alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
H. Res. 607 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

July 20, 2009. 

Whereas President John F. Kennedy in his May 25, 1961, 

speech to Congress set forth the goal of landing a man 

on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth; 

Whereas the Apollo program was designed to achieve the goal 

established by President Kennedy by sending a crew of 

three astronauts to the Moon and returning them safely 

to the Earth; 

Whereas the Apollo program built on the knowledge and experience gained from the Mercury and Gemini human 

space flight programs, as well as from precursor robotic 

lunar exploration activities; 

Whereas the crew of Apollo 11 consisted of Neil Armstrong, 

Mission Commander, Buzz Aldrin, Lunar Module Pilot, 

and Michael Collins, Command Module Pilot; 

Whereas the crew of Apollo 11 launched into space aboard 

a Saturn V rocket on July 16, 1969, on a 4-day trip to 

the Moon; 

Whereas, on July 20, 1969, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin 

successfully piloted the Eagle Lunar Module to the surface of the Moon; 
2 

•HRES 607 EH 

Whereas, on July 20, 1969, when Neil Armstrong took his 

first step on the Moon, he became the first person to 

walk on the surface of another celestial body; 

Whereas the Apollo 11 Moon landing was the culmination of 

the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists, engineers, 

and other dedicated individuals and organizations; 

Whereas the Apollo 11 Moon landing was experienced by millions of people all around the world by means of radio 

and television broadcasts; 

Whereas the Apollo 11 astronauts left a plaque on the lunar 

surface that stated: ‘‘We came in peace for all mankind’’; 

Whereas the successful Apollo 11 Moon landing was one of 

the most significant events of the 20th century and inspired a generation to strive towards great accomplishments in space and on Earth; and 

Whereas the Apollo 11 achievement continues to inspire 

Americans as we prepare for future human journeys back 

to the Moon and other destinations in the solar system: 

Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

(1) celebrates the 40th Anniversary of the Apollo 11 

lunar landing; 

(2) honors the brave crew of the Apollo 11 mission—Neil Armstrong, ‘‘Buzz’’ Aldrin, and Michael Collins; and 

(3) commends all those individuals and organizations who contributed to such a historic achievement 
3 

•HRES 607 EH 

that continues to be an inspiration to the Nation and the 

world. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
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 Annual Report of Asia Cork Inc. on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Yi Tong, Principal Accounting Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of operations of the Company.





April 15, 2011By:
/s/ Yi TongYi Tong, CFO and Principal Accounting Officer
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 102 (Friday, May 24, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 26221]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13112]



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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
[TA-W-30, 593; TA-W-30,593F]


Pyke Manufacturing Company; Salt Lake City, Utah, New York, New 
York; Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Worker 
Adjustment Assistance

    In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 USC 
2273) the Department of Labor issued an Amended Certification of 
Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on April 5, 1995, 
applicable to all workers at Pyke Manufacturing, located in Salt Lake 
City, Utah. The notice was published in the Federal Register on April 
18, 1995 (60 FR 19416).
    At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the 
certification for workers of the subject firm. The State reports that 
sales staff of Pyke Manufacturing in New York City were excluded from 
the worker certification. Accordingly, the Department is amending the 
worker certification to include workers of the subject firm located in 
New York, New York.
    The intent of the Department's certification is to include all 
workers of Pyke Manufacturing Company adversely affected by imports.
    The amended notice applicable to TA-W-30, 593 is hereby issued as 
follows:

    ``All workers of Pyke Manufacturing Company, Salt Lake City, 
Utah (TA-W-30, 593), and New York, New York (TA-W-30, 593) who 
became totally or partially separated from employment on or after 
December 13, 1993, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance 
under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974.''

    Signed at Washington, DC this 9th day of May 1996.
Russell T. Kile,
Acting Program Manager, Policy and Reemployment Services, Office of 
Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 96-13112 Filed 5-23-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 5890 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to limit the authority of the Secretary 

of Veterans Affairs to deny the claim of a veteran for benefits under 

the laws administered by such Secretary on the sole basis that such 

veteran failed to appear for a medical examination associated with such 

claim. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 3, 2023 

Mr. LUTTRELL introduced the following bill 

OCTOBER 25, 2023 

Referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to limit the authority 

of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to deny the claim 

of a veteran for benefits under the laws administered 

by such Secretary on the sole basis that such veteran 

failed to appear for a medical examination associated 

with such claim. 

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 ‘‘Review Every Veterans 

5 Claim Act of 2023’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 5890 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON DENIAL OF CLAIMS FOR BENE2 FITS UNDER LAWS ADMINISTERED BY SEC3 RETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS ON SOLE 

4 BASIS THAT VETERAN FAILED TO APPEAR 

5 FOR CERTAIN MEDICAL EXAMINATION. 

6 Subsection (d) of section 5103A of title 38, United 

7 States Code, is amended— 

8 (1) in the heading, by striking ‘‘COMPENSATION

9 CLAIMS’’ and inserting ‘‘CLAIMS FOR BENEFITS’’; 

10 (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘treat an ex11 amination or opinion as being necessary to make a 

12 decision on a claim for purposes of’’ and inserting 

13 ‘‘provide for a medical examination or obtain a med14 ical opinion under’’; and 

15 (3) by adding at the end the following new 

16 paragraph: 

17 ‘‘(3) If a veteran fails to appear for a medical exam18 ination provided by the Secretary in conjunction with a 

19 claim for a benefit under a law administered by the Sec20 retary, the Secretary may not deny such claim on the sole 

21 basis that such veteran failed to appear for such medical 

22 examination.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
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 interim report of Buck-A-Roo$ Holding Corporation. (the
      "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the six months ended June 30, 2007, as filed
      with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
      David Fox, acting in the capacity as the Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
      and I, Barry S. Baer, acting in the capacity as the Chief Financial Officer
      of
      the Company, certify to the best of our knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
      1350, as adopted pursuant to 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 result of operations of the Company.





/s/
                David FoxDavid
                FoxChief
                Executive OfficerFebruary 7, 2008





/s/
                Barry S. BaerBarry
                S. BaerChief
                Financial OfficerFebruary
                7, 2008
Cite as 2015 Ark. 456



## SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CR-13-415

RODNEY STEVEN FLETCHER PETITIONER V.
STATE OF ARKANSAS RESPONDENT Opinion Delivered December 3, 2015 PRO SE PETITION TO REINVEST JURISDICTION IN THE TRIAL COURT TO CONSIDER A PETITION FOR WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS [FULTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, NO. 25CR-10-77]
PETITION DENIED.
PER CURIAM In 2012, petitioner Rodney Fletcher was found guilty by a jury of commercial burglary, theft of property, and fraud. Fletcher was sentenced as a habitual offender to an aggregate term of 1,200 months’ imprisonment, and a fine of $35,000 was imposed. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed. Fletcher v. State , 2014 Ark. App. 50. Subsequently, Fletcher timely filed in the trial court a pro se petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.1 (2012). A hearing was held on the petition, and the trial court denied the relief sought. We affirmed the order. Fletcher v. State , 2015 Ark. 106, 458 S.W.3d 234 (per curiam). Now before us is Fletcher’s pro se petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis in the case. The petition for leave to proceed in the trial court is necessary because the trial court can entertain a petition for writ of error coram nobis after a judgment has been affirmed on appeal only after we grant permission. Newman v. State , 2009 Ark. 539, 354 S.W.3d 61.Cite as 2015 Ark. 456

We need not discuss the scope of a coram-nobis proceeding because Fletcher does not argue in his petition that there is any ground on which the writ should, or could, issue in his case. When a petitioner does not so much as raise a claim for relief, there is no basis on which this court can grant leave to proceed in the trial court. It is axiomatic that a petitioner must state a basis for the writ supported by specific facts that demonstrate that there is merit to the claim raised. 1 See State v. Larimore , 341 Ark. 397, 407, 17 S.W.3d 87, 93 (2000). Petition denied.

1 After the State filed its response to Fletcher’s coram-nobis petition, he tendered a response to the State’s response to which he appended a copy of a coram-nobis petition that he had filed in the trial court on April 27, 2015. We do not consider that trial-court petition as an attachment to the petition filed here because it was not appended to the original petition, and there is no provision in the prevailing rules of procedure to file a response to a response. 2
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 14-3586

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Kentrell Vertner

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Iowa - Council Bluffs

____________

 Submitted: June 24, 2015

Filed: June 30, 2015

[Unpublished]

____________

Before SMITH, BOWMAN, COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Kentrell Vertner appeals from the judgment of conviction imposed by the

District Court after a jury found him guilty of an escape charge. Counsel has filed a

1

The Honorable John A. Jarvey, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

1

the Southern District of Iowa.
brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Vertner has filed a pro se

supplemental brief.

After careful review, we reject counsel’s challenge to the District Court’s

refusal to give Vertner’s proposed jury instructions on his duress defense. See United

States v. Wisecarver, 644 F.3d 764, 772 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 533 (2011)

(standard of review). The court’s instruction fairly and adequately represented the

law, namely, that it is a defendant’s burden to prove the elements of a duress defense

by a preponderance of the evidence. See Dixon v. United States, 548 U.S. 1, 17

(2006) (rejecting the petitioner's contention that the jury instructions erroneously

required her to prove duress by a preponderance of the evidence instead of requiring

the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the petitioner did not act

under duress). We also reject the argument—advanced in both the Anders brief and

the pro se brief—that the District Court erred in excluding Vertner’s proffered

surrebuttal testimony. Because the government’s rebuttal evidence did not raise a new

matter, the court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the testimony. See United

States v. Purkey, 428 F.3d 738, 759 (8th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 975 (2006).

Finally, we have independently reviewed the record in accordance with Penson

v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), and we find no nonfrivolous issues. We affirm the

judgment of the District Court.

______________________________

-2-
#### In the Interest of C.B., (A Juvenile). Geoffrey ALLEN, Juvenile Officer, Respondents, v. B.S., Appellant.

No. WD 47822.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

March 15, 1994.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied May 3, 1994.

Application to Transfer Denied June 21, 1994.

*652David S. Durbin, Thomas L. Budesheim, Kansas City, for appellant.

Lori L. Stipp, Kansas City, for Juvenile Officer.

William L. Carr, Kansas City, guardian ad litem.

Before BERREY, P.J., and KENNEDY and ELLIS, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

Appeal from judgment terminating parental rights.

Affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
<PAGE>   1


                                                                 Exhibit 10.34.1


                             FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE
                          SHELDAHL, INC. SUPPLEMENTAL
                            EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT PLAN

         THIS INSTRUMENT, amending the Sheldahl, Inc. Supplemental Executive
Retirement Plan, is made and entered into by Sheldahl, Inc., a Minnesota
corporation, and shall be effective as of October 14, 1997.

                                    AMENDMENT

         1. Section 5.2 is hereby amended to read as follows:

                  5.2 A Participant may elect to have the amount deferred each
         year distributed in one of the following forms:

                  (a)      a single lump sum;

                  (b)      distribution in equal annual installments (not
                           exceeding 10); or

                  (c)      distribution of $10,000.00 annually until the account
                           is depleted.

         Installment payments shall commence on the 15th day of the first
         calendar quarter immediately following the date specified in the
         Participant's election, with succeeding amounts paid on each January
         15th thereafter. The amount of each installment under (b) and (c) shall
         be determined each year by dividing the total of the account by the
         number of installments remaining to be paid, including the current
         installment.


         2. Except as otherwise provided above, the provisions of the Sheldahl,
Inc. Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan shall remain in full force and
effect.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of Directors of Sheldahl, Inc. has
authorized its officer to execute this amendment, to be effective as of the date
first above written.


                                                  SHELDAHL, INC.


                                       By
                                         ---------------------------------------

                                       Its
                                          --------------------------------------
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-60586

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff–Appellee,

v.

CORNELIUS HENLEY,

Defendant–Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 4:09-CR-48-1

Before WIENER, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

Cornelius Henley appeals from the 60-month sentence of imprisonment

imposed for his guilty plea conviction for aiding and abetting another to make

false statements to a federally licensed firearm dealer in connection with the

purchase of a firearm. He argues that the district court erred by determining

that he warranted an upward departure under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3(a) and by failing

to follow the correct procedure when calculating the extent of the departure

under § 4A1.3(a)(4).

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

May 26, 2011

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 10-60586 Document: 00511489756 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/26/2011
No. 10-60586

Although the district court stated at sentencing that it would impose an

“upward departure,” it also stated that it would “impose a sentence that is above

the advisory guideline range,” discussed the various 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors

that justified the sentence, and noted that it received guidance from United

States v. Herrera-Garduno, 519 F.3d 526 (5th Cir. 2008). Moreover, because the

district court clarified in the Statement of Reasons that it was imposing a

sentence outside the advisory sentencing guidelines system, we review the

imposed sentence as a non-guideline sentence. See United States v. Jacobs, 635

F.3d 778, 780 n.1 (5th Cir. 2011).

Henley’s arguments specifically regarding the § 4A1.3(a) departure are not

relevant as to the imposed non-guideline sentence. Moreover, our review of the

district court’s reasons for applying the variance and determining the extent of

the variance show that the imposed sentence was not unreasonable under the

circumstances. See Herrera-Garduno, 519 F.3d at 532.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 10-60586 Document: 00511489756 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/26/2011
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 76 (Thursday, April 20, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 19743]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-9791]



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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Air Force


USAF Scientific Advisory Board Meeting

    The USAF Scientific Advisory Board's New World Vistas Directed 
Energy Panel will meet from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on 8 June 1995 at 
Kirtland Air Force Base, NM.
    The purpose of these meetings are to receive briefings and to have 
discussions concerning Directed Energy. These meetings will be closed 
to the public in accordance with Section 552b of Title 5, United States 
Code, specifically subparagraphs (1) and (4).
    For further information, contact the SAB Secretariat at (703) 697-
8404.
Patsy J. Conner,
Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 95-9791 Filed 4-19-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3190-01-M
<PAGE>

                                                               December 23, 2003


The Board of Directors,
LASER LOCK TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
837 Lindy Lane
Bala Cynwyd, PA
19004


Gentlemen,

Please be advised that I am obliged to resign as a Director of Laser Lock
Technologies, Inc. effective Friday, December 26, 2003 at 11:59 P.M., Montreal
time.

My resignation should in no way be construed as a lack of confidence either in
the management of the Company or in the operation and direction thereof. In
fact, I strongly endorse not only present management but also all efforts that
have been contributed to date on behalf of the Company by its consultants and
advisors.

Regrettably, during the last several days, discussions have been held within
GROSS, PINSKY, which is a law partnership of which I am a senior partner. These
discussions involved a consideration of our firm's professional liability
insurance coverage and resulted in a decision that no partner may act as a
director of a public company anywhere in the world because of the potential of
significant exposure to each partner as well as to the partnership.

However, I do look forward to continuing my association with Laser Lock as its
international legal counsel.

                                                              Yours very truly,


                                                              Joel A. Pinsky

CC   Norm Gardner
     Mike Prevot
     Julius Goldfinger
|   | 1. | The      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended      September 30, 2008, 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      Company. |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                          |   |                                       |   |
|-------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------|--------|
| Dated:      November 13, 2008 | By:    | /s/ David      S. Boone               |   |
|                          |   | David      S. Boone                        |   |
|                          |   | President      and Chief Executive Officer |   |
|                          |   |                                       |   |

|         |   |                           |   |
|--------------|--------|--------------------------------|--------|
|    | By:    | /s/ Steven      J. Armond |   |
|         |   | Steven      J. Armond          |   |
|         |   | Chief      Financial Officer   |   |
|         |   |                           |   |
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

March 26, 2012 

t0319 

Order 

 

March 26, 2012 

143258 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 143258 

 COA: 296271 

Oakland CC: 2008-223333-FC 

TURON MAYES, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 21, 2011 

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.