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

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4919 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4919

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 715 Shawan Falls Drive in Dublin, Ohio, as the ``Lance Corporal 
    Wesley G. Davids and Captain Nicholas J. Rozanski Memorial Post 
                               Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 19, 2014

  Mr. Tiberi (for himself, Mr. Chabot, Mr. Wenstrup, Mrs. Beatty, Mr. 
  Jordan, Mr. Latta, Mr. Johnson of Ohio, Mr. Gibbs, Ms. Kaptur, Mr. 
 Turner, Ms. Fudge, Mr. Ryan of Ohio, Mr. Joyce, Mr. Stivers, and Mr. 
   Renacci) 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 715 Shawan Falls Drive in Dublin, Ohio, as the ``Lance Corporal 
    Wesley G. Davids and Captain Nicholas J. Rozanski Memorial Post 
                               Office''.

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

SECTION 1. LANCE CORPORAL WESLEY G. DAVIDS AND CAPTAIN NICHOLAS J. 
              ROZANSKI MEMORIAL POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 715 Shawan Falls Drive in Dublin, Ohio, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Lance Corporal Wesley G. Davids and Captain 
Nicholas J. Rozanski Memorial Post Office''.
    (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 ``Lance 
Corporal Wesley G. Davids and Captain Nicholas J. Rozanski Memorial 
Post Office''.
                                 <all>
```
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





Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the
undersigned officers of Infrastructure Materials Corp. (the "Company"), does
hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:





The Annual Report on Form 10-K for
the year ended June 30, 2009 (the “Form 10-K”) of the Company fully complies
with the requirement of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.





Dated:
September 23, 2009





/s/ Todd D. Montgomery


Todd D.
Montgomery


Chief
Executive Officer


Infrastructure
Materials Corp.





Dated:
September 23, 2009





/s/ Randal Ludwar


Randal
Ludwar


Chief
Financial Officer


Infrastructure
Materials Corp.





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Infrastructure Materials Corp. and will be retained by Infrastructure Materials
Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2202 Filed: 05/23/19 Entered: 05/23/19 11:47:58 Page 1 of

3
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2202 Filed: 05/23/19 Entered: 05/23/19 11:47:58 Page 2 of

3
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2202 Filed: 05/23/19 Entered: 05/23/19 11:47:58 Page 3 of

3
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 Annual Report of TransAct Energy Corp. a Nevada corporation (the Company), on Form 10-K for the annual period ending December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Rod Bartlett, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that to my knowledge:  (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and  (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.    /s/Roderick C. Bartlett Roderick C. Bartlett Chief Executive Officer Date: April 15, 2011
#### Frederick Howard, as Receiver, etc., Appellant, v. Thomas Stoddard and others, Respondents.

Judgment reversed and new trial granted before another referee, costs to abide event. Opinion by

Bradley, J.;

Haight, J., not voting.
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 Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency

          - [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1909-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2010-0002]

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Tennessee (FEMA-1909-DR), dated May 4, 2010, and related determinations.

# DATES:

*Effective Date:*                         May 18, 2010.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Peggy Miller, Recovery Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Notice is hereby given that the incident period for this disaster is closed effective May 18, 2010.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.)

W. Craig Fugate,

Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

[FR Doc. 2010-13074 Filed 5-28-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

May 22, 2019

s0515 

# Order

Clerk May 22, 2019

158383

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 158383

COA: 335731

Oakland CC: 2016

- 258387

- FC

JASON MICHAEL MILES,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 17, 2018

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
# Small Business Week, 2010

Small business owners embody the spirit of entrepreneurship and strong work ethic that lie at the heart of the American dream. They are the backbone of our Nation’s economy, they employ tens of millions of workers, and, in the past 15 years, they have created the majority of new private sector jobs. During Small Business Week, we reaffirm our support for America’s small businesses and celebrate the proud tradition of private enterprise they represent.

Our Nation is still emerging from one of the worst recessions in our history, and small businesses were among the hardest hit. From mom-and-pop stores to high tech start-ups, countless small businesses have been forced to lay off employees or shut their doors entirely. In these difficult times, we must do all we can to help these firms recover from the recession and put Americans back to work. Our Government cannot guarantee a company’s success, but it can help create market conditions that allow small businesses to thrive.

My Administration is committed to helping small businesses drive our economy toward recovery and long-term growth. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act has supported billions of dollars in loans and Federal contracts for small businesses across the country. The Affordable Care Act makes it easier for small business owners to provide health insurance to their employees, and gives entrepreneurs the security they need to innovate and take risks. We have also enacted new tax cuts and tax credits for small firms. Still, we must do more to empower these companies.

In this year’s State of the Union address, I proposed creating a $30 billion lending fund to help increase the flow of credit to small businesses, and I call on the Congress to pass this legislation quickly. My Administration is also working to extend and enhance Small Business Administration programs that have helped small business owners acquire loans and hire workers.

This week, we celebrate the role of entrepreneurs and small businesses in our national life. They are the engine of our prosperity and a proud reflection of our character. A healthy small business sector will give us vibrant communities, cutting-edge technology, and an American economy that can compete and win in the 21st century.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim May 23 through May 29, 2010, as Small Business Week. I call upon all Americans to recognize the tremendous contributions of small businesses to our Nation with appropriate programs and activities.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twentieth day of May, in the year of our Lord two thousand ten, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-fourth.

[FR Doc. 2010-12755

Billing code 3195-W0-P
#### Ailene Ely McNair, Respondent, v. Burrows McNair, Appellant. In the Matter of the Petitions of George McNair and Caroline S. Ely for Custody, etc.

- Motion for stay denied, without costs.

Present — Jenks, P. J., Hirsehberg, Bufr, Thomas and Carr, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 489 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 489

    To expand the HUBZone program for communities affected by base 
            realignment and closure, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 4, 2013

   Ms. Pingree of Maine (for herself and Mr. Michaud) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Small Business

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To expand the HUBZone program for communities affected by base 
            realignment and closure, 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. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``HUBZone Expansion Act of 2013''.

SEC. 2. EXPANDING HUBZONE PROGRAM FOR COMMUNITIES AFFECTED BY BASE 
              REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE.

    Section 3(p)(4)(D) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 
632(p)(4)(D)) is amended--
            (1) in clause (iv), by striking the period at the end and 
        inserting ``; and'';
            (2) by redesignating clauses (i), (ii), (iii), and (iv) as 
        subclauses (I), (II), (III), and (IV), respectively, and moving 
        the margins 2 ems to the right;
            (3) in the matter preceding subclause (I), as so 
        redesignated, by striking ``means lands within'' and inserting 
        the following: ``means--
                            ``(i) lands within''; and
            (4) by adding at the end the following:
                            ``(ii) a geographic area that--
                                    ``(I) is--
                                            ``(aa) the municipality in 
                                        which the military installation 
                                        is located;
                                            ``(bb) the county in which 
                                        the military installation is 
                                        located; or
                                            ``(cc)(AA) the census tract 
                                        in which the military 
                                        installation is located; or
                                            ``(BB) the census tract in 
                                        which the military installation 
                                        is located and a census tract 
                                        contiguous to that census 
                                        tract; and
                                    ``(II) has a total population of 
                                not more than 50,000, as determined 
                                with reference to the most recent 
                                decennial census.''.
                                 <all>
```
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 September 13, 2019

b0910

Order 

Clerk

September 13, 2019

158812

VERNON LENARD KATO,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 158812

COA: 344089

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Defendant-Appellee.

_____________________________________/

By order of May 22, 2019, the Department of Corrections was directed to answer 

the application for leave to appeal the November 5, 2018 order of the Court of Appeals. 

On order of the Court, the answer having been received, the application for leave to appeal 

is again considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions 

presented should be reviewed by this Court.

CAVANAGH, J., (concurring). 

I concur in the denial of leave to appeal for two reasons. First, plaintiff does not 

appear to have complied with the requirement in MCR 3.303(A)(2) that his action “be 

brought in the county in which the prisoner is detained,” but instead initiated his action in 

the Court of Appeals. He may have done so having observed that MCR 7.203(C)(3) allows 

the Court of Appeals to “entertain an action” for habeas corpus. However, reading the two 

rules together, it appears the Court of Appeals may only “entertain” an action for habeas 

corpus if the action was first “brought” in the county in which the prisoner is detained—

presumably in circuit court. Second, even if the action for habeas corpus was correctly 

initiated, plaintiff’s argument relies on the factual predicate that he was presented with a 

certificate of discharge from parole. If that is true, plaintiff may well have been, and may 

yet be, entitled to relief. The Department of Corrections may not cancel a parole discharge 

“once the final order of discharge has been entered and the certificate of discharge issued 

to the prisoner.” People v Holder, 483 Mich 168, 173 (2009). A discharge from parole is 

a “remission of the remaining portion of [a] sentence. . . . After delivery it cannot be 

recalled.” In re Eddinger, 236 Mich 668, 670 (1926). Plaintiff has requested an evidentiary 

hearing to establish that he was presented with the certificate, but he has made no offer of 

proof as to how he would establish this fact at such a hearing.
#### RENNIE P. JOHNS v. TILDEN B. STEVENSON.

(Filed 1 May, 1935.)

Pleadings D c—

Where it does not appear upon the face of the complaint that the injury in suit was inflicted in another state, a demurrer upon the ground that the injury was inflicted in such other state and that under its laws plaintiff could not recover is properly overruled as a “speaking demurrer.”

Appeal by the defendant from order sustaining a demurrer made by *Harding, J.,*at February Special Term, 1934, of MeoicleNbueg.

Affirmed.

*J. Laurence J ones for defendant, appellant.*

*Jalee F. Newell for plaintiff, appellee.*

Bek Oueiam.

This is an action by the plaintiff to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been proximately caused by the negligence of the defendant in the operation of an automobile owned by him and in which she was riding as an invited guest.

*223After filing answer, tbe defendant demurred *ore terms*upon tbe ground tbat tbe complaint failed to state a cause of action for tbat tbe injuries alleged to have been suffered by tbe plaintiff were inflicted in tbe State of South Carolina, making tbe law of South Carolina applicable, and tbat tbe facts alleged did not state a cause of action under such law. A careful scrutiny of tbe complaint fails to reveal tbat it is anywhere therein alleged tbat tbe injuries were inflicted in tbe State of South Carolina, and hence tbe demurrer invokes a fact not appearing on tbe face of tbe complaint, and thereby becomes a “speaking demurrer,” and for tbat reason was properly overruled. *Latham v. Highway Commission,*185 N. C., 134.

Affirmed.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department



## 709 **CAF 12-00202** PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, PERADOTTO, CARNI, AND LINDLEY, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF CHRISTOPHER W., RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

------------------------------------------- ERIE COUNTY ATTORNEY, PETITIONER-APPELLANT.

MICHAEL A. SIRAGUSA, COUNTY ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (MICHAEL J. LISZEWSKI OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT.

DAVID C. SCHOPP, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (CHARLES D. HALVORSEN OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Erie County (Margaret O. Szczur, J.), entered April 5, 2011 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3. The order dismissed the petition.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the motion is denied and the petition is reinstated.
Memorandum: In this juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, petitioner appeals from an order granting respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition. We agree with petitioner that Family Court erred in granting respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition as facially insufficient based on the court’s finding that the alleged victim, an infant, was unable to give sworn testimony ( see § 343.1 [2]). A delinquency petition is facially sufficient provided that the nonhearsay allegations “of the factual part of the petition or of any supporting depositions establish, if true, every element of each crime charged and the respondent’s commission thereof” (§ 311.2 [3]; see Matter of Nelson R. , 90 NY2d 359, 362).
Here, the nonhearsay allegations in the victim’s supporting deposition, if true, establish that respondent subjected her to sexual contact by touching her vagina when she was three years old. The petition is therefore facially sufficient to allege that respondent committed acts that, if committed by an adult, constitute the crime of sexual abuse in the first degree ( see Penal Law § 130.65 [3]). The fact that the alleged victim is unable to give sworn testimony is a latent defect that does not affect the facial sufficiency of the petition ( see Nelson R. , 90 NY2d at 361; Matter of Edward B ., 80 NY2d 458, 464; Matter of Jermaine G ., 38 AD3d 105, 109-110). Contrary to the further contention of respondent, the court’s determination that the alleged victim “cannot understand the nature of the oath and therefore cannot provide the Court with sworn testimony” does not**-2- 709 CAF 12-00202** 
amount to an implicit determination that she does not have “sufficient intelligence and capacity” to provide unsworn testimony (Family Ct Act § 343.1 [2]).

Entered: June 15, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2714 Filed: 06/21/19 Entered: 06/21/19 15:19:07 Page 1 of

4
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2714 Filed: 06/21/19 Entered: 06/21/19 15:19:07 Page 2 of

4
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2714 Filed: 06/21/19 Entered: 06/21/19 15:19:07 Page 3 of

4
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2714 Filed: 06/21/19 Entered: 06/21/19 15:19:07 Page 4 of

4
.. 

N 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

GEORGE GREGORY REDDICK, ) 

) 

Plaintiff, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, et aI., ) 

) 

Defendants. ) 

Civil Action No. 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

FILED 

NOV 3 0 2010 

Clerk, U.S. District and 

Bankruptcy Courts 

This matter is before the Court upon consideration of plaintiffs application to proceed in 

forma pauperis and his pro se complaint. The application will be granted, and the complaint 

will be dismissed. 

The Court has reviewed plaintiffs complaint, keeping in mind that complaints filed by 

pro se litigants are held to less stringent standards than those applied to formal pleadings drafted 

by lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Evenpro se litigants, however, 

must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 237, 239 

(D.D.C. 1987). Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a complaint 

contain a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court's jurisdiction depends, a 

short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and a demand 

for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). The purpose ofthe minimum 

standard of Rule 8 is to give fair notice to the defendants of the claim being asserted, sufficient to 

prepare a responsive answer, to prepare an adequate defense and to determine whether the 

doctrine of res judicata applies. Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977). 

Plaintiffs complaint does not contain a short and plain statement of a claim that plaintiff 

1,,.,1"".11.1,111111111111 
is entitled to the relief he seeks. As drafted, neither the Court nor the named defendants can 

reasonably discern which claim or claims are made against which defendant or defendants. For 

these reasons, the complaint will be dismissed for its failure to comply with Rule 8(a). An Order 

consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately. 

DATE: /~ ~~201()