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

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 5822 

To designate Indigenous Peoples’ Day as a legal public holiday and replace 

the term ‘‘Columbus Day’’ with the term ‘‘Indigenous Peoples’ Day’’, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 28, 2023 

Mrs. TORRES of California (for herself, Ms. DAVIDS of Kansas, Ms. 

DELBENE, and Ms. BONAMICI) introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability 

A BILL 

To designate Indigenous Peoples’ Day as a legal public holiday and replace the term ‘‘Columbus Day’’ with the 

term ‘‘Indigenous Peoples’ Day’’, 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 ‘‘Indigenous Peoples’ 

5 Day Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 5822 IH

1 SEC. 2. INDIGENOUS PEOPLES’ DAY AS A LEGAL PUBLIC 

2 HOLIDAY. 

3 Section 6103(a) of title 5, United States Code, is 

4 amended by striking the item relating to Columbus Day 

5 and inserting the following: 

6 ‘‘Indigenous Peoples’ Day, the second Monday 

7 in October.’’. 

8 SEC. 3. TERM ‘‘COLUMBUS DAY’’ REPLACED. 

9 Any reference to ‘‘Columbus Day’’ in any law, rule, 

10 regulation, or other official paper in effect as of the date 

11 of the enactment of this Act shall be deemed to be a ref12 erence to ‘‘Indigenous Peoples’ Day’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
#### Ex parte Genaro GARZA, Jr., Appellant.

Nos. 1283-95, 1284-95.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc.

Nov. 20, 1996.

Charles W. Medlin, Houston, for appellant.

Alan Curry, Asst. Dist. Atty., Houston, Matthew Paul, State’s Atty., Austin, for State.

*OPINION ON STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW*

PER CURIAM.

Applicant was charged by indictment with illegal investment. Pursuant to Tex.Code Crim.Pro. Ann. Chap. 59, the State initiated civil forfeiture proceedings against Applicant' property. The State and Applicant entered into an agreed judgment, and the trial court ordered the property forfeited to the State. Applicant filed a pretrial application for a writ of habeas corpus contending that prosecution for this offense was barred by double jeopardy provisions because he had already been punished in the forfeiture proceeding. The trial court granted relief and the State appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling. *State v. Garza,*908 S.W.2d 60 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st] 1995).

*145In its petition for discretionary review, the State contends the Court of Appeals erred by holding that the pending prosecution is jeopardy barred. At the time the Court of Appeals handed down its opinion, it did not have the benefit of our recent decision in *Fant v. State,*931 S.W.2d 299 (Tex.Cr.App.1996), in which we held that Chapter 59 civil *in rem*forfeitures do not constitute punishment under the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. *Id.,*at 62. Accordingly, we summarily grant the State’s petition for discretionary review in No. 1283-95, reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and reverse the judgment of the trial court.1

1

. We refuse the petition for discretionary review in No. 1284-95, which corresponds to the number assigned to the prosecution for illegal investment, No. 667,904. No judgment has been entered in that cause. The habeas corpus judgment was entered under the cause number assigned to the habeas corpus petition, No. 94 — 22095. Therefore, the Court of Appeals’ judgment purporting to affirm an non-existing trial court judgment is a nullity.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
            SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Charles Scheuerman, President and Chairman of Golden Sand Eco-Protection,
Inc. certify, pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States
Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

         (1) The Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the year ended
December 31, 2003 (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 results of operations of the
Company.

Date: March 16, 2004

                                       GOLDEN SAND ECO-PROTECTION, INC.

                                  By:  /s/ Charles Scheuerman
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                        Charles Scheuerman, President & Chairman
Exhibit 31.2**CERTIFICATION**I, John V. Rigali, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Peerless Systems Corporation;     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:          (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;          (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and          (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):          (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’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 asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.     Date: October 26, 2006 /s/ John V. RIGALI  **John V. Rigali**    **Vice President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer**    **(Principal Financial Officer)**
EXHIBIT 10.3


LIST OF EXECUTIVE
OFFICERS SUBJECT TO

THE FORM OF EXECUTIVE SEVERANCE AGREEMENT

BETWEEN CERTAIN EXECUTIVE OFFICERS AND CEPHALON, INC.


	
  Name

  	
   

  	
  Title

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  J. Kevin Buchi

  	
   

  	
  Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Peter E. Grebow, Ph.D.

  	
   

  	
  Executive Vice President, Worldwide Technical
  Operations

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  John E. Osborn, Esq.

  	
   

  	
  Executive Vice President, General Counsel &
  Secretary

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Robert P. Roche, Jr.

  	
   

  	
  Executive Vice President, Worldwide Pharmaceutical
  Operations

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Lesley Russell

  	
   

  	
  Executive Vice President, Worldwide Medical &
  Regulatory Operations

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Carl A. Savini

  	
   

  	
  Executive Vice President and Chief Administrative
  Officer

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Jeffry L. Vaught, Ph.D.

  	
   

  	
  Executive Vice President and President, Research
  & Development
EXHIBIT31.2

ORMAT FUNDING CORP.

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TOSECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, ConnieStechman, certify that as of the date hereof:

1. I have reviewedthis quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Ormat Funding Corp.;

2.Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect tothe period covered by this quarterly report;

3. Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this quarterly report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisquarterly report;

4. The registrant's other certifyingofficer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this quarterly report is being prepared;

(b)Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this quarterly report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this quarterlyreport based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed inthis quarterly report any change in the registrant's internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant's most recent fiscal year that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant's Board of Directors (or personsperforming the equivalent function):

(a) All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant'sinternal control over financial reporting.

Date:November 10, 2005

|        |  |        |  |                                                   |  |  |  |  |  |  |
|--------|--|--------|--|---------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|--|
|   |  | By:    |  | /s/CONNIE STECHMAN                                |
|   |  |   |  | Name: ConnieStechmanTitle: Chief FinancialOfficer |
|        |

----
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement, 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.

 November 20, 2017

jam

Order 

Clerk

November 20, 2017

156755 (17)

In re JACKSON

__________________________________

DOUGLAS CORNELL JACKSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 156755

COA: 339724

WAYNE CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE,

Defendant-Appellee.

___________________________________

On order of the Court, the motion to waive fees is considered and it is DENIED 

because MCL 600.2963 requires that a prisoner pursuing a civil action be liable for filing 

fees. Appellant is not required to pay an initial partial fee. However, for an appeal to be 

filed, appellant must resubmit a copy of this order, and shall refile the copy of the 

pleadings which is being returned with this order within 21 days. By doing this, 

appellant becomes responsible for paying the $375.00 filing fee. Failure to comply with 

this order shall result in the appeal not being filed in this Court.

If appellant timely refiles the pleadings, monthly payments shall be made to the 

Department of Corrections in an amount of 50 percent of the deposits made to appellant’s 

account until the payments equal the total amount of the filing fee stated above. That 

amount shall then be remitted to this Court.

Pursuant to MCL 600.2963(8) plaintiff shall not file further appeals in this Court 

until the entry fee in this case is paid in full. 

The Clerk of the Court shall furnish two copies of this order to appellant and 

return appellant’s pleadings with this order.
EXHIBIT
31.2




MMC
ENERGY, INC.


OFFICER'S
CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO SECTION 302





I, Denis
Gagnon, certify that:





1. I have
reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of MMC Energy, Inc.;





2. Based
on my knowledge, this 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 report;





3. Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this 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 report;





4. The
registrant's other certifying officer 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 have:





(a)
Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, 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 report is being prepared;





(b)
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





(c)
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;
and





5. The
registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors:





(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 May
      15, 2009/s/
      Denis GagnonDenis
      GagnonChief
      Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350




In connection with the BlastGard International, Inc. (the “registrant”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “report”), I, Michael J. Gordon, Chief Executive and Chief Financial Officer of the registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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, as amended; and





(2) The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the registrant.




April 15, 2010/s/
Michael J. GordonMichael J. GordonChief Executive and Chief Financial Officer
#### Roy Lee REED, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.

No. 67739.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Dec. 26, 1995.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Feb. 20, 1996.

Dave Hemingway, Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, Christine M. Kocot, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before REINHARD, P.J., and KAROHL and DOWD, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Movant pled guilty to stealing property over $150 and escape from custody. The trial court sentenced movant as a prior and persistent offender to consecutive terms to-talling fifteen years. Movant appeals the denial, without an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 24.035 motion. We affirm.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 93 (Monday, May 13, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 22077]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11867]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------


OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT

Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Review of a Revised 
Information Collection; OPM 2809-EZ2

AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Public 
Law 104-13, May 22, 1995), this notice announces that the Office of 
Personnel Management intends to submit to the Office of Management and 
Budget a request for clearance of a revised information collection. OPM 
2809-EZ2, Open Season Health Benefits Enrollment Change, is used by 
annuitants only at Open Season to elect a change in health benefits 
coverage.
    Approximately 35,345 OPM Forms 2809-EZ2 are completed annually. 
Each form requires approximately 30 minutes to complete. The annual 
burden is 17,672 hours.
    For copies of this proposal, contact Jim Farron on (202) 418-3208, 
or E-Mail to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#573d3a313625253839173a363e3b7938273a79303821"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b9d3d4dfd8cbcbd6d7f9d4d8d0d597d6c9d497ded6cf">[email protected]</span></a>

Dates: Comments on this proposal should be received on or before July 
12, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Send or deliver comments to--Lorraine E. Dettman, Chief, 
Operations Support Division, Retirement and Insurance Service, U.S. 
Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street, NW., room 3349, 
Washington, DC 20415.

FOR INFORMATION REGARDING ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATION--CONTACT: Mary 
Beth Smith-Toomey, Management Services Division, (202) 606-0623.

U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
Lorraine A. Green,
Deputy Director.
[FR Doc. 96-11867 Filed 5-10-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6325-01-M

</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Douglas Beardsley, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant argues that his convictions for third degree burglary and first degree criminal possession of stolen property must be reversed because the testimony of his accomplice was not sufficiently corroborated. We disagree. The accomplice’s testimony was corroborated by the testimony of two witnesses. They testified that several of the items stolen in the burglary were stored in defendant’s apartment the day after the crimes were committed. This evidence connected defendant with the commission of the crimes in such a way that the jury could reasonably conclude that the accomplice was telling the truth *(see, People v Daniels,*37 NY2d 624, 629-630; *People v Kress,*284 NY 452, 460-461; *People v DeWispelaere,*148 AD2d 995, *Iv denied*74 NY2d 738). (Appeal from judgment of Chautauqua County Court, Adams, J.—burglary, third *degree.)*Present—Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Boomer, Green and Balio, JJ.