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

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 807 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 807

  To protect the Constitution of the United States from unauthorized 
 encroachment into legislative powers by the executive branch, and to 
 protect the American taxpayer from unauthorized encroachment into his 
         wallet by an unconstitutional action of the President.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 2, 1995

Mr. Stockman (for himself, Mr. Rohrabacher, Mr. Funderburk, Mr. Burton, 
 Mrs. Chenoweth, Mr. Cooley, Mr. Fox of Pennsylvania, Mr. Ganske, Mr. 
   Gutknecht, Mr. Hayworth, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Metcalf, Mr. Salmon, Mr. 
  Sanford, Mr. Scarborough, Mrs. Seastrand, Mr. Souder, and Mr. Wamp) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
 Banking and Financial Services and, in addition, to the Committee on 
International Relations, for a period to be subsequently determined by 
the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall 
           within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To protect the Constitution of the United States from unauthorized 
 encroachment into legislative powers by the executive branch, and to 
 protect the American taxpayer from unauthorized encroachment into his 
         wallet by an unconstitutional action of the President.

    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 ``Taxpayer Protection Act of 1995.''

SEC. 2. TAXPAYER PROTECTION.

    No funds appropriated or otherwise made available under any 
provision of law, for any fiscal year, may be used in any way, directly 
or indirectly, for the purpose of any swap, loan, loan guarantee, or 
grant to Mexico unless and until Congress has affirmatively approved 
such swap, loan, loan guarantee, or grant to Mexico.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.1

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of GCI, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Ronald A. Duncan, Chief Executive 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: 

 

|   | (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 result of operations of the Company. |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

| Date:  November 30, 2006 | /s/ Ronald A. Duncan    |
|--------------------------|-------------------------|
|                     | Ronald A. Duncan        |
|                     | Chief Executive Officer |
|                     | GCI, Inc.               |

 

 

 

1
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JU NE 3, 2016

NO. 03

- 15

- 00760

- CR

Ronnie Jean Davis, Sr., Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 27TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, GO ODWIN, AND FIELD

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE PURYEAR

This is an appeal from the trial court ’s order denying appellant’s motion for DNA testing

.

Having reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no

reversible error in the order . Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s order

. Because

appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
#### WEATHEY et al. v. BAILEY et al.

No. 4144.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit, Second Division.

March 16, 1932.

Boone'& Boone, of Many, for appellants.

Ponder & Ponder and Fraser & Carroll, all of Many, and W. M. Phillips and C. F. Currier, both of Shreveport, for appellees.

STEPHENS, J.

The appellees have appeared and moved to dismiss the appeal in this cause, for the reason that an incomplete transcript has been lodged in this court. It is averred in the motion that both the appellants and the appel-lees offered and filed in evidence numerous documents and instruments of record in Sabine parish, La., which are pertinent and •necessary to the proper review and determination of the case in this court; and that none of' these documents or instruments, or copies thereof, are included in the transcript.

*166The incomplete condition of the transcript is apparent, and the fault seems to he with the clerk of the trial court. If the certificate of the clerk disclosed that' the documents were Omitted from the transcript, his fault would be imputable to the appellants; and in fact might be considered as evidence that the fault was solely that of appellants. But the clerk states in his certificate that the transcript includes all pleadings, evidence, and documents filed in the cause.

The appellants were somewhat tardy in ascertaining the incomplete condition of the record, but their laxity in this respect was not so great, we think, that it would justify the dismissal of the appeal.

The motion to. dismiss is therefore overruled ; and it is ordered that the plaintiffs appellants herein cause to be filed in this court, within thirty days from the day on which this opinion is filed, a supplemental transcript, in which shall be included all of those documents and instruments, or copies thereof, which were omitted from and should have been included in the original transcript lodged in this court. The right is reserved to the defendants appellees to renew their motion to dismiss the appeal in the event of the refusal or neglect of the plaintiffs appellants to comply with this order. *
EXHIBIT 32.1





P&F INDUSTRIES, INC.


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 P&F Industries, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Richard A. Horowitz, Principal Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, 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.





/s/ RICHARD A. HOROWITZRichard A. HorowitzDate May 13, 2011
Principal Executive Officer
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 21.1


                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT


Computer Dynamics of Illinois, Inc., a wholly owned Illinois corporation

Computer Dynamics Holding Corp., a wholly owned Illinois corporation

SensorPulse Corp., a wholly owned Illinois corporation

Deeco Systems, Inc., a wholly owned Illinois corporation

Taylor Industrial Software, Inc. ("Taylor"), a majority owned Alberta, 
  Canada corporation

Taylor has two wholly owned subsidiaries:
  Taylor Industrial Software (UK) Limited, a wholly owned United Kingdom 
    corporation

* Taylor Industrial Software (USA), Inc., a wholly owned Nevada corporation.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

          - [Docket Nos. PR08-19-000; PR08-19-001] 

      ( print page 48380)    
Take notice that on August 5, 2008, Northwest Natural Gas Company (NW Natural) filed an Offer of Settlement in the above-docketed proceeding. Included in its filing was a request to shorten the period for filing initial and reply comments, in response to the Offer of Settlement. NW Natural requested the initial comments to be due on August 15, 2008 and reply comments to be due on August 19, 2008. 

The request is approved. The initial comments are due on August 15, 2008 and reply comments are due on August 19, 2008. 

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., 

Deputy Secretary.

 [FR Doc. E8-19120 Filed 8-18-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 17, 2022

No. 04

- 22

- 00333

- CR

Steven James ELSIK

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

App ellee

From the 156th Judicial District Court

, McMullen County, Texas

Trial Court No. M

- 21

- 0009

- CR

- B

Honorable Starr Boldrick Bauer , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellant’s co

- counsel, Danice Obregon, moved to withdraw as appellate co

- counsel.

We GRANT co

- counsel Obregon ’s motion. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 6.5 . Eric Flores remains as lead

appellate counsel for appellant.

It is so ORDERED on November 17, 2022.

PER CUR IAM

ATTESTED TO :

_______________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, CLERK OF COURT
If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

- 1

- 

### S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

FOR PUBL ICATION

In re M. R. SIMONETTA, Minor. February 24, 2022

No. 357909

St. Clair Circuit Court Family Division

LC No. 19

- 000333

- NA

Before: G LEICHER

, C .J., and B ORRELLO and R ONAYNE K RAUSE , JJ.

R ONAYNE K RAUSE

, J

. (concurring)

.

I concur entirely with the majority’s reasoning and conclusion that a fetus is not a “child” under the Child Protection Law, MCL 722.621 et seq ., or under the Probate Code, MCL 710.21 et

seq

. Therefore, as the majority concludes, it is definitionally impossible to commit abuse of a fetus

under MCL 722. 638(1), and it is, in turn, definitionally impossible to subject a fetus to “aggravated
circumstances” under MCL 712A.19a(2). Because that conclusion is dispositive, I concur with the result reached by the majority for that reason alone, and I would not consider or express any opinion whether the evidence would otherwise support a finding of “severe physical abu se.”

/s/ Amy Ronayne Krause
#### In the Matter of Derrick M. Luchey, Appellant, v State of New York, Department of Police, Respondent.

[678 NYS2d 307]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Donohue, J.), entered July 28, 1997 in Albany County, which denied petitioner’s motion for leave to renew a prior proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 which was dismissed.

Petitioner, an inmate at Sing Sing Correctional Facility in Westchester County, commenced a CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the denial of his request pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law (Public Officers Law art 6) for information pertaining to the investigation leading to his arrest. Supreme Court ultimately granted respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction. Petitioner thereafter moved to renew his CPLR article 78 proceeding. His request for leave to renew was denied and petitioner appeals from that denial. Because petitioner failed to allege new or material facts which were previously unknown to him but instead cites to alleged inadequacies of the correction facility’s outgoing mail procedures to excuse his failure to properly serve respondent, we conclude that Supreme Court properly denied his motion for renewal *(see, Matter of Brady v Executive Dept., Div. of Parole,*114 AD2d 659, 660; *Foley v Roche,*68 AD2d 558, 568).

Cardona, P. J., White, Peters, Spain and Graffeo, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
#### People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Davis (Impleaded), Defendant-Appellant.

Gen. No. 50,766.

First District, Second Division.

December 13, 1966.

Gerald W. Getty, Public Defender of Cook County, of Chicago (Sheldon Banks and James J. Doherty, Assistant Public Defenders, of counsel), for appellant; Daniel P. Ward, State’s Attorney of Cook County, of Chicago (Elmer C. Kissane and Carl M. Walsh, Assistant State’s Attorneys, of counsel), for appellee.

Opinion by

JUSTICE LYONS.

Not to be published in full.
### IN THE UNI TED STATES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCUIT

No. 11-30425 Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. ERNEST TURNER, also known as Baldie Turner, also known as B-Man Turner, Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:07-CR-343-2
Before GARZA, SOUTHWICK, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * After Ernest Turner was convicted of conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute five kilograms of cocaine hydrochloride in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, the district court entered a final forfeiture order against him in the amount of $10,000,000. Pursuant to F e d e r al Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(e) and 21 U

. S

. C

. § 853(p), the district court amended the final order of forfeiture to require the forfeiture of substitute property toward the satisfaction U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Februa ry 8, 201 2 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5 , the court hasd ete rm inedthat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 11-30425 Document: 00511751889 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/08/2012No. 11-30425

of the $10,000,000 forfeiture judgment. Turner appeals the portion of the order requiring the forfeiture of $11,233 and $10,071.75 in currency. “We review the district court’s findings of fact under the clearly erroneous standard of review, and the question of whether those facts constitute legally proper forfeiture de novo.” United States v. Marmolejo , 89 F.3d 1185, 1197 (5th Cir. 1996). Turner contends that the Government failed to prove that the currency derive d exclusively from his criminal offense, and, therefore, the district court erred by not holding a hearing to determine whether the property was properly subject to forfeiture. But the Government was not requ ir e d t o p r ove that the currency derived from Turner’s criminal offense to seize it under § 853(p). See § 853(a), (p). The district court was therefore not required to hold a hearing on the basis urged by Turner. Any argument that the currency should have been exempt from forfeiture because it is needed to pay for legal representation also lacks merit. “[N]either due process, nor th e Sixth Amendment right to counsel, requires that assets needed to pay an attorney be exempted from restraining orders or, ultimately, from forfeiture.” United States v. Melrose E. Subdiv. , 357 F.3d 493, 500 (5th Cir. 2004).The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 11-30425 Document: 00511751889 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/08/2012
#### In the Matter of Joseph D. Hart.

There appears to be no necessity for a further reference in this proceeding. The parties may be heard orally if they so desire on Friday, February nineteenth, at ten-thirty A. M., and if the respondent desires to offer further testimony it will then be heard in open court.
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 99.1


                      CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Levcor
International, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Robert A. Levinson, the principal executive officer and
principal financial officer certify, 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
              operations of the Company.


By:  /s/ Robert A. Levinson
     ---------------------------
     Name: Robert A. Levinson
     Title: principal executive officer and principal financial officer


November 14, 2002
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Transportation

###### Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation

Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463; 5 U.S.C. App. I), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Advisory Board of the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (SLSDC), to be held from 10 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. (EDT) on Wednesday, September 17, 2008, at the Corporation's Administration Headquarters, Suite W32-300, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC. The agenda for this meeting will be as follows: Opening Remarks; Consideration of Minutes of Past Meeting; Quarterly Report; Old and New Business; Closing Discussion; Adjournment.

Attendance at the meeting is open to the interested public but limited to the space available. With the approval of the Administrator, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing further information should contact, not later than Friday, September 12, 2008, Anita K. Blackman, Chief of Staff, Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590; 202-366-0091.

Any member of the public may present a written statement to the Advisory Board at any time.

Issued at Washington, DC, on August 14, 2008.

Collister Johnson, Jr.,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. E8-19169 Filed 8-18-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-61-P
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6130 

To modify the boundary of the Wilson’s Creek National Battlefield in the 

State of Missouri, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 2, 2021 

Mr. LONG introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To modify the boundary of the Wilson’s Creek National 

Battlefield in the State of Missouri, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Wilson’s Creek Na5 tional Battlefield Boundary Revision Act of 2021’’. 

6 SEC. 2. WILSON’S CREEK NATIONAL BATTLEFIELD BOUND7 ARY MODIFICATION. 

8 Section 1(b) Public Law 86–434 (16 U.S.C. 

9 430kk(b)) is amended— 

10 (1) in paragraph (1)— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6130 IH

1 (A) in the second sentence, by striking 

2 ‘‘The map’’ and inserting the following: 

3 ‘‘(C) AVAILABILITY OF MAPS.—The maps 

4 described in subparagraphs (A) and (B)’’; 

5 (B) by striking ‘‘(1) The boundaries’’ and 

6 inserting the following: 

7 ‘‘(1) ADDITIONAL LAND.— 

8 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The boundaries’’; 

9 (C) by inserting after subparagraph (A) 

10 (as so designated) the following: 

11 ‘‘(B) NEWTONIA BATTLEFIELD ADDI12 TION.—The boundary of the Wilson’s Creek 

13 National Battlefield is revised to include the ap14 proximately 624 acres of land identified as 

15 ‘Proposed Addition’ on the map entitled ‘Wil16 son’s Creek National Battlefield Proposed 

17 Boundary Modification’, numbered 410/ 

18 177,379, and dated September 2021.’’; and 

19 (D) by adding at the end the following: 

20 ‘‘(D) ERRORS.—The Secretary of the Inte21 rior may correct any clerical or typographical 

22 error in a map described in subparagraph (A) 

23 or (B).’’; and 

24 (2) in paragraph (2)— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 6130 IH

1 (A) by striking ‘‘(2) The Secretary is au2 thorized to acquire the lands referred to in 

3 paragraph (1)’’ and inserting the following: 

4 ‘‘(2) METHOD OF ACQUISITION.—The Secretary 

5 of the Interior may acquire the land described in 

6 subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (1)’’; and 

7 (B) in the second sentence, by striking 

8 ‘‘park’’ and inserting ‘‘Wilson’s Creek National 

9 Battlefield’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS