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

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2035 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2035

 To amend title 49, United States Code, to clarify the application of 
   the Act popularly known as the ``Death on the High Seas Act'' to 
                          aviation incidents.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            February 7, 2000

 Mr. Specter (for himself, Mr. Santorum, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Moynihan, 
Mr. Schumer, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Wellstone, Mr. Torricelli, Mr. 
Sarbanes, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Robb, Ms. Mikulski, and Mr. Gramm) introduced 
the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee 
                on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 49, United States Code, to clarify the application of 
   the Act popularly known as the ``Death on the High Seas Act'' to 
                          aviation incidents.

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

SECTION 1. DEATH ON THE HIGH SEAS ACT.

    Section 40120(c) of title 49, United States Code, is amended to 
read as follows:
    ``(c) Additional Remedies.--
            ``(1) In general.--Nothing in this part or the Act entitled 
        `An Act relating to the maintenance of actions for death on the 
        high seas and other navigable waters' approved March 30, 1920 
        (46 U.S.C. App. 761 et seq.), popularly known as the `Death on 
        the High Seas Act', shall, with respect to any injury or death 
        arising out of any covered aviation incident, affect any 
        remedy--
                    ``(A) under common law; or
                    ``(B) under State law.
            ``(2) Additional remedies.--Any remedy provided for under 
        this part or the Act referred to in paragraph (1) for an injury 
        or death arising out of any covered aviation incident shall be 
        in addition to any of the remedies described in subparagraphs 
        (A) and (B) of paragraph (1).
            ``(3) Covered aviation incident defined.--In this 
        subsection, the term `covered aviation incident' means an 
        aviation disaster occurring on or after January 1, 1995.''.
                                 <all>
```
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

IN THE MATTER OF: G.H., DA 20-0520

A Youth in Need ofCare. ORDER 

# FiiLED
APR 1 3 2021'

Bowen Greenwood Clerk of Supreme Coutt State of Rilontana This matter comes before the Court on the joint motion ofAppellants (Parents)to strike three documents appended to the Appellee's response brief that the District Court submitted to the Clerk of this Court after Parents filed their opening brief. The three documents are records from a prior parental rights termination proceeding in the State of Utah. The State opposes the motion. Parents contend that the State improperly secured transmittal of the documents, purportedly "found loose in the file" at the District Court. They claim that the documents bear no file stamp on them,were not made part ofthe record in the trial court,and were not provided to Parents in preparation oftheir opening arguments,despite the fact thatParents' counsel had made inquiry of the Clerk of the Second Judicial District Court about any additional records. Parents argue that,because it is "clear"these appendices were notpartof theDistrict Courtrecord,the State improperly introduced the evidence in its briefon appeal, and altering the record on appeal after the Parents prepared and filed their opening arguments would be a violation oftheir due process rights. The State counters that it has not improperly attempted to place non-record evidence before this Court on appeal,representing that the exhibits werereferenced in butnot included with the file that was transmitted to this Court upon filing ofthe notice ofappeal and that they were discussed during the terrnination hearing in this case. Counsel for the State 04/13/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0520represents that, upon discovering that the exhibits were not included, she contacted the

District Court to ascertain whether there were any records that had been missed when the electronic record was compiled for transmission on appeal; the clerk reported finding the three documents loose in the courtfile and thereupon transmitted the additional documentsto this Court. This Court's record confirms that the additional documents from the Utah court proceeding were transmitted by the Clerk ofDistrict Courtand received by the Clerk ofthis Courton March 16,2021,approximately a month after both ofthe Parents'briefs on appeal
were filed. Asthe documents were discovered in the courtfile and filed by the DistrictCourt Clerk,the Court finds no impropriety in the State's inclusion ofthem as appendices to its brief. The Parents may address the Utah court documents in their reply briefs. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Motion to Strike is DENIED. The Clerk is directed to give notice ofthis order to all counsel ofrecord. Dated this /3 day ofApril, 2021.
### 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 August 6, 2009

s0720 

# Order

August 6, 2009

138590

BELINDA GLOVER and ANGELA L. SPEAKS, Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v SC: 138590 COA: 281737 Oakland CC: 2005-067387-NZ PONTIAC HOUSING COMMISSION and JANICE M. TIPTON, Defendants-Appellants.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the applicati on for leave to appeal the December 30, 2008 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.
HLD-008 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 22-3410

___________

IN RE: JOSE ESTRADA,

Petitioner

____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(Related to E.D. Pa. Crim. No. 2-12-cr-00581-001)

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.

March 9, 2023

Before: Chief Judge CHAGARES, HARDIMAN, and PHIPPS, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed May 10, 2023)

_________

OPINION*

_________

PER CURIAM

Jose Estrada, proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus 

compelling the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to 

adjudicate his motion for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). 

While this petition was pending before us, the District Court denied Estrada’s motion. In 

light of the District Court’s action, Estrada’s mandamus petition no longer presents a live 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding 

precedent.
2

controversy. Accordingly, we will dismiss the petition as moot. See Blanciak v. 

Allegheny Ludlum Corp., 77 F.3d 690, 698–99 (3d Cir. 1996) (“If developments occur 

during the course of adjudication that eliminate a plaintiff’s personal stake in the outcome 

of a suit or prevent a court from being able to grant the requested relief, the case must be 

dismissed as moot.”).
EXHIBIT 32.2

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

The undersigned, the Chief Financial Officer of Air Industries Group, Inc.
(formerly Gales Industries Incorporated)(the "Company"), does hereby certify
under the standards set forth and solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the
Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2007
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in that Form 10-K fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.


Dated: April 14, 2008                             /s/ Louis A. Giusto
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                  Louis A. Giusto
                                                  Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2043 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2043

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To designate the United States Post Office building located at 3101 
  West Sunflower Avenue in Santa Ana, California, as the ``Hector G. 
                    Godinez Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF HECTOR G. GODINEZ POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    The United States Post Office building located at 3101 West 
Sunflower Avenue in Santa Ana, California, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Hector G. Godinez Post Office Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, regulation, map, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the United States Post Office building 
referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the 
``Hector G. Godinez Post Office Building''.

            Passed the Senate June 23, 2000.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
106th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 2043

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

  To designate the United States Post Office building located at 3101 
  West Sunflower Avenue in Santa Ana, California, as the ``Hector G. 
                    Godinez Post Office Building''.
```
EXHIBIT 31.1

               CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14(A)/15D-14(A)

     I, E. Kenneth Seiff, certify that:

     1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Bluefly, Inc;

     2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual
report;

     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for the periods presented in this annual report;

     4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

          a. designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

          b. [Paragraph omitted in accordance with SEC transition instructions
contained in SEC Release 34-47986];

          c. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

          d. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most
recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;

     5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit
committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent function):

          a. all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and


          b. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting.

Date  March 29, 2004


                                        /s/ E. Kenneth Seiff
                                        ---------------------
                                        E. Kenneth Seiff
                                        Chief Executive Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

DALLAS H. DRUMMOND, 

Defendant BelowAppellant, 

v. 

STATE OF DELAWARE, 

Plaintiff BelowAppellee. 

§ 

§ 

§ No. 94, 2017 

§ 

§ 

§ Court Below—Superior Court 

§ of the State of Delaware 

§ 

§ Cr. ID 1004007691 

§ 

§ 

 Submitted: March 8, 2017 

 Decided: April 20, 2017 

Before VALIHURA, VAUGHN, and SEITZ, Justices. 

ORDER

This 20th day of April 2017, it appears to the Court that: 

(1) On February 28, 2017, the Court received appellant Dallas 

Drummond’s notice of appeal purportedly from a Superior Court order dated 

January 2, 2015. A review of the Superior Court docket reflected no order entered 

on that date. However, the docket reflected that the Superior Court denied 

Drummond’s first motion for postconviction relief on March 7, 2016. 

(2) On March 3, 2017, the Senior Court Clerk issued a notice directing 

Drummond to show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed as untimely.1 

 

1Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(iv). 
-2-

Drummond filed a response on March 8, 2017. Although it is not entirely clear, 

Drummond appears to assert that, although his former counsel informed him that 

his motion for postconviction relief had been denied, the Superior Court never 

informed him that he could file an appeal. 

(3) Time is a jurisdictional requirement.2

 A notice of appeal from the 

denial of postconviction relief must be received by the Office of the Clerk of this 

Court within thirty days after the postconviction judgment is entered upon the 

docket.3

 An appellant’s pro se status does not excuse a failure to comply strictly 

with the jurisdictional requirements of Supreme Court Rule 6.4

 

(4) This Court cannot consider an untimely appeal unless an appellant can 

demonstrate that the failure to file a timely notice of appeal is attributable to courtrelated personnel.5

 Drummond has not made such a showing in this case. Thus, 

the Court concludes that his appeal must be dismissed. 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the appeal is DISMISSED. 

BY THE COURT: 

/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr.

Justice 

 

2Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 829 (1989). 

3Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(iv), 10(a). 

4

Smith v. State, 47 A.3d 481, 486-87 (Del. 2012). 

5

Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979).
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.                  

###### Government Accountability Office

# AGENCY:

Government Accountability Office (GAO).

# ACTION:

Notice on letters of nomination.

# SUMMARY:

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act gave the Comptroller General of the United States responsibility for appointing 19 members to the Board of Governors of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. In addition, the Directors of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the National Institutes of Health, or their designees, are members of the Board. The Comptroller General is required to make appointments not later than 6 months after the date of enactment of the Act. Board members must meet the qualifications listed in Section 6301 of the Act. For these appointments, I am announcing the following: Letters of nomination and resumes should be submitted by June 30, 2010 to ensure adequate opportunity for review and consideration of nominees prior to appointment. Letters of nomination and resumes can be sent to either the e-mail or mailing address listed below.

# ADDRESSES:

Nominations can be submitted by either of the following:

*E-mail: HCWorkforce@gao.gov.*

*Mail:*                         GAO Health Care, Attention: National Health Care Workforce Commission Nominations, 441 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20548.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

GAO: Office of Public Affairs, (202) 512–4800.

[Sec. 5101, Pub. L. 111–148]

Gene L. Dodaro,

Acting Comptroller General of the United States.

[FR Doc. 2010–10826 Filed 5–6–10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 1610–02–M
Exhibit 13.1



CERTIFICATION FURNISHED PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) (17 CFR 240.13a-14(b)) OR RULE 15d-14(b) (17 CFR 240.15d-14(b)) AND SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE (18 U.S.C. 1350), PROMULGATED UNDER SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of ILOG S.A. (the Company) on Form 20-F/A for the year ending June 30, 2006 (the Report), we, Pierre Haren, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Jérôme Arnaud, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, promulgated under 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 results of operations of the Company.



|                 | By     |                                     
|---------------- | ------ | ------------------------------------
|October 13, 2006 | Name:  | Pierre Haren                        
|                 | Title: | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
|                 |        | (principal executive officer)       
|                 |        |                                     





|                 | By     |                              
|---------------- | ------ | -----------------------------
|October 13, 2006 | Name:  | Jérôme Arnaud                
|                 | Title: | Chief Financial Officer      
|                 |        | (principal financial officer)
|                 |        |                              





The foregoing certifications are being furnished solely pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and will not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section.  Such certifications will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates them by reference.
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACOUNTING FIRM

To the Board of Directors
Air Industries Group, Inc. (formerly Gales Industries Incorporated)

We hereby consent to the use in the Prospectus constituting part of the
Registration Statement on Form S-8 (Registration No. 333-140045) of our report
dated March 30, 2007 on the consolidated financial statements of Air Industries
Group, Inc. (formerly Gales Industries Incorporated) and Subsidiaries as of
December 31, 2006 and for the year then ended which are incorporated by
reference into such Prospectus. We also consent to the reference to our firm
under the caption "Experts" in such Prospectus.

/s/ GOLDSTEIN GOLUB KESSLER LLP
-------------------------------
GOLDSTEIN GOLUB KESSLER LLP
New York, New York

April 17, 2008