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

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 347 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 347

Congratulating Averett University in Danville, Virginia, for 150 years 
            of service and leadership to the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 21, 2009

Mr. Perriello submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                  the Committee on Education and Labor

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Congratulating Averett University in Danville, Virginia, for 150 years 
            of service and leadership to the United States.

Whereas in 1859, Union Female College, the forerunner of Averett University was 
        established to provide educational opportunities for young women who did 
        not have many educational opportunities;
Whereas the name Averett College was officially adopted to honor the 
        institution's early founders;
Whereas in 1971, Averett became a fully accredited, coeducational, 4-year 
        institution of higher education;
Whereas in 1980, Averett awarded its first master's degrees;
Whereas in 1988, Averett became the first institution of higher education in 
        Virginia to offer an innovative, accelerated program for working adults 
        who wished to earn advanced degrees;
Whereas in 2001, Averett College officially became known as Averett University 
        in recognition of its growth;
Whereas Averett University enrolls more than 2,450 students from 25 states and 
        12 countries and employs more than 350 people statewide;
Whereas Averett University offers 32 undergraduate majors and master's degree 
        programs in business and education;
Whereas Averett University confers nearly 800 degrees each year;
Whereas Averett University serves students on its main campus in Danville, 
        Virginia, and at 20 other locations around the Commonwealth;
Whereas Averett University has 13 NCAA III athletic teams that have won various 
        championships, including a national championship in golf; and
Whereas Averett University has been led by 23 presidents and is currently led by 
        Dr. Tiffany McKillip Franks: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That Congress congratulates Averett University in 
Danville, Virginia, for 150 years of service and leadership to the 
United States.
                                 <all>
```
#### Jayne and Michael MAHAN, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SKYLINE CORPORATION, Defendant-Respondent, and D & D Motors Co., Inc., Defendant.

No. 20131.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, Division Two.

Feb. 9, 1996.

Daniel R. Ray, Hershewe & Guliek, P.C., Joplin, for appellants.

Ralph A. Cohen, Angela Wade, Ice, Miller, Donadío & Ryan, Indianapolis, Ind., John E. Price, Whiteaker & Wilson, Springfield, for respondent.

PREWITT, Presiding Judge.

Judgment was entered against Defendant D & D Motors Co., Inc., due to its default, and summary judgment entered in favor of Defendant Skyline Corporation. Plaintiffs appeal.

Defendant Skyline Corporation asserts that summary judgment was correct “because appellants’ claims are based upon an excessive, ambient level of formaldehyde inside their manufactured home and such claims are preempted by the National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standard Act of 1972, 42 U.S.C. § 5401-5426, and the regulations promulgated therefrom by the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, 24 C.F.R. § 3280.308, et seq.”

The exact issue was presented to the Eastern District of this Court in *Mizner v. North River Homes, Inc.,*913 S.W.2d 23 (Mo.App.1995). The Court determined that the personal injury claim asserted was not preempted. Application for transfer of that case to the Missouri Supreme Court was sustained by the Supreme Court on September 19, 1995, and the matter transferred there. Because of the general interest and importance of the question presented, on September 25, 1995, this cause was transferred by this District to the Missouri Supreme Court, under Rule 83.02.

On January 23, 1996, the Supreme Court retransferred *Mizner*to the Eastern District and retransferred this matter to this District. Thereafter, on February 5,1996, the Eastern District readopted its previous opinion in *Mizner.*We agree with the logic and l’esult of that opinion.

Summary judgment is reversed and the cause remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

SHRUM, C.J., and PARRISH, J., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Robert Van Buskirk, Chief Executive Officer, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Sirenza Microdevices, Inc. on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004 fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Sirenza
Microdevices, Inc.



Date: March 3, 2005



/s/ ROBERT VAN BUSKIRKName: Robert Van Buskirk Title: Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 32.7

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF

UCFH II FINANCE, INC.

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the quarterly report of UCFH II Finance, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 28, 2009 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John R. Sprouls certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
        Section 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; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: August 6, 2009



> By:
> 
>                                                                                         
> 
>                                                                                         /s/ John R. SproulsJohn R. SproulsPrincipal Executive Officer
#### Perdue *v.*Young.

No. 2770.

September 20, 1922.

Equitable petition. Before Judge Park. Baldwin superior court. July 31, 1931.

*Allen & Pottle,*for plaintiff in error.

*Sibley & Sibley*and *D. S. Sanford,*contra. ■

Atkinson, J.

1. A ground of a motion for new trial based upon the admission of evidence should state the objection made to the evidence, and that such objection was urged at the time the ruling was made; otherwise no question is raised for determination.

2. A ground of a motion for new trial complaining of the admission of parol testimony, on the ground that the testimony varied a written contract, but not literally or in substance setting forth the written contract or that part of it which it is claimed would he varied by the parol testimony, so that it may be seen whether the parol testimony tended to vary the terms of the contract, is too indefinite to present any question for decision.

3. This was an equity suit instituted by the plaintiff for specific performance of a parol contract, and for an accounting. The contract was that the defendant should execute a deed conveying land when plaintiff should make certain deferred payments which should bear interest at the rate of eight per cent, per annum. Several payments were made in specifics, and an, accounting was necessary to determine the balance due by plaintiff to defendant. The judge charged the jury that they should allow interest at the rate of seven per cent, per annum. This was an erroneous charge, because the plaintiff, having come into equity seeking equitable relief, would be required to do equity by paying the principal and interest promised to be paid, before the relief sought would be afforded.

*(а)*The case does not involve the question whether, if the parol contract had been for payment of interest at a higher rate than eight per cent, per annum, the plaintiff would have been required to pay such higher rate of interest before being entitled to specific performance.

(б) But as the plaintiff, on the hearing of the motion for new trial, offered to add to the amount of the verdict $52.50, which would cover the difference between, seven per cent, and eight per cent, up to the date of the verdict, and to pay all future interest at the rate of eight per cent, per annum, the judgment will be affirmed, with direction that, within ten days from the date the remittitur from this court is made the judgment of the trial court, the plaintiff shall pay to the defendant the amount specified in the verdict and additional interest as above indicated, and in default of such payment that the judgment stand reversed.

(c) The plaintiff in error having procured a substantial modification of the judgment complained of, the costs of bringing the case to the Supreme Court will be taxed against the defendant in error.

*Judgment affirmed, with direetion.*

*All the Justices concur.*

Hines, J.,

concurs in the judgment, hut dissents from the ruling announced in the first paragraph of the third division.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

ENCORE ENTERPRISES, INC.,

A TEXAS CORPORATION,

ENCORE BORDERPLEX, LLC,

EMF GRAND MISSION

INVESTMENTS, LP, AND

ENCORE MF SENDERO, L.P.,

Appellant s,

v.

BORDERPLEX REALTY TRUST, A

MARYLAND REAL ESTATE

INVESTMENT TRUST, AND

BRT REALTY OPERATING LIMITED

PARTNERSHIP,

Appellee s. §

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 17

- 00153

- CV

Appeal from

County Court at Law No. 6

of El Paso Co unty, Texas

(TC # 2016

- DCV2446 )

J U D G M E N T

We withdraw our Judgment of September 28, 2018, and substitute this Judgment its place.

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. We further order that Appellees

recover from Appellants and its sureties, if any, see T EX .R.A PP .P. 43 .5, on the judgment and all

costs, for which let execution issue. This decision shall be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 16 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.

McClure, C.J., not participating
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 5945 

To reinstate certain sanctions imposed with respect to Iran. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 12, 2023 

Mr. MEUSER (for himself, Mr. RESCHENTHALER, Ms. MALLIOTAKIS, Mr. 

DONALDS, Mr. MANN, Mr. TIMMONS, Mrs. HOUCHIN, Mr. STEIL, Mr. 

YAKYM, Mr. BACON, Mr. NORMAN, Ms. TENNEY, and Mrs. MILLERMEEKS) introduced the following bill 

OCTOBER 25, 2023 

Referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committees on Financial Services, Oversight and Accountability, and Ways and 

Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in 

each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To reinstate certain sanctions imposed with respect to Iran. 

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 ‘‘Freezing and Halting 

5 Any More Alleviation of Sanctions Act’’ or the ‘‘Freezing 

6 HAMAS Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 5945 IH

1 SEC. 2. REINSTATEMENT OF CERTAIN SANCTIONS IMPOSED 

2 WITH RESPECT TO IRAN. 

3 Any statutory sanctions imposed with respect to Iran 

4 pursuant to section 1244(c)(1) or 1247(a) of the Iran 

5 Freedom and Counter-Proliferation Act of 2012 (22 

6 U.S.C. 8803(c)(1) and 8806(a)), or section 1245(d)(1) of 

7 the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

8 2012 (22 U.S.C. 8513a(d)(1)), that were waived, sus9 pended, reduced, or otherwise relieved pursuant to an 

10 agreement between the United States and the Islamic Re11 public of Iran, including any waiver that is the subject 

12 of the document entitled ‘‘Waiver of Sanctions with Re13 spect to the Transfer of Funds from the Republic of Korea 

14 to Qatar’’ and transmitted to Congress on September 11, 

15 2023, are hereby reinstated and any action by the United 

16 States Government to facilitate the release of funds or as17 sets to Iran pursuant to such agreement, or provide any 

18 further waiver, suspension, reduction, or other relief pur19 suant to such agreement, is hereby prohibited. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 89 (Tuesday, May 7, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 20513]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11259]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE


 Submission For OMB Review; Comment Request

    DOC has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for 
clearance the following proposal for collection of information under 
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).
    Agency: Bureau of the Census.
    Title: Survey of Public Attitudes Toward Administrative Records 
Use.
    Form Number(s): None -- Computer assisted telephone interview.
    Agency Approval Number: None.
    Type of Request: New collection.
    Burden: 300 hours.
    Number of Respondents: 1,200.
    Avg Hours Per Response: 15 minutes.
    Needs and Uses: The Census Bureau is testing the use of 
administrative records in the Census 2000 to estimate the 
characteristics of nonresponding households, supplement data for 
respondents that return incomplete forms, and estimate the number of 
persons missed within households. To enhance the usability of 
administrative record information, the Census Bureau is also 
considering asking respondents in the Census 2000 to provide their 
Social Security number (SSN). This survey asks respondents to rate 
their feelings and attitudes toward our use of administrative records 
and collecting SSN in the census. Knowledge about the public's feelings 
and attitudes will help the Census Bureau form privacy policy, achieve 
effective promotion and outreach, and determine language for public use 
forms.
    Affected Public: Individuals.
    Frequency: One time.
    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.
    OMB Desk Officer: Jerry Coffey, (202) 395-7314.
    Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained 
by calling or writing Linda Engelmeier, Acting DOC Forms Clearance 
Officer, (202) 482-3272, Department of Commerce, Room 5312, 14th and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230.
    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information 
collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice 
to Jerry Coffey, OMB Desk Officer, Room 10201, New Executive Office 
Building, Washington, DC 20503.

    Dated: April 29, 1996.
Linda Engelmeier,
Acting Departmental Forms Clearance Officer, Office of Management and 
Organization.
[FR Doc. 96-11259 Filed 5-6-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-07-F
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER  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 Quarterly Report of PanAmSat Holding Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30,
2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael J. Inglese, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



|Date: November 9, 2005 | /s/MICHAEL J. INGLESEMichael J. Inglese Executive Vice President and
Chief Executive Officer
|---------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---



QuickLinks
#### In re MARRIAGE OF Daniel GREEN, Jr. and Jeannette Marie Green. Daniel GREEN, Jr., Petitioner/Appellant, v. Jeannette Marie GREEN, Respondent/Respondent.

Nos. 63060, 63357.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.

Oct. 26, 1993.

Nathan Cohen, St. Louis, for petitioner, appellant.

Arthur Friedman, Cynthia Tolan, Friedman, Weitzman *&*Friedman, St. Louis, for respondent, respondent.

Before CRANE, P.J., and KAROHL and CRAHAN, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

This is a consolidated appeal from the trial court’s orders sustaining respondent’s motion to modify and motion for attorney’s fees pending appeal. The trial court’s judgment is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. No error of law appears. *Murphy v. Carron,*536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976).

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, 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).
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff/Respondent, 

vs. 

Don Milton Burns, 

Defendant/Movant. 

No. CV17-4020 PHX DGC (DMF) 

 CR15-1492 PHX DGC 

ORDER 

 

 Defendant/Movant Don Milton Burns has filed a motion to vacate sentence 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Doc. 1. United States Magistrate Judge Deborah M. Fine 

has issued a report and recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the motion be 

denied and dismissed with prejudice. Doc. 17. No objection has been filed, which 

relieves the Court of its obligation to review the R&R. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); United States v. ReynaTapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). The Court will accept the R&R, deny the 

motion and dismiss it with prejudice. 

IT IS ORDERED:

 1. The R&R (Doc. 17) is accepted. 

 2. The motion to vacate sentence (Doc. 1) is denied and dismissed with 

prejudice. 

 3. A certificate of appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on 

appeal are denied
‐ 2 ‐ 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 4. The Clerk is directed to terminate this action. 

 Dated this 29th day of November, 2018.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

January 30, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

129270 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 129270 

 COA: 253514 

Wayne CC: 03-001403-01 

SHANNON ALVERTA HADLEY,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 10, 2005 

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. 

t0123 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

January 30, 2006 

Clerk
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18
- 6795

JOWARSKI RUSSELL NEDD , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond

. John A. Gibney, Jr., District Judge. ( 3:16

- cv - 00948

- JAG

- RCY )

Submitted : October 29, 2018 Decided: November 13, 2018

Before KING, FLOYD, and HARRIS , Circuit Judges.

Remanded by un published per curiam opinion

.

Jowarski Russell Nedd , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Jowarski Russell Nedd seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismi ssing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The district court’s order was entered on
the docket on May 25, 2017. The notice of appeal was filed on June 22, 2018

. * Parties are accorded 30 days after the entry of the district court’s final j udgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). Nedd ’s notice of appeal was not filed within 30 days after the district court’s entry of judgment. However, Nedd sent the district court a letter dated August 14, 2 017, stating that he had not received a response about his case and requesting an updated
status of the case. We construe this letter as a motion to reopen the appeal period. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6)

. We remand the case for the limited purpose of allowing the district court to determine when Nedd received notice of the district court’s entry of its final order and whether he is entitled to a reopening of the appeal period pursuant to Rule 4(a)(6). The record, as supplemented, will then be returned to this court for further proceedings.
REMANDED

* For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date that it could have been delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266 (1988 ).
EX 32
                            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 Source  Energy  Corporation  (the
"Registrant")  on Form 10-KSB for the year ending  December 31,  2004,  as filed
with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the "Annual
Report"), We, Craig Carpenter,  President and director and Kathleen L. Morrison,
Secretary and director of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350,  as adopted  pursuant  to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,
that:

     (1) The Annual 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 Annual Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
the Registrant.


/S/ CRAIG CARPENTER
-----------------
Craig Carpenter
President and Director



/S/ KATHLEEN L. MORRISON
-----------------
Kathleen L. Morrison
Secretary and Director