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

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 156 (Tuesday, August 12, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 46911]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-18630]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Health Resources and Services Administration

Advisory Commission on Childhood Vaccines; Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting:

    Name: Advisory Commission on Childhood Vaccines (ACCV).
    Date and Time: September 4, 2008, 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. EDT. 
September 5, 2008, 8 a.m. to 12 p.m. EDT.
    Place: Parklawn Building (and via audio conference call), 
Conference Rooms G & H, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857.
    The ACCV will meet on Thursday, September 4 from 1 p.m. to 5 
p.m. (EDT) and Friday, September 5 from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. (EDT). The 
public can join the meeting via audio conference call by dialing 1-
888-220-3083 on September 4 & 5 and providing the following 
information:
    Leader's Name: Dr. Geoffrey Evans.
    Password: ACCV.
    Agenda: The agenda items for the September meeting will include, 
but are not limited to: updates from the Division of Vaccine Injury 
Compensation (DVIC), Department of Justice, National Vaccine Program 
Office, Immunization Safety Office (Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention), National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases 
(National Institutes of Health), and Center for Biologics, 
Evaluation and Research (Food and Drug Administration). Agenda items 
are subject to change as priorities dictate.
    Public Comments: Persons interested in providing an oral 
presentation should submit a written request, along with a copy of 
their presentation to: Michelle Herzog, DVIC, Healthcare Systems 
Bureau (HSB), Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), 
Room 11C-26, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857 or e-mail: 
[email protected]. Requests should contain the name, address, 
telephone number, and any business or professional affiliation of 
the person desiring to make an oral presentation. Groups having 
similar interests are requested to combine their comments and 
present them through a single representative. The allocation of time 
may be adjusted to accommodate the level of expressed interest. DVIC 
will notify each presenter by mail or telephone of their assigned 
presentation time. Persons who do not file an advance request for a 
presentation, but desire to make an oral statement, may announce it 
at the time of the comment period. These persons will be allocated 
time as it permits.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anyone requiring information regarding 
the ACCV should contact Michelle Herzog, DVIC, HSB, HRSA, Room 11C-26, 
5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857; telephone (301) 443-6593 or e-
mail: [email protected].

    Dated: August 7, 2008.
Alexandra Huttinger,
Director, Division of Policy Review and Coordination.
[FR Doc. E8-18630 Filed 8-11-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4165-15-P
```
906 Certification

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections
(a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States
Code), the undersigned officer of Animal Cloning Sciences, Inc., a
Washington corporation (the "Company"), hereby certifies, to such
officer's knowledge, that:

The Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2004
(the "Report") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of
section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

Dated July 28, 2005

/s/Dempsey Mork
- ---------------------------------
Dempsey Mork
Chief Executive Officer

                          906 Certification

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections
(a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States
Code), the undersigned officer of Animal Cloning Sciences, Inc., a
Washington corporation (the "Company"), hereby certifies, to such
officer's knowledge, that:

The Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2004
(the "Report") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of
section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

Dated July 28, 2005

/s/ Norbert L. LeBoeuf
- ---------------------------------
Norbert L. LeBoeuf
Chief Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6549

LANCE L. JENKINS, Petitioner - Appellant,

versus DIRECTOR, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Vi rginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, Magistrate Judge. (3:06-cv-00101-MHL) Submitted: June 21, 2007 Decided: June 29, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lance L. Jenkins, Appellant Pro Se. Alice T. Armstrong, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Lance L. Jenkins seeks to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition, and denying his subsequent application for a certificate of appealability. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Jenkins has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED
#### Randolph Blair White v. State.

No. 25699.

February 6, 1952.

Hon. Walter Nelson, Judge Presiding.

*Allen, Locke & Crompton,*Wichita Falls, for appellant.

*George P. Blackburn,*State’s Attorney, Austin for the state.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

This is a conviction for bribery of a peace officer; the punishment, five years in the penitentiary.

The prosecution arose under Art. 173, P. C., which makes it *636unlawful to “bribe, or offer to bribe,” a peace officer to do or not to do certain acts in violation of his duty as an officer.

The offense denounced under this statute is composed of two elements: One is the bribe, while the other is the offer to bribe.

The instant indictment charges bribery and not an offer to bribe. Hence, the sufficiency of the evidence to support this conviction must be weighed in determining whether a bribe is shown.

To constitute the offense of bribery of an officer, there must be shown not only the offer on the part of the briber but acceptance thereof by the one who is bribed. Selvidge v. State, 126 Tex. Cr. R. 489, 72 S. W. 2d 1079.

Here, the deputy sheriff who the indictment charged was bribed testified directly that he did not accept the bribe but told the appellant he would have to take the offer up with his superior, the sheriff. Indeed, at one place in the testimony of the witness, he strongly suggests that the alleged bribe money was given to him for a purpose entirely different from that alleged in the indictment. In any event, the testimony shows nothing more than an offer to bribe, as distinguished from the completed offense of bribery.

Believing the facts insufficient to sustain the allegations of the indictment, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Opinion approved by the court.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2527
MILTON MCCRAY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SUSQUEHANNA BANK, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (CA04-1382-RDB) Submitted: February 24, 2005 Decided: March 4, 2005 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Milton McCray, Appellant Pro Se. Donald A. Rea, Kimberly Grimsley, GORDON, FEINBLATT, ROTHMAN, HOFFBERGER & HOLLANDER, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Milton McCray appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See McCray v. Susquehanna Bank , No. CA-04-1382-RDB (D. Md. filed Oct. 29, 2004 & entered Nov. 1, 2004). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13

- 40857 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
JUAN ANDRES ORTEGA

- GARCIA , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:09

- CR

- 966

- 1

Before KING, DAVIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Juan Andres Ortega

- Garcia has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Ortega

- Garcia h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED May 14, 2014 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 13-40857 Document: 00512629991 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/14/2014No. 13

- 40857
presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion fo r leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2.

2 Case: 13-40857 Document: 00512629991 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/14/2014
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Team Nation Holdings Corporation (the “Company”) hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:





(i) the accompanying report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2010 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; 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: May 17, 2010
By:
/s/ Dennis R. DuffyDennis R. DuffyChief Executive Officer





This certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, “filed” with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 691 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 691

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to restore the 25 percent 
 deduction for the health insurance costs of self-employed individuals 
    for 1994 and to provide an 80 percent deduction for such costs 
                           beginning in 1995.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 26, 1995

  Mr. Cardin 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 restore the 25 percent 
 deduction for the health insurance costs of self-employed individuals 
    for 1994 and to provide an 80 percent deduction for such costs 
                           beginning in 1995.

    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.

    (a) Deduction Made Permanent; 25 Percent Deduction for Taxable 
Years Beginning in 1994.--
            (1) 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).
            (2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1) 
        shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 1993.
    (b) Deduction Increased to 80 Percent.--
            (1) In general.--Paragraph (1) of section 162(l) of such 
        Code is amended by striking ``25 percent'' and inserting ``80 
        percent''.
            (2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1) 
        shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 1994.
                                 <all>
```
#### Universal Talking Machine Manufacturing Company, Appellant, v. Duffy-McInnerney Company, Respondent.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Mo opinion.
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 Panhandle Eastern Pipe
Line Company, LLC (the "Company") for the quarter ended March 31, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Thomas F. Karam, as President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my
knowledge:

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

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

/s/  THOMAS F. KARAM
----------------------------
Name: Thomas F. Karam
Title: Chief Executive Officer
Date:  May 14, 2004
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 45 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 H. R. 45

   To apply the antitrust laws of the United States to major league 
                               baseball.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 4, 1995

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To apply the antitrust laws of the United States to major league 
                               baseball.

    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 ``Baseball Fans and Communities 
Protection Act of 1995''.

SEC. 2. APPLICATION OF THE ANTITRUST LAWS TO MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL IN 
              EXCEPTIONAL AND EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES.

    The Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 12 et seq.) is amended by adding at the 
end the following:
    ``Sec. 27. (a) If unilateral terms and conditions of employment in 
restraint of trade or commerce are imposed by any party that has been 
subject to an agreement between 2 or more major league baseball clubs 
and the labor organization representing the players of major league 
baseball, such unilateral imposition shall be subject to the antitrust 
laws.
    ``(b) Subsection (a) shall not apply to a term or condition imposed 
solely with respect to a professional baseball player who is a party to 
a uniform player contract that is assigned, at the time the imposition 
described in such subsection occurs, to a baseball club that is not a 
major league professional baseball club.
    ``(c) This section shall not be construed to modify, impair, or 
supersede the operation of--
            ``(1) the Act of September 30, 1961 (Public Law 87-331; 15 
        U.S.C. 1291 et seq.), or
            ``(2) any Federal statute relating to labor relations.
    ``(d) For purposes of this section, the term `terms and conditions' 
does not include a strike or a lockout.''.
                                 <all>
```
Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed June 16 , 2022

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 21

- 00472

- CV

CURTIS TYLER , INDIVIDUALLY AND A S NEXT FRIEND OF M.P

. , Appellant

V.

TORCSILL FOUNDATIONS , LLC AND INTERVALE CAPITAL, LLC , Appellee s

O n Appeal from the 189th District Court

Harr i s County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2020

- 07582

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This appeal is from a judgment signed July 15, 202 1 . The clerk’s record was

filed January 24 , 2022

. The reporter’s record was filed March 7, 2 022

. No brief

was filed.2

On May 3, 2022

, t h is court issued an order stating that unless appellant filed

a brief on or before June 3, 2022 , the appeal was subject to dismissal without

further notice for want of prosecution

. See Tex. R. App. P . 42.3(b).

App ellant filed no br i e f or other response. We di smiss the appeal.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justice s Zimmerer, Spain and Poissant

.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Albert Hopkins, Appellant.

[679 NYS2d 95]

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Daniel FitzGerald, J.), rendered April 11, 1997, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of attempted robbery in the first degree and attempted robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 2 to 6 years and 1 to 3 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed. The matter is remitted to Supreme Court, Bronx County for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. We see no reason to disturb the credibility determinations of the jury.

Defendant’s contention that he was prejudiced by the court’s failure to issue an alibi charge is not preserved for appellate review, since the defense neither requested an alibi charge nor objected when none was given, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that defendant was not prejudiced, since the court’s instructions on other matters, including burdens of proof, were sufficient to permit the jury to evaluate the alibi testimony in *691proper fashion. Concur — Lerner, P. J., Milonas, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADDED BY

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of BCSB Bancorp, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30,
2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), the undersigned hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as added by § 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 as of and for the
period covered by the Report.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |  |  |                                                     
|--------------------- |  |  |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|Date: August 13, 2010 |  |  |  | /s/ Joseph J. Bouffard                              
|                      |  |  |  | Joseph J. Bouffard                                  
|                      |  |  |  | President and Chief Executive Officer               
|                      |  | 
|Date: August 13, 2010 |  |  |  | /s/ Anthony R. Cole                                 
|                      |  |  |  | Anthony R. Cole                                     
|                      |  |  |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-12-00197-CV

Aaron Christopher Bitter

v.

Commission for Lawyer Discipline

§

§

§

§

§

From the 367th District Court

of Denton County

(2011-50731-367)

May 15, 2014

Opinion by Justice Dauphinot

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of 

the trial court is affirmed.

It is further ordered that Appellant Aaron Christopher Bitter shall pay all 

costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By _/s/ Lee Ann Dauphinot______________

 Justice Lee Ann Dauphinot
#### Daniel V. Barnes, Respondent, v. Nathan Tolkan, Appellant.

Judgment of the Municipal Court affirmed, with costs. Ho opinion. Woodward, Jenks, Hooker, Rich and Miller, JJ., concurred.