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

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4840 

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’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 12, 2010 

Mr. TIBERI (for himself, Mr. DRIEHAUS, Mrs. SCHMIDT, Mr. TURNER, Mr. 

JORDAN of Ohio, Mr. LATTA, Ms. SUTTON, Mr. LATOURETTE, Ms. KILROY, Mr. BOCCIERI, Mr. RYAN of Ohio, Mr. SPACE, Mr. WILSON of Ohio, 

Mr. AUSTRIA, Ms. KAPTUR, Mr. KUCINICH, and Ms. FUDGE) 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 1979 Cleveland Avenue in Columbus, Ohio, 

as the ‘‘Clarence D. Lumpkin Post Office’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CLARENCE D. LUMPKIN POST OFFICE. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 1979 Cleveland Avenue in Co6 lumbus, Ohio, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Clar7 ence D. Lumpkin Post Office’’. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4840 IH

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

4 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Clarence D. Lumpkin 

5 Post Office’’. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002

In connection with Annual Report of IRIS International, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date thereof (the Report), I, Veronica O. Tarrant, Interim Chief Financial 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, to the best of my knowledge:



| | 3. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 4. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the end of the period covered
by the Report and results of operations of the Company for the period covered by the Report.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: March 22, 2007



|                                |  | 
|------------------------------- |  | 
|/s/ VERONICA O. TARRANT         |  | 
|Veronica O. Tarrant             |  | 
|Interim Chief Financial Officer |  | 

This certification shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, or the Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liability of Section 18 of the Exchange Ace. Such certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the
Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.
**Exhibit 32**

**CertificationPursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350**

**As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

In connection withthe Quarterly Report of Mrs. Fields Famous Brands, LLC (the “Company”) on Form10-Q for the 13 weeks ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersignedofficers of the Company certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, toeach officer’s knowledge:

(1)  The Report fully complies with the requirementsof Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)  The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.
| August 13, 2007                 |
|---------------------------------|
|                            |
|                            |
| /s/ Stephen Russo               |   |
| Stephen Russo                   |
| Chief Executive Officer         |
| *(Principal Executive Officer)* |
| * *                        |
| * *                        |
| /s/ Gregory K. Barber           |   |
| Gregory K. Barber               |
| Chief Financial Officer         |
| *(Principal Financial Officer)* |

 

This certificationaccompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of thisstatement required by Section 906 has been provided to Mrs. Fields FamousBrands, LLC and will be retained by Mrs. Fields Famous Brands, LLC and furnishedto the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

----
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

The Honorable Rebecca R. Pallmeyer, District Judge for the U.S. ***

District Court for Northern Illinois, sitting by designation.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

PEDRO JOSE GARCIA,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 10-10599

D.C. No. 2:08-cr-00353-RLH-RJJ1

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Roger L. Hunt, Senior District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 6, 2011** 

San Francisco, California

Before: TROTT and BEA, Circuit Judges, and PALLMEYER, District Judge.*** 

Pedro Garcia appeals the denial of his suppression of evidence motion

FILED

DEC 08 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

following which he was convicted by a jury of (1) being a felon in possession of a

firearm and (2) possession of a controlled substance.

During a lawful traffic stop, Officer Sutton saw from outside Garcia’s car a

clear baggy containing a crystalline substance resting on the car’s center console. 

Garcia does not dispute that the baggy was in Officer Sutton’s plain view. The

court concluded that Officer Sutton’s determination that the baggy contained a

controlled substance was reasonable for someone with his experience and training. 

The record amply supports the court’s conclusion, allowing for a search of

Garcia’s car pursuant to the “automobile exception.” California v. Carney, 471

U.S. 386, 391 (1985); Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925). Thus,

Garcia’s motion to suppress was properly denied.

The court’s credibility findings on other issues are not relevant to the court’s

findings on this issue.

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, the
undersigned Chief Executive Officer of Flexible Solutions International, Inc.
(the "Company"), hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the Annual
Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2005 (the
"Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.


Date:  March 6, 2006                       /s/ Daniel B. O'Brien
                                           ---------------------
                                           Daniel B. O'Brien
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer
STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 2021 KW 1524

VERSUS

SPENCER KASHAD WATTS MARCH 14, 2022

In Re: Spencer Kashad Watts, applying for supervisory writs, 

22nd Judicial District Court, Parish of St. Tammany, 

No. 497, 753. 

BEFORE: GUIDRY, HOLDRIDGE, AND CHUTZ, JJ. 

WRIT DENIED. 

JMG

GH

WRC

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

4

fJEAJtY CLERK OF COURT

FOR THE COURT
#### MARY W. LINEBACK, Administratrix of the Estate of JAMES CHARLIE CARR, JR., Deceased v. HAZEL DORA WOOD

No. 6925SC219

(Filed 30 April 1969)

1. Trial § 18— role of jury — weight and credit of evidence

It is for the jury, not the court, to determine the weight and credit to be given the testimony of the witnesses and to resolve the conflicts and inconsistencies in the evidence.

2. Appeal and Error § 59— review of judgment of involuntary nonsuit

On appeal from entry of judgment of involuntary nonsuit, plaintiff’s evidence is to be taken as true and considered in the light most favorable to plaintiff; where plaintiff’s evidence as disclosed by the record on appeal was sufficient to withstand defendant’s motion, a new trial must be ordered.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Bryson, J.,*20 January 1969 Session, Caldwell Superior Court.

Plaintiff brings this action for the wrongful death of her intestate, a nine-year-old male child. Plaintiff alleges that the death of the intestate was the proximate result of the negligent operation of a motor vehicle by the defendant on 18 January 1966.

At the close of the plaintiff’s evidence, the trial judge, upon motion of the defendant, entered a judgment of involuntary nonsuit. Plaintiff appealed, assigning as error the entry of judgment of non-suit.

*Smathers ■& Ferrell, by Forrest A. Ferrell, for plaintiff appellant. Townsend & Todd, by J. R. Todd, Jr., for defendant appellee.*

Brock, J.

[1, 2] This appeal presents no novel or new question; it presents only the question of whether plaintiff’s evidence is sufficient to survive the motion for nonsuit. The plaintiff’s evidence in this Record on Appeal is conflicting and inconsistent upon the question of how the accident occurred; however, it is for the jury, not the court, to determine the weight and credit to be given the testimony of the witness and to resolve the conflicts and inconsistencies in the evidence. *Brinkley v. Insurance Co.,*271 N.C. 301, 156 S.E. 2d 225; *Tindle v. Denny,*3 N.C. App. 567 (filed 5 February 1969). When viewed in the light of the well established rule that on a motion to nonsuit, the plaintiff’s evidence is to be taken as true and be con*513sidered in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, *Brinkley v. Insurance Co., supra,*we hold that plaintiff’s evidence, as disclosed by this Record on Appeal, was sufficient to withstand defendant’s motion. It follows that we disagree with the trial judge upon this question, and that a new trial must be ordered.

New trial.

Campbell and MoRRis, JJ., concur.
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 Sterling Gold Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended October 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Robert M. Baker, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated this 3rd day of January, 2005.



| | /s/ Robert M. Baker                                
| | ---------------------------------------------------
| | Robert M. Baker                                    
| | Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5224 

To direct the Secretary of Defense to conduct a comprehensive review of 

the health care services available for female members of the Armed Forces. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 5, 2010 

Ms. TSONGAS (for herself, Ms. SHEA-PORTER, Ms. GIFFORDS, and Mr. 

BISHOP of Georgia) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of Defense to conduct a comprehensive review of the health care services available for female 

members of the Armed Forces. 

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 ‘‘Women’s Excellence 

5 of Care and Accessibility Review and Evaluation Act’’ or 

6 the ‘‘WE CARE Act’’. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5224 IH

1 SEC. 2. REVIEW OF WOMEN-SPECIFIC HEALTH SERVICES 

2 AND TREATMENT FOR FEMALE MEMBERS OF 

3 THE ARMED FORCES. 

4 (a) COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW.—The Secretary of 

5 Defense shall conduct a comprehensive review of— 

6 (1) the availability, efficacy, and adequacy of 

7 reproductive health care services available for female 

8 members of the Armed Forces, including gyneco9 logical services and breast and cervical cancer serv10 ices; 

11 (2) the availability, efficacy, and adequacy of 

12 primary and preventive health care services for 

13 women (as defined in section 1074d(b) of title 10, 

14 United States Code); 

15 (3) the need for and availability of women-spe16 cific treatment for sexual harassment, sexual as17 sault, or sexual abuse; and 

18 (4) the extent to which military medical treat19 ment facilities are following the policies of the De20 partment of Defense with respect to women-specific 

21 health services. 

22 (b) MATTERS INCLUDED.—The review required by 

23 subsection (a) shall include an assessment of the following: 

24 (1) The need for women-specific health out25 reach, prevention, and treatment services for female 

26 members of the Armed Forces. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 5224 IH

1 (2) The access to and efficacy of existing 

2 women-specific mental health outreach, prevention, 

3 and treatment services and programs (including sub4 stance abuse programs). 

5 (3) The availability of women-specific services 

6 and treatment for female members of the Armed 

7 Forces who experience sexual harassment, sexual as8 sault, or sexual abuse. 

9 (4) The access to and need for military medical 

10 treatment facilities focusing on the women-specific 

11 health care needs of female members of the Armed 

12 Forces. 

13 (5) The need for further clinical research on the 

14 women-specific health care needs of female members 

15 of the Armed Forces who served in a combat zone. 

16 (c) REPORT.—Not later than 120 days after the date 

17 of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense 

18 shall submit to the congressional defense committees a re19 port on the review required by subsection (a). 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
**Avis juridique important**

*|*

# 32002E0600

**Council Common Position of 22 July 2002 amending Common Position 2002/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Zimbabwe***Official Journal L 195 , 24/07/2002 P. 0001 - 0003*

Council Common Position

of 22 July 2002

amending Common Position 2002/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Zimbabwe

(2002/600/CFSP)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 15 thereof,

Whereas:

(1) On 18 February 2002, the Council adopted Common Position 2002/145/CFSP(1) which introduces restrictive measures against the Government of Zimbabwe and those who bear wide responsibility for serious violations of human rights and of the freedom of opinion, of association and of peaceful assembly.

(2) The Council has assessed that these violations continue and therefore deems it necessary to extend restrictive measures against the Government of Zimbabwe to further individuals who bear a wide responsibility for such violations.

(3) Common Position 2002/145/CFSP should therefore be amended,

HAS ADOPTED THIS COMMON POSITION:

Article 1

The list of persons set out in the Annex to Common Position 2002/145/CFSP is hereby replaced by the list set out in the Annex hereto.

Article 2

This Common Position shall take effect on the date of its adoption.

Article 3

This Common Position shall be published in the Official Journal.

Done at Brussels, 22 July 2002.

For the Council

The President

P. S. Møller

(1) OJ L 50, 21.2.2002, p. 1.

ANNEX

List of persons referred to in Article 1

>TABLE>
#### RICHARD DENNIS BROOKS v. MICHAEL CLAYTON MATTHEWS

No. 7519SC1040

(Filed 2 June 1976)

Appeal and Error § 14— time for taking appeal

Where an appeal is taken more than ten days after the entry of the judgment appealed from and the time within which an appeal can be taken is not otherwise tolled as provided by G.S. 1-279 and App, R. 3, the appellate court obtains no jurisdiction in the matter and the appeal must be dismissed.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Collier, Judge.*Judgment entered 17 September 1975 in Superior Court, Randolph County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 8 April 1976.

This is a civil action wherein plaintiff, Richard Dennis Brooks, seeks damages for personal injury allegedly resulting from an automobile collision with defendant, Michael Clayton Matthews, on 20 February 1972. On 7 May 1975 plaintiff took a voluntary dismissal of his action and on 21 August 1975 commenced the action again by filing another complaint. On 29 August 1975 defendant moved to dismiss the action for plaintiff’s failure to pay the costs in the action dismissed on 7 May. From judgment entered on 17 September dismissing the action, plaintiff appealed.

*Ottway Burton and Millieent Gibson for plaintiff appellant.*

*Coltrane and Gavin by W. E. Gavin for defendant appellee.*

HEDRICK, Judge.

G.S. 1-279 and Rule 3(c) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure provide that an appeal in a civil action when taken by written notice “must be taken within 10 days after its entry.” The record before us discloses that the judgment from which plaintiff purported to appeal was entered on 17 September and *615appeal was not taken until 29 September. Where the appeal is taken more than ten days after the “entry” of judgment and the time within which appeal can be taken is not otherwise tolled as provided in G.S. 1-279 and App. R. 3, the appellate court obtains no jurisdiction in the matter and the appeal must be dismissed. *See Teague v. Teague,*266 N.C. 320, 146 S.E. 2d 87 (1966) ; *Aycock v. Richardson,*247 N.C. 233, 100 S.E. 2d 379 (1957) ; *Moore v. John Doe,*19 N.C. App. 131, 198 S.E. 2d 236 (1973).

Appeal dismissed.

Chief Judge Brock and Judge Clark concur.
, 

OFFICE OF TNE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

. . 

BOA. Bayne Satkriiol4, Page S 

Ia view or the abovo quoted 

tUM$e, 8upm, a parrron to be rlltslblo 

8otiva eezvl49 ~eoau8o~o~~p@yeloa~ or 

portion8 ob Art1018 

ror rotframat rrolp 

m~ntal~diubilflr~ _ - 

muot mt aortain prerorlaea raqulnnmm. HOmuastmM 

aative rlr83m duly enrolled In an aotIv8 fir* doplrtuat 

IaIn~o;Ity or town that oamor,rlthia thr grovl8lon8'a~ 

Hi8 Uireblllty maat bsve arioan in the ~OX%ZQan80 or ii8 duty. Xt I8 naoe88ary that he Slla with the 

~orrr(l or Tmateor of hir olty a oertitioak or hlr 4frabl.b 

lty IT& eligibll$ty ripe6 and awoxn to togothor with a 

owtifio8t8 Of th@ oity or tom phy8l&i, ii t&are bo on@, 

or it AOM, than by a phy8iolan eeleotti by tha Boar4 of 

Tzuatoe8. maah oortifioate to ba r&nod and tr*~orn to by e&l 

pbyrioIan ehorS.n& the dieabUlty.of thr l ppltoant. WIbh th+m 

pps.wqOl8lte8 ia a&t+ we tarn aad 105k to thp, euba3ttd l p - 

plloatioa, a aopy or rhioh, oaittims ~raonaU$iaa, ie attimah& hore%o. 

the p0xr0anoe or htr duty. 
Ron. Bayaa Sattoriiel4, Page 4 

a alt 

88 aOtiOe that th0 OWt~iut@ Or th.0 phJr~&OlM 16 

phyafaian not of the Qlty or tm in r&ioh the app21- 

Oalkt I 8 0 tiMA. AS wo lstorpxo6 wetion 0, hWBtC@OM 

quota& t& ~wtdfloate or the appllaant mm% bo aeewai08 

by a oortirliaate or the olty or town p~8lOlaa (d the Olt$ 

or tom la whiah the poraoa &a a tireman, on4 ii than b8 

AOM th8n by any phy8iOiaA seleoted by Oha Board of ~ker. 

xi the olty when the ap lloant la rinvn has a sit 

the l ooo mgny inl fildav g 4 t mt18t ,bm mad@ br hlti bat L 

Oiti, h. A0 6ity @i781OiU3 thrm nay &Otto? Bi&Std b 

Board my mar* the &fLdavit, Bornor, ruoh fact mhoul E 

the 

pear on one 0f the o*rtlrfaato8 rim. 

apvery tmly roam 

ATTO%lsm OmIRRAL or ‘Enn8 
f. 
_, ,, 

‘.~.~ ~, ,,. ~,,, ,. ;..:,_~~~ .,:, .,.:, ;... . . . ..!.,. ,., 

- izfasg,‘L
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.
 Nuclear Regulatory Commission
 Pursuant to 10 CFR 110.70(b)(2) “Public notice of receipt of an application,” please take notice that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has received the following request for an export license. Copies of the request can be accessed through the Public Electronic Reading Room (PERR) link 
                    *http://www.nrc.gov/​reading-rm/​adams.html*
                     at the NRC Homepage. A request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene may be filed within 30 days after publication of this notice in the 
                    **Federal Register**
                    . Any request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene shall be served by the requestor or petitioner upon the applicant, the Office 
                    ( print page 6046)
                    of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555; the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555; and the Executive Secretary, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC 20520. In its review of the application for a license to export special nuclear material as defined in 10 CFR Part 110 and noticed herein, the Commission does not evaluate the health, safety or environmental effects in the recipient nation of the material to be exported. The information concerning the application follows. NRC Export License Application for High-Enriched Uranium
Name of applicant 
                             Date of application  
                             Date received  
                             Application number  
                             Docket number
Material type
End use
Country of destinationDOE/NNSA—Y12 
                             September 7, 2004  
                             September 24, 2004  
                             XSNM03369  
                             11005512
High-Enriched Uranium
To fabricate targets for irradiation in the National Research Universal (NRU) Reactor to produce medical isotopes
Canada.
 For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Dated this 24 day of January, 2005, at Rockville, Maryland. Margaret M. Doane, Deputy Director, Office of International Programs.


[FR Doc. 05-2134 Filed 2-3-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-M