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

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 188 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 188

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To revise the short title of the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and 
Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act 
                                of 2006.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    Section 1 of the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott 
King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006 
(Public Law 109-246) is amended by striking ``and Coretta Scott King'' 
and inserting ``Coretta Scott King, Cesar E. Chavez, Barbara C. Jordan, 
William C. Velasquez, and Dr. Hector P. Garcia''.

SEC. 2. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

    Paragraphs (7) and (8) of section 4(a), and section 13(a)(1), of 
the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1973b(a), 1973k(a)(1)) are 
each amended by striking ``and Coretta Scott King'' and inserting 
``Coretta Scott King, Cesar E. Chavez, Barbara C. Jordan, William C. 
Velasquez, and Dr. Hector P. Garcia''.

SEC. 3. CONSTRUCTION.

    Title I of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1973 et seq.) 
is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``Sec. 20.  A reference in this title to the effective date of the 
amendments made by, or the date of the enactment of, the Fannie Lou 
Hamer, Rosa Parks, Coretta Scott King, Cesar E. Chavez, Barbara C. 
Jordan, William C. Velasquez, and Dr. Hector P. Garcia Voting Rights 
Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006 shall be considered to 
refer to, respectively, the effective date of the amendments made by, 
or the date of the enactment of, the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and 
Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act 
of 2006.''.

            Passed the Senate February 15, 2007.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
110th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                 S. 188

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

  To revise the short title of the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and 
Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act 
                                of 2006.
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE>                     7
<LEGEND>   This  schedule contains summary financial  information
extracted  from  the  consolidated financial  statements  of  MMI
Companies, Inc. and subsidiaries for the three month period ended
March 31, 1997, and is qualified in its entirety by reference  to
such financial statements.
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
       
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                  MAR-31-1997
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>          696,567
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>               0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                 0
<EQUITIES>                     27,523
<MORTGAGE>                          0
<REAL-ESTATE>                       0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                756,434
<CASH>                          1,134
<RECOVER-REINSURE>             11,165
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>          8,459
<TOTAL-ASSETS>              1,097,061
<POLICY-LOSSES>               637,955
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>            96,653
<POLICY-OTHER>                      0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>               0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                58,000
<COMMON>                        1,169
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>               0
<PREFERRED>                         0
<OTHER-SE>                    251,781
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>1,097,061
<PREMIUMS>                     42,276
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>            11,297
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                871
<OTHER-INCOME>                 12,067
<BENEFITS>                     34,783
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>     3,861
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>           19,611
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 7,372
<INCOME-TAX>                      665
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             6,707
<DISCONTINUED>                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                     0
<CHANGES>                           0
<NET-INCOME>                    6,707
<EPS-PRIMARY>                     .56
<EPS-DILUTED>                     .56
<RESERVE-OPEN>                      0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                 0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                   0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                  0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                    0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                     0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>             0
        

</TABLE>
1 This minute order is issued pursuant to the express authority of the Honorable Robert E. 

Blackburn, United States District Judge for the District of Colorado. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge Robert E. Blackburn

Criminal Case No. 11-cr-00422-REB-01

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

1. HA MANH DO,

Defendant.

MINUTE ORDER1

A Notice of Disposition has been filed in this case. On June 26, 2012,

commencing at 10:00 a.m., the court shall conduct a telephonic setting conference to

set this matter for a change of plea. Counsel for the government shall arrange, initiate,

and coordinate the conference call necessary to facilitate the setting conference. 

Dated: June 13, 2012

Case 1:11-cr-00422-REB Document 144 Filed 06/13/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
#### Morris Rhey HESTER, Appellant, v. John Will WINGO, Warden, etc., Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Nov. 19, 1971.

Morris Rhey Hester, pro se.

John B. Breckinridge, Atty. Gen., George F. Rabe, Asst. Atty. Gen., Frankfort, for appellee.

GARDNER, Commissioner.

Morris Rhey Hester prosecutes this appeal from the trial court’s order denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Hester contends that he is illegally restrained by the warden of the Kentucky State Penitentiary at Eddyville and the *112members of the Kentucky State Parole Board, because his parole from the prison was revoked and he was incarcerated without any hearing' and for no lawful cause.

We held in the very recent case of Shepherd v. Wingo, Warden, Ky., 471 S.W.2d 718 (decided October 15, 1971), that the alleged revocation of parole without a hearing is not a basis for habeas corpus relief.

The judgment is affirmed.

All concur.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 asAdopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

Pursuantto 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned officer of Serologicals Corporation (the “Company”),hereby certifies that the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for theperiod ended April 2, 2006 (the “Report”) as filed on the date hereof with theSecurities and Exchange Commission fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

Dated:May 12, 2006

 

 
|   | /s/  DAVID A. DODD                               |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------|
|   | David  A. Dodd                                   |
|   | President,  Chief Executive Officer and Director |

 

----
**Exhibit
      32**





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**





**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**





**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**





**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Reliv’ International, Inc.
      (the “Company”) for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Robert L.
      Montgomery, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Steven D. Albright,
      as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant
      to 18
      U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, that:





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





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





/s/
                Robert L. MontgomeryRobert
                L. MontgomeryChief
                Executive Officer





Date:
      August 8, 2008





/s/
                Steven D. AlbrightSteven
                D. AlbrightChief
                Financial Officer





Date:
      August 8, 2008





The
      foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
      1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      and
      is not being “filed” as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure
      document for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
      as
      amended (the “Exchange Act”), or otherwise subject to liability under that
      section. This certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference
      into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange
      Act except to the extent that this Exhibit 32 is expressly and specifically
      incorporated by reference in any such filing.





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.
#### Terry Ann HARNEY, Appellant, v. Marvin D. HARNEY, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

May 31, 1974.

John Swinford, Swinford & Sims, Cynthiana, for appellant.

G. L. Tucker, Cynthiana, for appellee.

Memorandum Opinion

PER CURIAM,

Affirming.*
| Skip to Content*Release Date: December 9, 2010*Release dates |  Coded tables |  Historical dataCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB)**L.203 Net Interbank Transactions** |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Skip to Content*Release Date: June 10, 2010*Release dates |  Coded tables |  Historical dataCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB)**F.126 Issuers of Asset-Backed Securities ABS** |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Skip to Content*Release Date: September 17, 2007*Release dates |  Coded tables |  Historical dataCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB)**F.108 Monetary Authority1** |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| /s/ Mark. A. Klein                                                                   |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Print      Name: Mark A. Klein                                                       |
| Title:      President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal      Executive Officer) |
| Date:      October 25, 2010                                                          |

| * | This      certification is being furnished as required by Rule 13a-14(b) under the      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and      Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, and      shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act      or otherwise subject to the liability of that Section. This certification      shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under      the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the      extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference into any      such filing. |
|---|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________ 

No. 1D18-3198 

_____________________________ 

BRYAN E. HUNT, 

Appellant, 

v. 

NORTH FLORIDA REGIONAL 

MEDICAL CENTER, INC.,

ALACHUA COUNTY FIRE AND 

RESCUE, and GAINESVILLE 

POLICE DEPARTMENT, 

Appellees. 

_____________________________ 

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County. 

Monica J. Brasington, Judge. 

July 9, 2019 

PER CURIAM. 

AFFIRMED. 

B.L. THOMAS, KELSEY, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur. 
2 

_____________________________ 

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331. 

_____________________________ 

Bryan E. Hunt, pro se, Appellant. 

Linda L. Winchenbach of John M. Green, Jr., P.A., Ocala, for 

Appellee Gainesville Police Department/City of Gainesville; 

Robert C. Swain of the Office of the Alachua County Attorney, 

Gainesville, for Appellee Alachua County Fire and Rescue; and 

Jenifer Worley and William T. Stone, Jr., of Saalfield Shad, P.A., 

Jacksonville, for Appellee North Florida Regional Medical Center.
| Skip to Content*Release Date: March 10, 2011*Release dates |  Coded tables |  Historical dataCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB)**F.200 U.S. Official Reserve Assets1** |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

CHRISTINA EFKARPIDES,

Appellant,

v.

ARNALDO A. CRESPO,

Appellee.

Nos. 4D2024-0036 and 4D2024-0038

[June 27, 2024]

Consolidated appeals of nonfinal orders from the Circuit Court for the 

Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Lorena V. Mastrarrigo, 

Judge; L.T. Case Nos. 23-006993 DVCE and 23-012104 FMCE.

Michael D. Cirullo, Jr. of Goren, Cherof, Doody & Ezrol, P.A., Fort 

Lauderdale, and Jason A. Brodie and Joshua K. Friedman of Brodie & 

Friedman, P.A., Boca Raton, for appellant.

Marti Goldstein of Marti Goldstein, P.A., Coral Gables, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CIKLIN, GERBER and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### The State, ex rel. Chase, *v.*City of Cleveland et al.

(No. 25897

Decided March 25, 1936.)

*Mr. Bussell N. Chase,*for relator.

*Mr. Alfred Clum,*director of law-, *Mr. Perry A. Frey*and *Mr. Stephen Gobozy,*for respondent.

This cause came on to be heard upon the petition for a writ of mandamus and the demurrer thereto, and was argued by counsel.

*588In substance relator alleges that he is an attorney at law and a member of the bar of the state of Ohio; that Sherley Hornack, a minor ten years of age, is detained incommunicado in the custody of the Cleveland Police Department under $10,000 bond to secure her appearance as a material witness in a case of felonious assault; that relator has been retained by the minor, through her father as natural guardian and next friend; that relator has made repeated demands upon the police department for an opportunity to interview the daughter, to discuss facts concerning her detention and her legal rights, but that the police department arbitrarily refuses him the fundamental right of a lawyer to interview and counsel his client detained in custody, in violation of the Constitution of Ohio and Section 13432-15, General Code.

Relator prays writ of mandamus to compel the department of police to permit relator to see, visit, interview and counsel the minor child during her detention.

On consideration whereof, it is ordered and adjudged by this court that the demurrer be, and the same hereby is, overruled, and respondent not desiring to plead further a writ of mandamus is allowed on authority of *Thomas*v. *Mills, 117*Ohio St., 114,157 N. E., 488.

*Writ allowed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Stephenson, Williams, Jones, Matthias, Day and Zimmerman, JJ., concur.
1 Pursuant to Lo cal Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit

___________________________

No. 95-50872 Summary Calendar

___________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

VERSUS

BARRY YETT,

Defendant-Appellant.

___________________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court For the Western District of Texas

(A-95-CR-33)

____________________________________________________ October 22, 1996

Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 1

Barry Yett appeals the district court’s denial of his motion

to suppress evidence discovered during a search conducted pursuant

to a search warrant for Buck’s Automotive. Yett contends that

officers conducting the search knew or should have known that the

build ing designated as Buck’s Automotive was a multiple-business

building and that their search of the entire building violated his

rights under the Fourth Amendment.2

In reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, we accept the

district court’s findings of fact unless the findings are clearly

erroneous and review de novo the ultima te determination of

reasonableness. U nited States v. Chavez-Villarreal

, 3 F.3d 1 24,

126 (5th Cir. 1993); United States v. Jenkins

, 46 F.3d 447, 451

(5th Cir. 1995). The district court made specific findings, based

in part on the credibility of the w itnesses, that there was no

evidence that two separate businesses were housed in the building

and that Yett failed to present any evidence to persuade the

district court that the agents knew, or should have known, about

the existence of a separate business either prior to or during the

execution of the warrant. Yett has failed to demonstrate that the

district court’s findings were clearly erroneous. Based on these

findings, we agree with the district court’s determination that the

officers acted reasonab ly and in good faith in obtaining and

executing the warrant in question. Accordingly, the order of the

district court is AFFIRMED.

AFFIRMED.
----

|                                                      |   |            2007 |       |   |             2006 |   |       |         2005 |   |
|-----------------------------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------|------------|--------|------------------------------------------------|--------|------------|----------------------------------|--------|
| Basic      and Diluted Earnings Per Share:                |   |                                     |       |   |                                           |   |       |                             |   |
| Net      income                                           |   | $                                        | 10,909,219 |   |                                           | $      | 23,146,069 |                             |   | $ | 18,218,031 |   |
|                                                      |   |                                     |       |   |                                           |   |       |                             |   |   |   |   |
| Earnings      on common shares                            |   | $                                        | 10,909,219 |   |                                           | $      | 23,146,069 |                             |   | $ | 18,218,031 |   |
|                                                      |   |                                     |       |   |                                           |   |       |                             |   |   |   |   |
| Weighted      average common shares outstanding - basic   |   |                                     | 7,909,261  |   |                                           |   | 7,890,427  |                             |   |   | 7,885,735 |   |
|                                                      |   |                                     |       |   |                                           |   |       |                             |   |   |   |   |
| Weighted      average common shares outstanding - diluted |   |                                     | 8,040,860  |   |                                           |   | 7,987,134  |                             |   |   | 7,962,014 |   |
|                                                      |   |                                     |       |   |                                           |   |       |                             |   |   |   |   |
| Basic      earnings per common share                      |   | $                                        | 1.38       |   |                                           | $      | 2.93       |                             |   | $ | 2.31 |   |
|                                                      |   |                                     |       |   |                                           |   |       |                             |   |   |   |   |
| Diluted      earnings per common share                    |   | $                                        | 1.36       |   |                                           | $      | 2.90       |                             |   | $ | 2.29 |   |
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-18-00335-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF Z.S., CHILD §

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 158th District 

Court

of Denton County (17-2885-158)

April 18, 2019

Opinion by Justice Birdwell

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial 

court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Wade Birdwell

 Justice Wade Birdwell