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

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4416 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4416

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 15, 2014

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To redesignate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 161 Live Oak Street in Miami, Arizona, as the ``Staff Sergeant 
               Manuel V. Mendoza Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. STAFF SERGEANT MANUEL V. MENDOZA POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Redesignation.--The facility of the United States Postal 
Service located at 161 Live Oak Street in Miami, Arizona, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Staff Sergeant Manuel V. Mendoza Post 
Office Building''.
    (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 ``Staff 
Sergeant Manuel V. Mendoza Post Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 14, 2014.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. §1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of WPT Enterprises, Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 28, 2008 as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Thomas J. Flahie, Interim Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.  The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.  Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| Date:  November 5, 2008 |   | /s/  *Thomas Flahie*             |
|------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------|
|                         |   | Thomas  Flahie                   |
|                         |   | Interim  Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
ADAMS CREEK ASSOCIATES v. DAVIS, et al.

3A08-4

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 20, 2018

L. Lamar Armstrong, Jr., Law Lamar Armstrong, III, Attorneys at Law, Smithfield, for Adams Creek Associates

James E. Hairston, Jr., Attorney at Law, for Davis, Melvin, et al.

William G. Simpson, Jr., Chapel Hill, C. Frank Goldsmith, Jr., Marion, Attorneys at Law, for N.C. Advocates for Justice

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 19th of June 2018 by Plaintiff:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of June 2018."

*112Plaintiff shall have up to and including the 13th day of July 2018 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
#### Fredrick B. Chappell, *Appellant,*v. H. A. Nicholson, and C. W. Nicholson, B. W. Ives and Cora B. Ives, his Wife; Laura A. Ives, now Laura A. Higgs, together with her Husband, Noah F. Higgs, and I. E. Simmons and Wife, Bertha Simmons, *Appellees.*

Division B.

Decision Filed May 10, 1928.

Petition for Rehearing Denied May 30, 1928.

*Dixie Beggs,*for Appellant;

*DeCottes & Spencer,*for Appellees.

Per Curiam.

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the decree herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said decree; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and decreed by the Court that the said decree of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby affirmed.

Whitfield, P. J. and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
STATE v. Aaron Kenard WESTBROOK

301A18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 8, 2018

Nicholas C. Woomer-Deters, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Westbrook, Aaron Kenard.

Glenn Gerding, Appellate Defender.

Joseph Finarelli, L. Michael Dodd, Special Deputy Attorney Generals, James R. O'Neill, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 29th of October 2018 by Defendant to Stay Briefing Schedule Until Resolution of Motion to Dismiss:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of November 2018."
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Reginald Norwood, Also Known as Willie Bunch, Appellant.

[719 NYS2d 876]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ruchelsman, ■ J.), rendered *639July 6, 1998, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant was arrested on April 12, 1996, in an abandoned store located at 1162 Fulton Street in Brooklyn. On the premises the arresting officers found, *inter alia,*over two ounces of crack cocaine and more than $4,000. At trial, the prosecutor was directed to turn over to the defendant all photographs relating to the charges against him. However, the prosecutor neglected to disclose certain surveillance photographs of Fulton Street taken by Federal agents, in the course of their larger investigation of drug trafficking in the neighborhood, weeks or months before the defendant’s arrest. Unaware that one of these photographs depicted the defendant standing near 1138 Fulton Street with another man, the defendant’s counsel asked a police officer on cross-examination if he had ever seen the defendant before. The officer responded that he had seen the defendant in a photograph.

The defendant’s counsel did not move to strike, for a curative instruction, or for a continuance to review the surveillance photographs. Indeed, he asked for no remedy until all of the witnesses had testified, whereupon he moved for a mistrial. Under the circumstances, the trial court providently exercised its discretion in denying the motion. Less severe measures, had they been promptly requested, could have rectified the harm caused by the prosecutor’s failure to timely disclose the photographs *(see, People v Kelly,*62 NY2d 516, 520-521; *People v Hill,*265 AD2d 426; *People v King,*221 AD2d 472; *People v Candelario,*209 AD2d 977; *People v Cunningham,*189 AD2d 821; *People v Vargulik,*130 AD2d 530). Ritter, J. P., Altman, H. Miller and Schmidt, JJ., concur.
STATE of North Carolina v. Everette Porshau HEWITT

No. COA17-1157

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: June 19, 2018

NO ERROR.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4523 

To amend the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 

with respect to the identification of high priority corridors on the National Highway System, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 30, 2014 

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

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency 

Act of 1991 with respect to the identification of high 

priority corridors on the National Highway System, and 

for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘44 to 69 Act of 2014’’. 

5 SEC. 2. IDENTIFICATION OF HIGH PRIORITY CORRIDORS 

6 ON NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM. 

7 Section 1105(c)(18)(D) of the Intermodal Surface 

8 Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 is amended— 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4523 IH

1 (1) in clause (ii) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end; 

2 (2) in clause (iii) by striking the period at the 

3 end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

4 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

5 ‘‘(iv) include Texas State Highway 44 

6 from United States Route 59 at Freer, 

7 Texas, to Texas State Highway 358.’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
STATE of North Carolina v. Roger Gene COOK, Defendant.

No. COA17-885

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: June 5, 2018

REVERSED. REMANDED.
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 Annual Report of Sun River Energy, Inc.(the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending April 30, 2012as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, JF Hoover, Chief Financial Officer of the company, certify, pursuant to 18 USC Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief.


(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: August 15, 2012


/s/ JF Hoover

JF Hoover,Chief Financial Officer
## NUMBER 13

- 1 6

- 00 068

- CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

- EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

IN THE INTEREST OF C .M.R., A CHILD

____________________________________________________________

On a ppeal from the County Court at Law No. 5

of Nueces County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________



## MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Benavides

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, father of C.M.R, perfected an appeal from a judgment concerning the

conservatorship of C.M.R. On July 26, 2016, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant

that the clerk’s record in the above cause was originally due on July 25, 2016 and that

the deputy district clerk, Maria Flores, had notified this Court that appellant failed to make

arrangements for payment of the clerk’s record. The Clerk of this Court notified appellan t

of this defect so that steps could be taken to correct the defect, if it could be done. See

Tex. R. App. P. 37.3, 42.3(b),(c). Appellant was advised that, if the defect was not2

corrected within ten days from the date of receipt of this notice, the appeal would be

dismissed for want of prosecution.

Appellant has failed to respond to this Court’s notice. Accordingly, the appeal is

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.3(b), (c).

PER CURIAM

D elivered and filed this

2nd day of September , 20 1 6

.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , 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.

May 23, 2014

s0520 

# Order

Clerk May 23, 2014

148627

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v SC: 148627

COA: 309183

Muskegon CC: 10

- 059331

- FH

JOSEPH FRANK HERSHEY,

Defendant

- Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 5, 20 13

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered. We direct the Clerk to schedule oral

argument on whether to grant the application or take other action. MCR 7.302(H)(1).

W e further ORDER the Muskegon Circuit Court, in accordance with Administrative

Or der 2003

- 03, to determine whether the defendant is indigent and, if so, to appoint

counsel to represent the defendant in this Court. At oral argument, the parties shall

address whether the defendant waived his challenges to the scoring of Offense Variable

(OV) 16, MCL 777.46, and OV 19, MCL 777.49, when the defendant and his counsel

informed the trial court they reviewed and discussed the Presentence Investigation Report

and had no additions, deletions or corrections to offer. The parties shall file supplemental

briefs within 42 days following the appointment of counsel, but they should not submit

mere restatements of their application papers.
STATE v. Joseph Burton MIAL

17P18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 5, 2018

Jospeh Burton Mial, for Mial, Joseph Burton.

Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, J. Douglas Henderson, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 12th of January 2018 by Defendant to Proceed In Forma Pauperis:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th of April 2018."
SCIGRIP, INC., et al. v. OSAE, et al.

139A18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 5, 2018

Mr. Benjamin Thompson, Raleigh, Attorney at Law, for SciGrip, Inc.

Mr. Tobias S. Hampson, Raleigh, Attorney at Law, for SciGrip, Inc.

Mrs. J. Blakely Kiefer, Raleigh, Attorney at Law, for SciGrip, Inc.

Mr. George B. Mast, Smithfield, Attorney at Law, for Osae, Samuel B.

Mr. Charles D. Mast, Smithfield, Attorney at Law, for Osae, Samuel B.

Ms. Lily VP. Tuttle, Smithfield, Attorney at Law, for Osae, Samuel B.

Mr. Philip Strach, Attorney at Law, for Scott Bader, Inc.

Mr. Brodie D. Erwin, Raleigh, Attorney at Law, for Scott Bader, Inc.

***Amended***

The following order has been entered on the Joint Motion for Extension of Time to File Appellee Briefs filed on the 3rd of July 2018:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th of July 2018."

Parties shall have up to and including the 6th day of August 2018 to file and serve Appellee briefs with this Court.
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF INTERIM CHIEF FINANCIAL
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 Quearterly Report of Visual Management Systems, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, J.D. Gardner, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to
my knowledge:

(1)     the
Report fully complies with the requirements of §13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, 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.

|                 |  |     |                          | 
|---------------- |  | --- | ------------------------ | 
|August 19,
 2009 |  | By: | /s/ J.D.
 Gardner        | 
|                 |  |     |                          | 
|                 |  |     | Chief
 Financial Officer | 

11

---
NORTH CAROLINA FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. v. Beverly Lee PHILLIPS, Victoria Phillips, and John Doe 236

No. 375P17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 1, 2018

Mr. Walter E. Brock, Jr., Attorney at Law, Raleigh, For NC Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company, Inc.

Mr. Andrew P. Flynt, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, For NC Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company, Inc.

Mr. J. Patrick Williams, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, For Phillips, Beverly Lee, et al.

Mr. Gregg Meyers, Attorney at Law, For John Doe 236.

Ms. Leto Copeley, Attorney at Law, Durham, For John Doe 236.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the conditional petition filed on the 17th of November 2017 by *598Plaintiff in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 1st of March 2018."
================================================================================
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  Achievers  Magazine  Inc.  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period  ended  January 31, 2006 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  the
undersigned,  in the  capacities  and  on  the  dates  indicated  below,  hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his 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:  March 14, 2006


/s/ Arto Tavukciyan
---------------------------------------
Arto Tavukciyan, President and C.E.O.
(Principal Executive Officer)
Exhibit 31.2
**CERTIFICATIONS**
I, W. Todd Steele, certify that:
1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of WPT Enterprises, Inc.; 2.  Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statements of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statement made, in lightof the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this quarterly report; 3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis 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 presentedin this quarterly report; 4.  WPT Enterprises, Inc.’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for WPT Enterprises, Inc., and have:
 a.  designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to WPT Enterprises, Inc., including its subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly reportis being prepared;  b.  evaluated the effectiveness of WPT Enterprises, Inc.’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  c.  disclosed in this report any change in WPT Enterprises, Inc.’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during WPT Enterprises, Inc.’s most recent fiscal quarterthat has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, WPTEnterprises, Inc.’s internal control over financial reporting;
5.  WPT Enterprises, Inc.’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to WPT Enterprises, Inc.’sauditors and the audit committee of WPT Enterprises, Inc.’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):
 a.  all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectWPT Enterprises, Inc.’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b.  any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in WPT Enterprises, Inc.’s internal control over financialreporting.   Date: May 13, 2005 /s/  W. Todd Steele W. Todd Steele Chief Financial Officer
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

V.P., Appellant

and

FEDERAL JUDICIARY, U.S. BANKRUPTCY 

COURT, Atlanta, GA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 17-1196

Issued: February 16, 2018

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER REMANDING CASE

Before:

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge

On May 10, 2017 appellant filed a timely appeal from a March 8, 2017 merit decision of 

the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP), finding that she had not met her 

burden of proof to modify a loss of wage-earning capacity decision dated August 17, 2016. This 

appeal was docketed as No. 17-1196. 

The Board, having duly considered the matter, concludes that the case is not in posture 

for decision. The current record is incomplete. Evidence necessary for the adjudication of this 

claim, including the initial decision accepting appellant’s claim for bilateral hand sprain and 

bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome cannot be located in the case record. Subsequent decisions fail

to provide essential facts of this case, including the date of acceptance of appellant’s claim.

Section 501.2(c) of the Board’s Rules of Procedure,

1 provides that the Board has 

jurisdiction “to consider and decide appeals from the final decision of OWCP in any case arising 

under the [Federal Employees” Compensation] Act.”

2

 Because the record as transmitted to the 

 

1 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c).

2 5 U.S.C. §§ 8101 et seq.
2

Board is incomplete and would not permit an informed adjudication of the case,3the Board is 

unable to properly “consider and decide” appellant’s claim.

The March 8, 2017 decision of OWCP must be set aside and the case remanded to 

OWCP for reconstruction and proper assemblage of the case record. Following this and such 

further development as OWCP deems necessary, OWCP shall issue a de novo decision. 

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the March 8, 2017 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is set aside and the case remanded for further proceedings 

consistent with this order of the Board.

Issued: February 16, 2018

Washington, DC

Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

 

3 Victor Verenbec, Docket No. 90-1429 (1991).