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

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2153 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2153

   To require a report on the effects of climate change on the Coast 
                     Guard, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 17, 2019

  Mr. Markey introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
   referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To require a report on the effects of climate change on the Coast 
                     Guard, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. REPORT ON EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON COAST GUARD.

    (a) In General.--Not later than one year after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, the Commandant of the Coast Guard shall submit 
to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate 
and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
Representatives a report on vulnerabilities of installations of the 
Coast Guard resulting from climate change and requirements for 
mitigating climate change-related effects on the Coast Guard over the 
20-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act.
    (b) Elements.--The report required by subsection (a) shall include 
the following:
            (1) A list of the ten most vulnerable installations of the 
        Coast Guard based on the effects of climate change, including 
        rising sea tides, increased flooding, drought, desertification, 
        wildfires, thawing permafrost, and any other effects the 
        Commandant considers necessary.
            (2) An overview of mitigations that may be necessary to 
        ensure the continued operational viability and to increase the 
        resiliency of the installations listed under paragraph (1) and 
        the cost of such mitigations.
            (3) A discussion of the climate change-related effects on 
        the Coast Guard, including--
                    (A) the increase in the frequency of humanitarian 
                assistance and disaster relief missions; and
                    (B) the campaign plans, contingency plans, and 
                operational posture of the Coast Guard.
            (4) An overview of mitigations that may be necessary to 
        ensure mission resiliency and the cost of such mitigations.
    (c) Form.--The report required by subsection (a) shall be submitted 
in unclassified form, but may include a classified annex.
                                 <all>
```
**
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 

18U.S.C. SECTION 1350, 

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO 

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18,United States Code), the Trustee of Marine Petroleum Trust (the “Trust”) does hereby certify, to its knowledge, that: 

TheQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2018 (the “Form 10-Q”) of the Trust fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Trust as of, and for, the periods presented in the Form 10-Q.

 
/s/ Ron E. HooperRon E. Hooper
Senior Vice President on behalf of Simmons Bank,

not in its individual capacity but solely as

the Trustee ofMarine Petroleum Trust

Dated: November 6, 2018 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Trust and will be retained by the Trust and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. 

The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Form 10-Q pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) ofRegulation S-K and Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and, accordingly, is not being filedas part of the Form 10-Q for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not incorporated by reference into any filing of the Trust, whether made before or after thedate hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing. 
**
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. Case Nos.: 3:01cr31/RV/EMT 

3:14cv278/RV/EMT

RICKY GENE MINOR

____________________________/

O R D E R

This cause comes on for consideration upon the chief magistrate judge’s Report and

Recommendation dated June 23, 2014 (doc. 106). Defendant has been furnished a copy of the

Report and Recommendation and has been afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to

Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). I have made a de novo determination of the timely

filed objections.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and the timely filed objections thereto

(doc. 107), I have determined that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and incorporated by

reference in this order.

2. Defendant’s motion to vacate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (doc. 103), is

SUMMARILY DISMISSED, as this court lacks jurisdiction to consider a successive motion absent

authorization from the Eleventh Circuit.

3. A certificate of appealability is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED this 10th day of July, 2014.

/s/ Roger Vinson 

ROGER VINSON

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:01-cr-00031-RV-EMT Document 108 Filed 07/10/14 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT . I---- 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ~.. 

__C__-- 

...................................................... X 

1N RE: Fosamax Products Liability 

Litigation 1:06-rnd-1789 (JFK) 

...................................................... x ORDER FOR ADMISSION 

This Document Relates to: MDL-1789 : PRO HAC VICE 

Fredericku Allen v. Merck Cose Nu .l)6-cv-9452 

BricI,wr Arcernon1 v Merck (.>o.$e lli~.. 07-1.1.-3389 : 

I.i~,~iliill Bergesiin 1,. .Mr,!ck ('usc, Gi. , 06-~,-Y454 

.Shirio HO/L.I I ,Me~.ik i o.w i\r, 116-~~~94jj 

.\'hrri.i,ii Brotllorli I. .Me~.ck ( osr .'o O--LL-~T? 

1 I I. I! . .\/erck Citse Xu.. 107-cv- 14 13 : 

Rciher~o Brudin v. ,.M~rck C'use No : 07-cv-3466 

Ure~ldu Curpenrer 1,. Merck Cose Nu.: 07-cr-346-1 

Sonjd Doroff v. MrrcL Cose Ko.: 07-cv-3162 

Debro Flc~res r. Mgrck Case No.: 07-c1,-0211? 

Yo~idrii Huii 1,. Mrrck CIS@ No.: 07-~~3167 

Po~r.~o Hor4 v. .Merck C'use No.: 07-cv-797 

C'oru(vn Hester L.. hJer~.k Case ,No.:06-cr-9450 

f'anieiu Hir~es v. Merck Cose No.: O:-~v-180 

l(ocheiic Keni~ r,. Merck ibse No.: 07-~1'-00478 

Anriu A/eril'i~i Y. .L(t.rck Case No 0'-cv-3163 

.iu~lrcc, :Woe i Merck (as2 Yo.. 0'-ci:-00479 

, \I 1 ;b/erik Cu,\e (Vu 06-c,.-Yf j i 

I ii 1 Lferck i 'iis? 30 . 07-r1~-3465 

Tonilit, l'orle~. v. .Llrri.k Cuse n'u. 07-0-790 

..Murgurer Sizelure 1'. .b/t,r~,k Case ,Yo.: 07-cv-3459 : 

~\.fu.ritie Skilrrs 1, Merck Cose No.. 07-cv-3-16 i 

Edno Sykes v. Merck Cose No. :U7-cv-i1!2 

Kafhler.rr Tuelke v. Merck Cose No.. U6-~.v-7629 

Rgna Vun~le~.cur v. Meri.L Case No.06-cv-i 1329 : 

"V?~i!ie Wade r hlerck Cuse No.:06-cv-9453 

Carol Young I:. Merrk Case No. Ub-c1.-0531 

Bonnie L~~rglrlirr v. MrrcA Case No.:07-m-1827 

___________________-----------------------------------. 

Ccinsidering the Certilicate of Good Standing submitted by counsel, 1T IS 

HEREBY OROEKED that: 

Case 1:07-cv-03467-JFK Document 3 Filed 05/30/2007 Page 1 of 3
Meghnn M. Tans 

1.e~ in. Papantonio. Thomas. Mitchell. Echsner & Proctor. P.A. 

316 S. Baylen Street. Suite 400 

P.O. Hi>s 11308 (31591 ) 

Penjacol;i. FL 32502 

Phone: (850) 435-71 81 

Facsimile: (850) 436-6181 

Email: mtans~levinlaw.com 

is admitted to practice pro hac vice as counsel for the plaintiffs in the above-referenced 

MDL proceedlne 

Signed this day of 

Yorl. % . 2007. at w*. New 

Case 1:07-cv-03467-JFK Document 3 Filed 05/30/2007 Page 2 of 3
\(I :.:(I i<~. ','I<, l r8~~1cn~c 1 ll)~>d ~IJIIJIIIL. 

STATES DISTRICT COURT 

RIIDD12E DISTRICT OF FI>ORID.A 

CERTIFIC.4TE OF GOOD STANDING 

I. Siio:~ I I.. i.oesi.ii , ('1ei.k ($iiiis C'oiiri, 

i.wli/i . . rhii/ ;Ll~,,yliir~r ;2% T(iirs, Btii- Y 0088874.i. 

11 (1.y drili~ ~iiliiriii~~ii 10 /mr[,iic~, 111iiii.~ C01ii.1 oii 

.A/>ril 32, 200.5. ciiiil is iii good siciiitlii~g 

trs tr nrei~ihcr of [lie 8~11 ofilris C'oiii.~. 

Case 1:07-cv-03467-JFK Document 3 Filed 05/30/2007 Page 3 of 3
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. CASE NO. 4:10-cr-30-SPM/WCS-1

HUGO EMMUEL HERNANDEZ-MEJIA,

 

Defendant.

 /

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Pursuant to the Report and Recommendation (doc. 20) of the United States

Magistrate Judge, to which there have been no timely objections, the plea of guilty of

the Defendant, HUGO EMMUEL HERNANDEZ-MEJIA, to Count One of the Indictment

is hereby ACCEPTED. All parties shall appear before this Court for sentencing as

directed.

DONE AND ORDERED this twenty-third day of June, 2010.

s/ Stephan P. Mickle

Stephan P. Mickle

Chief United States District Judge
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,

J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk September 28, 2009

s0921 

# Order

September 28, 2009

138385

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 138385 COA: 288137 Muskegon CC: 06-053921-FH JIVONNIE RAMONE JONES, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 15, 2009 order of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.
---

CONSENT OF QUALIFIED PERSON

|    |                                                                                      | September 6, 2011
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | -----------------
|TO: | United States Securities Exchange Commission                                         |                  
|    | Washington, D.C. 20549                                                               |                  
|    |                                                                                      |                  
|    | RE:       Rockwell
      Diamonds Inc. (the Corporation) Consent under FORM
  20-F

I confirm that I have read the disclosure in the Companys Form
on 20F for the 2011 fiscal year, and that these documents fairly and accurately
represent the information in the Report that supports the disclosure.

I do hereby consent to the filing with the regulatory
authorities.

Submitted this 6th day of September 2011.

Signed

G. A. Norton__________________________Glenn Alan
Norton, Pr.Sci.Nat.Rockwell Diamonds Inc

---
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

RANDY DEAN SMITH,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 4:10cv61-MP/WCS

DR. CUONG, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This cause is before me upon referral from the Clerk. In an order filed April 26,

2010, Plaintiff was directed to file an amended complaint by May 24, 2010. Plaintiff was

specifically warned that a recommendation would be made that this case be dismissed

if there was a failure to comply with that order. Doc. 6. To date, no response has been

received from the Plaintiff. 

A trial court has inherent power to dismiss a case sua sponte for failure to

prosecute. Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962). 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) authorizes a district court to dismiss an action for failure to obey a

court order. Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 838 and cases cited (11th Cir.), cert.
Page 2 of 2

denied, 493 U.S. 863 (1989). Since Plaintiff has failed to comply with an order or to

prosecute this case, this complaint should now be dismissed without prejudice. 

Plaintiff shall have a 14 day period after service of this report and

recommendation in which to file objections. This will also afford Plaintiff a final

opportunity to show good cause for this failure to respond. Plaintiff may do so by filing a

motion for reconsideration which will be referred to me by the Clerk.

It is therefore, respectfully RECOMMENDED that this case be DISMISSED

without prejudice.

IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida, on June 9, 2010.

s/ William C. Sherrill, Jr. 

WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

A party may file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations within

14 days after being served with a copy of this report and recommendation. A party may respond to

another party's objections within 14 days after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to file specific

objections limits the scope of review of proposed factual findings and recommendations.

Case No. 4:10cv61-MP/WCS
#### STATE v. CHERRY

No. 102P82.

Case below: 55 N.C. App. 603.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 4 May 1982.
Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. Case Nos. 3:10cr47/LAC/CJK

3:12cv584/LAC/CJK

JESUS CLARK-CASTANEDA

______________________________/

ORDER

This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge’s Report and

Recommendation dated July 7, 2015 (doc. 198). Defendant has been furnished a copy of the Report

and Recommendation and has been afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28,

United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). No objections have been filed.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, I have determined that the Report and

Recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence (doc. 183) is DENIED.

2. A certificate of appealability is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED this 20 day of August, 2015. th

s/L.A. Collier 

LACEY A. COLLIER

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:10-cr-00047-LC-CJK Document 199 Filed 08/20/15 Page 1 of 1
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2276 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to protect employees in the 

building and construction industry who are participants in multiemployer 

plans, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 25, 2019 

Mr. BLUNT (for himself, Ms. DUCKWORTH, Mr. DURBIN, and Mr. HAWLEY) 

introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 

Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to protect 

employees in the building and construction industry who 

are participants in multiemployer plans, 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 ‘‘Vested Employee Pen5 sion Benefit Protection Act’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2276 IS

1 SEC. 2. MINIMUM AGE FOR DISTRIBUTIONS DURING WORK2 ING RETIREMENT. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (36) of section 401(a) 

4 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read 

5 as follows: 

6 ‘‘(36) DISTRIBUTIONS DURING WORKING RE7 TIREMENT.— 

8 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—A trust forming part 

9 of a pension plan shall not be treated as failing 

10 to constitute a qualified trust under this section 

11 solely because the plan provides that a distribu12 tion may be made from such trust to an em13 ployee who has attained age 62 and who is not 

14 separated from employment at the time of such 

15 distribution. 

16 ‘‘(B) CERTAIN EMPLOYEES IN THE BUILD17 ING AND CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY.—Subpara18 graph (A) shall be applied by substituting ‘age 

19 55’ for ‘age 62’ in the case of a multiemployer 

20 plan described in section 4203(b)(1)(B)(i) of 

21 the Employee Retirement Income Security Act 

22 of 1974, with respect to individuals who were 

23 participants in such plan on or before April 30, 

24 2013, if— 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 2276 IS

1 ‘‘(i) the trust to which subparagraph 

2 (A) applies was in existence before Janu3 ary 1, 1970, and 

4 ‘‘(ii) before December 31, 2011, at a 

5 time when the plan provided that distribu6 tions may be made to an employee who has 

7 attained age 55 and who is not separated 

8 from employment at the time of such dis9 tribution, the plan received at least 1 writ10 ten determination from the Internal Rev11 enue Service that the trust to which sub12 paragraph (A) applies constituted a quali13 fied trust under this section.’’. 

14 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

15 this section shall apply to distributions made before, on, 

16 or after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
Case 7:07-cv-03537-CLB Document 2 Filed 06/08/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 7:07-cv-03537-CLB Document 2 Filed 06/08/2007 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 99.2
                                CFO CERTIFICATION



                            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 Laredo  Investment  Corp. on Form 10-KSB
for the period  ending  December  31,  2002,  as filed with the  Securities  and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I 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 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 result of
                  operations of the Company.

March 28, 2003

/s/ MARC CASAVANT
Marc Casavant, Chief Financial Officer
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

RONALD W. LINK,

Petitioner,

vs. Case No. 3:10cv12/LAC/EMT

KENNETH S. TUCKER,

Respondent.

___________________________________/

O R D E R

This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge’s Report and

Recommendation dated March 6, 2012 (doc. 22). The parties have been furnished a copy of the

Report and Recommendation and have been afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to

Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). I have made a de novo determination of the 

objections filed.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and the timely filed objections thereto,

I have determined that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and incorporated by

reference in this order.

2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (doc. 1) is DENIED.

3. A certificate of appealability is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED this 3 day of May, 2012. rd

s/L.A. Collier 

LACEY A. COLLIER

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:10-cv-00012-LC-EMT Document 29 Filed 05/03/12 Page 1 of 1
Case 1:07-cv-03556-LTS Document 5 Filed 05/16/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-03556-LTS Document 5 Filed 05/16/2007 Page 2 of 2
---

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



I, John Bristow, Chief Executive Officer of Rockwell Diamonds
Inc. (the Company), hereby 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:

(1)         
 The Annual Report on Form 40-F of the Company for the fiscal year ended
February 29, 2008 (the Annual 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 Annual Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

| | By:    | /s/ J. Bristow         
| | ------ | -----------------------
| | Name:  | John Bristow           
| | Title: | Chief Executive Officer
| |        |                        
| | Date:  | July 3, 2009           



This written statement is being furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Companys Annual Report on Form
40-F. A signed original of this statement has been provided to the Company and
will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies this Annual Report on Form
40-F pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not,
except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
Exchange Act). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by
reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the
Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it
by reference.

---