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

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 427 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 427

      To amend title 23, United States Code, to repeal provisions 
              establishing a national maximum speed limit.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 5, 1995

 Mr. Combest introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To amend title 23, United States Code, to repeal provisions 
              establishing a national maximum speed limit.

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

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF NATIONAL MAXIMUM SPEED LIMIT COMPLIANCE PROGRAM.

    Sections 141(a) and 154 of title 23, United States Code, are 
repealed.
                                 <all>
```
Case 2:09-cv-13616-AJT-MKM Document 164-17 Filed 12/20/10 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:09-cv-13616-AJT-MKM Document 164-17 Filed 12/20/10 Page 2 of 2
November 16, 2017

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

RYAN CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, LLC, AND 

BUILDERS BLUEPRINT, LLC, Appellants

NO. 14-16-00181-CV V.

ROBERT HALF INTERNATIONAL, INC., Appellee

________________________________

This cause, an appeal from the judgment signed January 11, 2016, was heard 

on the transcript of the record. We have inspected the record and find no error in the 

order. We order the order of the court below AFFIRMED. We order appellants 

Ryan Construction Services, LLC and Builders Blueprint, LLC, jointly and 

severally, to pay all costs incurred in this appeal. We further order this decision 

certified below for observance.
**EXHIBIT 8**

 

Listing of Significant Subsidiaries ofKerzner International Limited

as of December 31, 2005

 
| **Name of Company**                      | ** ** | **Country of   Incorporation** | ** ** | **Ownership Interests** | ** ** |
|----------------------------------------------------|------------|------------------------------------------|------------|------------------------------|------------|
| Kerzner International Bahamas Limited(1)           |       | The Bahamas                              |       | 100                          | %          |
| Kerzner International North America,  Inc.(2)      |       | United  States                           |       | 100                          | %          |
| One&Only (Indian Ocean) Management  Limited(3) |       | British  Virgin Islands                  |       | 75                           | %          |
| Kerzner International Management Limited(4)        |       | British  Virgin Islands                  |       | 100                          | %          |

 

----

(1)   Ownerof substantially all of the Bahamian subsidiaries. Directly or indirectlywholly owns ten subsidiaries, all of which are organized in the Commonwealth ofThe Bahamas.

 

(2)   Ownerof all of the U.S. subsidiaries. Directly or indirectly wholly owns 19subsidiaries, 16 of which are organized in the United States and three of whichare organized in Mexico and relate to the management and development ofOne&Only Palmilla.

 

(3)   Operatorof the five Mauritius management agreements and One&Only Kanuhura andOne&Only Maldives at Reethi Rah management agreements.

 

(4)   Ownerof the management agreement for One&Only Royal Mirage. Also receivesmarketing and administrative fees from One&Only Management related to theMauritius and One&Only Kanuhura management agreements.

 

----
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

TERRY L. WILSON,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 2:09-CV-12939

v. HONORABLE PATRICK J. DUGGAN

HUGH WOLFENBARGER,

Respondent.

_______________________________/

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION

FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

At a session of said Court, held in the U.S. District

Courthouse, City of Detroit, County of Wayne,

State of Michigan on September 4, 2009

PRESENT: HONORABLE PATRICK J. DUGGAN

 U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

This matter is before the Court on Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel. 

Petitioner has filed his habeas petition, but Respondent has not yet filed an answer to the

petition or the state court record. Those materials are due on February 2, 2010.

Petitioner has no absolute right to be represented by counsel on federal habeas

corpus review. See Abdur-Rahman v. Michigan Dept. of Corrections, 65 F.3d 489, 492

(6th Cir. 1995). “‘[A]ppointment of counsel in a civil case is . . . a matter within the

discretion of the court. It is a privilege and not a right.’” Childs v. Pellegrin, 822 F.2d

2:09-cv-12939-PJD-DAS Doc # 8 Filed 09/04/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 41
2

1382, 1384 (6th Cir. 1987) (quoting United States v. Madden, 352 F.2d 792, 793 (9th Cir.

1965)). As noted, Petitioner has submitted his petition in support of his claims, and

Respondent has not yet filed an answer to the petition. Neither an evidentiary hearing nor

discovery are necessary at this time, and the interests of justice do not require

appointment of counsel. See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B); 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254, Rules

6(a) and 8(c).

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel. 

The Court will bear in mind Petitioner's request if, upon further review of the pleadings,

the Court determines that appointment of counsel is necessary. Petitioner need not file an

additional motion concerning this issue.

SO ORDERED.

s/Patrick J. Duggan 

Patrick J. Duggan

United States District Judge

Dated: September 4, 2009

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record

on September 4, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.(Terry Wilson #137914, 34625

26 Mile Rd. New Haven, MI 48048)

s/Marilyn Orem 

Case Manager

2:09-cv-12939-PJD-DAS Doc # 8 Filed 09/04/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 42
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 148 (Thursday, July 31, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 44786]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-17581]


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

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT


Personnel Demonstration Project; Pay Banding and Performance-
Based Pay Adjustments in the National Nuclear Security Administration; 
Correction

AGENCY: U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

ACTION: Notice of approval of a demonstration project final plan; 
correction.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Office of Personnel Management published a document 
in the Federal Register on December 21, 2007, announcing the final 
approval of a demonstration project plan for the U.S. Department of 
Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration. The document 
contained three errors.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: U.S. Office of Personnel Management: 
Patsy Stevens, Systems Innovation Group Manager, U.S. Office of 
Personnel Management, (202) 606-1574.

Correction

    In FR Doc. 07-6144 published on December 21, 2007 (72 FR 72776), 
make the following corrections. On page 72792, in the second column, in 
the second paragraph under the heading ``Other Pay Administration 
Provisions,'' the parenthetical clause in the sixth and seventh line 
should read, ``(except as otherwise provided in this plan).''
    On page 72800, in the third column, the second paragraph under the 
section ``X. Waiver of Laws and Regulations'' should read as follows:
    Chapter 51: Classification (except that (1) section 5103 is 
retained and modified after ``finally'' to read ``the coverage of 
positions and employees under this modified classification system,'' 
(2) sections 5111 and 5112 are retained with ``grade'' replaced by 
``pay bands,'' and (3) for the purpose of applying any other laws, 
regulations, or policies that refer to GS employees or to chapter 51 of 
title 5, United States Code, the modified classification system 
established under this plan must be considered to be a GS 
classification system under chapter 51; this includes, but is not 
limited to, the reference to the General Schedule in section 5545(d) 
(relating to hazard pay)).
    On page 72801, in the second column, the third paragraph should 
read as follows:
    Chapter 75, section 7512(3): Adverse actions (only to the extent 
necessary to replace ``grade'' with ``band'').

Linda M. Springer,
Director.
[FR Doc. E8-17581 Filed 7-30-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6325-43-P
Exhibit
32.1




CERTIFICATION




In
connection with the periodic report of uKarma Corporation (the “Company”) on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Bill Glaser, Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer) and Interim Chief Financial Officer (Principal
Financial and Accounting Officer) of the Company, hereby certify as of the date
hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United
States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:




(1)
      The Report fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods
indicated.





Date:  November
      23, 2009
                  /s/ Bill GlaserBill
      GlaserChief
      Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)and
      Interim Chief Financial Officer (PrincipalFinancial
      and Accounting
Officer)
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Denny Ricardo LEWIS, Appellant.

Nos. WD 48440, WD 49776.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Oct. 31, 1995.

Jarrett Aiken Johnson, Asst. Appellate Defender, Kansas City, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Traci J. Sanders, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals his conviction for possession of a controlled substance, § 195.202, *872RSMo 1994, and the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. There being no precedential value in a published opinion, we affirm pursuant to Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 437 Introduced in House (IH)]

  1st Session
                                H. R. 437

  To amend title 18, United States Code, to modify the limitation on 
                      mandatory minimum sentences.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 9, 1995

 Mr. Hastings introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 18, United States Code, to modify the limitation on 
                      mandatory minimum sentences.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Minimum Mandatory Sentence 
Modification Act''.

SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OF LIMITATION ON MINIMUM MANDATORY SENTENCES.

    (a) Section 3553 Amendments.--Section 3553(f) of title 18, United 
States Code, is amended--
            (1) by striking ``an offense under section 401,'' and all 
        that follows through ``(21 U.S.C. 961, 963)'' and inserting 
        ``any offense''; and
            (2) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``had attained the age 
        of 55 years at the time of sentencing and'' after ``the 
        defendant''.
    (b) Modification of Effective Date and Application.--Subsection (c) 
of section 80001 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act 
of 1994 (Public Law 103-322; 108 Stat. 1986) is amended by striking 
``on or after the 10th day'' and all that follows through the end of 
such subsection and inserting ``whether before, on, or after the date 
of the enactment of this Act. Upon the application of any person whose 
sentence is governed by section 3553(f) of title 18, United States 
Code, and notice to Government, the sentencing court shall modify that 
sentence to comply with such section.''.
    (c) Savings Provision for Persons Covered by Former Section 
3553(F).--This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall not reduce 
the eligibility, by reason of section 3553(f) as in effect before the 
enactment of this Act, of any person for a sentence without regard to a 
statutory minimum sentence.
                                 <all>
```
cbmg_ex1035.htm


Exhibit 10.35


 




  





1











  






 


 




  





2











  






 


 




  





3











  






 


 




  





4











  






 


 




  





5











  






 


 




  





6











  






 


 




  





7











  






 


 




  





8











  






 


 




  





9











  






 


 




  





10











  






 


 




  





11











  






 


 




  





12











  






 


 




  





13











  






 


 




  





14











  






 


 




  





15











  






 


 




  





16











  






 


 




  





17











  






 


 




  





18











  






 


 




  





19











  






 


 


20
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 Tag Events Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the period ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), 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 to his 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.


Date:  March 30, 2007


/s/ Artiom Balykin
---------------------------------------
Artiom Balykin
Principal Financial Officer
Principal Accounting Officer
Exhibit 24
 POWER OF ATTORNEY
  /s/ Jim Berry
    
    
    
    January 22, 2009Jim Berry, Director/s/ Tom D. Berry
    
    
    
    January 22, 2009Tom D. Berry, Director/s/ Joe Berry Cannon
    
    
    
    January 22, 2009Joe Berry Cannon, Director/s/ John Cohlmia
    
    
    
    January 22, 2009John Cohlmia, Director/s/ David S. Crockett Jr.
    
    
    
    January 22, 2009David S. Crockett Jr., Director/s/ J. Berry Harrison
    
    
    
    January 22, 2009J. Berry Harrison, Director/s/ James M. Johnson
    
    
    
    January 22, 2009James M. Johnson, Director/s/ David P. Lambert
    
    
    
    January 22, 2009David P. Lambert, Director/s/ Linford R. Pitts
    
    
    
    January 22, 2009Linford R. Pitts, Director/s/ Robert B. Rodgers
    
    
    
    January 22, 2009Robert B. Rodgers, Director/s/ Russell W. Teubner
    
    
    
    January 22, 2009Russell W. Teubner, Director
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be

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

R. 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-50330

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

GLEN GARNER SHIPLEY,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Western District of Texas

(W-96-CA-119)

February 20, 1998

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, JONES and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Glen Shipley appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255

motion in which he contended that the factual basis for his guilty-plea conviction
1

 116 S.Ct. 501 (1995).

2 The AEDPAwhich requires aCOAin section 2255 proceedingsisinapplicable because

Shipley filed his petition before its effective date and the appellate filing fee has been paid.

3 United States v. Thompson, 122 F.3d 304 (5th Cir. 1997); United States v. Carter,

117 F.3d 262 (5th Cir. 1997).

2

under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) for use of a firearm was insufficient in light of Bailey

v. United States.

1

 His motions for a certificate of appealability and for leave to

proceed in forma pauperis are DENIED as unnecessary.2

Shipley maintains that the district court erred in holding that he was

procedurally barred from collaterally challenging his guilty-plea conviction and

that the factual basis submitted by the government at his guilty-plea hearing was

insufficient to establish that he used a firearm as defined by the Supreme Court in

Bailey.

Since entry of the district court’s order of dismissal, we have held that a

section 2255 movant may raise a Bailey challenge to a guilty-plea conviction in a

collateral proceeding.3 In light of these intervening decisions we must vacate the

trial court’s holding that it was limited in its review of Shipley’s Bailey challenge

to his guilty-plea conviction. The trial court is to address the merits of Shipley’s

claim that the factual basis for his guilty plea was insufficient to support the plea.

Accordingly, the district court’s order dismissing Shipley’s section 2255
3

motion is VACATED and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings

consistent with the teachings of Bailey, relevant decisions of this court, and this

opinion.

VACATED and REMANDED.
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-13-0003038 10-APR-2015 07:50 AM
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RONALD BROWN,

Petitioner, Case No. 5:09-cv-11655

v. Hon. John Corbett O'Meara

United States District Judge

NICK LUDWICK,

Respondent.

_________________________________/

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S THIRD MOTION FOR RELEASE ON BOND (Dkt.

#36)

Petitioner Ronald Brown has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254. Now before the Court is Petitioner's third motion seeking to be released on bond

pending the decision on his petition.

To receive bond pending a decision on the merits of a habeas corpus petition, a petitioner

must show a substantial claim of law based on the facts surrounding the petition and the existence

of "some circumstance making the [motion for bond] exceptional and deserving of special treatment

in the interests of justice." Dotson v. Clark, 900 F.2d 77, 79 (6th Cir. 1990). "There will be few

occasions where a prisoner will meet this standard." Dotson, 900 F.2d at 79. Where the court finds

no substantial claim that the petitioner is confined in violation of the Constitution, it need not reach

the issue of whether exceptional circumstances exist which deserve special treatment in the interest

of justice. Id. Because a habeas petitioner "is appealing a presumptively valid state conviction . .

. it will indeed be the very unusual case where a habeas petitioner is admitted to bail prior to a

decision on the merits in the habeas case." Lee v. Jabe, 989 F.2d 869, 871 (6th Cir. 1993).

5:09-cv-11655-JCO-RSW Doc # 37 Filed 07/23/13 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 1695
2

Petitioner's motion fails to establish the existence of any extraordinary and exceptional

circumstances which merit release on bond. Therefore, the Court denies the motion.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner's motion for bond [dkt. #36] is DENIED.

s/John Corbett O'Meara 

United States District Judge

Date: July 23, 2013

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties of record on

this date, July 23, 2013, using the ECF system and/or ordinary mail.

s/William Barkholz 

Case Manager

5:09-cv-11655-JCO-RSW Doc # 37 Filed 07/23/13 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 1696
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 442 Introduced in House (IH)]

  1st Session
                                H. R. 442

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to retroactively restore and 
make permanent the limited deduction for the health insurance costs of 
                       self-employed individuals.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 9, 1995

   Mrs. Meyers of Kansas (for herself, Mr. Skelton, Mr. Sanders, Mr. 
Spence, Mr. Dickey, Mr. Chabot, Mr. Forbes, Mr. Greenwood, Mr. Tanner, 
    Mr. Shays, Ms. Harman, Mr. Oxley, Mr. Knollenberg, Mr. Baker of 
   California, Mr. Hastert, Mr. Stump, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Pomeroy, Mr. 
  Burton of Indiana, Mr. Fox of Pennsylvania, Mr. Barcia, Mr. Cox of 
  California, Mr. Kolbe, Mr. Gillmor, Mr. Ewing, Mr. Richardson, Ms. 
   Danner, Mr. Baker of Louisiana, Mr. Bereuter, Mr. Boehlert, Mrs. 
   Schroeder, Mr. Bonilla, Mr. Leach, and Mr. Coburn) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to retroactively restore and 
make permanent the limited deduction for the health insurance costs of 
                       self-employed individuals.

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

SECTION 1. DEDUCTION FOR HEALTH INSURANCE COSTS OF SELF-EMPLOYED 
              INDIVIDUALS RESTORED RETROACTIVELY AND MADE PERMANENT.

    (a) In General.--Subsection (l) of section 162 of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to special rules for health insurance 
costs of self-employed individuals) is amended by striking paragraph 
(6).
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to taxable years beginning after December 31, 1993.
                                 <all>
```
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 of Deer Consumer
Products, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended March 31, 2010, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
Zongshu Nie, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. §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 (15 U.S.C. §78m or §78o(d)); 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:
      May 10, 2010
            By:
            /s/
      Zongshu NieZongshu
      Nie
              Chief Financial
      Officer





This
certification accompanies each Report pursuant to Section 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
Section 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.