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

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6676 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6676

To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit administering COVID-
19 vaccines to minors without parental consent, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 9, 2022

  Ms. Herrera Beutler (for herself, Mr. Harris, Mr. Fleischmann, Mrs. 
   Cammack, Mr. Johnson of South Dakota, Mr. Bacon, Mr. Tiffany, Mr. 
  Rodney Davis of Illinois, Mr. Ferguson, Mr. Stauber, and Mr. Latta) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit administering COVID-
19 vaccines to minors without parental consent, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Protecting Parental Rights Act''.

SEC. 2. ADMINISTERING COVID-19 VACCINES TO MINORS WITHOUT PARENTAL 
              CONSENT.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 7 of title 18, United States Code, is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 120. Administering COVID-19 vaccines to minors without parental 
              consent
    ``Whoever, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, 
administers a COVID-19 vaccine to an individual who has not attained 
the age of 18 without the prior consent of a custodial parent or legal 
guardian of that individual, shall be fined under this title, 
imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter 7 of 
title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item 
related to section 119 the following:

``120. Administering COVID-19 vaccines to minors without parental 
                            consent.''.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JAMES BURGER, 

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 20-6197

(D.C. No. 5:18-CR-00260-SLP-48)

(W.D. Okla.)

_________________________________

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________

Before BACHARACH, PHILLIPS, and EID, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

James Burger pled guilty to one count of possession of methamphetamine with 

intent to distribute. He was sentenced to 192 months in prison, which was below the

advisory sentencing guidelines range. Although his plea agreement contained a 

waiver of his appellate rights, he filed a notice of appeal. The government then filed 

a motion to enforce the appeal waiver. Counsel filed a response to the motion 

pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating his belief that any 

argument against enforcement of the plea agreement is frivolous and that the appeal 

waiver is enforceable. Counsel also filed a motion to withdraw as counsel of record 

* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines 

of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for 

its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

May 3, 2021

Christopher M. Wolpert

Clerk of Court
2

for Mr. Burger. We gave Mr. Burger the opportunity to file a pro se response to 

show why the appeal waiver should not be enforced. His response was due on 

April 13, 2021, but to date he has not filed a response.

We will enforce an appeal waiver if (1) “the disputed appeal falls within” the 

waiver’s scope; (2) “the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his appellate 

rights”; and (3) enforcing the waiver would not “result in a miscarriage of justice.” 

United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315, 1325 (10th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (per curiam). The 

government argues that all three of these conditions are met in this case. 

Consistent with our obligation under Anders, we conducted an independent 

review of the proceedings. See 386 U.S. at 744. After doing so, we agree with the 

government that Mr. Burger’s appeal waiver should be enforced under Hahn. We 

therefore grant the government’s motion and dismiss the appeal. We also grant 

counsel’s motion to withdraw.

Entered for the Court

Per Curiam
Exhibit 31.2

Porter Bancorp, Inc.

Rule 13a-14(a) Certification of Chief Financial Officer

I, David B. Pierce, Chief Financial Officer of Porter Bancorp, Inc. (the Company), certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company;

2.
Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading
with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this
report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the
registrant and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed
under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared; and

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our
conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation.



|                      |  |  |  |  |  |                         |  | 
|--------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | ----------------------- |  | 
|Dated: March 26, 2007 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ David B. Pierce     |  | 
|                      |  |  |  |  |  | David B. Pierce         |  | 
|                      |  |  |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer |  |
#### BOLAND MACH. & MFG. CO., Inc., v. FAVRET et al.

No. 16799.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

Oct. 18, 1937.

Clarence F. Favret, of New-Orleans, for appellant.

James G. Schillin, of New Orleans, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This matter comes up on motion to dismiss the appeal because of the fact that the transcript as filed did not contain or make reference to certain exhibits. The transcript, though incomplete because it failed to contain the exhibits or reference thereto, was filed in this court within the time provided by law. Appellant has now filed in this court certificate of the deputy clerk of the first city court of New Orleans that the said exhibits have been filed, *and the*
      *402said deputy clerk has now corrected the index of the transcript so that it shows the said exhibits have been filed and have been retained in the office of the clerk of the first city court and deposited for safekeeping in the vault, as is customary. They may thus be obtained by us when necessary.

Therefore, in accordance with the provisions of Act No. 234 of 1932, the motion to dismiss the appeal is overruled.

Motion to dismiss overruled.
#### Newman, Appellant, *v.*Romanelli.

*Trial*— Court *and jury*— Binding *instructions for plaintiff*— Oral *testimony*— Evidence.

A request for peremptory directions to a jury to find in favor of a plaintiff is properly refused where such request depends entirely upon oral testimony presented by the plaintiff.

Argued January 15, 1914.

Appeal, No. 182, Jan. T., 1913, by plaintiffs, from judgment of C. P. No. 5, Philadelphia Co., June T., 1912, No. 3994, on verdict for defendant in case of Abe and Rosie Newman v. Joseph Romanelli.

Before Fell, C. J., Mesteezat, Elkin, Stewaet and Moschziskeb, JJ.

Affirmed.

Action of trespass to recover damages for the illegal distraint of goods.

The opinion of the Supreme Court states the case.

*148■ Verdict for defendant and judgment thereon. Plaintiffs appealed.

*Error assigned*was in refusing to direct a verdict for the plaintiffs.

*Abraham Werniele,*for appellant.

*John J. Eleoele,*for appellee.

February 9,1914:

Per Curiam,

The only. assignment of error by the plaintiffs is to the refusal of the court to direct a verdict for them. The action was for the illegal distraint of goods that had been removed from premises leased by the defendant to one of the plaintiffs. In answer to plaintiffs’ requests for charge, the jury were instructed that the distraint was unlawful if no rent was in arrears and that for an unlawful distraint or an excessive one or one on goods of a stranger removed from the demised premises before rent became due, a recovery could be had without proof of specific damages. The request for peremptory directions to the jury was based on oral evidence presented by the plaintiffs and it was properly refused. Where the proof in support of a plaintiff’s claim is by oral testimony, it is the province of the jury to decide under instructions by the court, Reel v. Elder, 62 Pa. 308. “There is a broad and plain distinction between a direction to find for the defendant where the plaintiff’s evidence if believed is insufficient to sustain his claim, and a direction to find for the plaintiff when his case depends entirely upon oral testimony.” Lehigh Coal & Nav. Co. v. Evans, 176 Pa. 28.

The judgment is affirmed.
#### Thomas McGowan et al., Plaintiffs, *v.*James McGowan et al., Defendants.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Kings County,

February 20, 1950.

*Max Tirschwell*for plaintiffs.

*Frank A. Margiotta*for defendants.

Meier Steinbrink, J.

Motion by plaintiffs pursuant to rule 109 of the Buies of Civil Practice, to strike out defenses as insuEcient in law and cross motion by defendants under rule 106 of the Buies of Civil Practice, to.dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action. The action is in equity to impress a trust upon real property and to declare that the parties to the action own said property as tenants in common. Plaintiffs and defendants are brothers and sisters. The relief is sought on the claim that the defendants received the property upon a trust for the benefit of the parents of the parties hereto and that upon the death of the parents, intestate, title to said property vested in the surviving children. The complaint also contains allegations of partial performance by plaintiffs. The answer consists of denials and four aErmative defenses. The first defense is predicated .upon the Statute of Frauds. This defense may not be sustained. The Statute of Frauds cannot be used as a defense against fraud or the abuse of a confidential relationship in the acquisition and retention of real property. *(Waters*v. *166
      *Hall,*218 App. Div. 149; *Gallagher*v. *Gallagher, 135*App. Div. 457, affd. 202 N. Y. 572; *Goldsmith*v. *Goldsmith,*145 N. Y. 313; *Wood*v. *Rabe,*96 N. Y. 414; *Wheeler*v. *Reynolds,*66 N. Y. 227; *McKenna*v. *Meehan,*248 N. Y. 206; *Wittner*v. *Burr Ave. Development Gorp.,*222 App. Div. 285.) The, second defense alleges that the cause of action abated by reason of the death of the parents prior to the commencement of this action. No citation of authority is required to show the insufficiency of that defense. (See Decedent Estate Law, § 83.) The third defense is to the effect that the complaint fails to state a cause of action. This is a mere conclusion and does not constitute new matter. *(New Amsterdam Cas. Co.*v. *National Union Fire Ins. Co.,*236 App. Div. 494.) Such a defense cannot be taken by answer. *(Falk*v. *MacMasters,*197 App. Div. 357; *Duke*v. *Wasserman,*191 Misc. 849.) The fourth defense alleges the illegality of the agreement set forth in the complaint. The defense is insufficient for failure to plead supporting facts. *(Kaufman*v. *Investors Syndicate,*149 Misc. 686; *Schiff*v. *Schiff,*270 App. Div. 845; *Equitable Trust Co.*v. *Keene,*111 Misc. 544, affd. 195 App. Div. 384, revd. on another point 232 N. Y. 290; *New Amsterdam Cas. Co.*v. *National Union Fire Ins. Co., supra.)*

Accordingly, plaintiffs’ motion to strike out the defenses is granted with leave to serve an amended answer within 10 days with regard to the fourth defense. Defendants’ cross motion to dismiss the complaint for insufficiency is denied. In my opinion, the complaint sufficiently states a cause of action. Settle order on notice.
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of Chief Financial Officer 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 Chyron Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jerry Kieliszak, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, to my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(i) 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.

Dated:  November 12, 2008

| | /s/ Jerry Kieliszak      
| | -------------------------
| | Jerry Kieliszak          
| | Senior Vice President and
| | Chief Financial Officer  

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.
Exhibit 32.2


Certification of Principal Financial Officer


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 Annual Report of Alamo Energy Corp. a Nevada corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ending April 30, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Donald Sebastian, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge, 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.





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Alamo Energy Corp., and will be retained by Alamo Energy Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.








/s/ Donald SebastianDonald Sebastian

Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Financial Officer)

August 1, 2011
AxPiJisNL y 

### -ftpt\0^2b^J c^s^c* (/^r~^ 

# ' ^XS^,9^ c Si /W wWS CI* '—^~= ' "7vrw77 ~ 5< ^ / ^> f sr~<rr>^ ( ^.^ _X-? 

# t^L W^^lV ^i^^W.uwu fee OO

### ^M^^ff (jM^te^. 

### $e ^^tfvo\l s-e^*

### 'f^tS 

# C-)

## -p^<^ -ewe ~^ ^cto^-fe ^^^vv^^y- c 7
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
FOR THE 5-WEEKS ENDED JULY 31, 1999
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   1-MO
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-29-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1999
<CASH>                                          77,180
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   53,087
<ALLOWANCES>                                     8,991
<INVENTORY>                                    255,740
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               387,802
<PP&E>                                         225,620
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,133
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,088,210
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          248,113
<BONDS>                                        315,390
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           201
<OTHER-SE>                                     414,694
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,088,210
<SALES>                                        236,416
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               240,966
<CGS>                                          184,761
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  184,761
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                61,432
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,520
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (8,747)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (15)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (8,762)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (8,762)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.44)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
Exhibit 31

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

I, Robert McGinnis, 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 HarborView Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-3 (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. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement required in
this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the
Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under
the servicing agreement 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 the
information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: Countrywide
Home Loans Servicing LP, as Servicer, and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company,
as Trustee.


Date: March 30, 2007

                           /s/ Robert McGinnis
                           ----------------------------------------
                           Name: Robert McGinnis
                           Title:  President, Greenwich Capital Acceptance, Inc.
Exhibit 32.2

906 CertificationCFO

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 Annual Report of Intcomex, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Russell A. Olson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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; 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/ Russell A. OlsonRussell A. OlsonChief Financial Officer


The certification set forth above is being furnished as an exhibit solely pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is not being filed as part of the Annual Report of Intcomex, Inc. on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2006, or as a separate disclosure documents of we or the certifying officers.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                   5
<MULTIPLIER>                                1
<CURRENCY>                                  U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               Year
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                DEC-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                             1
<CASH>                                      6,379,686
<SECURITIES>                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                               12,187,114
<ALLOWANCES>                                (219,000)
<INVENTORY>                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            19,396,884
<PP&E>                                      129,576,254
<DEPRECIATION>                              (46,488,050)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              114,650,775
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       27,188,203
<BONDS>                                     0
<COMMON>                                    8,926,975
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<OTHER-SE>                                  56,304,013
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                114,650,775
<SALES>                                     147,300,299
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            147,300,299
<CGS>                                       119,088,627
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               130,156,889
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              1,022,205
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          896,067
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             17,269,548




<INCOME-TAX>                                6,751,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         10,518,548
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                10,518,548
<EPS-PRIMARY>                               1.41
<EPS-DILUTED>                               1.40
        

</TABLE>