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

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 215 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 215

To require the Consumer Product Safety Commission to ban toys which in 
       size, shape, or overall appearance resemble real handguns.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 3, 2001

  Mr. Towns introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require the Consumer Product Safety Commission to ban toys which in 
       size, shape, or overall appearance resemble real handguns.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. TOY HANDGUNS.

    The Consumer Product Safety Commission shall promulgate a rule in 
accordance with section 9 of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 
2058) to declare as a banned hazardous product under section 8 any toy 
which in size, shape, or overall appearance resembles a real handgun.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

              SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

      In connection with the Quarterly Report of CDSI Holdings Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard
J. Lampen, Chief Executive 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 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.


April 30, 2004                                   /s/ Richard J. Lampen
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Richard J. Lampen
                                            Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2148

To reestablish the Office of Technology Assessment.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 13, 2001

Mr. HOLT (for himself, Mr. BOEHLERT, Mr. HOUGHTON, Mr. GILCHREST,

Mr. MORAN of Virginia, Mr. OLVER, Mr. SHAYS, Mr. CAPUANO, Mr.

ENGEL, Mr. SMITH of Washington, Mr. PRICE of North Carolina, Mr.

MCDERMOTT, Ms. MCCARTHY of Missouri, Mr. BLUMENAUER, Ms.

SOLIS, Mr. HONDA, Mr. KILDEE, Mr. HOEFFEL, Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, Mr. GREENWOOD, Mrs. MORELLA, Mr.

ALLEN, Mr. DINGELL, Mr. DOGGETT, Ms. BALDWIN, Mr. SAWYER, Mr.

HOYER, Mrs. BIGGERT, Mr. WU, Mr. MARKEY, Mr. NADLER, and Mr.

PASCRELL) introducted the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Science

A BILL

To reestablish the Office of Technology Assessment.

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 AMENDMENT.

4 The first section of the Technology Assessment Act

5 of 1972 (2 U.S.C. 471 note) is amended by striking

6 ‘‘Technology Assessment Act of 1972’’ and inserting ‘‘Of7 fice of Technology Assessment Reestablishment Act of

8 2001’’.
2

•HR 2148 IH

1 SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

2 Section 12(a) of the Office of Technology Assessment

3 Reestablishment Act of 2001 (as so renamed by section

4 1 of this Act) (2 U.S.C. 481(a)) is amended by striking

5 ‘‘$5,000,000 in the aggregate for the two fiscal years end6 ing June 30, 1973, and June 30, 1974, and thereafter

7 such sums as may be necessary’’ and inserting

8 ‘‘$20,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2002 through

9 2007’’.

Æ
Letter Agreement,dated February 9, 2004



 Exhibit 10.13 
  
 

 
  

			
	 451 Jackson Street
	 	Telephone 415.364.0300
	 San Francisco, California 94111.1615
	 	Facsimile 415.364.0333

  
 February 9, 2004 
  
 Design Within Reach

 225 Bush Street 
 San Francisco, CA 94108 
  
 Re: 455 Jackson Street, San Francisco, CA 94111 
  
 This letter will serve to extend the terms of the current sublease of 455 Jackson Street between Design Within Reach and Jesse.Hansen&Co., LLC. Thereafter, the lease will be on a month-by-month basis. 
  

	 	•	The master lease expiration date is May 31, 2009. 

  

	 	•	From June 1, 2004 the total monthly rent shall be Eight Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($8,500.00), 

  

	 	•	June 1, 2005, June 1, 2006, June 1, 2007 and June 1, 2008 the monthly rent shall be increased, but never decreased, by the sum equal to reflect the proportional percentage change in
the U.S. Consumer Price Index, all item, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1982-1984=100, San Francisco/Oakland/San Jose Area Average, over the previous twelve (12) months. If the CPI is revised so as to be based on different average years or other
factors, or if it is no longer issued of published, the parties shall use such other index as is then generally recognized and accepted for similar determinations of purchasing power. If the parties are unable to agree on any index which will most
likely carry out the intent hereof, such index shall be selected by the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the City and County of San Francisco. 

  

	 	•	A single toilet at 455 Jackson Street will be replaced by 2/29/2004. 

  

	 	•	All work described above shall be complete by a Licensed Contractor. 

  

	 	•	Article 35 is hereby deleted in its entirety. 

  
 All other terms and conditions of the master lease, by which you will continue to be bound, shall remain unchanged. 
  
 Sincerely, 
  

					
	 /s/    James G. Williamson
	 	 	 	 
	
	 	 	 	 
	James G. Williamson	 	 	 	 
			
	 Accepted:
	 	 	 	 
			
	 /s/    David Barnard
	 	 	 	 5/11/04

	
	 	 	 	

	Design Within Reach	 	 	 	Date
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE INTERIM
STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           4,650
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   35,623
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                40,183
<PP&E>                                           3,496
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  49,333
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,196
<BONDS>                                         58,019
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            2,536
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           173
<OTHER-SE>                                    (13,591)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    49,333
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,874
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,127
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,363)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,363)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,403)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.08)


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 187 (Thursday, September 25, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 55513]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-22601]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Report No. 2875]


Petition for Reconsideration of Action in Rulemaking Proceeding

September 19, 2008.
    A Petition for Reconsideration has been filed in the Commission's 
Rulemaking proceeding listed in this Public Notice and published 
pursuant to 47 CFR section 1.429(e). The full text of this document is 
available for viewing and copying in Room CY-B402, 445 12th Street, 
SW., Washington, DC or may be purchased from the Commission's copy 
contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI) (1-800-378-3160). 
Oppositions to this petition must be filed by October 10, 2008. See 
section 1.4(b)(1) of the Commission's rules (47 CFR 1.4(b)(1)). Replies 
to an opposition must be filed within 10 days after the time for filing 
oppositions have expired.

Subject: In the Matter of Applications for Consent to the Transfer of 
Control of Licenses (MB Docket No. 07-57). XM Satellite Radio Holdings, 
Inc., Transferor to Sirius Satellite Radio Inc., Transferee.

    Number of Petitions Filed: 1.

Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-22601 Filed 9-24-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 14, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-11473

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CURTIS LEE CHILDERS,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:05-CR-015-1

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

Before BARKSDALE, GARZA, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender, appointed counsel for Curtis

Lee Childers, has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a

brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967). Childers has filed a response to the motion. Our

independent review of counsel’s brief, Childers’s response, and

the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. 

Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED,

counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
Exhibit 99.2



FOOTHILL INDEPENDENT BANCORP



Annual Report on Form 10-K

for the Year ended December 31, 2002



CERTIFICATION



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



The undersigned, who is the Chief Financial Officer of Foothill Independent Bancorp (the
Company), hereby certifies that (i) the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002, as filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Annual Report), to which this Certification is
an Exhibit, fully complies with the applicable requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and (ii) the information contained in this Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.



Dated: March 25, 2003



/s/    CAROL ANN
GRAFCarol Ann Graf, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
177 La. 623

#### VACUUM OIL CO. v. COCKRELL

No. 32314.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 29, 1933.

Herold, Cousin & Herold, of Shreveport, and Paul Kramer, of Franklin, for appellant.

Cline, Plauche & Thompson, of Lake Charles, for appellee.

ROGERS, Justice.

The court below rendered judgment in plaintiff’s favor on March 4, 1932. The judgment was signed on March 7, 1932, and on the same day, but after the judgment was signed, the defendant moved for a suspensive and devolutive appeal, returnable to this court on or before April 18, 1932. The appeal was granted as prayed for, and bond for the suspensive appeal was fixed according to law and for the devolutive appeal at the sum of $50. Defendant did not perfect either appeal by furnishing the required bond.

On March 7,' 1933, defendant presented a petition for a devolutive appeal, and an order was signed granting the appeal, returnable to this court on March 27, 1933, and fixing the appeal bond at $300. The bond was signed the same day, and citations of appeal were duly issued and served. The transcript was filed in this court on the return day fixed in the order granting the appeal.

Plaintiff has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the order of appeal was improperly granted, the defendant not being entitled to a second appeal until he has formally withdrawn the first appeal.

Plaintiff relies on article 595 of the Code of Practice, which reads as follows, viz.: “But if the appellant wishes to withdraw his appeal before he has cited the appellee, ha may be allowed to do so, on motion to the lower court; and in such case he may renew his appeal within the time herein above allowed.”

But, before citation is issued to the appellee, the bond for the appeal, as directed by the court, should be furnished. Code Prac. art. 581. Whether the appeal be by petition or by motion, until the bond is furnished there is no appeal. And this is so no matter how many orders of appeal have been granted. Hence, until the bond is given, there is no appeal to be abandoned or withdrawn.

Resting on the principle that there is no appeal until the bond is given, irrespective of the number of orders of appeal that have been granted, and notwithstanding the apparently contrary doctrine of a few old cases cited by plaintiff, the jurisprudence of the state, as it presently exists, properly upholds the right of an appellant who has obtained an order for both a suspensive and devolutive appeal, and has perfected neither by giving bond, to apply for and obtain, within the year, another order for a devolutive appeal. See Mortee v. Edwards, 20 La. Ann. 236; Bank of America v. Fortier, 27 La. Ann. 243; Bowie v. Davis, 33 La. Ann. 345; Upton v. Adeline Sugar Factory, 109 La. 670, 33 So. 725; Durand v. Landry, 118 La. 711, 43 So. 307; Gresham v. Collier, 128 La. 143, 54 So. 590; Urania Lumber Co., Ltd., v. Haddox, 161 La. 227, 108 So. 463.

For the reasons assigned, the motion to dismiss the appeal herein is denied.

O’NIELL, C. J., dissents on the ground that the filing of the appeal bond divests the trial court of jurisdiction.
<PAGE>




                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1


I, Richard Koch, Chief Executive Officer of Power Efficiency Corporation,
certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, that:

         1.    the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the
               quarter ended June 30, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies with
               the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
               Exchange Act of 1934 (U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); 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:  August 16, 2004

         BY:      /s/ Richard Koch
                  ----------------------------
                  Richard Koch
                  Chief Executive Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely 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) and is not being filed as part of a separate
disclosure document.
**
Exhibit 31.1 

Certification of Senior Officer in Charge of the Servicing Function 

of the Servicer Pursuant to Rule 15d-14(d)

**CERTIFICATION**

I, KevinJ. Cullum, 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 Nissan Auto Receivables 2019-A Owner Trust(the “Exchange Act periodic reports”); 

2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do notcontain 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 thisreport; 

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 amresponsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicer and based on my knowledge and the compliance review conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except asdisclosed 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 onassessment 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 thefollowing unaffiliated party: U.S. Bank National Association 

Date: June 26, 2020 

 
By: 
/s/ Kevin J. Cullum
Kevin J. CullumPresident and Chief Executive Officer ofNissan Motor Acceptance Corporation(senior officer in charge of the servicing function)
 
**
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                             466
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,899
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        437
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 9,333
<PP&E>                                          14,012
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,315
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  37,484
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,190
<BONDS>                                          8,288
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      1,129
<COMMON>                                         7,041
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,970
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    37,484
<SALES>                                         11,581
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                13,145
<CGS>                                           11,888
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   12,873
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (352)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 161
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    410
<INCOME-TAX>                                        72
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                338
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       338
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.44
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.40



</TABLE>
## IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS

NO S . WR - 90,248
- 01 & WR
- 90,248
- 02

EX PARTE STEVEN MAJID HAMIDI , Applicant

ON APPLICATION S FOR WRIT S OF HABEAS CORPUS CAUSE NOS. CR2014
- 014
- 001 & CR2014
- 015
- 001 IN THE 207TH DISTRICT COURT FROM COMAL COUNTY Y EARY , J., filed a dissenting opinion in which S LAUGHTER , J., joined . DISSENTING OPI NION Applicant pled guilty to retaliation and aggravated robbery and was sentenced to thirty years’ imprisonment for each charge. Applicant filed these applications for writ of habeas corpus contending that his plea was involuntary because trial counsel allowed him to plead true to enhancement co unts based upon foreign convictions that, at the time of the prosecution, were not available for use to enhance punishment according to the law applic able in the enhancement conviction’s jurisdiction. See T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC
. art. 11.07. Today, the Court remands this application to the trial court for further fact development, including a response from trial counsel, and a determination of whether the

### H AMIDI

— 2 enhancement allegations were final and available for enhancement purposes under the law of the jurisdiction of conviction.
I t is my position that challenges to enhancement allegations are not ordinarily cognizable on post

- conviction h abeas corpus re view

. Hestand v. State , 587 S.W.3d 409, 409

– 10 (Tex. Crim. App. 2019) (Yeary, J., dissenting); Rodriguez v. State , 578 S.W.3d 92, 94 (Tex. Crim. App. 2019) (Yeary, J., dissenting); Ex parte Pointer , N os . WR

- 84,786

- 01 &

- 02 , 2019 WL 6719996 , at *3 (Tex. Cri m. App. Dec. 11, 2019) (not designated for publication) (Yeary, J., concurring). As a result, I would not remand this cause but would simply deny relief. As I initially explained in Ex parte Pue : In my view, resolution of the issue that the Court addresse s today

— which forum’s law will control the question of whether an out

- of

- state conviction is “final” for habitual

- enhancement purposes

— is purely advisory in the absence of a principled holding that a claim of improper enhancement is cognizable in a post

- conviction collateral attack to begin with. Ex parte Pue , 552 S.W.3d 226, 242

– 43 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018) (Yeary, J., dissenting). The appropriate avenue for Applicant to be entitled to relief , in my view, would have be en to object at trial and raise the issue on direct appeal , not to wait until the conviction was final to challenge the enhancements in a collateral attack . “The goal of preventing potentially unauthorized enhancements is not so critical to the proper functi oning of the criminal justice system as to outweigh the State’s legitimate interest in the repose of its final convictions.” Id. at 243. Because I would simply deny relief to Applicant’s claim as not cognizable in post

- conviction habeas corpus proceedings , I respectfully dissent.
FILED : April 14, 201 21 DO NOT PUBLISH