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

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 38

To eliminate the disparity between the periods of delay provided for civilian

and military retiree cost-of-living adjustments in the Omnibus Budget

Reconciliation Act of 1993.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 4, 1995

Mr. MORAN (for himself, Mr. SPENCE, Mr. MONTGOMERY, Mr. EVANS, Mr.

BILIRAKIS, Mr. BOUCHER, Mr. CHAPMAN, Mr. FILNER, Mr. PETE

GEREN of Texas, Mr. GOSS, Mr. HALL of Texas, Mrs. LINCOLN, Mr.

MOLLOHAN, Mrs. MORELLA, Mr. SANDERS, Mr. SCHIFF, Mr. SCOTT, Mr.

SOLOMON, and Mr. WAXMAN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on National Security

A BILL

To eliminate the disparity between the periods of delay provided for civilian and military retiree cost-of-living adjustments in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of

1993.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

HR 38 IH

1 SECTION 1. ELIMINATION OF DISPARITY BETWEEN EFFEC2 TIVE DATES FOR MILITARY AND CIVILIAN RE3 TIREE COST-OF-LIVING ADJUSTMENTS.

4 Subparagraph (B) of section 1401a(b)(2) of title 10,

5 United States Code, is amended—

6 (1) in the heading, by striking out ‘‘THROUGH

7 1998’’ and inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘THROUGH 1996’’;

8 and

9 (2) in clause (ii)—

10 (A) by striking out ‘‘THROUGH 1998’’ and

11 inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘AND 1996’’;

12 (B) by striking ‘‘of 1994, 1995, 1996, or

13 1997’’ and inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘of 1994, or

14 1995’’; and

15 (C) by striking out ‘‘September’’ and in16 serting in lieu thereof ‘‘March’’.

17 SEC. 2. SHORT TITLE.

18 This Act shall be called the ‘‘COLA Equity Act’’.

Æ
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 of Evolution Resources, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended July 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Christopher P. Chambers, Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:




1.
The Report fully complies with 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.






October 19, 2010
By:
/s/ Christopher P. ChambersChristopher P. ChambersTitle: Executive Vice President and

Principal Accounting Officer
----

|   | (1) | Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-120350) of Equity One, Inc., |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2) | Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-106909) of Equity One, Inc., |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (3) | Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-158195) of Equity One, Inc., |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (4) | Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-165109) of Equity One, Inc., |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (5) | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-99577) pertaining to the 1995 Stock Option Plan and the Amended and Restated 2000 Executive Incentive Compensation Plan of Equity One, Inc., |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (6) | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-103368) pertaining to the 1989 Stock Option Plan of Equity One, Inc. and the 1998 Long-Term Incentive Plan of IRT Property Company, |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (7) | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-118347) pertaining to the Amended and Restated Executive Incentive Compensation Plan for Equity One, Inc., |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (8) | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-150706) pertaining to the First Amended and Restated Employment Agreement, dated August 28, 2006, by and between Equity One, Inc. and Jeffrey S. Olson and the Amended and Restated 2000 Executive Incentive Compensation Plan of Equity One, Inc., |
|--------|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (9) | Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-150707) of Equity One, Inc., |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN NO. 03-0 6 -00 310 -CR NO. 03-06-00311- CR

P hill ip A shc r aft , A ppe lla nt

v . The State of Texas, App ellee F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF HAY S COUNTY , 22ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT NOS . CR-04 -25 2 & CR-04 -25 3, HO NORAB LE WI LLIAM R. HENRY , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellant’s br ief wa s due January 29, 2007. T h e b ri ef

has not bee n rec eived a

nd appellant’ s retaine d attorney , Thomas Anthony Z ake s , d i dnot respond to this Court’s notice that the brief is overdue. The a ppeal is abated. The tria l court shall conduc t a hea ring to determi n e whe ther a pp e lla nt d e sir e s to pr os e c ute thi s a pp e a l, whe the r a

pp e lla nt i s in dig e nt, and , if

he is n ot i nd ig e nt, wh et h er reta ined counse l has aba ndoned this appea l. See T e x. R. Ap p . P. 3 8 . 8 ( b ) ( 2 ) . T h e court shall ma k e ap propriate finding s and re commendations. I f nec essar y , the cour

t shall appoint s u b s t i tu t e c o un s el wh o wi l l ef fe ct i v el y re p re s en t ap p el l an ti nth i s cau s e. A r ec o rdfr o mth i s h ea ri n g, including copies of all finding s and orde rs and a transcr iption of the court re porter’ s notes, shall be2

forwa rded to the c lerk of this Court for filing as a supplemental re cord no later than June 22, 2007. See Rule 38.8(b)(3) .

__________________________________________ Bob Pembe rton, J ustice Be fore J ustices Patterson, Pember ton and Waldrop Abated Filed: May

24, 2007 Do No t Pu

bli sh
#### QUADPAC, INC., Appellant, Treasurer of Missouri, Second Injury Fund, Respondent, v. Marie Ann DESSELLE, Respondent.

No. WD 52127.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Aug. 20, 1996.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Oct. 1,1996.

Application to Transfer Denied Nov. 19,1996.

Michael Joseph Svetlic, Kansas City, for Appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Randell Collins, Asst. Atty. Gen., Kansas City, for Resp. Treas. of Mo., Second Injury Fund.

George W. Lehnen, II, Richmond, for Resp. Marie Desselle.

Before HANNA, P.J., and SMART and EDWIN H. SMITH, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appeal of decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission which affirmed the award to the claimant made by the Administrative Law Judge.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of RSC Holdings Inc.;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;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this 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 report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls
and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures
to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to
the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made
known to us by others within those
entities, particularly during the
period in which this report is
being prepared;b)
    
    [Not Applicable]c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the
registrants disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in
this report our conclusions about
the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures, as of the
end of the period covered by this
report based on such evaluation;
andd)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change
in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting
that occurred during the
registrants most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrants fourth
fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely
to materially affect, the
registrants internal control over
financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and
material weaknesses in the design
or operation of internal control
over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to
record, process, summarize and
report financial information; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material,
that involves management or other
employees who have a significant
role in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting.
  /s/ Erik OlssonErik OlssonPresident andChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
Case 2:08-cv-15275-AC-DAS ECF No. 5-3 filed 01/12/09 PageID.171 Page 1 of 22
Case 2:08-cv-15275-AC-DAS ECF No. 5-3 filed 01/12/09 PageID.172 Page 2 of 22
Case 2:08-cv-15275-AC-DAS ECF No. 5-3 filed 01/12/09 PageID.173 Page 3 of 22
Case 2:08-cv-15275-AC-DAS ECF No. 5-3 filed 01/12/09 PageID.174 Page 4 of 22
Case 2:08-cv-15275-AC-DAS ECF No. 5-3 filed 01/12/09 PageID.175 Page 5 of 22
Case 2:08-cv-15275-AC-DAS ECF No. 5-3 filed 01/12/09 PageID.176 Page 6 of 22
Case 2:08-cv-15275-AC-DAS ECF No. 5-3 filed 01/12/09 PageID.177 Page 7 of 22
Case 2:08-cv-15275-AC-DAS ECF No. 5-3 filed 01/12/09 PageID.178 Page 8 of 22
Case 2:08-cv-15275-AC-DAS ECF No. 5-3 filed 01/12/09 PageID.179 Page 9 of 22
Case 2:08-cv-15275-AC-DAS ECF No. 5-3 filed 01/12/09 PageID.180 Page 10 of 22
Case 2:08-cv-15275-AC-DAS ECF No. 5-3 filed 01/12/09 PageID.181 Page 11 of 22
Case 2:08-cv-15275-AC-DAS ECF No. 5-3 filed 01/12/09 PageID.182 Page 12 of 22
Case 2:08-cv-15275-AC-DAS ECF No. 5-3 filed 01/12/09 PageID.183 Page 13 of 22
Case 2:08-cv-15275-AC-DAS ECF No. 5-3 filed 01/12/09 PageID.184 Page 14 of 22
Case 2:08-cv-15275-AC-DAS ECF No. 5-3 filed 01/12/09 PageID.185 Page 15 of 22
Case 2:08-cv-15275-AC-DAS ECF No. 5-3 filed 01/12/09 PageID.186 Page 16 of 22
Case 2:08-cv-15275-AC-DAS ECF No. 5-3 filed 01/12/09 PageID.187 Page 17 of 22
Case 2:08-cv-15275-AC-DAS ECF No. 5-3 filed 01/12/09 PageID.188 Page 18 of 22
Case 2:08-cv-15275-AC-DAS ECF No. 5-3 filed 01/12/09 PageID.189 Page 19 of 22
Case 2:08-cv-15275-AC-DAS ECF No. 5-3 filed 01/12/09 PageID.190 Page 20 of 22
Case 2:08-cv-15275-AC-DAS ECF No. 5-3 filed 01/12/09 PageID.191 Page 21 of 22
Case 2:08-cv-15275-AC-DAS ECF No. 5-3 filed 01/12/09 PageID.192 Page 22 of 22
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3824

To provide for the refunding of expenses incurred by innocent persons in

the State of Maine required to comply with automobile inspection and

maintenance requirements negligently imposed by the Environmental Protection Agency.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 16, 1996

Mr. LONGLEY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Commerce

A BILL

To provide for the refunding of expenses incurred by innocent persons in the State of Maine required to comply

with automobile inspection and maintenance requirements negligently imposed by the Environmental Protection Agency.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. REFUNDS FOR INSPECTION AND MAINTE4 NANCE EXPENSES IN MAINE.

5 (a) GRANT TO STATE FOR REFUNDS.—The Adminis6 trator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall pro7 vide a grant in the amount of $2,300,000 to the State
2

•HR 3824 IH

1 of Maine to be administered by the Governor of Maine

2 under this section. The Administrator shall make such

3 grant within 15 days after the date on which funds are

4 appropriated for such purpose. Not more than $200,000

5 of such grant may be used by the State for administration.

6 The remainder of such grant shall be used by the State

7 to provide refunds to any person (including any govern8 mental entity) who was required to comply with auto9 mobile inspection and maintenance requirements adopted

10 by the State for purposes of the Clean Air Act. The pur11 pose of such refunds shall be to compensate such persons

12 for the costs incurred by them for testing, repairs, and

13 other work performed to comply with such inspection and

14 maintenance requirements.

15 (b) PROCEDURES AND REQUIREMENTS.—Such re16 funds shall be made in accordance with such rules and

17 procedures as may be established by the State, except that

18 no refund provided to any such person shall exceed the

19 amount expended by such person for testing, repairs, and

20 other work performed to comply with such inspection and

21 maintenance requirements.

22 (c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is

23 authorized to be appropriated for purposes of this Act not

24 more than $2,300,000.

Æ
Exhibit 32

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 Quarterly Report of Piedmont Community Bank Group, Inc. (the Bank) on Form 10-QSB
for the period ending June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Drew Hulsey, Chief Executive Officer of the Bank, and I, Julie Simmons, Chief Financial Officer of the
Bank, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | 1. | To my knowledge, 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 Bank.
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Drew HulseyDrew Hulsey, C.E.O.(Principal Executive Officer)/s/ Julie SimmonsJulie Simmons, C.F.O.(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)


August 14, 2007
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 37681

STATE OF IDAHO

,

Plaintiff-Respondent

,

v.

MICHAEL DAVID LANE

,

Defendant-Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2011 Unpublished Opi nion No. 403

Filed: March 23, 2011

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, Sta te of Idaho,

Kootenai County. Hon. Lansing L. Haynes , District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of six years, with a minimum period

of confinement of three year s , for burglary

, affirmed

.

Molly J. Huskey, State Appellate Public Defender; Justin M. Curtis, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney Genera l; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________

Before LANSING, Judge, GUTIERREZ, Judge and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Michael David Lane was convicted of burgl ary , Idaho Code § 18

- 1401 . The district court

imposed a unified sentence of six years, with a minimum period of confinement of three years

.

Lane appeals, contending that the sentence is excessive.

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of a sentence are well established and

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez , 121 Idaho 114, 117

- 18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014

-
15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez , 106 Idaho 447, 449

- 51, 680 P.2d 869, 871

- 73 (Ct. App.

1984); State v. Toohill , 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver , 144 Idaho2 722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Lane ’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
#### KIRKSVILLE MANOR, INC., d/b/a Kirksville Manor Care Center, Respondent, v. MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, DIVISION OF MEDICAL SERVICES, Appellant.

No. WD 48548.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

April 26, 1994.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied May 31, 1994.

Melanie Wilmes, Mo. Dept, of Social Services, Div. of Legal Services, Jefferson City, for appellant.

Harvey Tettlebaum, Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before HANNA, P.J., and BRECKENRIDGE and ELLIS, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Adair County, Missouri, reversing the Administrative Hearing Commission denying a rate increase to respondent. The circuit court’s decision is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3834 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3834

  To redesignate the Dunning Post Office in Chicago, Illinois, as the 
                  ``Roger P. McAuliffe Post Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 17, 1996

Mr. Flanagan (for himself, Mrs. Collins of Illinois, Mr. Costello, Mr. 
Crane, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Evans, Mr. Ewing, Mr. Fawell, Mr. Gutierrez, Mr. 
 Hastert, Mr. Hyde, Mr. Jackson of Illinois, Mr. LaHood, Mr. Lipinski, 
   Mr. McHugh, Mr. Manzullo, Mr. Porter, Mr. Poshard, Mr. Rush, Mr. 
    Weller, and Mr. Yates) introduced the following bill; which was 
      referred to the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To redesignate the Dunning Post Office in Chicago, Illinois, as the 
                  ``Roger P. McAuliffe Post Office''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. REDESIGNATION.

    The Dunning Post Office, located at 6441 West Irving Park Road, 
Chicago, Illinois, shall be redesignated and known as the ``Roger P. 
McAuliffe Post Office''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the United States Post Office referred 
to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Roger P. 
McAuliffe Post Office''.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

NORTHERN DIVISION

JULIE WARD,

Plaintiff,

Case Number 09-10788-BC

v. Honorable Thomas L. Ludington

CENTRAL MICHIGAN 

COMMUNITY HOSPITAL,

Defendant.

______________________________________ /

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT

AND DISMISSING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

On March 2, 2009, Plaintiff Julie Ward filed a complaint stemming from her discharge from

Defendant Central Michigan Community Hospital. Plaintiff alleges that her employment was

terminated on the basis of her gender and for providing testimony adverse to Defendant in civil

proceedings. The complaint alleges cause of action for violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and various

claims under Michigan law. See dkt. # 1. 

On April 22, 2009, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the complaint established

federal question jurisdiction because she did not allege facts supporting a prima facie claim pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Dkt. # 9. On May 14, 2009, Plaintiff responded, acknowledging that she had

not alleged a claim for relief under section 1981. Dkt. # 11. Notwithstanding that fact, Plaintiff

requested permission to amend her complaint to allege a claim for gender discrimination pursuant

to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 codified at 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq. Dkt. # 12.

Defendant does not oppose amendment. Id.

A plaintiff may amend the complaint “with the opposing party’s written consent or the

court’s leave. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Here, Plaintiff represents that Defendant concurs in the relief

1:09-cv-10788-TLL-CEB Doc # 14 Filed 05/18/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 99
-2-

and amendment cures the jurisdictional defect contained in the complaint. The Court will grant the

motion.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the April 22, 2009 order to show cause [Dkt. # 9] is

DISMISSED.

It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint [Dkt. # 12] is

GRANTED. Plaintiff’s cause of action for a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 is DISMISSED WITH

PREJUDICE.

s/Thomas L. Ludington 

THOMAS L. LUDINGTON

United States District Judge

Dated: May 18, 2009

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 May 18, 2009.

s/Tracy A. Jacobs 

TRACY A. JACOBS

1:09-cv-10788-TLL-CEB Doc # 14 Filed 05/18/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 100