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

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 913 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 913

    Recognizing and commending the American Speech-Language-Hearing 
Association on the 40th anniversary of the establishment of the Office 
                       of Multicultural Affairs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 18, 2009

Mr. Butterfield (for himself and Mr. Rogers of Michigan) submitted the 
following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                                Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
    Recognizing and commending the American Speech-Language-Hearing 
Association on the 40th anniversary of the establishment of the Office 
                       of Multicultural Affairs.

Whereas the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) represents over 
        135,000 Audiologists, Speech-Language Pathologists (SLPs), and Speech 
        Language and Hearing Scientists in Health Care and Education;
Whereas in 1969, the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association established 
        the Office of Urban and Ethnic Affairs which later became the Office of 
        Multicultural Affairs (OMA);
Whereas the Office of Multicultural Affairs addresses cultural and linguistic 
        diversity, issues related to professionals, students, and persons with 
        communication disorders and differences;
Whereas the Office of Multicultural Affairs has been instrumental in bringing 
        attention to the health disparities associated with communication 
        disorders, and addressing educational disproportionality across minority 
        populations;
Whereas the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association became the first 
        recipient of the Minority Health Leadership Award from the United States 
        Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Minority Health in 
        2006 for its work through the Office of Multicultural Affairs; and
Whereas 2009 also marks the 10th anniversary of American Speech-Language-Hearing 
        Association's Minority Student Leadership Program, an ASHA effort to 
        create a pipeline for talented Audiology and SLP graduate students from 
        underrepresented groups into leadership positions within their 
        professions: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) commends the 135,000 members and staff of the American 
        Speech-Language-Hearing Association for advances made through 
        the Office of Multicultural Affairs; and
            (2) recognizes the Office of Multicultural Affairs for 
        their work on diversity and inclusion within the professions of 
        Audiology and Speech-Language Pathology.
                                 <all>
```
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



I, Scott Elgood, President and Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of Blanca Corp. certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Blanca Corp;



2.

Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report; and



3.

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



Date:  February 20, 2007





Blanca Corp.



By:

/s/Scott Elgood



Scott Elgood, President

(Principal Executive Officer,

Principal Financial Officer, and







#
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

NICOLE M. ARGENTIERI

Acting Assistant Attorney General Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice

AUSTIN M. BERRY (Texas Bar No. 24062615, austin.berry2@usdoj.gov) U.S. Department of Justice

Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section

1301 New York Avenue, NW, 11th Floor

Washington, D.C. 20005

Telephone (202) 412-4136

Attorneys for Plaintiff

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Michael Lacey, et al.,

Defendants.

CR-18-422-PHX-DJH

UNITED STATES’ MOTION FOR 

LEAVE FOR TRIAL ATTORNEY 

AUSTIN M. BERRY TO APPEAR BY 

PHONE/VIDEO-CONFERENCE

Date: January 29, 2024 Time: 9:15 A.M. 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 2037 Filed 01/25/24 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

Undersigned counsel for the United States, Austin M. Berry, hereby moves for 

permission to appear remotely via phone or video conference at the January 29, 2024 status 

conference currently scheduled for 9:15AM. 

Respectfully submitted this 25th day of January, 2024.

NICOLE M. ARGENTIERI

Acting Assistant Attorney General Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice

s/Austin M. Berry AUSTIN M. BERRY

Trial Attorney

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on January 25, 2024, I electronically transmitted the attached 

document to the Clerk’s Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of a 

Notice of Electronic Filing to the CM/ECF registrants who have entered their appearance 

as counsel of record.

s/ Austin M. Berry Austin M. Berry

Trial Attorney

Child Exploitation & Obscenity Section

Department of Justice

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 2037 Filed 01/25/24 Page 2 of 2
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

September 26, 2011 

d0919 

Order 

 

September 26, 2011 

142361(51) 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 142361 

 COA: 292728 

Van Buren CC: 08-016392-FC 

RONALD GLYNN SPANGLER JR., 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s June 28, 2011 

order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously.
IB 

House Calendar No. 110 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 760 

[Report No. 111–263] 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 324) to establish the Santa 

Cruz Valley National Heritage Area, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 22, 2009 

Mr. CARDOZA, 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. 324) to establish 

the Santa Cruz Valley National Heritage Area, and for 

other purposes. 

1 Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution 

2 it shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 

3 324) to establish the Santa Cruz Valley National Heritage 

4 Area, and for other purposes. All points of order against 

5 consideration of the bill are waived except those arising 

6 under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The amendment printed 

7 in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying 


PWALKER on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 760 RH 

1 this resolution shall be considered as adopted. The bill, 

2 as amended, shall be considered as read. All points of 

3 order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are 

4 waived. The previous question shall be considered as or5 dered on the bill, as amended, to final passage without 

6 intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally 

7 divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 

8 member of the Committee on Natural Resources; and (2) 

9 one motion to recommit with or without instructions. 


PWALKER on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS

PWALKER on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS
House Calendar No. 110 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 760 

[Report No. 111–263] 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 324) 

itage Area, and for other purposes. to establish the Santa Cruz Valley National HerSEPTEMBER 22, 2009 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed 


PWALKER on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Dennis MOORE, Appellant. Dennis MOORE, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Nos. 63746, 65133.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.

Dec. 20, 1994.

Doris G. Black, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Mary Moulton Bryan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before AHRENS, P.J., and SIMON and KAROHL, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

In this jury-tried case, defendant appeals from his conviction for the Class C felony of stealing in violation of § 570.030.3 RSMo 1986, punishable under §§ 558.011.1(3) and 560.011. Defendant also appeals the denial *768of his Rule 29.15 motion for postconviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. Defendant was sentenced as a prior and persistent offender pursuant to §§ 558.016 and 557.036.4 to a term of fifteen years imprisonment.

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 rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).
SCPW-20-0000774
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

DENNIS C. DEREGO, Petitioner,

vs. STATE OF HAWAI # I, Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (CASE NO. 2FC151000209)
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS ( B y : R e c k t e n w a l d , C . J . , N a k a y a m a , M c K e n n a , a n d E d d i n s , J J . ,

w i t h W i l s o n , J . , d i s s e n t i n g ) Upon consideration of petitioner Dennis C. DeRego’s petition for writ of mandamus, filed on December 29, 2020, the documents attached thereto and submitted in support thereof, and the record, it appears that petitioner fails to demonstrate that he has a clear and indisputable right to the requested relief and has alternative means to seek relief, including seeking relief in the circuit court through a Hawai # i Rules of Penal Procedure Rule 40 petition or seeking relief from the Hawai # i Paroling Authority, as provided by law. Petitioner, therefore, is not entitled to the requested extraordinary writ from this court. See Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawai # i 200, 204, 982 P.2d 334, 338 (1999) Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-20-0000774 16-FEB-2021 01:43 PM Dkt. 7 ODDP(a writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will not

issue unless the petitioner demonstrates a clear and indisputable right to relief and a lack of alternative means to redress adequately the alleged wrong or obtain the requested action). Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the clerk of the appellate court shall process the petition for writ of mandamus without payment of the filing fee.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, February 16, 2021. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Todd W. Eddins

2
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 110 (Thursday, June 6, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 28837]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14211]



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

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS


Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the Alabama Advisory 
Committee

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and 
regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, that a meeting of 
the Alabama Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene at 6:00 
p.m. and adjourn at 9:00 p.m. on Thursday, June 27, 1996, at the 
Radisson Hotel, 808 South 20th, Birmingham, Alabama 35205. The purpose 
of the meeting is to plan future programs.
    Persons desiring additional information, or planning a presentation 
to the Committee, should contact Melvin L. Jenkins, Director of the 
Central Regional Office, 913-551-1400 (TDD 913-551-1414). Hearing-
impaired persons who will attend the meeting and require the services 
of a sign language interpreter should contact the Regional Office at 
least five (5) working days before the scheduled date of the meeting.
    The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the 
rules and regulations of the Commission.

    Dated at Washington, DC, May 28, 1996.
Carol-Lee Hurley,
Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit.
[FR Doc. 96-14211 Filed 6-5-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of Lightlake Therapeutics Inc. (the “Company") for the three month ended April 30, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Seijin Ki, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, 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 results of operations of the Company.








Date: November 9, 2011





By: /s/ Seijin Ki


Seijin Ki


Chief Financial Officer







This certification accompanies each Report pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of ss.18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.





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.
#### Sorrino, Appellant, *v.*The Pittsburgh Steel Company.

Argued Oct. 10, 1913.

Appeal, No. 230, Oct. T., 1913, by plaintiffs, from decree of C. P. Westmoreland Co., No. 804, in Equity, dismissing bill in case of Marriano Sorrino and Bessie Arrigo v. The Pittsburgh Steel Co.

Before Brown, Potter, Elkin, Stewart and Moschzisker, JJ.

Affirmed.

Bill in equity to restrain obstruction of certain streets and alleys. Before Copeland, P. J.

*Chas. C. Crowell,*with him *Joseph T.*Beil, for appellants.

*Robert W. Smith,*with him *Willis F. McCook, Benj. J. Jarrett,*and *James S. Moorhead,*for appellee.

January 5, 1914:

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Elkin,

In all essential particulars this case is the same as that of Bell v. Pittsburgh Steel Company, 243 Pa. 83, in which the opinion has just been handed down. It would serve no useful purpose to discuss the details of the present case because the rights of the appellants here aré no greater than the rights of the plaintiff in the case just referred to. The cases were ¿rgued. together, and it is conceded that the disposition of the case of Bell v. Steel Company will be controlling in the present case. We shall make the same order as to the costs.

Decree affirmed. The costs to be equally divided between the plaintiffs and defendant.
#### Nicholas PIRTLE, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 66960.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

March 28, 1995.

Rosalynn Koch, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Becky Owenson Kilpatrick, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before REINHARD, P.J., and GARY M. GAERTNER and CRAHAN, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find that the action of the motion court was not clearly erroneous. An opinion would have no precedential value. We affirm pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
#### Harry Musial BAILEY, Appellant, v. Karolyn Sue BAILEY, Respondent.

No. 20648.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District. Division One.

May 1, 1996.

Jim S. Green, Sikeston, for appellant.

•Michael F. O’Rourke, Charleston, for respondent.

MONTGOMERY, Presiding Judge.

The parties’ marriage was dissolved on April 11,1995. The marriage resulted in the birth of two children, Larry, bom June 29, 1985, and Harry, bom May 5, 1982. The trial court awarded the parties joint legal and physical custody of both children.

On July 18, 1995, Karolyn Sue Bailey (Mother) filed a Motion to Modify Decree of Dissolution of Marriage. The court' issued a summons which was served on Harry Musial Bailey (Father) on August 8,1995. The summons advised Father that he must file responsive pleadings within thirty days after service. The summons further advised him that if he failed to timely file responsive pleadings, the court would proceed to enter its judgment and order. Father failed to respond to the motion.

On September 12, 1995, the court took up the motion to modify. Neither the court nor Mother provided Father with notice of the hearing. The court rendered judgment on September 22, 1995, and modified the dissolution decree by awarding Mother sole custody of their eldest son and increasing Father’s amount of child support. Father filed a Motion To Set Aside Decree and For New Trial on October 6, 1995. The court heard these motions on November 14, 1995, and subsequently denied them.

Father’s sole point on appeal asserts that the trial court erred in hearing Mother’s motion to modify without giving Father notice of the date and time of the hearing. Father’s argument is without merit.

The facts are undisputed that Father was served with a summons instructing him to answer within thirty days after service or suffer judgment by default. Father did not responsively plead and, therefore, was not notified of the hearing date. After thirty days he was in default and had no right to .such notice. The trial court committed no error in proceeding to hear the matter without notice to Father. Rule 43.01(a);1
      *In re Marriage of Millsap,*559 S.W.2d 69, 71 (Mo.App.1977); *Williams v. Williams,*488 S.W.2d 294, 296 (Mo.App.1972).

The judgment is affirmed.

GARRISON and BARNEY, JJ., concur.

. Rule references are to Missouri Rules of Court (1995).
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

 

 Having reviewed Defendant Andrew Padilla’s Request For Status Conference (Doc. 

425), 

IT IS ORDERED that the Request For Status Conference (Doc. 425) is granted. 

The status hearing is set for January, 25 2019 at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 501, 401 West 

Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85003 before Judge Steven P. Logan. 

 Dated this 7th day of January, 2019. 

Honorable Steven P. Logan 

United States District Judge 

United States of America, 

 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Michael Lacey, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

No. CR-18-00422-PHX-SPL 

ORDER 

 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 437 Filed 01/08/19 Page 1 of 1
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





In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of SmartHeat Inc. (the
“Company”) for the quarter ended September 30, 2008, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Jun Wang,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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 results of operations of the Company.





Dated:
      May 10, 2009
                By:
                /s/
      Jun WangJun
      WangChief
      Executive Officer




This
certification accompanies each Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.





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.
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

October 28, 2011 

jam 

Order 

 

October 28, 2011 

143957 (32) 

MARVIN MILES, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 143957 

 COA: 303983 

PAROLE BOARD, 

 Defendant-Appellee. 

___________________________________ 

 On order of the Chief Justice, 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. 

 Within 21 days of the certification of this order, plaintiff shall pay to the 

Clerk of the Court the initial partial filing fee of $8.00, shall submit a copy of this order 

with the payment, and shall refile the copy of the pleadings which is being returned 

with this order. Failure to comply with this order shall result in the appeal not being 

filed in this Court. 

 If plaintiff timely files the partial fee and refiles the pleadings, monthly 

payments shall be made to the Department of Corrections in an amount of 50 percent of 

the deposits made to plaintiff’s account until the payments equal the balance due of 

$367.00. This 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 plaintiff and 

return plaintiff’s pleadings with this order.