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

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4120 Received in Senate (RDS)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4120

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 29, 2014

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
    To amend the National Law Enforcement Museum Act to extend the 
                           termination date.

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

SECTION 1. NATIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT MUSEUM ACT TERMINATION DATE 
              EXTENDED.

    Section 4(f) of the National Law Enforcement Museum Act (Public Law 
106-492) is amended by striking ``13 years'' and inserting ``16 
years''.

SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The provisions of this Act shall take effect as if this Act were 
enacted on November 8, 2013.

            Passed the House of Representatives April 28, 2014.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

October 1, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136754 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

v SC: 136754 

 COA: 279406 

Clinton CC: 06-008049-FC 

MICHAEL JOSEPH HOLM,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 6, 2008 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

0924 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

October 1, 2008 

 Clerk
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0702

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

JOHN DANIEL FAILS, JR

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including January 17, 2024, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

December 11 2023

12/11/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0702
# C_2008313EN.01005801.xml

| 6.12.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 313/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/58

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 8 October 2008 — Barbin v Parliament

(Case F-81/07) (1)

1

(Staff case - Officials - Promotion - 2006 promotion procedure - Consideration of comparative merits)

(2008/C 313/104)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Florence Barbin (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: A. Lukošiūtė and R. Ignătescu, Agents, and, subsequently, by C. Burgos, A. Lukošiūtė and R. Ignătescu, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Annulment of the decision of the European Parliament not to promote the applicant to grade AD 12 pursuant to the 2006 promotion procedure.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the European Parliament of 20 November 2006 not to promote Ms Barbin pursuant to the 2006 promotion procedure; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the European Parliament of 20 November 2006 not to promote Ms Barbin pursuant to the 2006 promotion procedure;

| 2. | Orders the European Parliament to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Parliament to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 247, 20.10.2007, p. 43.

1

---
**Exhibit      32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONS      PURSUANT TO U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS      ADOPTED**

**PURSUANT      TO**

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

|  1. |  The Report fully complies with requirements of the              section 13(a) or 15(d) 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 result              of              operations of the Company. |
EXHIBIT 32.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

     Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of
Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code), each of the undersigned
officers of Inn of the Mountain Gods Resort and Casino (the "Company") does
hereby certify with respect to the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q
for the period ended January 31, 2006 (the "REPORT") 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:   March 15, 2006                     By:  /s/ Brian D. Parrish
                                                --------------------------------
                                            Name:    Brian D. Parrish
                                            Title:   Chief Operating Officer

Dated:   March 15, 2006                     By:  /s/ Lance Kintz
                                                --------------------------------
                                            Name:    Lance Kintz
                                            Title:   Chief Financial Officer

     The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of
the United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a
separate disclosure document.
* 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-60906

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ROBERT LEE MORGAN

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 2:06-CR-154-4

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and DENNIS and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Robert Lee Morgan appeals the 120-month sentence imposed following the

revocation of his original sentence of three-years’ probation for his guilty-plea

conviction for passing a counterfeit security, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 513(a).

Because Morgan did not specifically object to the sentence imposed upon

revocation of his probation in the district court, review is for plain error only.

See United States v. Byrd, 116 F.3d 770, 772 (5th Cir. 1997); see also United

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

September 23, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-60906

1 Morgan additionally states that he seeks to preserve for Supreme Court

review whether the maximum possible sentence available on revocation of

probation is not the statutory maximum penalty but the upper end of the

original guidelines range. Blue brief, 15, 22-23.

2

States v. Jones, 484 F.3d 783, 791 (5th Cir. 2007). The sentence thus must be

upheld unless there is error that is plain and that affects both the appellant’s

substantial rights and the integrity of the proceedings. See Jones, 484 F.3d at

791.

Morgan has pointed to no authority for the proposition that the sentence

imposed upon revocation was plain or obvious error. He argues that the

sentence imposed was unreasonable because his probation was revoked on Grade

C violations only, with a resulting advisory guidelines range of eight to 14

months. However, he does not contest that the district court was authorized to

impose the statutory maximum 120-month sentence on each count of conviction.

See § 513(a). This court has routinely upheld a sentence following the revocation

of supervised release that exceeded the applicable guidelines recommendation

but fell within the statutory maximum.1 See United States v. Hinson, 429 F.3d

114, 120 (5th Cir. 2005); United States v. Jones, No. 05-30665, 2006 WL1519458,

at *1 (5th Cir. May 25, 2006) (unpublished). Consequently, the district court’s

judgment is affirmed. Morgan’s challenge to the computation of credit for time

served is not considered as it has not first been administratively exhausted

through the Federal Bureau of Prisons. See United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S.

329, 331-32, 334-35 (1992).

AFFIRMED.
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





I,
Kenneth P. Viret, the Chief Financial Officer of Cenveo, Inc. (the ‘‘Company’’),
certify pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, that:





(1) the
Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended January 3,
2009 (the ‘‘Report’’) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));
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:  July
      30, 2009
                  /S/ KENNETH P.
      VIRETKenneth P. Viret
                    Chief
      Financial Officer
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4087 

To amend the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 to provide grants to States 

for summer employment programs for youth. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 25, 2014 

Mr. KILDEE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To amend the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 to provide 

grants to States for summer employment programs for youth. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Empowering Youth 

5 Through Summer Employment Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. GRANTS TO STATES FOR SUMMER EMPLOYMENT 

7 PROGRAMS FOR YOUTH. 

8 Section 129 of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 

9 (29 U.S.C. 2854) is amended by adding at the end the 

10 following: 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4087 IH

1 ‘‘(d) GRANTS TO STATES FOR SUMMER EMPLOY2 MENT PROGRAMS FOR YOUTH.— 

3 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other 

4 provision of this Act, from the amount appropriated 

5 under paragraph (2), the Secretary shall award 

6 grants to States to provide assistance to local areas 

7 that have high concentrations of eligible youth to en8 able such local areas to carry out programs de9 scribed in subsection (c)(1) that provide summer 

10 employment opportunities for eligible youth, which 

11 are directly linked to academic and occupational 

12 learning, as described in subsection (c)(2)(C), except 

13 that the only measure of performance used to assess 

14 such programs shall be the work readiness perform15 ance indicator described in section 

16 136(b)(2)(A)(ii)(I). 

17 ‘‘(2) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.— 

18 There are authorized to be appropriated 

19 $100,000,000 to carry out this subsection for each 

20 of fiscal years 2015 through 2019.’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
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   In connection with the Quarterly Report of Trai Thien USA Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Tran Viet Thang, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to 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,  Date: August 27, 2010/s/ Tran Viet ThangTran Viet Thang
Chief Financial Officer
STATE of North Carolina v. Robert Lee MORRIS

No. COA16-643

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: March 21, 2017

NO ERROR IN PART, REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART.
Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed April 5, 

2022. 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-21-00633-CV

BEST BUY CO., INC., Appellant

V.

BURKS, KOLBIE, Appellee

On Appeal from the 295th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2020-05895

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is an appeal from a judgment signed August 16, 2021. On March 25, 

2022, the parties jointly filed a motion to: (1) dismiss the appeal, (2) set aside the 

trial court’s judgment without regard to the merits, and (3) remand the case to trial 

court for further proceedings in accordance with the parties’ agreement. See Tex. 

R. App. P. 42.1(a)(2)(B). The motion is granted as follows. 
2

We set aside the trial court’s judgments of default (dated January 31, 2021 

and August 16, 2021) without regard to the merits, and remand the case to the trial 

court for further proceedings in accordance with the parties’ agreement. 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jewell, Zimmerer, and Hassan.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-7111

GREGORY LAFARAL FORD, a/k/a Gregory L. Ford, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

 v. 

SIMON MAJOR, Director, Sumter Lee Regional Detention Center; 

JACKIE RICHARDS, Head Nurse, Sumter Lee Regional Detention 

Center, 

 Defendants – Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District 

Judge. (8:07-cv-01581-HMH) 

Submitted: October 14, 2008 Decided: October 20, 2008

Before KING, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Gregory Lafaral Ford, Appellant Pro Se. James M. Davis, Jr., 

Joel Steve Hughes, DAVIDSON & LINDEMANN, PA, Columbia, South 

Carolina; Andrew S. Halio, Elliott T. Halio, HALIO & HALIO, 

Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

 Gregory Lafaral Ford appeals the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. 

The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate 

judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Ford that 

failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could 

waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the 

recommendation. Despite this warning, Ford failed to timely 

object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation.*

 The timely filing of specific objections to a 

magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve 

appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when 

the parties have been warned of the consequences of 

noncompliance. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th 

Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Ford 

has waived appellate review by failing to timely file specific 

objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny 

Ford’s motion for transcript at government expense and affirm 

the judgment of the district court. 

 We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

 *

Ford’s objections were filed July 1, 2008, over a month 

after the court entered its judgment. 
3 

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

AFFIRMED
Exhibit
21.1





SUBSIDIARIES
OF REGISTRANT








American
Graphics, Inc.


Berlin
& Jones Co., LLC


Cadmus
Delaware, Inc.


Cadmus
Direct Marketing, Inc.


Cadmus
Financial Distribution, Inc.


Cadmus
Government Publications Services, Inc.


Cadmus
Hong Kong Limited


Cadmus
Interactive, Inc.


Cadmus
International Holdings, Inc.


Cadmus
Investments, LLC


Cadmus
Journal Services, Inc.


Cadmus
KnowledgeWorks International Ltd. (Mauritius)


Cadmus
Marketing Group, Inc.


Cadmus
Marketing UK Limited (UK)


Cadmus
Marketing, Inc.


Cadmus
Packaging Company Limited (Thailand)


Cadmus
Packaging Private Limited (India)


Cadmus
Printing Group Inc.


Cadmus
Technology Solutions, Inc.


Cadmus
UK, Inc.


Cadmus/O’Keefe
Marketing, Inc.


CDMS
Management, LLC


Cenveo
Alberta Finance, LP


Cenveo
CEM, Inc.


Cenveo
CEM, LLC


Cenveo
Commercial Ohio, LLC


Cenveo
Corporation


Cenveo
Government Printing, Inc.


Cenveo
McLaren Morris and Todd Company


Cenveo
MM&T Packaging Company


Cenveo
Omemee LLC


Cenveo
Resale Ohio, LLC


Cenveo
Services, LLC


CNMW
Investments, Inc.


Colorhouse
China, Inc.


Commercial
Envelope Manufacturing Co., Inc.


Consolidated
Converting Services, Inc.


CRX
Holding, Inc.


CRX JV,
LLC


Discount
Labels, LLC


Expert
Graphics, Inc.


Garamond/Pridemark
Press, Inc.


Graphic
Arts Center, Mexico, S.A. de C.V.


Henrich
Envelope, LLC


KnowledgeWorks
Global Ltd. (India)


Madison/Graham
ColorGraphics Interstate Services, Inc.


Madison/Graham
ColorGraphics, Inc.


MMTP
Holdings, Inc.


Nova
Scotia Company


Old TSI
Inc.


PC Ink
Corp.


Port City
Press Inc.


Printegra
Corporation


Rx JV
Holding, Inc.









Rx
Technology Corp.


Science
Craftsman, Inc.


Vaughn
Printers Incorporated


VSUB
Holding Company


Washburn
Graphics, Inc.
Exhibit 31.1  Section 302 Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer    I, Lori Laney, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Develocap, Inc.  2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;  4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:  a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the Evaluation Date); and  c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;  5. I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrants auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal controls.  6. I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.  Date: June 15, 2009  /s/ Lori Laney Lori Laney Chief Executive Officer and Principal Accounting Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4093 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4093

  To amend the Small Business Act to raise the prime and subcontract 
                     goals, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 26, 2014

    Mr. Graves of Missouri introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Small Business

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Small Business Act to raise the prime and subcontract 
                     goals, 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 ``Greater Opportunities for Small 
Business Act of 2014''.

SEC. 2. SMALL BUSINESS PRIME AND SUBCONTRACT PARTICIPATION GOALS 
              RAISED.

    (a) Goals in Subcontracting Plans.--Section 8(d)(6)(A) of the Small 
Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637(d)(6)(A)) is amended by inserting after 
``percentage goals'' the following: ``of not less than 40 percent''.
    (b) Prime Contracting Goals.--Section 15(g)(1)(A)(i) of the Small 
Business Act (15 U.S.C. 644(g)(1)(A)(i)) is amended by striking ``23 
percent'' and inserting ``25 percent''.
    (c) Delayed Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
of this section shall take effect only beginning on the date on which 
the Administrator of the Small Business Administration has promulgated 
any regulations necessary, and the Federal Acquisition Regulation has 
been revised, to implement section 1614 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 and the amendments made by such 
section.

SEC. 3. REPEAL OF CERTAIN PROVISION PERTAINING TO ACCOUNTING OF 
              SUBCONTRACTORS.

    Section 15(g) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 644(g)) is 
amended by striking paragraph (3).
                                 <all>
```