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

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4449 Engrossed in House (EH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4449

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To amend the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 to expand the 
  training for Federal Government personnel related to trafficking in 
                    persons, 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 ``Human Trafficking Prevention Act''.

SEC. 2. EXPANDED TRAINING RELATING TO TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS.

    Section 105(c)(4) of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 
(22 U.S.C. 7105(c)(4)) is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``, including members of the Service (as 
        such term is defined in section 103 of the Foreign Service Act 
        of 1980 (22 U.S.C. 3903))'' after ``Department of State''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following: ``Training under 
        this paragraph shall include, at a minimum, the following:
                    ``(A) A distance learning course on trafficking-in-
                persons issues and the Department of State's 
                obligations under this Act, targeted for embassy 
                reporting officers, regional bureaus' trafficking-in-
                persons coordinators, and their superiors.
                    ``(B) Specific trafficking-in-persons briefings for 
                all ambassadors and deputy chiefs of mission before 
                such individuals depart for their posts.
                    ``(C) At least annual reminders to all such 
                personnel, including appropriate personnel from other 
                Federal departments and agencies, at each diplomatic or 
                consular post of the Department of State located 
                outside the United States of key problems, threats, 
                methods, and warning signs of trafficking in persons 
                specific to the country or jurisdiction in which each 
                such post is located, and appropriate procedures to 
                report information that any such personnel may acquire 
                about possible cases of trafficking in persons.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 23, 2014.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
113th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 4449

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To amend the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 to expand the 
  training for Federal Government personnel related to trafficking in 
                    persons, and for other purposes.
```
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 Amended Quarterly Report of Eternal Energy Corp. on Form
10-Q/A for the period ending June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Bradley M. Colby, President and Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:





1. The
Report 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.





March 10,
2010





/s/ Bradley M. ColbyBradley
      M. Colby,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 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.
GOLDSTEIN, GARBER & SALAMA, LLC v. J. B.

A15A1491

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

December 11, 2017

H. Lane Young II, Matthew Farish Barr, Atlanta, Jonathan M. Freiman, Tadhg A.J. Dooley, New Haven, CT, for Appellant.

William Q. Bird, Michael George Regas II, Atlanta, Jennifer Auer Jordan, for Appellee.

McFadden, Presiding Judge.

In *Goldstein, Garber & Salama, LLC v. J.B.*, 335 Ga. App. 416, 779 S.E.2d 484 (2015), we affirmed the trial court's denial of the appellant/defendant's motion for a directed verdict following a jury verdict in favor of the appellee/plaintiff. In *Goldstein, Garber & Salama, LLC v. J.B.*, 300 Ga. 840, 797 S.E.2d 87 (2017), the Supreme Court of Georgia reversed our decision. Therefore, we vacate our earlier opinion, we adopt in its place the Supreme Court's opinion in *914*Goldstein, Garber & Salama, LLC v. J.B.*, 300 Ga. 840, 797 S.E.2d 87, and we reverse the judgment below.

*Judgment reversed*.

Dillard, C. J., Barnes, P. J., Ellington, P. J., Ray, McMillian and Reese, JJ., concur.
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 2261** 

In R e: SEAN DARNELL FOWLKES , Petitioner

.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus

. ( 1:09

- cr - 00244

- CCB

- 5 )

Submitted : January 22, 2013 Decided: January 30, 2013

Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and KEENAN , Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.

Sean Darnell Fowlkes, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Sean Fowlkes petitions for a writ of mandamus, seeking an order directing the district court to modify its order dismissing a criminal case without prejudice to reflect a dismissal with prejudice. We deny the petition. Mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court , 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); United States v. Moussaoui , 333 F.3d 509, 516

- 17 (4th C ir. 2003). Mandamus is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sough t , id. at 517, and may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp. , 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). The relief sought by Fowlkes is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, while we grant leave to proceed in forma paupe ris, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We 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.

PETITION DENIED
STATE of North Carolina v. Kerry CARRELL

No. COA16-984

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: June 6, 2017

NO ERROR.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice 5195] 

*Summary:*                     Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,                     *et seq.*; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note,                     *et seq.*), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 236 of October 19, 1999, as amended, and Delegation of Authority No. 257 of April 15, 2003 [68 FR 19875], I hereby determine that the objects to be included in the exhibition “Saint Peter and the Vatican: The Legacy of the Popes,” imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to a loan agreement with the foreign lender. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at The Gallery at the Henry B. Gonzales Convention Center, San Antonio, TX from on or about October 15, 2005 to on or about January 8, 2006, The Milwaukee Public Museum from on or about February 4, 2006 to on or about May 7, 2006, and at possible additional venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. Public Notice of these determinations is ordered to be published in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                 

*For further information contact:*                     For further information, including a list of the exhibit objects, contact Carol B. Epstein, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, Department of State, (telephone: 202 453-8048). The address                           ( print page 56767)                        is Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001.                 

Dated: September 21, 2005. 

C. Miller Crouch, 

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State. 

[FR Doc. 05-19360 Filed 9-27-05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710-08-P
1

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 12-750V

(E-Filed: June 17, 2014)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

DAVID KONAR, * UNPUBLISHED

*

* 

 Petitioner, * Special Master

* Hamilton-Fieldman

v. * 

* Decision on Attorneys’ Fees and Costs. 

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND * 

HUMAN SERVICES, * 

* 

Respondent. * .

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Diana Stadelnikas Sedar, Maglio, Christopher & Toale, Sarasota, FL, for Petitioner.

Claudia Gangi, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

DECISION1(ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS)

In this case under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program,2the 

undersigned issued a decision on March 25, 2014. On June 17, 2014, the parties filed a 

stipulation concerning attorneys’ fees and costs in this matter. The parties’ stipulation 

requests a total payment of $15, 715.50, representing total attorneys’ fees and costs. 

 

1

The undersigned intends to post this unpublished decision on the United States 

Court of Federal Claims’ website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, 

Pub. L. No. 107-347, § 205, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended at 44 U.S.C. § 

3501 note (2006)). As provided by Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has 14 days within 

which to request redaction “of any information furnished by that party (1) that is trade 

secret or commercial or financial information and is privileged or confidential, or (2) that 

are medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly 

unwarranted invasion of privacy.” Otherwise, “the entire” decision will be available to 

the public. Id.

2

The applicable statutory provisions defining the program are found at 42 U.S.C. 

§ 300aa-10 et seq. (2006). 
2

Pursuant to General Order #9, Petitioner stated that he incurred $ 475.90 in out-of-pocket 

costs.

I find that this petition was brought in good faith and that there existed a 

reasonable basis for the claim. Therefore, an award for fees and costs is appropriate, 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(b) and (e)(1). Further, the proposed amount seems 

reasonable and appropriate. Accordingly, I hereby award the amount of $15,715.50, 

in the form of a check made payable jointly to Petitioner and Petitioner’s counsel, 

Diana Stadelnikas Sedar, Esq., Maglio, Christopher & Toale, PA. I additionally 

award costs of $475.90, in the form of a check made payable to Petitioner.

In the absence of a timely-filed motion for review filed pursuant to Appendix B of 

the Rules of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, the clerk of the court shall enter judgment 

in accordance herewith.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Lisa D. Hamilton-Fieldman

Lisa D. Hamilton-Fieldman

Special Master
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 on Form 10-Q of NewMarket Corporation (the
Company) for the period ending June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David A. Fiorenza, chief financial 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.



|    |  |                             
|--- |  | ----------------------------
|By: |  | /s/ D. A. Fiorenza          
|    |  | David A. Fiorenza           
|    |  | Vice President and Treasurer
|    |  | August 1, 2006              



43
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 43 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                 H. R. 43

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 18, 2014

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
    at 14 Red River Avenue North in Cold Spring, Minnesota, as the 
             ``Officer Tommy Decker Memorial Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. OFFICER TOMMY DECKER MEMORIAL POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 14 Red River Avenue North in Cold Spring, Minnesota, shall 
be known and designated as the ``Officer Tommy Decker Memorial Post 
Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Officer 
Tommy Decker Memorial Post Office''.

            Passed the House of Representatives June 17, 2014.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ivette Frias, Appellant.

[718 NYS2d 875]

Appeal by the defendant from two judgments of the County Court, Suffolk County (Lefkowitz, J.), both rendered July 17, 1997, convicting her of criminal facilitation in the fourth degree under Indictment No. 1648/96 and hindering prosecution in the second degree under Indictment No. 2255/96, upon jury verdicts, and imposing sentences.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt *(see, People v Cabey,*85 NY2d 417; *People v Zorcik,*67 NY2d 670). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v James,*267 AD2d 327). Ritter, J. P., S. Miller, Friedmann and Smith, JJ., concur.
In the MATTER OF: A.G.D. & L.K.D.

No. COA17-719

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: March 6, 2018

VACATED.
Etta MCKINNON, Plaintiff v. Sandy MCKINNON, Defendant

No. COA17-152

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: October 3, 2017

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.3

 

 

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906**

**OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT**

 

In connection with the Annual Report of Highwoods Properties, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Daniel L. Clemmens, Vice President and Chief Accounting 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, 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. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

| /s/ DANIELL.CLEMMENS                                          |   |
|---------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Daniel L. ClemmensVice President and Chief Accounting Officer |   |
| March 2, 2008                                       |   |
STATE v. J.C.

405P17-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 27, 2017

Lauren Tally Earnhardt, Assistant Attorney General, William P. Hart, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Ernie Lee, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

Jason C. Yoder, Attorney at Law, for J.C.

State of N. C. Judicial Dept., for N.C. Judicial Department.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 27th of November 2017 by State of NC for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 27th of November 2017."
# CE2004078EN.01035101.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/351 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/351

---

(2004/C 78 E/0369)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3769/02

by Caroline Lucas (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(16 December 2002)

Subject:   GATS

Subject:

Can the Commission confirm whether the EC has made any requests of least developed countries relating to environmental services and, if so, can the Commission give an indication of the target and scope of these requests?

The EC has listed a horizontal limitation relating to the provision of public services. This is essentially an ‘exemption’ from the rules that applies across all sectors. The limitation reads as follows: ‘In all EC Member States, services considered as public utilities at a national or local level may be subject to public monopolies or to exclusive rights granted to private operators.’ As potentially the most important issue facing European services in these negotiations, why did the Commission not refer to, or seek views on, this limitation in its consultation document? Does the fact that it listed this horizontal limitation indicate that it does not have confidence that Article 1.3 was sufficiently robust to defend public services; and if it does think it sufficiently robust, why was the extra horizontal limitation required?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(20 January 2003)

(20 January 2003)

The Commission can confirm that the initial requests addressed by the Community to a number of Least Developed Countries (LDCs) did, in some cases, also cover environmental services. In those cases the LDCs were invited to ‘to consider taking commitments’ in mode 3 and mode 4 with reference to horizontal request (i.e. intra-corporate transferees (ICTs) and business visitors). In line with the Community's classification proposal the invitations covered water collection, purification and distributions services, and waste water services; waste management services, protection of ambient air and climate, remediation and cleanup of soil and water. It should however be pointed out that such requests were only addressed to 7 out of the 30 LDCs that are members of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and where EC believed that opening those sectors to foreign delivery would clearly be beneficial for their economic development by allowing better access to foreign capital and know-how.

The horizontal limitation addresses those areas which fall under the scope of the agreement, and thus outside the exemption provided for by Article 1.3 GATS. In particular this covers the situations where services are offered under commercial conditions, for example in the case of waste management, but where Member States, due to the specific organisation of that market, have decided to limit the provision of those services within a specific area to only one service supplier.

---
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Compas Medical, P.C., as Assignee of Austin Trout, Appellant, <br><br>against<br><br>Citiwide Auto Leasing, Respondent.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Ulysses Bernard Leverett, J.), entered December 10, 2013. The order granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.</p><p>ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with $25 costs.</p><p>In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.</p><p>In support of its motion, defendant submitted an affidavit by its employee, who described the details of a record search which she had performed and stated that her search had revealed that there was no Citiwide Auto Leasing policy covering the vehicle in question on the date of the accident. We find that defendant's affidavit was sufficient to demonstrate, prima facie, that plaintiff's claim did not arise out of a covered incident (<i>see Central Gen. Hosp. v Chubb Group of Ins. Cos.</i>, 90 NY2d 195, 199 [1997]). As plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to defendant's motion, the Civil Court properly granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint (<i>see Zuckerman v City of New York</i>, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]).</p><p>Accordingly, the order is affirmed.</p><p>Pesce, P.J., Aliotta and Solomon, JJ., concur.</p><br>Decision Date: October 11, 2016<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>