alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAE 

AUSTIN 

QCMLBC.UA*cr 

Armno”?toa. A&. Prlbblo 

Qoutttig rttorno~ 

Mill. oouttty 

Oolehualto, Tom@ 

\ok/rpWbrO On6 dtitibB* IjtlOlO 

Vernoa" Aaaotste4 Cdl Sfatutw, 

im~ioaer8=, m rind a0 rtatotory 

hurb 8a6 cPalntraano* of rorlrm r0r 

0 ooml~alonor8Q oourt oi a bounty. 

tioa. 

No-oh aut>otitr oontsrtod bt the CoGstltn- 
Boo. A.M. Prlbblr, ~6. 8 

&tlolor 8680 to 8704, veraon' A88otatea airi 

St~Wto8, rol*tiu to “Publie Yo1~h.r~ 60 not prOtid@ 

ror th pUEeha8e Md 88ithtMMOO Or 888108 r0 a pub110 

rri(yhor by the oommlroionor8' oourt of l l ouaty. 

ue rooo#tli8o the rO0t that ttlo roaml8rionrn' 

oourt ha8 k 

'p 

llod authority to do what aa7 br aaoo88u7 

i8 the exert So O? the dutle8 l tiormd upon ltr a PASO 

COUNTY ~8. SLAM, 8uprh Thuetorr, we uo not 

upon pasdv the quostlon or whether or aot the l onuai81 onor 

oourt mq purobaro roalor to be urod by 8ha oount7 for 

oouatf buslnoem~ But there 18 J&O more impllod l utkorit~ 

ror th0 oomi~8ionur~ oourt 0r a oounty to purohaso ~6 

mintaln soalor for a pub110 weigher than there 18 oxprerr authority in thm Oonstitution or the statutor. 

It 18 our opinion that Under the Qonatitution o? 

T6ma and the l rlrting rtatutm relatifq to tbo power8 

Of oomal~rlonorr’ oourt sad the 0fri0a 0r publk w6ip;hU 

the oomiarlonor8~ oourt of a oountr ha8 no autkorlty to 

purOh&30 and maintain eoalor ror a publio i;oighor. 

Truetine we hew anarercd your inquiry, we are 

Your8 *eq fxulr 

ATTOXRXX QIXERAL CF T-EUS 

DStob
|   By:   | /s/ Sam Medley ______________________                                                                                                                                                     |
|-------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  Name:       |  Sam                Medley                                                                                                                                                                |
|  Title:      |  Chief                Executive Officer of MV  Funding Group, Inc., sole Manager of                MV  Funding Group, Inc., sole Manager of MV Fund II,                LLC |
|              |                                                                                                                                                                                           |
|  Date:  |  December                30, 2005                                                                                                                                                         |
|   By:   |  /s/ Rowe Nelson ______________________                                                                                                                                              |
|  Name:       |  Rowe                Nelson                                                                                                                                                               |
|  Title:      |  Chief                Financial Officer of MV Funding  Group, Inc., sole Manager                of  MV Fund II, LLC                                                             |
|  Date:       |  December                30, 2005                                                                                                                                                         |
In the Senate of the United States, 

May 25, 2010. 

Resolved, That the bill from the House of Representatives (H.R. 4840) entitled ‘‘An Act to designate the facility 

of the United States Postal Service located at 1979 Cleveland 

Avenue in Columbus, Ohio, as the ‘Clarence D. Lumpkin 

Post Office’.’’, do pass with the following 

AMENDMENTS: 

1 Ω1æOn page 2, line 3, strike ø1979¿ and insert 1981. 

Amend the title so as to read: ‘‘An Act to designate 

the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

1981 Cleveland Avenue in Columbus, Ohio, as the ‘Clarence D. Lumpkin Post Office’.’’. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 
111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H.R. 4840 

AMENDMENTS
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4835 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4835

To allow an employer to pay an H-2A worker the Federal minimum wage or 
 the prevailing wage in a case where the employer pays either wage to 
               United States citizens similarly employed.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 12, 2010

Mr. Whitfield introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To allow an employer to pay an H-2A worker the Federal minimum wage or 
 the prevailing wage in a case where the employer pays either wage to 
               United States citizens similarly employed.

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

SECTION 1. PAYMENT OF MINIMUM OR PREVAILING WAGE TO H-2A WORKERS.

    Section 218(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
1188(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
            ``(5) Payment of minimum or prevailing wage.--In a case in 
        which an employer pays a qualified United States worker the 
        Federal minimum wage in effect under section 6(a) of the Fair 
        Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 206(a)) or the 
        prevailing wage in the area of intended employment, the 
        employer shall not be required to pay an H-2A worker similarly 
        employed more than such wage.''.
                                 <all>
```
**EXHIBIT 32**

** **

**CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND CFOPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Wilshire Bancorp, Inc.(the “Company”) for the quarterly period ended September 30,2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), Joanne Kim, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company,and Alex Ko, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:

 

(1) TheReport fully 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.

 

 
|                        | WILSHIRE BANCORP, INC. |
|-----------------------------|-----------------------------|
|                        |                        |   |
| Date: November 8, 2010 | By:                         | /s/  Joanne Kim |
|                        |                        | Joanne Kim |
|                        |                        | Chief Executive Officer |
|                        |                        |   |
|                        |                        |   |
| Date: November 8, 2010 | By:                         | /s/  Alex Ko |
|                        |                        | Alex Ko |
|                        |                        | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 94-6922

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

GAIL FULLER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (CR-92-13-A, CA-94-834-AM)

Submitted: March 22, 1996 Decided: August 30, 1996

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

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gail Fuller, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Joseph Hulkower, OFFICE OF THE

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Appellant's motion for appointment of counsel is denied.

2

PER CURIAM:

Mrs. Fuller raised several points in her motion, filed

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, to vacate, correct, or set aside her

sentences. In general, Mrs. Fuller alleged ineffective assistance

of counsel, improper application of the sentencing guidelines, use

of evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment, denial of

a fair trial because certain evidence was not presented, conflict

of interest, and denial of a fair trial because the court denied

her a continuance. We affirm the denial of these aspects of Mrs.

Fuller's petition on the opinion of the district court.

Another question has come to our attention, however. The

district court charged the jury in accordance with circuit

precedent that the element of materiality in 18 U.S.C. § 1001 was

a question for the court. United States v. Gaudin, 63 U.S.L.W.

4611 (U.S. June 19, 1995) decided that materiality was a matter for

the jury, not the court. Mrs. Fuller did not raise this question

on direct appeal or on habeas review. Had this been a direct

appeal, it might have been reversible subject to a plain and

harmless error analysis. Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989),

however, and its progeny prevent us from addressing this issue

because it is a new constitutional rule of criminal procedure.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.*
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 this Annual Report of Prosperity Bancshares, Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-K for the period ending December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David Zalman, Chairman of the Board 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; and

2. The information contained in
the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and operating results of the Company.



|                                                  |  | 
|------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|/s/    David Zalman                              
|David Zalman                                     
|Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
|March 2, 2009
STATE v. Jonathan Douglas RICHARDSON

272A14-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 13, 2019

Paul M. Green, Attorney at Law, Durham, David Weiss, Attorney at Law, Glenn Gerding, Appellate Defender, For Richardson, Jonathan Douglas

Gregory Butler, Paul Jackson, Assistant District Attorneys, Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, Susan I. Doyle, District Attorney, For State of North Carolina

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 26th of February 2019 by Defendant-Appellant to Withdraw as Counsel and Allow the Appellate Defender to Appoint New Counsel:

*878"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 13th of March 2019."
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
REQUIRED BY RULE 13a-14(b) or RULE 15d-14(b)
AND SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
  (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 result of operations of the Company.
 /s/ BENJAMIN G. WOLFF

Benjamin G. WolffChief Executive OfficerClearwire CorporationAugust 8, 2007
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 202 (Thursday, October 20, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 61160]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-20950]



[[Page 61160]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Importer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Registration

    By Notice dated June 6, 2005 and published in the Federal Register 
on June 13, 2005, (70 FR 34152), Boehringer Ingelheim Chemicals, Inc., 
2820 N. Normandy Drive, Petersburg, Virginia 23805, made application by 
renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered 
as an importer of Phenylacetone (8501), a basic class of controlled 
substance listed in Schedule II.
    The company plans to import the listed controlled substance to bulk 
manufacturer amphetamine.
    No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered 
the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and 952(a) and determined that the 
registration of Boehringer Ingelheim Chemicals, Inc. to import the 
basic class of controlled substance is consistent with the public 
interest and with United States obligations under international 
treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on May 1, 1971, at this 
time. DEA has investigated Boehringer Ingelheim Chemicals, Inc. to 
ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public 
interest. The investigation has included inspection and testing of the 
company's physical security systems, verification of the company's 
compliance with state and local laws, and a review of the company's 
background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 952(a) and 
958(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34, the above named company 
is granted registration as an importer of the basic class of controlled 
substance listed.

    Dated: October 12, 2005.
Joseph T. Rannazzisi,
Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, 
Drug Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. 05-20950 Filed 10-19-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
Form of Option Holder Letter



 Exhibit 10.2 

 
 



 
             , 2013 

[NAME] 
 [ADDRESS] 

Dear                     , 

As you know, Newcastle Investment Corp. (“Newcastle”) has distributed all the common stock of New Residential Investment Corp.
(“New Residential”) to Newcastle stockholders (the “Distribution”). On the date of the Distribution, you held one or more options to purchase Newcastle common stock on the terms summarized in Exhibit A hereto (each, an
“Original Newcastle Option”). Effective as of the Distribution, each Original Newcastle Option was converted into (i) an option (each an “Adjusted Newcastle Option”) to purchase the same number of Newcastle common shares at
the per-share exercise price shown on Exhibit A hereto and (ii) an option (each, an “NRZ Option”) to purchase the number of shares of New Residential common stock at the per-share exercise price shown on Exhibit A hereto, in each case
on the same terms and conditions otherwise applicable to the Original Newcastle Option. 
 Accordingly, unless and until New
Residential provides you with revised documentation, the terms of your NRZ Option are as set forth in the award agreement evidencing the Original Newcastle Option (the “Award Agreement”) as modified by this letter and the terms, as
applicable, of the Newcastle Investment Corp. Nonqualified Stock Option and Incentive Award Plan or the Newcastle Investment Corp. 2012 Nonqualified Stock Option and Incentive Award Plan (collectively the “Plans”), provided that, as
applicable, all references to “Newcastle” or “Company” in the Award Agreement and the Plans shall be deemed to be references to New Residential. You will receive a separate letter from Newcastle in regard to your Adjusted
Newcastle Option. 
 Please sign both copies of this letter where indicated below, retain one for your records and return the
other to                      to indicate your acknowledgment of and agreement to the terms and conditions contained herein. If you have any
questions about this letter, please contact                      at
                    . 

[Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank] 








							
		 		 	New Residential Investment Corp.
				
		 		 	By:	 	  

		 		 	Name:	 	
		 		 	Title:	 	
				
	 Acknowledged and agreed

as of             , 2013:
	 		 		 	
				
	  
	 		 		 	
	[Name]	 		 		 	


  
 2 








 Exhibit A 

 

															
	 Original Newcastle
Option
	  	Adjusted
Newcastle
Option	  	NRZ Option
	 Date of Grant
	  	Expiration
Date	  	Number of
Shares Subject to
Option Upon
Grant	  	Number of Shares
Subject to Option
Upon Distribution	  	Per-Share
Exercise
Price	  	Per-Share
Exercise
Price	  	Number of Shares
Subject to Option
Upon Distribution	  	Per-Share
Exercise
Price
		  		  		  		  		  		  		  	
		  		  		  		  		  		  		  	
		  		  		  		  		  		  		  	
		  		  		  		  		  		  		  	


  
 3
STATE of North Carolina v. Edwin Christopher LAWING

No. 217P18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 20, 2018.

Nicholaos Vlahos, Assistant Attorney General, N. Lorrin Freeman, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

M. Gordan Widenhouse, Jr., Attorney at Law, for Lawing, Edwin Christopher.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the conditional petition filed on the 23rd of July 2018 by State of NC 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:

*282"Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of September 2018."
In the MATTER OF Samuel R. DROSE, Former Magistrate for Marion County, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2018-000563 Opinion No. 27813

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Submitted May 25, 2018 Filed June 13, 2018

John S. Nichols, Disciplinary Counsel, and Joseph P. Turner, Senior Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, both of Columbia, for Office of Disciplinary Counsel.

Samuel R. Drose, of Marion, pro se.

PER CURIAM:

*761In this judicial disciplinary matter, Respondent and the Office of Disciplinary Counsel have entered into an Agreement for Discipline by Consent (Agreement) pursuant to Rule 21 of the Rules for Judicial Disciplinary Enforcement (RJDE) contained in

Rule 502 of the South Carolina Appellate Court Rules (SCACR). In the Agreement, Respondent admits misconduct and consents to the imposition of a public reprimand pursuant to Rule 7(b), RJDE, Rule 502, SCACR. We accept the Agreement and issue a public reprimand. The facts, as set forth in the Agreement, are as follows.

***Facts***

Respondent was arrested on May 14, 2014, after he took possession of a substance which he believed was oxycodone, a Schedule II controlled substance. Respondent resigned his position as a part-time Magistrate on the same day.

***Law***

Respondent admits that by his conduct he has violated Canon 1A (a judge should maintain high standards of conduct) and Cannon 2A (a judge shall respect and comply with the law and shall act at all times to promote public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary) of the Code of Judicial Conduct found in Rule 501, SCACR.

Respondent also admits that by violating the Code of Judicial Conduct, he has also violated Rule 7(a)(1), RJDE, Rule 502, SCACR.

***Conclusion***

We find Respondent's misconduct warrants a public reprimand.1 Accordingly, we accept the Agreement and publicly reprimand Respondent for his misconduct.

**PUBLIC REPRIMAND.**

BEATTY, C.J., KITTREDGE, HEARN, FEW and JAMES, JJ. concur.

1

A public reprimand is the most severe sanction the Court can impose when a judge no longer holds judicial office. *See**In re Gravely* , 321 S.C. 235, 467 S.E.2d 924 (1996).
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Dametrell K. WASHINGTON, Defendant/Appellant.

No. ED 81845.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.

July 22, 2003.

Irene Karnes, Columbia, MO, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., John Munson Morris, III, Jefferson City, MO, Joel A. Block, Asst. Atty’s Gen., for respondent.

Before CLIFFORD H. AHRENS, P.J., WILLIAM H. CRANDALL, JR. and LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Defendant, Dametrell Washington, appeals the judgment entered upon his conviction for second-degree drug trafficking, Section 195.233.3 RSMo 2000. The defendant argues that the trial court erred in (1) imposing judgment and sentence against him due to insufficient evidence and in (2) denying his motion for a new trial because the venire panel saw him in his jail attire. We affirm.

We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal. An opinion reciting detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum, for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).
**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 report of China Architectural Engineering, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2008 as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each
      of 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.





/s/
                Luo Ken YiLuo
                Ken YiChief
                Executive OfficerNovember
                13, 2008/s/
                Albert Jan GriselAlbert
                Jan GriselChief
                Financial OfficerNovember
                13, 2008





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
      provided to China Architectural Engineering, Inc. and will be retained by China
      Architectural Engineering, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
      Commission or its staff upon request.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 23-0371

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

WILLIAM JAMES PILLANS,

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 December 18, 2023, within which to prepare, 

file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

November 9 2023

11/09/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0371