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

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4909 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4909

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 2168 7th Avenue in Anoka, Minnesota, as the ``Richard K. Sorenson 
                        Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 22, 2010

Mrs. Bachmann introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
              Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 2168 7th Avenue in Anoka, Minnesota, as the ``Richard K. Sorenson 
                        Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. RICHARD K. SORENSON POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 2168 7th Avenue in Anoka, Minnesota, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Richard K. Sorenson 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 ``Richard K. 
Sorenson Post Office Building''.
                                 <all>
```
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Michael D. Lohner, as President and Chief Executive Officer of Home
Interiors & Gifts, Inc., (the Company) certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350,
as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my
knowledge: (1) the accompanying Form 10-K report for the period ending December 31,
2003 as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (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. Dated: March 22, 2004 /s/ MICHAEL D. LOHNERMichael D. LohnerPresident and Chief Executive Officer
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 24

- 00083

- CR

J OSEPH K ELLY D INGLER

, Appellant

V

.

T HE S TATE OF T EXAS §

§

§

§

§ On Appeal from the 432nd District Court

of Tarrant County ( 1749454 )

April 4 , 2024

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Womack

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that the

appeal should be dismissed. It i s ordered that the appeal is dismissed for want of

jurisdiction

.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Dana Womack

Justice Dana Womack
#### Michael Scanlan *vs.*Daniel O’Brien.

April 12, 1875.

Bond to Dissolve Attachment, without Sureties. — When an officer has levied upon personal property, upon a writ of attachment, and under 95, ch. 65, Gen. Stat., a bond is given, and possession of the property thereby obtained from the officer, the obligors in the bond cannot object that there are no sureties in it.

Same — Obligor cannot question Validity of Levy. — The obligors in such a bond, when sued upon it, cannot question the validity of the officer’s levy.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the district court for Fillmore county, *Page,*J., presiding, entered pursuant to an order sustaining a demurrer to the answer.

*H. B. Wells,*for appellant.

*JST. P. Oolburn,*for respondent.

Gilfillan, C. J.

This plaintiff commenced an action before a justice of the peace against one John Carlin, in which an attachment issued against the property of Carlin. The officer executed the writ by attaching certain personal property of Carlin. This defendant and P. Griffith procured a delivery of the property to Carlin, by executing a bond to the plaintiff, conditioned that the property should be forthcoming when and where the justice should direct, and to abide the judgment of the justice. The plaintiff recovered, in that action, a judgment against Carlin, whereupon the justice made an order directing this defendant and Griffith to deliver the property to the officer, Avhich they failed to do, Avhereupon this action is brought on the bond. *435The answer alleges that the property was exempt, and that the officer got possession of it by forcibly and unlawfully entering the dwelling of Carlin. To this answer a demurrer was interposed, and sustained by the court below.

The bond was executed by the obligors as principals, without any sureties. The statute, § 95, ch. 65, Gen. Stat., provides that the bond shall be with sureties, and it is insisted that the bond is void because it has none. The plaintiff in the action might have complained of the officer for taking a bond without sureties; but the obligors cannot object to the bond on that ground. *Shaw*v. *Tobias, 3*N. Y. 188*; Smith*v. *McFall,*18 Wend. 521; *Whaling*v. *Shales,*20 Wend. 673. The statute does not define the rights of the parties to such a bond. We think it analogous to the receipt, formerly in use in similar cases, and that the rules applicable to such receipts should be applied to these bonds. In those cases, the rule was that the party receipting to the officer for the goods, could not, when called on to deliver them to the officer, deny that he - had made a valid levy under his writ. *Jewett*v. *Torrey,*11 Mass. 219 ; *Lyman*v. *Lyman,*11 Mass. 317. It was not, therefore, for the obligors in this bond, when directed by the justice to deliver the goods to the officer, to set up that the goods were exempt iii favor of the defendant in the wilt, nor that the officer committed a trespass in making the levy.

The judgment below is affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                         9
<LEGEND>
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                          0001068725
<NAME>               COMMUNITY SAVINGS BANKSHARES, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                        1,000
<CURRENCY>                            USD

<S>                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                  DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                         1
<CASH>                             22,057
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>             23,182
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                        0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                        0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>       144,840
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>             38,802
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>               41,271
<LOANS>                           612,292
<ALLOWANCE>                         3,923
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    892,974
<DEPOSITS>                        613,943
<SHORT-TERM>                       26,787
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                 8,636
<LONG-TERM>                       127,907
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0
<COMMON>                           10,571
<OTHER-SE>                        105,130
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>    892,974
<INTEREST-LOAN>                    44,515
<INTEREST-INVEST>                  11,258
<INTEREST-OTHER>                    2,691
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                   58,464
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                 21,987
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 29,535
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>              28,929
<LOAN-LOSSES>                         905
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                      0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                    22,985
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     8,877
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>          6,534
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                        6,534
<EPS-BASIC>                          0.67
<EPS-DILUTED>                        0.65
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                       3.52
<LOANS-NON>                         1,039
<LOANS-PAST>                            0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                        0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                     1,465
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                    3,160
<CHARGE-OFFS>                        (146)
<RECOVERIES>                            4
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                   3,923
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                3,923
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                     0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                 0


</TABLE>
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health 

      ( print page 61461)    
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of General Medical Sciences Special Emphasis Panel. Institutional National Research Service Award Predoctoral.                    

*Date:*                         November 9, 2005.                    

*Time:*                         8 a.m. to 5 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Clarion Hotel Bethesda Park, 8400 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.                    

*Contact Person:*                         C Craig Hyde, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Office of Scientific Review, National Institute of General Medical Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Building 45, Room 3AN18, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-3825,                         *ch2v@nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.375, Minority Biomedical Research Support; 93.821, Cell Biology and Biophysics Research; 93.859, Pharmacology, Physiology, and Biological Chemistry Research; 93.862, Genetics and Developmental Biology Research; 93.88 Minority Access to Research Careers; 93.96, Special Minority Initiatives, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: October 13, 2005.

Anthony M. Coelho, Jr.,

Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 05-21121  Filed 10-21-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
**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 New River Pharmaceuticals
      Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ending July 3, 2005, as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Krish
      S. Krishnan, Chief Operating Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
      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/
              Krish S. KrishnanKrish
              S. KrishnanChief
              Operating Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary(Principal
              financial and accounting officer)August
              16, 2005
**EXHIBIT 32.02**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Entercom Communications Corp. (the “Company”) hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:

 

(i)            the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the annual period ended December 31, 2010 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(ii)           the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| Date:  | February   9, 2011                                                       |   |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |                                                                     |   |
| By:    | /s/   Stephen F. Fisher                                                  |   |
| Name:  | Stephen   F. Fisher                                                      |   |
| Title: | Executive   Vice President — Operations and Chief Financial Officer |   |
|   | (principal   financial officer)                                          |   |

 

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

 

----
#### S. B. Palmer, plaintiff in error, *vs.*John Palmer, defendant in error.

(By two judges.) If what purports to be a copy of the record is not certified by the Clerk the cause will be dismissed. (R.)

If no part of the record is certified there can be no suggestion of a diminution of the record. (R.) 15th January, 1872.

Practice in Supreme Court. From Dawson county.

*576The bill of exceptions was properly certified. Bat what was sent up as a copy of the record had no certificate. Defendant’s counsel moved to dismiss the cause because no certified record had been sent up. Plaintiff’s counsel said he would suggest a diminution of the record. The Court replied that there was nothing certified upon which a suggestion of diminution could be made, and dismissed the cause.

Wier Boyd *;*H. P. Bell, for plaintiff in error.

George D. Rioe, for defendant.

The cause of 1ST. II. Goss *vs.*J. W. Bond, from the same county, was dismissed for the same reason.

Wier Boyd, for plaintiff in error.

J. U. Dorsey, for defendant.
Prepared by R.R. Donnelley Financial -- Amendment Certification of Designation 02/18/2000



  
  EXHIBIT 4.5 
  
 AMENDMENT TO THE CERTIFICATE OF DESIGNATION, 
 PREFERENCES AND RIGHTS OF 
 THE SERIES L PREFERRED STOCK OF 
 RIBOZYME PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. 
 DATED APRIL 30, 1999 
  
 Ribozyme Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a company organized and existing under the laws of the
State of Delaware (the “Corporation”), hereby certifies that the following resolutions were adopted by the Board of Directors of the Corporation pursuant to the authority of the Board of Directors as provided in the Corporation’s
Certificate of Incorporation, and by the sole holder of the Series L Preferred Stock of the Corporation pursuant to the General Corporation Law of Delaware: 
  
 RESOLVED, that the first sentence of Section E(5)(f) of the Certificate of Designations, Preferences and Rights of Series L Preferred Stock of the Corporation filed
with the Delaware Secretary of State on April 30, 1999, be deleted and replaced with the following sentence: 
  
 “RPI shall reserve and keep available from time to time such amount of its authorized but unissued shares of common stock as is reasonably sufficient to provide for the conversion of the Series L Preferred.” 

 
 RESOLVED FURTHER, that the Amendment to the Certificate of Designations, Preferences and Rights of Series L Preferred
Stock, in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit A (“Amendment”), is hereby authorized and approved and the appropriate officers of the Corporation are hereby authorized to execute, file and deliver such Amendment with the
Delaware Secretary of State; 
  
 RESOLVED FURTHER, that the officers of the Company be, and each of them hereby
is, authorized and directed, in the name and on behalf of the Company or otherwise, to make all such arrangements, to do and perform all such acts and things, and to execute and deliver all such officers’ certificates and such other instruments
and documents as they may deem necessary or appropriate in order to effectuate fully the purpose of each and all the foregoing resolutions (hereby ratifying and confirming any and all actions taken heretofore and hereafter to accomplish such
purposes, all or singular). 
  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment to the Certificate of Designation, Preferences and Rights
of the Series L Preferred Stock of the Corporation dated April 30, 1999, is executed on behalf of the Corporation this 18th day of February, 2000. 
  

	 	. 
 

 
	 RIBOZYME PHARMACEUTICALS, INC
 
	 
	 By:
 	 	 /s/    LAWRENCE E. BULLOCK      
 

	  	 	 Lawrence E. Bullock, Vice President of Administration and Finance, CFO and Secretary
#### John P. Manny *&*others *vs.*O. E. Griswold.

May 1, 1875.

Eorm of Verdict — Waiver of Objection, — When, on the trial below, an interrogatory is put to the jury, to be answered by their verdict, and their answer substantially covers the interrogatory, but is objectionable in form, the objection to its form is waived, if not made on the coming in of the verdict.

This action was brought in Winona county, but a change of venue ivas ordered, and the trial was had in Dodge county, before *Waite,*J. The jury returned a special verdict, together with answers to several questions submitted to them. Judgment was ordered and entered for plaintiffs, and defendant appealed.

*Pierce & Taylor,*for appellant.

*Lloyd Barber*and *J. L. Ware,*for respondent.

Gileillan, C. J.

Action to recover a balance of the value of a reaper and mower, sold by plaintiffs to defendant. The only issue presented in the answer, and insisted upon here, is that defendant gave plaintiffs his promissory notes, which were agreed to be accepted, and accepted by plaintiffs, as a payment, and that the note representing the part of the value sued for is outstanding. Upon the coming in of the verdict, the court ordered the note to be given up and cancelled, and judgment for plaintiffs to be entered. The verdict was special, and several interrogatories were put to. *507the jury, and answered by them in their verdict. The objection made here is that the verdict does not cover the above issue presented by the answer.

The jury in their verdict state “ that the notes were the evidence of the debt, and given to secure and extend the time of payment.” To the interrogatory, “Was it agreed that the notes should be taken, in payment for the property mentioned in the complaint?” the jury answered, “They were given to secure the payment.” Another similar interrogatory was answered in the same way. The verdict and the answers are argumentative ; either party had a right to a direct answer; but no objection was made below to the form of the verdict or answer. We think the verdict and answer substantially negative the issue, and that the objection to its form was waived by not being made at the coming in of the verdict, and cannot be made here. The judgment is affirmed.
#### Ex parte Jeffery HORNE.* (In re Jeffrey Horne v. State of Alabama).

1010796.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Nov. 1, 2002.

Jeffery Horne, pro se.

William H. Pryor, Jr., atty. gen., and G. Ward Beeson III, asst. atty. gen., for respondent.

*

 The defendant filed his petition under the name "Jeffery Horne." The Court of Criminal Appeals spelled the defendant's name “Jeffrey Horne.”

LYONS, Justice.

The writ of certiorari is quashed. See *Hale v. State,*848 So.2d 224, 233 (Ala.2002) (holding that “the absence of sentence enhancement allegations from the indictment does not deprive the trial court of jurisdiction to impose the enhancements” and that because the defendant “did not argue before the trial court at any time that the application of the sentence enhancements violated his rights to due process and to a trial by jury, he ... waived appellate review of [those] arguments”).

WRIT QUASHED.

MOORE, C.J., and HOUSTON, SEE, BROWN, HARWOOD, WOODALL, and STUART, JJ., concur.

JOHNSTONE, J., dissents.

*322JOHNSTONE, Justice

(dissenting).

I respectfully dissent. See the dissenting part of my special writing in *Hale v. State,*848 So.2d 224 (Ala.2002).
SCPW-20-0000560

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

 

ISAIAH W. MCCOY, Petitioner,

vs.

THE HONORABLE TODD W. EDDINS, Judge of the Circuit Court of the

First Circuit, State of Hawai#i, Respondent Judge,

and

STATE OF HAWAI#I and FRANCIS SEQUEIRA, Warden,

O#ahu Community Correctional Center, Respondent.

 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

(CR. NO. 1CPC-19-0001279)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

AND MOTION

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, and Wilson, JJ.,

and Circuit Judge Kuriyama, assigned by reason of vacancy)

Upon consideration of petitioner Isaiah W. McCoy’s

petition for writ of habeas corpus, filed on September 11, 2020,

the motion, filed on September 24, 2020, the respective

supporting documents, and the record, it cannot be said that the

respondent judge committed a flagrant and manifest abuse of

discretion in revoking bail under the specific facts and

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCPW-20-0000560

01-OCT-2020

08:57 AM
circumstances of this case, or that petitioner is entitled to the

requested extraordinary relief from this court. See, e.g., HRS

§§ 804-3(b) and 804-7.3; Oili v. Chang, 57 Haw. 411, 412, 557

P.2d 787, 788 (1976). Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for writ of

habeas corpus and motion are denied.

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the clerk of the

appellate court shall process the petition for writ of habeas

corpus without payment of the filing fee. 

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, October 1, 2020.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

/s/ Christine E. Kuriyama

2