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

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 372 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                  House Calendar No. 48
111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 372

                          [Report No. 111-91]

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1913) to provide Federal 
    assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to 
             prosecute hate crimes, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 28, 2009

  Mr. Hastings of Florida, from the Committee on Rules, reported the 
  following resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and 
                         ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1913) to provide Federal 
    assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to 
             prosecute hate crimes, and for other purposes.

    Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 1913) to provide Federal 
assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to 
prosecute hate crimes, and for other purposes. All points of order 
against consideration of the bill are waived except those arising under 
clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The amendment in the nature of a substitute 
recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill, 
modified by the amendment printed in the report of the Committee on 
Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be considered as adopted. The 
bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order 
against provisions of the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous 
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, to 
final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour and 20 
minutes of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary, who may 
yield control of blocks of that time; and (2) one motion to recommit 
with or without instructions.
                                                  House Calendar No. 48

111th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                              H. RES. 372

                          [Report No. 111-91]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1913) to provide Federal 
    assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to 
             prosecute hate crimes, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             April 28, 2009

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
```
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
  (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 represents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company.
 /s/ J. Eric PikeJ. Eric PikeChairman, Chief Executive Officer and PresidentNovember 9, 2009
 /s/ Anthony K. SlaterAnthony K. SlaterExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerNovember 9, 2009
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 462 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 462

Requesting that the President transmit to the House of Representatives 
 all information in his possession relating to specific communications 
                   with Chrysler LLC (``Chrysler'').

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 20, 2009

Mr. LaTourette (for himself, Mr. McCotter, Mr. Gohmert, Mr. Tiberi, Mr. 
  Burton of Indiana, Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania, Mrs. Lummis, Mrs. 
 Capito, and Mr. Roskam) submitted the following resolution; which was 
            referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Requesting that the President transmit to the House of Representatives 
 all information in his possession relating to specific communications 
                   with Chrysler LLC (``Chrysler'').

    Resolved, That the House of Representatives requests the President 
to transmit to the House of Representatives, not later than 14 days 
after the date of the adoption of this resolution, copies of any 
portions of all documents, records, and communications in his 
possession referring or relating to scheduled plant closings of 
Chrysler LLC (hereafter in this resolution referred to as 
``Chrysler'')--
            (1) that were discussed as part of the required February 
        17, 2009, Chrysler viability determination filing;
            (2) that were identified in the March 30, 2009, 
        announcement by the Administration;
            (3) that were prepared for the 11:30 a.m. conference call 
        on April 30, 2009, between members of the President's Auto Task 
        Force (hereafter in this resolution referred to as the ``Task 
        Force'') and Members of Congress, including transcripts;
            (4) revealing the President's knowledge regarding such 
        plant closings prior to March 30, 2009;
            (5) included in Chrysler's April 30, 2009, bankruptcy 
        filing in New York;
            (6) that identifies who was aware of such plant closings 
        that would be announced prior to April 30, 2009, among the 
        Administration, Chrysler, the Task Force, and the International 
        Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement 
        Workers of America (also referred to as the ``UAW''); and
            (7) the interaction and procedures for identifying the 789 
        Chrysler dealerships in the United States scheduled for 
        closure, as announced on May 14, 2009.
                                 <all>
```
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

February 2, 2011 

p0126 

Order 

 

February 2, 2011 

141659 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 141659 

 COA: 290936 

Allegan CC: 07-015359-FC 

RONALD CARL ROSE, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 1, 2010 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is GRANTED. The parties shall 

address whether the use of a screen to shield a child complainant from the defendant 

during testimony violates the Confrontation Clause or prejudices the defendant because it 

impinges on the presumption of innocence. 

 The Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan and the Criminal Defense 

Attorneys of Michigan are invited to file briefs amicus curiae. Other persons or groups 

interested in the determination of the issues presented in this case may move the Court 

for permission to file briefs amicus curiae.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                     EXHIBIT 3.4


                             ARTICLES OF CORRECTION
                                       OF
                         HIGH SPEED NET SOLUTIONS, INC.

Pursuant to Section 607.0124 of the Florida Business Corporation Act of the
State of Florida, the undersigned corporation hereby submits these Articles of
Correction for the purpose of correcting a document filed with the Secretary of
State:

1.       The name of the corporation is High Speed Net Solutions, Inc.

2.       On the 3rd day of March, 2000, the corporation filed with the
         Secretary of State Articles of Amendment dated February 24, 2000,
         which Articles of Amendment designated a new series of preferred stock
         referred to therein as Series A Convertible Preferred Stock.

3.       The Statement of Rights and Preferences of the 8% Series A Convertible
         Preferred Stock attached to the foregoing Articles of Amendment were
         incorrect with respect to Paragraph 1, "Number and Designation," in
         that The Statement of Rights and Preferences contained a typographical
         error and incorrectly stated that the Series A Convertible Preferred
         Stock has "no par value," instead of "$.001 par value," which was the
         intent of the corporation.


         This the 22nd day of June, 2000.

                                             HIGH SPEED NET SOLUTIONS, INC.


                                             By: /s/ Andrew Fox
                                             --------------------------------
                                                 Andrew Fox, Acting President
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 

Mikkel Jordahl, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

Mark Brnovich, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV-17-08263-PCT-DJH 

ORDER 

 Before the Court is the Parties’ Joint Motion to Extend/Accelerate Deadlines, 

Consolidate Briefs, and Expand Page Limits (Doc. 16). For good cause showing, 

IT IS ORDERED that the Court GRANTS the motion (Doc. 16) in part as to 

the parties’ request to extend/accelerate deadlines and consolidate briefs. However, the 

Court DENIES the motion (Doc. 16) in part as to the parties’ requests to expand page 

limits. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the following briefing schedule is established 

for this case: 

 The State and County Defendants shall each have until January 18, 2018 to file a 

combined: (1) Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 

6); and (2) (if applicable) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint (Doc. 1). If 

either Defendant instead elects to file an Answer instead of a Motion to Dismiss, 

such Answer shall also be due on January 18, 2018. 

Case 3:17-cv-08263-DJH Document 17 Filed 01/04/18 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

 Plaintiffs shall have until February 15, 2018 to file a single consolidated (1) Reply 

in support of their Motion for a Preliminary Injunction; and (2) Response to any 

Motion to Dismiss (if applicable). 

 In the event the State and County Defendants file a Motion to Dismiss, they shall 

have until March 1, 2018 to file a Reply in support thereof. 

 IT IS FURTHERED ORDERED DENYING all requests for page extensions. 

The parties are instructed to comply with the page limitations in LRCiv. 7.2(e). 

Dated this 4th day of January, 2018. 

Honorable Diane J. Humetewa 

United States District Judge 

Case 3:17-cv-08263-DJH Document 17 Filed 01/04/18 Page 2 of 2
Case 2:17-cr-01534-DJH Document 1 Filed 11/21/17 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report of MAJOR CREATIONS INCORPORATED (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended January 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, Stanley Major, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



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



The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







/s/ Stanley Major

Date: March 14, 2006               Stanley Major

Chief Executive Officer, principal executive officer
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed July 5, 2017.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D17-886

Lower Tribunal No. 11-28746

________________

Wilfredo Cardenas,

Petitioner,

vs.

The State of Florida,

Respondent.

A Case of Original Jurisdiction – Habeas Corpus.

Wilfredo Cardenas, in proper person.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Kayla H. McNab, Assistant

Attorney General, for respondent.

Before LOGUE, SCALES and LUCK, JJ.

PER CURIAM.
On April 21, 2017, Wilfredo Cardenas filed a petition for writ of habeas

corpus with this Court seeking a belated appeal. In 2014, Cardenas accepted a plea

agreement in which he pled guilty to second degree murder. The trial court

sentenced Cardenas to eighteen years in prison, followed by three years of

probation.

In his petition seeking a belated appeal, Cardenas asserts that, at the

conclusion of his sentencing hearing, he “requested defense counsel to file a

Notice of Appeal in behalf of the trial court’s order denying Defendant’s motion to

suppress.” Cardenas’s defense counsel did not file a notice of appeal.1 The record

reflects that there is no trial court order denying a motion to suppress.

We ordered the State to file a response wherein the State advised the Court

that it contacted Cardenas’s defense counsel who maintained that Cardenas had not

requested that he file a notice of appeal. The State incorporated an email exchange

with defense counsel as an exhibit to its response. Accordingly, the State has raised

a good faith basis to dispute Cardenas’s claim that he requested his counsel to

appeal the trial court’s denial of his alleged motion to suppress.2 Parrish v. State,

201 So. 3d 145, 145-46 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016).

1 On March 30, 2015, Cardenas filed a motion for post-conviction relief pursuant

to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. This motion raised issues not raised

here. The trial court denied Cardenas’s motion. We affirmed in Cardenas v. State,

208 So. 3d 712 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (table).

2 The record reflects that Cardenas did file a motion to dismiss. This motion was

2
We appoint as a commissioner, Judge Monica Gordo (the trial judge below),

to conduct an evidentiary hearing and determine the limited, disputed fact on

which the instant petition is based: whether Cardenas instructed his defense

counsel to file a notice of appeal. Id. at 146. In order to allow Judge Gordo the

opportunity to conduct an evidentiary hearing, make the required determination,

and transmit a report of such determination to this Court, the proceedings of the

instant petition shall be held in abeyance for sixty days from the date of this order.

Commissioner appointed; petition held in abeyance.

withdrawn with the plea agreement, and the trial court advised Cardenas

accordingly.

3
#### Richard HARKINS, Appellant, v. Cranston MITCHELL, Chairman of the Board of Probation and Parole, Respondent.

No. 68312.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Dec. 12, 1995.

Richard Harkins, pro se.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Frank A. Jung, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

KAROHL, Judge.

Harkins appeals the “dismissal” of his application for writ of mandamus. He was convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to life in prison in May, 1973. The Board of Probation and Parole (Board) granted him parole on July 20, 1984. His parole was revoked on January 8, 1993, because he unlawfully possessed a firearm. He was given another parole hearing November, 1993. The Board denied parole due to the nature and severity of the second degree murder offense and his conduct in possessing a firearm. The Board scheduled another parole hearing for November 1995.

After the November 1993 hearing, Harkins discovered his step-daughter wrote a letter to the Board asking to deny him parole. He requested the Board “expunge” the letter from his file and give him a new hearing. The Board denied his request. Harkins then filed an application for a writ of mandamus with the Circuit Court of St. Francois County. The purpose of the application for the writ was to obtain an order that the letter be *690“expunged” from Ms file and that a new parole hearing be held. The court dismissed the application for writ of mandamus because Harkins failed (1) to state grounds for relief and (2) to demonstrate that the denial of parole adversely prejudiced him.

No appeal lies from a dismissal of a petition or application of a writ of mandamus because no alternative writ was issued. *Guille v. City of Fredericktown,*679 S.W.2d 436, 437 (Mo.App.1984). Harkins’ remedy is a direct application for writ of mandamus to a higher court. *State ex rel. Johnson v. Personnel Advisory Board of State of Missouri,*836 S.W.2d 519 (Mo.App.E.D.1992).

Appeal dismissed.

REINHARD, P.J., and CRANDALL, J., concur.
EXHIBIT
32.2





CERTIFICATE
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 Superclick, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-KSB for the period ending October 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jean Perrotti, 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:





(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 respect,
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
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





Date:
      January 15, 2009
              /s/ Jean PerrottiJean
      PerrottiChief
      Financial Officer AndPrinciple
      Accounting Officer
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





The undersigned, Lifang Chen, the Chief Executive Officer of SUTOR TECHNOLOGY GROUP LIMITED (the “Company”), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that:





1.      The Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2011 (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





2.      Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this statement this 13th day of October, 2011.





/s/ Lifang ChenLifang ChenChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Sutor Technology Group Limited and will be retained by Sutor Technology Group Limited and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





The forgoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to § 18 U.S.C. Section 1350.  It is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
---

CERTIFICATION OF 
  CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 
  18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, 
  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Rajesh Raniga, Chief Financial Officer of EYI Industries,
  Inc. (the Company), hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
  1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
  that, to the best of my knowledge:

| | (i)  | the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company,
        for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003, and to which this certification
        is attached as Exhibit 32.2 (the Report) fully complies with
        the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
        Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | ---- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |      |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                
| | (ii) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
        in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
        of the Company.                                                                                                                                                           



| | By:    | /s/ Rajesh Raniga      
| | ------ | -----------------------
| |        |                        
| | Name:  | Rajesh Raniga          
| |        |                        
| | Title: | Chief Financial Officer
| |        |                        
| | Date:  | April 14, 2004         

*A signed original of this written statement required by
  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Registrant
  and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
  Commission or its staff upon request.*

*This certification accompanies the Form 10-KSB to which
  it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
  and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Registrant
  under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether
  made before or after the date of the Form 10-KSB), irrespective of any general
  incorporation language contained in such filing.*

---
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Harold DIETER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 18089.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, Division Two.

Nov. 16, 1992.

Gary E. Brotherton, Columbia, for defendant-appellant.

No appearance for plaintiff-respondent.

PREWITT, Judge.

Defendant was charged with misdemean- or assault. Following nonjury trial, he was found guilty and fined $1,000. Defendant appeals.

Judgment was rendered before the time expired for defendant to file a motion for new trial under Rule 29.11. Therefore, the purported judgment was premature and void and there was no judgment from which an appeal could lie. *State v. Wren,*609 S.W.2d 480, 481 (Mo.App.1980). See also *State v. Ramos,*751 S.W.2d 135, 136 (Mo.App.1988).

The appeal is dismissed and the case remanded to the trial court with directions to either afford defendant the opportunity to file a motion for new trial or to waive his right to do so. If the right is waived expressly or by time or if a motion for new trial is filed and denied, the court may thereafter sentence defendant. Defendant will then have the right to appeal.

MONTGOMERY, P.J., and MAUS, J., concur.