

13 conferred upon any union other than the union of a man 

14 and a woman.’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
SMITH BARNEY APPRECIATION FUND INC.
                        10f-3 REPORT
           June 1, 1997 through November 30, 1997
                              

                                                  % of
               Trade                              Purch.
Fund % of
Issuer              Date Selling Dealer      Shares
Price     Assets    Issue

Polo Ralph Lauren   6/11/97   Goldman Sachs       8,000
$26.00    0.005%    0.38%

ARM Financial       6/18/97   Morgan Stanley      15,000
15.00     0.006     0.48

Galileo International    7/24/97   Morgan Stanley
50,000          24.00    0.030     0.16

Ispat International 8/07/97   DLJ            30,000
27.00     0.020     0.43

First Union Corp.        9/18/97   Morgan Stanley
100,000         48.375   0.12 1.15

American Italian Pasta   10/8/97   Morgan Stanley
41,500          18.000   0.02 0.88
Robert GRAY, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-9319

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

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