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

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5172 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5172

   To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to review the list of 
veterans designated as former prisoners of war, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 23, 2014

    Mr. Johnson of Ohio (for himself, Mr. Stivers, and Mr. Tiberi) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                           Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to review the list of 
veterans designated as former prisoners of war, 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 ``POW Accountability Act''.

SEC. 2. REVIEW OF LISTS OF FORMER PRISONERS OF WAR.

    (a) Review of Lists of Prisoners of War.--The Secretary of Veterans 
Affairs shall review the VA POW list and the DOD POW list to identify 
any discrepancies in such lists.
    (b) Inspector General Review of Process.--The Inspector General of 
the Department of Veterans Affairs shall review the process by which 
the Secretary determines that a veteran is a former prisoner of war, 
including whether the Secretary is following guidelines established by 
the Secretary to determine that a veteran is a former prisoner of war.
    (c) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall submit 
to Congress a report on the VA POW list, including the following:
            (1) Any discrepancies, by period of conflict, in the number 
        of prisoners of war included on the VA POW list and the DOD POW 
        list.
            (2) With respect to veterans included on the VA POW list 
        who are not included on the DOD POW list, information regarding 
        how such determinations were made, including what types of 
        evidence were used, in a manner that does not personally 
        identify such veterans.
            (3) The results of the review of the Inspector General 
        under subsection (b), without change.
    (d) Definitions.--In this section:
            (1) The term ``DOD POW list'' means the list maintained by 
        the Secretary of Defense, acting through the Defense Prisoner 
        of War/Missing Personnel Office, of members of the Armed Forces 
        who were prisoners of war.
            (2) The term ``VA POW list'' means the list maintained by 
        the Secretary of Veterans Affairs of veterans whom the 
        Secretary determines are former prisoners of war.
                                 <all>
```
#### CHESTER R. BULLARD v. MARY BULLARD.

(Filed 24 May, 1950.)

Appeal by defendant from *Stevens, J.,*at September Term, 1949, of Columbus.

The marriage of plaintiff and defendant, which occurred 1 October, 1944, was dissolved by a decree of absolute divorce entered in this action at the June Term, 1948, of the Superior Court of Columbus County. The defendant applied to the court at the September Term, 1949, by a motion in the cause for the vacation of the divorce decree on the ground that the plaintiff had practiced fraud upon the court in obtaining the decree. The plaintiff denied this allegation of the defendant. Both parties offered testimony at the hearing of the motion for the avowed purpose of sustaining their respective contentions in the premises. The Court rendered judgment denying the motion to vacate the divorce decree, and the defendant excepted and appealed, assigning errors.

*Frinla & Herring for plaintiff, appellee.*

*Powell & Powell for defendant, appellant.*

Pee Cueiam.

A careful consideration of the record convinces us that the testimony supports the conclusion reached by the court below, and *200that its ruling on the motion to vacate the divorce decree ought not to be disturbed. In consequence, the judgment is

Affirmed.
Exhibit 32

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION



The undersigned each certify that:

1. They are the duly appointed Chief Executive Officer and Chief
   Financial Officer, respectively, of Northern Empire Bancshares, a
   California Corporation ("the Company"); and

2. To their best knowledge and belief, the Company's Quarterly Report
   on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2006, and to which the
   Certification is attached as Exhibit 32, fully complies with the
requirements of Sections 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 Northern Empire Bancshares.



Date:     August 8, 2006

/s/ Deborah A. Meekins                       /s/ Larry V. Sorensen
----------------------                       ---------------------
Deborah A. Meekins                           Larry V. Sorensen
President and Chief Executive Officer        Chief Financial Officer
A96A0444.

#### BROWN v. MEYER et al.

(473 SE2d 521)

Birdsong, Presiding Judge.

A default judgment for $140,502.34 was entered in favor of plaintiffs Fred and Linda Meyer against Yvonne D. Brown, for damages arising out of a collision which occurred in March 1993 while Brown was moving to Atlanta, Georgia from Texas. At the time of the collision Brown used an Indiana driver’s license. Brown has lived in Atlanta since May 1993 and has had a Georgia driver’s license since April 1993. She lived in Georgia at the time of the filing in August 1994 of this suit and during its service under the Nonresident Motorist Act, OCGA § 40-12-1 et seq. The trial court refused to set aside the default judgment although Brown was never actually served. We granted a discretionary appeal. *Held:*

1. The defendant’s residence at the time the cause of action arose governs her amenability to service of a suit under the Nonresident Motorist Act, OCGA § 40-12-1 et seq. Service on Brown under this Act was proper, even though she was a resident of Georgia at the time of filing and service of this suit. See *Rose v. Ryan,*209 Ga. App. 160, 161 fn. 2 (433 SE2d 291); *Carroll v. Americal Corp.,*207 Ga. App. *134651 (428 SE2d 811); *Bailey v. Hall,*199 Ga. App. 602 (1) (405 SE2d 579); *Webb v. Oliver,*133 Ga. App. 555 (2) (211 SE2d 605); *Foster v. Lankford,*120 Ga. App. 573 (171 SE2d 662); *Horne v. Ewing,*89 Ga. App. 300 (2) (79 SE2d 339).

Decided June 13, 1996

Reconsideration denied July 9, 1996

*Gary M. Cooper,*for appellant.

*Harper, Waldon & Craig, John B. Craig, Raymond J. OReilly,*for appellees.

2. Service under the Nonresident Motorist Act was defective in this case. OCGA § 40-12-2 requires that service on the Georgia Secretary of State “shall be sufficient. . . upon any such nonresident, provided that notice of such service and a copy of the complaint and process are forthwith sent by registered or certified mail ... to the defendant, if his address is known, and the defendant’s return receipt and the plaintiff’s affidavit of compliance with this Code section are appended to the summons or other process and filed with the summons, complaint, and other papers in the case in the court wherein the action is pending.”

In this case, the defendant was not served with process, nor by certified mail, nor given any written notice of the pendency of the action. Only “[w]hen the notice authorized by statute is actually received [can] substituted service on an official of the State of venue becomet ] the equivalent of personal service.” *Cheek v. Norton,*106 Ga. App. 280, 284 (126 SE2d 816). Failure to perfect service requires reversal.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Beasley, C. J., and Blackburn, J., concur.*
#### Joab L. Cleft, as Survivor, v. George Barrow.

— Leave granted to appeal to the Court of Appeals on the ground that a question of law is involved which ought to be reviewed by that court.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-7585

WILLIAM HILL,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 versus

JOYCE FRANCIS, Warden, Federal Correctional

Institution Gilmer; FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL

INSTITUTION, GILMER; BUREAU OF PRISONS, a/k/a

B.O.P., a/k/a Federal Bureau of Prisons;

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, a/k/a Federal

Department of Justice, a/k/a United States

Department of Justice; OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR

GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES; ROBERTO

GONZALEZ, Attorney General of the United

States,

 Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern

District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, Chief

District Judge. (1:06-cv-00080-IMK)

Submitted: December 14, 2006 Decided: December 22, 2006

Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Hill, Appellant Pro Se.
- 2 -

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 3 -

PER CURIAM:

William Hill, a federal prisoner, appeals the district

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge

and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition. We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Hill v.

Francis, No. 1:06-cv-00080-IMK (N.D.W. Va. Aug. 29, 2006). We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                       1,530,946
<SECURITIES>                                 6,389,089
<RECEIVABLES>                                  410,681
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               191,272
<PP&E>                                      22,602,364
<DEPRECIATION>                               7,379,963
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              23,235,602
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,955,318
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  21,280,284
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                23,235,602
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               887,363
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  840,657
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 46,706
<INCOME-TAX>                                    46,706
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             46,706
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    46,706
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .47
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
##### 



Exhibit 32.2

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

I, Jeffrey L. Rutherford, Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer,
Treasurer and Secretary of LESCO, Inc. (the Company), certify, pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S. C. Section 1350 that:



| | (1) |  | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period
ended June 30, 2003 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.                                          

|                |  |                                                                                               |  | 
|--------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|August 13, 2003 |  | /s/ Jeffrey L. Rutherford                                                                     |  | 
|                |  |                                                                                               |  | 
|                |  | Jeffrey L. Rutherford
Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer,
Treasurer and Secretary |  | 

25
#### Eugene Storms, an Infant, by Guardian, Appellant, v. William Skillett, Respondent.

Judgment and order affirmed.
Exhibit 32.2


                            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 amended  Quarterly  Report of Applied DNA Sciences,  Inc.
(the  "Company")  on  Amendment  No. 2 to Form  10-QSB/A  for the period  ending
December 31, 2004 as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), I, James A. Hayward,  Principal Financial Officer of
the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

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

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

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided  to Applied  DNA  Sciences,  Inc.  and will be  retained by Applied DNA
Sciences,  Inc. and furnished to the Securities  and Exchange  Commission or its
staff upon request.

Date: October 10, 2006                           By: /s/JAMES A HAYWARD
                                                    -------------------
                                                 James A. Hayward
                                                 Principal Financial Officer
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>



MIDSOUTH BANCORP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES                               EXHIBIT 11
COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE  (Unaudited)
FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 2002 AND 2001 AND
FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 2001

                                    First Quarter    First Quarter     Year Ended
                                      March 31,        March 31,       December 31,
BASIC                                   2002             2001             2001
                                    _____________    _____________     ____________
<S>                                  <C>               <C>             <C>
Earnings:
    Income applicable to common
    stock                              $818,131         $764,884       $2,890,408
                                     ==========        =========       ===========
Shares:
    Weighted average number of
      common shares outstanding       2,883,142        2,492,196        2,679,348
                                     ==========        =========       ===========

Earnings per common share:
    Income applicable to common
    stock                                 $0.28            $0.31            $1.08
                                     ==========        =========       ===========


DILUTED

Earnings:
    Net income                         $818,131         $795,177       $2,943,159
                                     ==========        =========       ===========

Weighted average number of
    common shares outstanding         2,883,142        2,492,196        2,679,348

    Assuming exercise of options,
      reduced by the number of
      shares which could have
      been purchased with the
      proceeds from exercise of
      such options at the
      average issue price                56,413           40,946           49,579

    Assuming conversion of
      preferred stock at a
      conversion rate of 1 to 2               -          391,599          220,617
                                     __________        _________       __________

    Weighted average number of
      common shares outstanding,
      as adjusted                     2,939,555        2,924,741        2,949,544
                                     ==========        =========       ===========


Fully diluted earnings per common
  share                                   $0.28            $0.27            $1.00
                                     ==========        =========       ===========

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32

            CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE & FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Intercell
International Corporation for the quarter ended March 31, 2005, I, Kristi J.
Kampmann, Chief Financial Officer of Intercell International Corporation, hereby
certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge, that:

        a.     such Quarterly  Report on Form 10-QSB of Intercell  International
               Corporation for the quarter ended March 31, 2005,  fully complies
               with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
               Exchange Act of 1934; and

        b.     the information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB
               of  Intercell  International  Corporation  for the quarter  ended
               March 31, 2005, fairly presents,  in all material  respects,  the
               financial  condition  and  results  of  operations  of  Intercell
               International Corporation.




                                             /s/Kristi J. Kampmann
                                             -----------------------------------
                                              Kristi J. Kampmann,
                                                 Chief Financial Officer


Date:      May 25, 2005



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Intercell International Corporation and will be retained by
Intercell International Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
Case: 19-30088    Doc# 3403-5    Filed: 08/07/19    Entered: 08/07/19 09:18:07    Page 1of 8

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 3403-5    Filed: 08/07/19    Entered: 08/07/19 09:18:07    Page 2of 8

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 3403-5    Filed: 08/07/19    Entered: 08/07/19 09:18:07    Page 3of 8

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 3403-5    Filed: 08/07/19    Entered: 08/07/19 09:18:07    Page 4of 8

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 3403-5    Filed: 08/07/19    Entered: 08/07/19 09:18:07    Page 5of 8

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 3403-5    Filed: 08/07/19    Entered: 08/07/19 09:18:07    Page 6of 8

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 3403-5    Filed: 08/07/19    Entered: 08/07/19 09:18:07    Page 7of 8

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 3403-5    Filed: 08/07/19    Entered: 08/07/19 09:18:07    Page 8of 8
#### Joseph Wollman v. Paul Greshetti.

*Appeal—Practice.*

This court holds as erroneous the dismissal, for want of prosecution, of an appeal taken by filing the bond with the clerk of court, appearance of defendant in error as an alternative for service of summons, or two *nihils,*having been entered less than ten days before the first day of the term during which said dismissal occurred.

[Opinion filed November 11, 1890.]

*367In error to the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. Elliott Anthony, Judge, presiding.

Messrs. C. E. Cruikshank and F. H. Atwood, for plaintiff in error.

No appearance for defendant in error.

Gary, J.

This was an appeal by the plaintiff in error from the judgment of a justice in favor of the defendant in error, which appeal was taken by filing the bond with the clerk of the Superior Court.

The record does not show that any process against Greslietti ever issued out of the Superior Court, and his appearance in the case in the Superior Court was entered but two days before the May term thereof, 1890. On the fifth day of the term the cause was called for trial, and the appeal dismissed for want of prosecution, the then appellant and now plaintiff in error, not appearing. This action of the court was premature. The appearance, as an alternative for service of a summons, or two nihils, should have been entered not less than ten days before the first day of the term to enable the appellee there to proceed *ex parte.*Camp v. Hogan, 78 Ill. 228.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

*Reversed a/nd remanded.*