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

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 922 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 922

 Directing the Secretary of Homeland Security to transmit to the House 
of Representatives all information in the possession of the Department 
of Homeland Security relating to the Department's planning, information 
    sharing, and coordination with any state or locality receiving 
   detainees held at Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba on or after 
                           January 20, 2009.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 19, 2009

Mr. King of New York (for himself, Mr. Smith of Texas, Mr. Souder, Mr. 
Daniel E. Lungren of California, Mr. Rogers of Alabama, Mr. McCaul, Mr. 
Dent, Mr. Bilirakis, Mr. Broun of Georgia, Mrs. Miller of Michigan, Mr. 
 Olson, Mr. Cao, and Mr. Austria) submitted the following resolution; 
        which was referred to the Committee on Homeland Security

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Directing the Secretary of Homeland Security to transmit to the House 
of Representatives all information in the possession of the Department 
of Homeland Security relating to the Department's planning, information 
    sharing, and coordination with any state or locality receiving 
   detainees held at Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba on or after 
                           January 20, 2009.

    Resolved, That the House of Representatives directs the Secretary 
of Homeland Security to transmit to the House of Representatives, not 
later than 14 days after the date of adoption of this resolution, 
copies of any portions of all documents, records, memoranda, 
correspondence, and communications in the possession of the Department 
of Homeland Security, including all component agencies, regarding the 
Department's planning, information sharing, and coordination with any 
State or locality in the United States, including New York City, that 
has received or will receive detainees held at Naval Station, 
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba on or after January 20, 2009.
                                 <all>
```
#### Rickie Lee RALL, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 68032.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Nov. 21, 1995.

Robert E. Steele, Jr., Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., John M. Morris, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

KAROHL, Judge.

Rickie Lee Rail appeals after a dismissal of his untimely Rule 24.035 motion for post conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing.

Rail contends the time constraints under Rule 24.035 are unconstitutional and deprive him of due process. He acknowledges he was delivered to the Department of Corrections on August 26, 1994, to serve his sentences for burglary and stealing. The Rule 24.035 motion was filed on December 7,1994.

A movant has ninety days after being delivered to the Department of Corrections to file a motion to vacate, set aside or correct the judgment or sentence. Rule 24.035(b). Failure to timely file constitutes a complete waiver. Rule 24.035(b). Time limitations for filing post conviction relief have been upheld as mandatory and constitutional. *Day v. State,*770 S.W.2d 692, 696 (Mo. banc 1989). The time limitations do not violate a movant’s right to due process. *Kendrick v. State,*804 S.W.2d 386, 387 (Mo.App.1991).

We affirm.

REINHARD, P.J., and CRANDALL, J., concur.
---

EXHIBIT 32.2

In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report of
Opencell Biomed Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending
February 28, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), I, Mislav Pavelic, in my capacities set forth below
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:

|(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.

|April 13, 2010 | /s/ Mislav
      Pavelic        
|-------------- | --------------------------------
|               | Mislav Pavelic, President       
|               | (as Principal Financial Officer)

---
Attachment A

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 2034-1 Filed 01/19/24 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 32.2
 CFO CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADDED BY SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES  OXLEY ACT OF 2002
   (i)
    
    the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or section
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and(ii)
    
    the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer.
  /s/Robert CoppleRobert CoppleChief Financial Officer
  /s/ Carol WaldmanName: Carol WaldmanTitle: Notary Public
 06/07/12
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

1

United States of America, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

Scott Spear. )

)

Defendant. )

)

NO. CR18-00422 PHX SPL

ORDER

Upon First Joint Motion (Unopposed) of Defendants, by and through their attorneys, for

an Order extending the time to respond to the Government’s (Sealed) Motion to Compel

Destruction of Inadvertently Disclosed Documents [343], Motion for Access to Joint

Representation and Joint Defense Agreements Previously Submitted by Defendants Michael

Lacey and James Larkin for In Camera Review [354] and Motion for Clarification Re Order to

Resolve Attorney-Client Issues [355] to November 19th, 2018, and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED extending the Defendants’ deadlines for filing Responses to

November 19th, 2018.

The Court finds excludable delay under 18 U.S.C. §3161(h) from _________________ to

______________________.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 358-1 Filed 11/02/18 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.1

              CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO

                  SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Peter D. Aquino, certify that:

1.    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of RCN Corporation; and

2.    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement
      of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
      statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
      were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
      report.

Date: June 26, 2006
                                   /s/ Peter D. Aquino
                                   ---------------------------------------------
                                   Name:  Peter D. Aquino
                                   Title:  President and Chief Executive Officer
EX-10.5






Exhibit 10.5









	 	 	 
	To:

	 	Steven M. Stangl
	From:

	 	West Corporation Compensation Committee
	Date:

	 	February 23, 2009
	 
	 	 
	Re:

	 	Exhibit A





This Exhibit A for 2009 is entered into pursuant to your Employment Agreement.





	1.	 	Your base salary will be $450,000.00.






	2.	 	You are eligible to receive a bonus based on achieving the Communication Services segment Net
Operating Income before Corporate Allocations and Before Amortization at the rate outlined
below.





	 	 	 
	Net Operating Income Before Corporate Allocations and Before	 	 
	Amortization	 	Rate
	$0 — $218,000,000
	 	0.21%
	Over $218,000,000
	 	2.0%







	 	 	A maximum of 75% of the pro-rata portion of the bonus may be advanced quarterly. If any
portion of the bonus is advanced, it will be paid within thirty (30) days from the end of
the quarter. 100% of the total bonus earned will be paid no later than February 28, 2010.
In the event there is a negative calculation at the end of any quarter and a pro-rata
portion of the bonus has been advanced in a previous quarter, “loss carry forward” will
result and applied to the next quarterly or year-to-date calculation.






	3.	 	In addition, if West Corporation achieves its 2009 publicly stated Adjusted EBITDA guidance,
you will be eligible to receive an additional one-time bonus of $100,000. This bonus is not
to be combined or netted together with any other bonus set forth in this agreement.






	4.	 	All objectives are based upon West Corporation and the Communication Services segment
operations, and will not include income derived from other mergers, acquisitions, joint
ventures, stock buy backs or other non-operating income unless specifically and individually
approved by West Corporation’s Compensation Committee.






	5.	 	At the discretion of the Compensation Committee, you may also receive an additional bonus
based on your individual performance. This bonus is not to be combined or netted together with
any other bonus set forth in this agreement.





	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	           /s/ Steven M. Stangl
 	 
	 	Employee – Steven M. Stangl
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. David Alan DANE, Appellant.

No. WD 42307.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

April 10, 1990.

Judith C. LaRose, Columbia, for appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., M. Melissa Manda, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before ULRICH, P.J., and SHANGLER and TURNAGE, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Appeal from convictions of burglary in the second degree, § 569.170, RSMo 1986, and stealing, § 570.030, RSMo 1986, and from sentences of concurrent prison terms of seven years.

Affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1068 

To amend the National Consumer Cooperative Bank Act to allow for the 

treatment of the nonprofit corporation affiliate of the Bank as a community development financial institution for purposes of the Community 

Development Banking and Financial Institutions Act of 1994. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 19, 2009 

Mr. BROWN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend the National Consumer Cooperative Bank Act 

to allow for the treatment of the nonprofit corporation 

affiliate of the Bank as a community development financial institution for purposes of the Community Development Banking and Financial Institutions Act of 1994. 

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 ‘‘National Consumer 

5 Cooperative Bank Act Amendments of 2009’’. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•S 1068 IS

1 SEC. 2. TREATMENT OF NATIONAL COOPERATIVE BANK AF2 FILIATE AS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FI3 NANCIAL INSTITUTION. 

4 Section 211 of the National Consumer Cooperative 

5 Bank Act (12 U.S.C. 3051) is amended— 

6 (1) by redesignating subsection (e) as sub7 section (f); and 

8 (2) by inserting after subsection (d) the fol9 lowing: 

10 ‘‘(e) TREATMENT AS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FI11 NANCIAL INSTITUTION.—Notwithstanding any other pro12 vision of law, the nonprofit corporation established under 

13 this section shall be deemed to be a community develop14 ment financial institution for purposes of the Community 

15 Development Banking and Financial Institutions Act of 

16 1994, unless, after the date of the enactment of the Na17 tional Consumer Cooperative Bank Act Amendments of 

18 2009, the Bank, or any affiliate (as defined in section 

19 103(3) of the Community Development Banking and Fi20 nancial Institutions Act of 1994) of the Bank, participates 

21 in depository institution incentives under section 114 of 

22 the Community Development Banking and Financial In23 stitutions Act of 1994.’’. 

Æ 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

GREGORY HAMILTON,

Petitioner, Case Number 08-13960

v. Honorable David M. Lawson

Magistrate Judge Paul J. Komives

SHERRY BURT,

Respondent.

______________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

AND DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

Presently before the Court is the report issued on November 21, 2012 by Magistrate Judge

Paul J. Komives pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), recommending that the Court deny the petition for

a writ of habeas corpus and deny a certificate of appealability. Although the magistrate judge’s

report explicitly stated that the parties to this action may object to and seek review of the

recommendation within fourteen days of service of the report, no objections have been filed thus far.

The parties’ failure to file objections to the Report and Recommendation waives any further right

to appeal. Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987).

Likewise, the failure to object to the magistrate judge’s report releases the Court from its duty to

independently review the matter. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). However, the Court

agrees with the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation [dkt.

#22] is ADOPTED.

2:08-cv-13960-DML-PJK Doc # 23 Filed 12/17/12 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 880
-2-

It is further ORDERED that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED.

s/David M. Lawson 

DAVID M. LAWSON

United States District Judge

Dated: December 17, 2012

PROOF OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served

upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first

class U.S. mail on December 17, 2012.

s/Shawntel Jackson 

SHAWNTEL JACKSON

2:08-cv-13960-DML-PJK Doc # 23 Filed 12/17/12 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 881
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1957 Filed 11/09/23 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1957 Filed 11/09/23 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 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 Quarterly Report of Victory Acquisition Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies 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 results of operation of the Company.



|                      |  |                            |  |                                             
|--------------------- |  | -------------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------
|Date: August 13, 2008 |  | /s/    Jonathan J. Ledecky
|                      |  | Name:                      |  | Jonathan J. Ledecky                         
|                      |  | Title:                     |  | President and Secretary                     
|                      |  |                            |  | (Principal Executive Officer)               
|                      | 
|Date: August 13, 2008 |  | /s/    Eric J. Watson     
|                      |  | Name:                      |  | Eric J. Watson                              
|                      |  | Title:                     |  | Chairman of the Board and Treasurer         
|                      |  |                            |  | (Principal Accounting and Financial Officer)
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1053 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.1053

                      One Hundred Eleventh Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
             the fifth day of January, two thousand and ten

                                 An Act

 
     To amend the National Law Enforcement Museum Act to extend the 
                            termination date.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. NATIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT MUSEUM ACT.
    Section 4(f) of the National Law Enforcement Museum Act (Public Law 
106-492) is amended by striking ``10 years'' and inserting ``13 
years''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
|   | i.  | The      Annual Report on Form 10-Q/A of the Company for the period ended      March 31, 2010 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of      Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, 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.                                                                                                                     |

| Date:  | August      31, 2010                                                                           |   | By: | /s/      ROBERT MCNULTY |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|-----|-------------------------|
|   | Name:  Robert      McNultyTitle:    Chief      Executive Officer |

----
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH   Document 614   Filed 05/24/19   Page 1 of 2

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH   Document 614   Filed 05/24/19   Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND BALANCE SHEET OF INSPIRE INSURANCE SOLUTIONS, INC.
AS OF AND FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          28,039
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,353
<ALLOWANCES>                                       303
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                42,327
<PP&E>                                          14,244
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,214
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  65,471
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,951
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           102
<OTHER-SE>                                      48,664
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    65,471
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                56,569
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   56,036
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,652
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 348
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,517
<INCOME-TAX>                                       801
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,716
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .20
        

</TABLE>
#### In re the MARRIAGE OF Margie Ann ERNST, Petitioner/Respondent, and Edward Paul Ernst, Respondent/Appellant.

No. 65098.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Dec. 20, 1994.

Jeffrey Scott Pauli, Clayton, for appellant.

Theodore S. Schechter, Michael Schechter, Clayton, for respondent.

*766Before REINHARD, P.J., and GARY M. GAERTNER and CRAHAN, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant-Husband appeals the trial court’s pendente lite order directing him to pay Respondent-Wife $1,838.00 per month temporary maintenance, $10,000 for attorney fees on account, and $10,000 for costs on account. We have reviewed the record and the briefs filed by the parties and find the trial court’s judgment is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. No error of law appears. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b). Wife’s motion to dismiss appeal for violation of Rule 84.04 denied as moot.