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

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5156 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5156

 To require a study of the feasibility of establishing the John Lewis 
           Civil Rights Trail System, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 29, 2008

  Mr. Clay (for himself and Mr. Wamp) introduced the following bill; 
        which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To require a study of the feasibility of establishing the John Lewis 
           Civil Rights Trail System, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``John Lewis Civil Rights Trail System 
Act''.

SEC. 2. FEASIBILITY STUDY.

    (a) Study.--The Archivist of the United States, in consultation 
with the Secretary of the Interior, and with the Secretary of 
Agriculture with respect to lands administered by such Secretary, shall 
conduct a study of the feasibility of establishing the John Lewis Civil 
Rights Trail System, as described in subsection (b), in substantially 
the same manner as studies performed by the Secretary of the Interior 
under section 5(b) of the National Trails System Act (Public Law 109-
418).
    (b) Description of John Lewis Civil Rights Trail System.--For 
purposes of this section, the John Lewis Civil Rights Trail System is a 
system of trails marking the geographic locations in the United States 
(including its territories) of historically significant events related 
to struggles for civil rights based on racial equality, including 
signage or printed materials (or both) that provide information about 
the people and events involved in such struggles and associated with 
such location.

SEC. 3. PILOT PROGRAM.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior shall establish and 
maintain individual trails marking the geographic locations of 
historically significant events related to struggles for civil rights 
based on racial equality. The Secretary shall provide for each trail 
signage or printed materials (or both) that provide information about 
the people and events involved in such struggles and associated with 
such locations.
    (b) Location.--The Secretary may establish such a trail in each 
State where a significant civil rights event occurred. The Secretary 
shall establish at least 6 such trails as soon as practicable after the 
date of enactment of this Act.
    (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--To carry out this section 
there are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of the 
Interior such sums as are necessary for fiscal years 2009 through 2015.
                                 <all>
```
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1089 

KA 10-00160 

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CARNI, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND MARTOCHE, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DERON BOSTIC, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (ROBERT B. HALLBORG,

JR., OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

FRANK A. SEDITA, III, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (MICHAEL J. HILLERY

OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Russell

P. Buscaglia, A.J.), entered August 16, 2010 pursuant to the 2009 Drug

Law Reform Act. The order denied defendant’s application to be

resentenced upon defendant’s 2006 conviction of criminal possession of

a controlled substance in the third degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously reversed on the law and the matter is remitted to Supreme

Court, Erie County, for further proceedings in accordance with the

following Memorandum: Defendant appeals from an order denying his

application for resentencing pursuant to CPL 440.46, the 2009 Drug Law

Reform Act. The People correctly concede that Supreme Court erred in

concluding that defendant is ineligible for resentencing on the ground

that he had a prior conviction for an “exclusion offense” defined in

CPL 440.46 (5) (a) (1). The court calculated the look-back period of

10 years set forth in that statute from the date that defendant

committed the crime for which he was applying to be resentenced,

rather than from the date of filing of the application for

resentencing (see People v Reeb, 82 AD3d 1620; People v Hill, 82 AD3d

77, 79-80). We therefore reverse the order, and we remit the matter

to Supreme Court to determine whether defendant’s application was

premature when filed and, if so, when the application will become ripe

for adjudication. Upon remittal, the court must first ascertain the

date on which defendant’s prior violent felony offense occurred. The

court must then ascertain the time period that defendant was

incarcerated for that prior violent felony offense, which the court

must exclude when calculating whether the prior violent felony offense

took place within the 10-year period preceding the date on which the

application for resentencing was filed (see Reeb, 82 AD3d 1620).

Entered: November 10, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan

Clerk of the Court
STATE v. CASTOSA

No. COA04-1477.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed September 20, 2005.

Certification Date October 10, 2005.

Appeal from Wake (03CRS43599, 03CRS43601, 03CRS43602, 03CRS46344).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION BY THE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

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 Visant Holding Corp. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 29, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Marc L. Reisch, the President and 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, 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 Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                   |  |  |  |                                      
|------------------ |  |  |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: May 13, 2008 |  |  |  | /S/ MARC L. REISCH                   
|                   |  |  |  | Marc L. Reisch                       
|                   |  |  |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
|                   |  |  |  | (principal executive officer)
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5258 

To suspend temporarily the duty on disperse red 167:1. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 7, 2008 

Mr. WATT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on disperse red 167:1. 

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

3 SECTION 1. DISPERSE RED 167:1. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.03.47 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 disperse red 167:1) is amended by striking ‘‘12/31/2006’’ 

7 and inserting ‘‘12/31/2011’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

10 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

11 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on PRODPC61 with BILLS
STATE of North Carolina v. Andre JHONSON.

No. 589P99-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 2, 2004.

Andre Jhonson, Pro Se.

William P. Hart, Special Deputy Attorney General, Thomas H. Lock, District Attorney, for State of NC.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 13th day of October 2004 in this matter for a writ of mandamus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Johnston County:

> "Denied by order of the Court in Conference this the 2nd day of December 2004."
Diana Marie AUSTIN v. COMMONWEALTH of Virginia.

Record No. 040470.

Supreme Court of Virginia.

November 5, 2004.

John T. Boitnott, Rocky Mount, for appellant.

Michael T. Judge, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Jerry W. Kilgore, Atty. Gen., on brief), for appellee.

Present: HASSELL, C.J., LACY, KEENAN, KOONTZ, LEMONS and AGEE, JJ., and RUSSELL, Senior Justice.

PER CURIAM.

In this case, we granted the petition for appeal of Diana Marie Austin, a juvenile, to consider whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the Circuit Court of Franklin County, the trial court, had original jurisdiction over Austin's juvenile parole revocation proceeding.

The procedural history and pertinent facts regarding the revocation of Austin's parole are not disputed and are recounted in detail in the opinion of the Court of Appeals. *Austin v. Commonwealth,*42 Va.App. 33, 35-37, 590 S.E.2d 68, 69-70 (2003). Upon consideration *431of the issue and for the reasons stated in the opinion of the Court of Appeals, see *id.* at 37-41, 590 S.E.2d at 70-72, we will affirm its judgment that the trial court had jurisdiction over Austin's juvenile parole revocation proceeding.

*Affirmed.*
# Official Journal C 225/2015

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 225 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5810 July 2015 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 225

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5810 July 2015

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Council |
| 2015/C 225/01 | Notice for the attention of the persons subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/740 and Council Regulation (EU) 2015/735 concerning restrictive measures in respect of the situation in South Sudan | 1 |
| 2015/C 225/02 | Notice for the attention of the data subjects to whom the restrictive measures provided for in Council Regulation (EU) 2015/735 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in South Sudan apply | 3 |
| | European Commission |
| 2015/C 225/03 | Euro exchange rates | 4 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Council

2015/C 225/01

Notice for the attention of the persons subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/740 and Council Regulation (EU) 2015/735 concerning restrictive measures in respect of the situation in South Sudan

1

2015/C 225/02

Notice for the attention of the data subjects to whom the restrictive measures provided for in Council Regulation (EU) 2015/735 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in South Sudan apply

3

European Commission

2015/C 225/03

Euro exchange rates

4

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2015/C 225/04 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7681 — Cinven Capital Management/Labco) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 5 |
| 2015/C 225/05 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7589 — RWE/VSE) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 6 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2015/C 225/04

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7681 — Cinven Capital Management/Labco) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

5

2015/C 225/05

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7589 — RWE/VSE) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

6

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
STATE of North Carolina v. Terry Eugene DOUB.

No. 538P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 6, 2005.

Terry Doub, Pro Se.

John G. Barnwell, Assistant Attorney General, Thomas J. Keith, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 27th day of September 2005 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 6th day of October 2005."
**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATION**     I, Thomas J. Hoyer, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30,2005;     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  (b) [Intentionally Omitted];  (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based as of the end ofthe period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the caseof an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and     5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.Date:August 15, 2005         /s/ Thomas J. Hoyer   Thomas J. Hoyer   Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
(Exhibit 10.44)

                               XYNERGY CORPORATION
                                  (Letterhead)

May 31, 2005

Julio De Leon
De Leon & Company, PA
510 NM 159th Ln
Pembroke Pines, FL 33028

Re: Your Response to our 8K Filing with the SEC
    -------------------------------------------

Dear Mr. DeLeon:

Attached please find a copy of our 8K filing reporting that your capacity as
auditor for Xynergy Corporation has ceased. We are therefore requesting that you
write a letter to the Securities and Exchange Commission stating whether you
agree or disagree with the statements made in Item 4 of the Form 8-K.

Thank you for your anctipated cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,

/s/

XYNERGY CORPORATION

Enclosure
Samuel Thomas ATKINSON v. Theodis BECK, Secretary of Prison.

No. 154P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 18, 2005.

Samuel Thomas Atkinson, Pro Se.

William P. Hart, Special Deputy Attorney General, for Beck, Secretary of Prison.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the application filed by Petitioner on the 17th day of March 2005 in this matter for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Pitt County:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 18th day of March 2005."
**EXHIBIT31.2**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

I, Jay D. Nielsen, certify that: 

     1. I havereviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of National Beef Packing Company,LLC; 

     2. Basedon my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement ofa material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements weremade, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

     3. Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report; 

     4. Theregistrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

     a)designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information 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)evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and 

     c)disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscalquarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and 

     5. Theregistrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors(or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

     a)all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal 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 employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financialreporting. 

|     |  |                                         |
|-----|--|-----------------------------------------|
| By: |  | /s/ Jay D. Nielsen                      |
|     |  | Jay D. Nielsen*Chief Financial Officer* |

Date: July 11, 2005
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350

(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002)



In connection with the Quarterly Report
on Form 10-Q of ZHONGPIN INC. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended June 30, 2012, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Xianfu Zhu, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby
certifies, 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.



|Date:       August 9, 2012 | By: | /s/ Xianfu Zhu         
|-------------------------- | --- | -----------------------
|                           |     | Xianfu Zhu             
|                           |     | Chief Executive Officer



This certification accompanies each Report pursuant to §
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed
filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906
has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.



Ex. 32.1