alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 10-20177 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. JOSE GARCIA, JR., Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:09-CR-365-1
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, CLEMENT, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to represent Jose Garcia, Jr., has moved for leave to withdraw and h a s f i l e d a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and U n i t e d S t ates v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Garcia has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Garcia’s response. We concur with c o u n sel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused f r o m f u rther responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See5 T H C I R
. R. 42.2. 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 August 16, 20 11 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Pur sua nt to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the cour t has det erm ined thatt hisop 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 for th in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 10-20177 Document: 00511573390 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/16/2011
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Lance Thibault, Chief Financial Officer,certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report onForm 10-Q of deCODE genetics, Inc.;

 

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

 

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

 

4.The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange 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 oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;

 

b)             evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by the report based on suchevaluation; and

 

c)              disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarterin the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and

 

5.The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

a)              all significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

b)             any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 
| Dated: November 13, 2003 | /s/ Lance Thibault                   |   |
|--------------------------|--------------------------------------|--------|
|                     |   Lance Thibault           |
|                     |   Chief  Financial Officer |

 

----
EXHIBIT
32





AMASYS
CORPORATION





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)








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 Amasys Corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify
with respect to the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period
ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the “Report”), to the best of the undersigned’s knowledge
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.








May
      14, 2009/s/
      C.W. Gilluly, Ed.D.President
      and Chief Executive Officer
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1460

To amend section 922 of chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to

protect the rights of citizens under the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 4, 2001

Mr. HEFLEY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend section 922 of chapter 44 of title 18, United

States Code, to protect the rights of citizens under the

Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United

States.

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 ‘‘Second Amendment

5 Rights Protection Act of 2001’’.
2

•HR 1460 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROTECTION OF SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS.

2 Subsection (t) of section 922 of chapter 44 of title

3 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting at the

4 end thereof the following new paragraph:

5 ‘‘(7) None of the funds appropriated pursuant

6 to any provision of law may be used for (1) any sys7 tem to implement this subsection that does not re8 quire and result in the immediate destruction of all

9 information, in any form whatsoever, submitted by

10 or on behalf of any person who has been determined

11 not to be prohibited from owning a firearm; (2) the

12 implementation or collection of any tax or fee by any

13 officer, agent, or employee of the United States, or

14 by any state or local officer or agent acting on be15 half of the United States, in connection with the im16 plementation of this subsection; provided, that any

17 person aggrieved by a violation of this provision may

18 bring an action in the Federal district court for the

19 district in which the person resides; provided fur20 ther, that any person who is successful with respect

21 to any such action shall receive damages, punitive

22 damages, and such other remedies as the court may

23 determine to be appropriate, including a reasonable

24 attorney’s fee.’’.

Æ
#### Bartholomew L. GEHBAUER, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Thomas L. WHALEY et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 19319.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

Jan. 3, 1950.

St. Clair Adams & Son, St. Clair Adams, Jr., New Orleans, attorneys for Defendants-Appellees.

Cahn & Cahn, Claude F. Kammer, New Orleans, attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellant.

JANVIER, Judge.

For the reasons given in the matter of Whaley v. Gehbauer, 43 So.2d 545, decided by us this day, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.
<XBRL>
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

<!--XBRL Document Created with Wdesk from Workiva-->
<!--Copyright 2023 Workiva-->
<!--r:c3fc5574-631e-459b-8106-649d243e947e,g:65dc5925-dc75-4de4-b675-233f4747824a-->
<xs:schema xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" xmlns:link="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/linkbase" xmlns:cinf="http://www.cinfin.com/20230506" attributeFormDefault="unqualified" elementFormDefault="qualified" targetNamespace="http://www.cinfin.com/20230506">
  <xs:import namespace="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" schemaLocation="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/xlink-2003-12-31.xsd"/>
  <xs:import namespace="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instance" schemaLocation="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/xbrl-instance-2003-12-31.xsd"/>
  <xs:import namespace="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/linkbase" schemaLocation="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/xbrl-linkbase-2003-12-31.xsd"/>
  <xs:import namespace="http://xbrl.sec.gov/dei/2021q4" schemaLocation="https://xbrl.sec.gov/dei/2021q4/dei-2021q4.xsd"/>
  <xs:annotation>
    <xs:appinfo>
      <link:linkbaseRef xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:arcrole="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink/properties/linkbase" xlink:href="cinf-20230506_lab.xml" xlink:role="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/labelLinkbaseRef" xlink:type="simple"/>
      <link:linkbaseRef xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:arcrole="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink/properties/linkbase" xlink:href="cinf-20230506_pre.xml" xlink:role="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationLinkbaseRef" xlink:type="simple"/>
      <link:roleType id="CoverPageCoverPage" roleURI="http://www.cinfin.com/role/CoverPageCoverPage">
        <link:definition>0000001 - Document - Cover Page Cover Page</link:definition>
        <link:usedOn>link:presentationLink</link:usedOn>
        <link:usedOn>link:calculationLink</link:usedOn>
        <link:usedOn>link:definitionLink</link:usedOn>
      </link:roleType>
    </xs:appinfo>
  </xs:annotation>
</xs:schema>
</XBRL>
IB

Union Calendar No. 133

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1384

[Report No. 107–222]

To amend the National Trails System Act to designate the Navajo Long

Walk to Bosque Redondo as a national historic trail.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 3, 2001

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico (for himself and Mr. CANNON) introduced the

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Resources

SEPTEMBER 28, 2001

Additional sponsors: Mr. SKEEN and Mr. OLVER

SEPTEMBER 28, 2001

Reported with amendments, committed to the Committee of the Whole House

on the State of the Union, and ordered to be printed

[Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed in italic]

[For text of introduced bill, see copy of bill as introduced on April 3, 2001]

A BILL

To amend the National Trails System Act to designate the

Navajo Long Walk to Bosque Redondo as a national

historic trail.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 1384 RH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Long Walk National

3 Historic Trail Study Act’’.

4 SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

5 Congress finds the following:

6 (1) Beginning in the fall of 1863 and ending in

7 the winter of 1864, the United States Government

8 forced thousands of Navajos and Mescalero Apaches to

9 relocate from their ancestral lands to Fort Sumner,

10 New Mexico, where the tribal members were held cap11 tive, virtually as prisoners of war, for over 4 years.

12 (2) Thousands of Native Americans died at Fort

13 Sumner from starvation, malnutrition, disease, expo14 sure, or conflicts between the tribes and United States

15 military personnel.

16 SEC. 3. DESIGNATION FOR STUDY.

17 Section 5(c) of the National Trails System Act (16

18 U.S.C. 1244(c)) is amended by adding at the end the fol19 lowing new paragraph:

20 ‘‘(ll) The Long Walk Trail, a series of routes which

21 the Navajo and Mescalero Apache Indian tribes were forced

22 to walk beginning in the fall of 1863 as a result of their

23 removal by the United States Government from their ances24 tral lands, generally located within a corridor extending

25 through portions of Canyon de Chelley, Arizona, and Albu-
3

•HR 1384 RH

1 querque, Canyon Blanco, Anton Chico, Canyon Piedra

2 Pintado, and Fort Sumner, New Mexico.’’.

Amend the title so as to read: ‘‘A bill to amend the

National Trails System Act to designate the route in Arizona and New Mexico which the Navajo and Mescalero

Apache Indian tribes were forced to walk in 1863 and

1864, for study for potential addition to the National

Trails System.’’.
Union Calendar No. 133

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1384

[Report No. 107–222]

A BILL

To amend the National Trails System Act to designate the Navajo Long Walk to Bosque Redondo

as a national historic trail.

SEPTEMBER 28, 2001

Reported with amendments, committed to the Committee

of the Whole House on the State of the Union, and ordered to be printed
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Mangosoft, Inc. and

Mangosoft Corporation,

 v. Case No. 02-cv-545-SM

Oracle Corporation

O R D E R

Effective October 1, 2005, Electronic Case Filing (“ECF”) became mandatory in all cases

in this district. With the exception of Attorney Dorian Daley, all counsel in this case have now

registered for ECF.

It has come to the court’s attention that Attorney Daley, one of four counsel representing

the Defendant, is on extended medical leave and, as a result, has been unable to register for ECF. 

As a result, Attorney Daley’s continued participation in the case at this time requires the court

and the parties continue to serve her with paper copies of pleadings, orders and notices filed in

the case. Thus, the court will allow another attorney from Oracle Corporation to file a substitute

appearance for Attorney Daley during her medical leave contingent on that attorney

simultaneously filing an ECF Registration form. Upon her return from leave, Attorney Daley

may again file an appearance in the case at no fee and submit an ECF Registration form. If no

substitute appearance is filed by October 24, 2005, then the court will temporarily revoke

Attorney Daley’s pro hac admission until she returns from leave and files an appearance and ECF

Registration form with the court.

Case 1:02-cv-00545-SM Document 90 Filed 10/11/05 Page 1 of 2
SO ORDERED.

Date: October 11, 2005 ______________________________________

 Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

cc: Paul T. Ehrlich, Esq.

Paul J. Hayes, Esq.

Danielle Leah Pacik, Esq.

Matthew D. Powers, Esq.

Martha Van Oot, Esq.

Alexander J. Walker, Esq.

Case 1:02-cv-00545-SM Document 90 Filed 10/11/05 Page 2 of 2
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1135

To ensure that members of the Armed Forces who are married and have

minor dependents are eligible for military family housing containing

more than two bedrooms.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 20, 2001

Mr. WICKER (for himself, Mrs. JONES of Ohio, Mr. NORWOOD, Mr. SIMPSON,

and Mr. OSE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Armed Services

A BILL

To ensure that members of the Armed Forces who are married and have minor dependents are eligible for military

family housing containing more than two bedrooms.

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 ‘‘Armed Forces Housing

5 Improvement Act of 2001’’.
2

•HR 1135 IH

1 SEC. 2. ADEQUATE HOUSING FOR MARRIED MEMBERS OF

2 THE ARMED FORCES WITH MINOR DEPEND3 ENTS.

4 (a) MINIMUM NUMBER OF BEDROOMS.—(1) A mem5 ber of the Armed Forces who has a spouse and at least

6 one dependent under the age of nineteen residing with the

7 member shall be eligible for installation housing con8 taining at least three bedrooms, regardless of the grade,

9 rank, or rating of the member, and installation housing

10 containing less than three bedrooms shall be considered

11 to be inadequate housing for such a member.

12 (2) The actual occupancy of installation housing de13 scribed in paragraph (1) by a member described in such

14 paragraph shall be subject to availability.

15 (b) REVISION OF HOUSING MARKET ANALYSIS AND

16 FAMILY HOUSING REQUIREMENTS.—The Secretaries of

17 the military departments shall require the military base

18 housing office for each military installation to review and

19 revise its housing market analysis and military family

20 housing requirements in order to accommodate the policy

21 specified in subsection (a)(1).

22 (c) CONDITIONS ON OBLIGATION OF FUNDS FOR

23 FAMILY HOUSING CONSTRUCTION.—Funds appropriated

24 before the effective date of this Act for the construction

25 of military family housing and unobligated by that date,
3

•HR 1135 IH

1 may not be obligated until the Secretaries of the military

2 departments certify to Congress that—

3 (1) the housing market analysis and military

4 family housing requirements have been revised as re5 quired by subsection (b); and

6 (2) the unobligated military housing funds will

7 be used as part of a plan to accommodate the policy

8 specified in subsection (a)(1) and implement the out9 come of its revised housing market analysis and

10 military housing requirements.

11 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section shall take effect

12 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
#### Katie Mae KITCHEN, alias Katie Mae Green, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Florida. Division A.

Sept. 26, 1956.

D. C. Laird, Lakeland, for appellant.

Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., and David U. Tumin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

HOBSON, Justice.

Defendant here appeals from judgment entered consequent upon a verdict of guilty of murder in the second degree.

Before trial, appellant moved for a continuance of nearly five months, upon the ground that a material eyewitness was absent from the state. It was stipulated, however, that this alleged eyewitness, if he were present at the trial, would make the same answers which he had given upon a deposition which had been taken. These answers revealed that he was not in fact an eyewitness to the crime.

It is elementary that an application for a continuance is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. Johns v. *668State, 157 Fla. 18, 24 So.2d 708; Aeree v. State, 153 Fla. 561, 15 So.2d 262; Samuels v. State, 123 Fla. 280, 166 So. 743; Adams v. State, 56 Fla. 1, 48 So. 219; and Clinton v. State, 53 Fla. 98, 43 So. 312.

Reviewing the deposition of the absent witness, which was read to the jury, with the other testimony of record in the case, it is evident that the testimony this witness would have been able to give in person would not materially have affected the result. ■ The trial court will therefore not be held to have abused its discretion in denying the motion for continuance. Samuels v. State, supra, 166 So. 743, 744.

The final contention of appellant is that the trial court erred in admitting certain photographs in evidence. Two of the photographs depict the scene of the crime and their relevancy and lack of inflammatory character render it unnecessary to discuss them further. The third photograph, however, is a picture of the body of the decedent taken at a funeral parlor, clearly showing the stab wound from which she died. It is our opinion that this photograph is not inflammatory in character, and could not adversely have affected the jury, but in any cáse it appears to be relevant to one of the issues involved herein. It shows a neat and skillful stab wound inflicted directly over the heart of decedent. Appellant had pleaded self-defense, and testified that the decedent had assaulted her, hitting her with a hammer, whereupon she struck decedent with a knife while running out of the room, and this act was in self-defense and with no intent to kill. The character and location of the wounds, clearly shown by the disputed photograph, tend to impeach appellant’s version of the affray. While possible, it is improbable that the wound shown could have been inflicted under the circumstances which appellant’s testimony described.

Where a photograph is otherwise properly admitted, it is not a valid objection that it tends to prejudice the jury, Mardorff v. State, 143 Fla. 64, 196 So. 625.

Affirmed.

. DREW, C. . J., , and TERRELL and •TIIORNAL, JJ., concur.
**
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, Michael S. Gross, Chief Executive Officer of SCP Private Credit Income BDC LLC, certify that: 

 
 1.
I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of SCP Private CreditIncome BDC LLC; 

 
 2.
Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial 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 and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure 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 bedesigned 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 isbeing prepared; 

 
 b.
evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in thisreport 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; and 

 
 c.
disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting. 

 
 5.
The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 
 a.
all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 
 b.
any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role inthe registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

Dated this 21st day of February, 2019 
/s/ Michael S. Gross**Michael S. Gross****