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

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6310 

To designate the building utilized as a United States courthouse located 

at 111 South Highland Avenue in Jackson, Tennessee, as the ‘‘James 

D. Todd United States Courthouse’’, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 16, 2021 

Mr. KUSTOFF (for himself, Mr. COHEN, Mr. FLEISCHMANN, Mr. ROSE, Mrs. 

HARSHBARGER, Mr. DESJARLAIS, Mr. BURCHETT, Mr. GREEN of Tennessee, and Mr. COOPER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To designate the building utilized as a United States courthouse located at 111 South Highland Avenue in Jackson, 

Tennessee, as the ‘‘James D. Todd United States Courthouse’’, 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. DESIGNATION. 

4 The building utilized as a United States courthouse 

5 located at 111 South Highland Avenue in Jackson, Ten6 nessee, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘James D. 

7 Todd United States Courthouse’’ during the period in 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6310 IH

1 which the building is utilized as a United States court2 house. 

3 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

4 With respect to the period in which the building re5 ferred to in section 1 is utilized as a United States court6 house, any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

7 paper, or other record of the United States to that build8 ing shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘James D. 

9 Todd United States Courthouse’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

September 4, 2012

t0827

Order 

September 4, 2012

145157

WILLIAM E. SARGENT,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 145157

COA: 303853

WCAC: 09-000222

HOWMET CORPORATION and BANKERS

STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendants-Appellees. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 24, 2012 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
<PAGE>

                                                                  Exhibit 24


                              POWER OF ATTORNEY

The undersigned directors of Gardner Denver, Inc., a Delaware corporation
(the "Company"), which anticipates filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the "Commission") under the provisions of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Act") an Annual Report on Form 10-K (the "Annual
Report") for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004 (together with any and
all subsequent amendments) does hereby constitutes and appoints Ross J.
Centanni and Tracy D. Pagliara, and each of them, with full power of
substitution and resubstitution, as attorney or attorneys to execute and
file on behalf of the undersigned, in their capacity as a director of the
Company, the Annual Report and any and all other documents to be filed with
the Commission pertaining to the Annual Report with full power and authority
to do and perform any and all acts and things whatsoever required or
necessary to be done in the premises, as fully as to all intents and
purposes as he could do if personally present, hereby ratifying and
approving the acts of said attorneys and any of them and any such
substitution.


Dated: February 22, 2005

Signature                                                Title
---------                                                -----


/s/ Donald G. Barger, Jr.
---------------------------
    Donald G. Barger, Jr.                                Director


/s/ Frank J. Hansen
---------------------------
    Frank J. Hansen                                      Director


/s/ Raymond R. Hipp
---------------------------
    Raymond R. Hipp                                      Director


/s/ Thomas M. McKenna
---------------------------
    Thomas M. McKenna                                    Director


/s/ David D. Petratis
---------------------------
    David D. Petratis                                    Director


/s/ Diane K. Schumacher
---------------------------
    Diane K. Schumacher                                  Director


/s/ Richard L. Thompson
---------------------------
    Richard L. Thompson                                  Director
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6122 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6122

To prohibit the payment of certain legal settlements to individuals who 
                 unlawfully entered the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 2, 2021

 Ms. Malliotakis (for herself, Mrs. Miller of West Virginia, Mr. Kelly 
of Pennsylvania, Mr. Jacobs of New York, Mr. Meuser, Mrs. Harshbarger, 
    Mr. Gimenez, Mr. Hern, Ms. Mace, Mr. Joyce of Pennsylvania, Mr. 
Guthrie, Mr. Moore of Alabama, Mr. Gosar, Mr. Norman, Mr. Bergman, Mr. 
Rogers of Alabama, Mr. Cawthorn, Mr. Owens, Mr. Smith of Nebraska, Mr. 
   McKinley, Mr. Steube, Mr. Simpson, and Mr. Cline) introduced the 
  following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To prohibit the payment of certain legal settlements to individuals who 
                 unlawfully entered the United States.

    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 ``Protect American Taxpayer Dollars 
from Illegal Immigration Act''.

SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON LEGAL SETTLEMENTS FOR INDIVIDUALS WHO UNLAWFULLY 
              ENTERED THE UNITED STATES.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no Federal funds, 
including amounts deposited into the Judgment Fund established under 
section 1304 of title 31, United States Code, may be expended for any 
legal settlement to any individual who violated section 275(a) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1325(a)) if the claims giving 
rise to such settlement are based solely on the lawful detention of 
such individual as part of a family unit after entry at a port of entry 
or between ports of entry along the southern border of the United 
States after January 20, 2017.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 31.1**




**Certification**




I,
      Terry
      Renoux, in my capacity as President, Consumer Finance of First Tennessee Bank
      National Association (the master servicer) do hereby certify that:





1.    I
      have
      reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to
      be
      filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of First
      Horizon ABS Trust 2006-HE1 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);





2.    Based
      on
      my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do 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, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required
      to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included
      in the Exchange Act periodic reports;





4.    I
      am
      responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicers and based
      on
      my knowledge and the compliance reviews conducted in preparing the servicer
      compliance statements required in this report under Item 1123 of
      Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic
      reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing
      agreements in all material respects; and





5.    All
      of
      the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed
      securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance
      with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included
      in
      this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange
      Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this
      report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances
      of
      noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report
      on
      Form 10-K.





In
      giving
      the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided
      to me
      by The Bank of New York.







**First
                Tennessee Bank National Association**,
                as Master ServicerBy:
            /s/
                Terry B. RenouxTerry
                B. Renoux,President,
                Consumer Finance(Senior
                Officer of the Master Servicer
              in
                charge of Servicing)




Date:
      March 26, 2007
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6253 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6253

 To amend the District of Columbia Home Rule Act to permit the Council 
     of the District of Columbia to enact laws with respect to the 
   organization and jurisdiction of the District of Columbia courts.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 13, 2021

  Ms. Norton introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                   Committee on Oversight and Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the District of Columbia Home Rule Act to permit the Council 
     of the District of Columbia to enact laws with respect to the 
   organization and jurisdiction of the District of Columbia courts.

    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 ``District of Columbia Courts Home 
Rule Act''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORITY OF COUNCIL OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TO ENACT LAWS WITH 
              RESPECT TO DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURTS.

    Section 602(a) of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act (sec. 1-
206.02(a), D.C. Official Code) is amended by striking paragraph (4).
                                 <all>
```
220 So.2d 876

#### Troy JORDAN v. STATE.

7 Div. 850.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

March 27, 1969.

Burns, Carr, & Shumaker, Centre, for petitioner.

MacDonald Gallion, Atty. Gen., and Marlin Mooneyham, Asst. Atty. Gen., opposed.

MERRILL, Justice.

Petition of Troy Jordan for certiorari to the Court of Appeals to review and revise the judgment and decision in Jordan v. State, 44 Ala.App. 703, 220 So.2d 875.

Writ denied.

LIVINGSTON, C. J., and LAWSON and HARWOOD,. JJ., concur.
#### Ex Parte Jesse Steel.

No. 24892.

May 24, 1950.

State’s Motion for Rehearing Denied June 21, 1950.

*Power, McDonald and Mell,*Tyler, for relator.

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

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

A complaint was filed before a justice of peace of Smith County, charging that appellant was a fugitive from justice from the State of Indiana. A warrant of arrest based on this complaint directed the officers to apprehend and bring appellant before the magistrate. A hearing was had on the 27th day of January, 1950, and based on the evidence there introduced, the justice of the peace committed the appellant to jail to await requisition from the Governor of Indiana. Appellant was at that time released on bond. This proceeding was brought under Article 1001, C.C.P.

An attack on this order of the justice of peace was made by filing petition for writ of habeas corpus before the Judge of the 7th Judicial District Court of Smith County. A hearing was had by the district judge on the 1st day of February, 1950. As we understand the record, no requisition had been presented *94from the Governor of the State of Indiana to the Governor of the State of Texas. At the conclusion of the hearing the Judge of the 7th District Court remanded the relator to the custody of the sheriff of Smith County to be delivered by the sheriff to the proper officers of the State of Indiana for removal from this state to the State of Indiana to answer the charge alleged to be against him there. This order was suspended, however, during the pendency of this appeal.

The district judge had no authority to order relator delivered to any officer or other person from the State of Indiana. No greater effect can be given to his order than that it denied the attack made on the order of the justice of the peace holding relator for a period of ninety days. That ninety days has now expired. Consequently, the order of the justice of the peace has no effect at this time to hold the appellant. If legal procedure has not come from the Governor of the State of Indiana to the Governor of the State of Texas, and if he has not been arrested by virtue of such procedure, appellant is entitled to his release.

Any question as to the validity of the order which the justice of the peace made is now moot and it will not be necessary for us to discuss its validity. In the event appellant is still being held by reason of the order of the justice of the peace and that of the district judge, his release should be directed and such is the order of this court. No further action will be taken in this appeal than to direct that a mandate issue directing the release of the appellant.

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.

WOODLEY, Judge.

We remain convinced that relator was entitled to be discharged upon the expiration of ninety days after his commitment by the magistrate.

Under the provisions of Art. 1004, C.C.P., relator may not again be arrested upon a charge of the same offense, except by a warrant from the Governor of this State.

The state’s motion for rehearing is overruled.

Opinion approved by the Court.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6342 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6342

 To increase funding for cancer research by the National Institutes of 
   Health to be more in proportion to the mortality rates of cancer.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 23, 2021

Mr. Fitzpatrick (for himself and Mrs. Dingell) introduced the following 
      bill; which was referred to the Committee on Appropriations

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To increase funding for cancer research by the National Institutes of 
   Health to be more in proportion to the mortality rates of cancer.

    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 ``Knock Out Cancer Act'' or the ``KO 
Cancer Act''.

SEC. 2. INCREASING NIH BUDGET FOR CANCER RESEARCH.

    To conduct or support cancer research, there is hereby 
appropriated, for each of fiscal years 2023 through 2027, to the 
National Institutes of Health, out of amounts in the Treasury not 
otherwise appropriated, an amount that is equal to 25 percent of the 
total amount allocated to the National Institutes of Health for cancer 
research for fiscal year 2021, to remain available until expended. 
Amounts appropriated pursuant to the preceding sentence shall be in 
addition to amounts otherwise made available to the National Institutes 
of Health for cancer research.
                                 <all>
```
NO. 07-06-0007-CV

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL A

	JANUARY 25, 2006

	______________________________

	IN THE INTEREST OF C.L.P., D.R.P., D.J.W.,

	AND K.H.W., MINOR CHILDREN

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 223RD DISTRICT COURT OF GRAY COUNTY;

	NO. 33,638; HONORABLE LEE WATERS, JUDGE

	_______________________________

Before REAVIS and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

	MEMORANDUM OPINION

	Appellant Camron Leroy Pike, Sr. perfected this appeal from the trial court’s order terminating his parental rights.  On January 13, 2006, the trial court signed an order granting Pike’s motion for new trial, sustaining his claim of indigence, and appointing counsel.  An order granting a new trial vacates the original judgment appealed from and returns the case to the trial court as if no previous trial or hearing had been conducted.  See Old Republic Ins. Co. v. Scott, 846 S.W.2d 832, 833 (Tex. 1993); Long John Silver’s, Inc. v. Martinez, 850 S.W.2d 773, 777 (Tex.App.–San Antonio 1993, writ dism’d w.o.j.).  Thus, there is no final order from which an appeal may be prosecuted.  

	Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

						Don H. Reavis

						    Justice
EXHIBIT 32.1
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                                 18 U.S.C. 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Annual Report of ONLINE  ORIGINALS,  INC. (the "Company")
on Form  10-K  for the  period  ended  November  30,  2008,  as  filed  with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Shari
Sookarookoff,  Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of
2002, that:

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

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



Date: March 6, 2009


By:       /s/ Shari Sookarookoff

         Shari Sookarookoff
         Chief Executive Officer, principal executive officer
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Benton, Willis and Annunziata Argued at Richmond, Virginia

CHARLES NATHANIEL ROSS MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY v. Record No. 0068-97-2 JUDGE JERE M. H. WILLIS, JR. DECEMBER 23, 1997 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF BUCKINGHAM COUNTY Timothy J. Hauler, Judge Robert H. Gray, Jr., for appellant. Marla Graff Decker, Assistant Attorney General (Richard Cullen, Attorney General; John K. Byrum, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

1. Ross invokes proof that he knew the vehicle was occupied only as an element of malice for purposes of the instruction on murder. He acknowledges that such proof was not required to prove manslaughter. Because Ross was not convicted of murder, but was convicted of manslaughter, his contention that the murder

instruction was deficient is moot. 2. Because Ross did not present his double-jeopardy contention to the trial court and did not preserve that contention properly for appeal, we will not consider it. Rule 5A:18. The record in this case presents no reason for us to invoke the ends of justice exception to the application of that

rule.

* Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated for publication.- 2 - The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Affirmed

.
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

**Consent of Ernst & Young LLP**

**Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 Nos. 333-137502 and 333-141260) pertaining tothe 2006 Equity Incentive Plan, 2006 Director Option Plan and 2006 Employee Stock Purchase Plan of Riverbed Technology, Inc., of our reports dated February14, 2008, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of RiverbedTechnology, Inc. and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Riverbed Technology, Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2007. 

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP 

SanFrancisco, California 

February 14, 2008
Exhibit 32.2



Statement of Chief Financial Officer



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of Pacific Enterprises (the "Company") certifies that:



(i)

the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 (the "Quarterly Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



(ii)

the information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







May 2, 2007



/S/  Dennis V. ArriolaDennis V. ArriolaChief Financial Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 21
- 0518 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. ROBERT CRAIG BRITZIUS,

Defendant and Appellant.

**GRANT** Pursuant to authority granted under Mont. R. App. P. 26(1), the Appellant is given an extension of time until March 24, 2022, to prepare, file, and serve the Appellant’s opening brief.

Electronically signed by: Bowen Greenwood Clerk of the Supreme Court February 17 2022

02/17/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0518
| | CERTIFICATION | Exhibit 13.2
| | ------------- | ------------



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, I, Steve Dai, Chief Financial
Officer of Yucheng Technologies Limited (the “Company”), certify, to my knowledge,that the Company’s annual report
on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2009 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Date: April 27, 2012



|/s/ Steve Dai                  | 
|------------------------------ | 
|Name: Steve Dai                | 
|Title: Chief Financial Officer | 



The foregoing certification is being
furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate
disclosure document.