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

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 81 (Tuesday, May 16, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1049]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                       LET'S TALK ABOUT THE FACTS

                                 ______

                           HON. JACK METCALF

                             of washington

                    in the house of representatives

                          Tuesday, May 16, 1995
  Mr. METCALF. Mr. Speaker, while discussing the massive Federal debt 
and annual budget deficits of over $200 billion at a recent town hall 
meeting in Oak Harbor, WA, I used a Member of the other body as an 
example of the old guard in Washington, DC. I criticized him for his 
opposition to the Balanced Budget Amendment, his reputation for 
securing questionable spending projects for West Virginia, and his 
unwillingness to cut wasteful Federal spending.
  I then said in a light-hearted vein at the town hall meeting that 
because of this, the Member should be tarred and feathered. 
Historically, since the late 1800's, tarred and feathered has been a 
humorous reference, meaning community outrage at a person who violates 
the general good of the community. I have never, nor would I ever, 
seriously advocate mob violence toward anyone.
  A more important note, in my mind, however, is the misinformation 
regarding a remark, made from the audience, that the Member should be 
shot. At the time of the comment I was speaking and thus did not hear 
nor was I aware of what had been said. Had I heard the statement at the 
time, I would have condemned it on the spot.
  Political rhetoric is one thing, but threatening violence is quite 
another. I have always condemned senseless acts of violence and have 
worked to enact laws ensuring swift and sure punishment for those who 
break the law.
  My comments were intended to illustrate the abuses of the old, 
outdated political process, certainly not to support the use of 
violence.

                          ____________________
```
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2902 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2902

 To prohibit the sale or distribution of certain cosmetics containing 
                     synthetic plastic microbeads.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 18, 2014

Mrs. Gillibrand introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
  referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To prohibit the sale or distribution of certain cosmetics containing 
                     synthetic plastic microbeads.

    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 ``Microbead-Free Waters Act of 2014''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION AGAINST SALE OR DISTRIBUTION OF CERTAIN COSMETICS 
              CONTAINING SYNTHETIC PLASTIC MICROBEADS.

    (a) In General.--Section 601 of the Federal Food, Drug, and 
Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 361) is amended by adding at the end the 
following:
    ``(f) If it is a cosmetic identified by the Secretary under section 
2(c)(2) of the Microbead-Free Waters Act of 2014 and it contains 
synthetic plastic microbeads.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
take effect on January 1, 2018.
    (c) Rulemaking.--Not later than January 1, 2017, the Secretary of 
Health and Human Services, acting through the Commissioner of Food and 
Drugs, shall promulgate a final rule that, for purposes of subsection 
(f) of section 601 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (as 
added by subsection (a))--
            (1) defines the term ``synthetic plastic microbead''; and
            (2) identifies the cosmetics to which such subsection (f) 
        shall apply.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 13.1

CERTIFICATIONS

In connection with the Annual Report of China Mobile Games and Entertainment Group Limited (the Company) on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2012 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Ken Jian Xiao, Chairman and 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.



|                     |  |                                     
|-------------------- |  | ------------------------------------
|Date: April 26, 2013
|                     | 
|By:                  |  | /s/ Ken Jian Xiao                   
|Name:                |  | Ken Jian Xiao                       
|Title:               |  | Director and Chief Executive Officer
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. DOMINGO CUBANO.

May 24, 1985.

Petition for certification denied.
```

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 179 (Thursday, September 16, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 56548]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-23149]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health

National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed 
Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Heart, Lung, and Blood Initial Review Group 
Clinical Trials Review Committee.
    Date: October 25-26, 2010.
    Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Hyatt Regency Bethesda, One Bethesda Metro Center, 7400 
Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.
    Contact Person: Keary A Cope, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, 
Review Branch/DERA, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 6701 
Rockledge Drive, Room 7190, Bethesda, MD 20892-7924, 301-435-2222, 
[email protected].

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.233, 
National Center for Sleep Disorders Research; 93.837, Heart and 
Vascular Diseases Research; 93.838, Lung Diseases Research; 93.839, 
Blood Diseases and Resources Research, National Institutes of 
Health, HHS)

    Dated: September 10, 2010.
Jennifer S. Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-23149 Filed 9-15-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
```
Exhibit 32.2

March 15, 2013

Via EDGAR

Securities and Exchange Commission

100 F Street, N.E.

Washington, D.C. 20549

Re: Certification
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350)

Ladies and Gentlemen:

In connection with the Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report of SandRidge Permian Trust (the Trust) on Form 10-K for the
year ended December 31, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, not in its individual capacity but solely as the Trustee of the Trust, certifies pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, that to its knowledge:

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

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

The above certification
is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.



By:

/s/  MICHAEL J. ULRICHMichael J. UlrichVice President The
Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., as Trustee of SandRidge Permian Trust
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. PATRICK JOHN HODGE.

Dec. 20, 1979.

Petition for certification denied.
Exhibit 32.1



Certification of Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)



In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K
for the annual period ended December 31, 2016 (the “Report”) of VII Peaks Co-Optivist Income BDC II, Inc.
(the “Registrant”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Gurpreet S.
Chandhoke, the Chief Executive Officer and President, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:



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



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



|Dated this  2nd Day of June, 2017 | By: | /s/ Gurpreet S. Chandhoke            
|--------------------------------- | --- | -------------------------------------
|                                  |     | Gurpreet S. Chandhoke                
|                                  |     | Chairman of the Board of Directors,  
|                                  |     | Chief Executive Officer and President
|                                  |     | (Principal Executive Officer)
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                         13,781
<SECURITIES>                                   4,700
<RECEIVABLES>                                  4,932
<ALLOWANCES>                                   650
<INVENTORY>                                    5,710
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               30,461
<PP&E>                                         6,033
<DEPRECIATION>                                 2,713
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 33,781
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          6,217
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       52
<OTHER-SE>                                     27,512
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   33,781
<SALES>                                        22,670
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               22,670
<CGS>                                          10,858
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  10,858
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               7,527
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                4,793
<INCOME-TAX>                                   1,580
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            3,213
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   3,213
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.63
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.58
        


</TABLE>
Exhibit 23.2  CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS  We hereby consent to the references to our firm in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for Sanchez Energy Corporation (the Form 10-K) and to the inclusion of our report, dated January 10, 2012 with respect to the estimates of reserves and future net revenues as of December 31, 2011, in the Form 10-K and/or as an exhibit to the Form 10-K.  We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (File No. 333-178920) of such information.   /s/   Ryder Scott Company, L.P.Ryder   Scott Company, L.P.TBPE   Firm Registration No. F-1580Houston,   TexasMarch   30, 2012
EX-34.2
(logo) pwc


Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm


To the Board of Directors of CoreLogic, Inc.:

We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying Report on
Assessment of Compliance, that CoreLogic Commercial Real Estate Services, Inc.
(the "Company"), an indirect subsidiary of CoreLogic, Inc. complied with the
servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange
Commission's Regulation AB for all loans for commercial mortgage loan
outsourcing customers for which the Company served as the commercial tax
service provider (the "Platform"), as of December 31, 2011 and for the year
then ended, only including 1122(d)(1)(iv), 1122(d)(2)(v), 1122(d)(2)(vi),
1122(d)(2)(vii), 1122(d)(4)(xi), 1122(d)(4)(xii) and 1122(d)(4)(xiii), which
the Company has determined are applicable to the servicing activities performed
by it with respect to the Platform. Management is responsib1e for the Company's
compliance with the servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an
opinion on management's assertion based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards of the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly,
included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance
with the applicable servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as
we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing
of selected servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining
whether the Company performed those selected activities in compliance with the
applicable servicing criteria. Our procedures were limited to the selected
servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this
report. Our procedures were not designed to detect noncompliance arising from
errors that may have occurred prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have
affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during
the period covered by this report. We believe that our examination provides a
reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal
determination on the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria.

In our opinion, management's assertion that the Company complied with the
aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2011 for all loans for commercial mortgage loan outsourcing
customers for which the Company served as the commercial tax service provider
is fairly stated, in all material respects.


/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
February 8, 2012


PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, 2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 1800, Dallas, TX 75201-2997
T: (214) 999 1400, F: (214) 754 7991, www.pwc.com/us
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21

- 7217

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v.
TAMMIE DESCHELL DIGGS , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond

. Henry E. Hudson, Senior District Judge. ( 3:16

- cr - 00117

- HEH

- 1 )

Submitted : August 5, 2022 Decided: August 26, 2022

Before RUSHING and HEYTENS , Circuit Judges , and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Tammie Deschell Diggs , Appellant Pro Se. Erik Sean Siebert , OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY , Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 21-7217 Doc: 15 Filed: 08/26/2022 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Tammie Deschell Diggs appeals the district court’s order denying her motion for compassionate release. United States v. Diggs , No. 3:16

- cr - 00117

- HEH

- 1 (E.D. Va. Aug. 5, 2021)

. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process

. AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 21-7217 Doc: 15 Filed: 08/26/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
|                                      |
|--------------------------------------|
|                                      |  |
| Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas | BNY Mellon Trust of Delaware |
| As Indenture Trustee                 | As Owner Trustee |
| Attn:  Michelle H.Y. Voon  | Attn:  Robert Castle / Kristine Gullo |
| 100 Plaza One 6th Floor         | 100 White Clay Center, Suite 102 |
| Jersey City, NY 07311                | Newark, DE  19711 |

|                                                 |
|-------------------------------------------------|
|                                                 |  |
| The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A. | Ally Auto Assets LLC |
| Attn:  Robert Castle                  | Ally Financial Inc. |
| 2 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1020              | 200 Renaissance Center |
| Chicago, IL  60602                    | 12th Floor, MC 482-B12-C24 |
|                                            | Detroit, MI |

|        |
|--------|
|        |  |
| Re:    | Ally Auto Receivables Trust 2011-4 (the “Issuer”) |
|   | Annual Statement as to Compliance |

|    |
|----|
|    |  |
| a. | A review of the activities of the Servicer during the period of January 1, 2012 through December 31, 2012, and of its performance under the Servicing Agreement has been under his supervision, and |

|    |
|----|
|    |  |
| b. | To the best of his knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Servicing Agreement throughout such period. |

|        |
|--------|
|        |  |  |
|   | Very truly yours, |
|   |   |
|   | /s/ David J. DeBrunner |   |
|   | David J. DeBrunner |
|   | Vice President, Controller and Chief Accounting Officer |
|   | Ally Financial Inc. |
* Pursuant to Local 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. 96-60583

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

VERSUS

JOHNNY N. MYLES,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Southern District of Mississippi

(95-CR-99-1)

March 19, 1997

Before WISDOM, KING, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Johnny Myles was convicted by a jury on counts two and four of

an indictment charging him with possession with intent to

distribute cocaine. At trial, the district court overruled Myles’s

motion in limine req uesting exclusion of evidence of a previous

conviction for conspiracy to sell cocaine and permitted the

government to cross-examine Myles regarding the prior conviction.

Myles asserts that the district court er red in admitting thisevidence because it is more preju dicial than probative under

Federal Rule of Evidence 609.

A district court must make an on-the-record finding that the

probative value of a prior conviction outweighs its prejudicial

effect before admitting the conviction under Rule 609(a)(1). United

States v. Preston

, 608 F.2d 626, 639 (5th Cir.), cert. denied

, 446

U.S. 940 (1980). Such on the record findings are mandatory.

United States v. Acosta

, 763 F.2d 671, 695 (5th Cir.), cert.

denied

, 474 U.S. 863 (1985). As the district court did not fulfill

this requirement, the case must be remanded.

As we noted in Preston , however, the failure of the district

court to make specific findings does not require reve rsal of

Myles’s conviction. Rather, we remand the case for an appropriate

determination under Rule 609, to be conducted on the record. If

the court finds that the probative value of the prior conviction

outweighed its prejudicial effect , the conviction will stand

subject to Myles’s right to raise on appeal whether the district

court abused its discretion in admitting the evidence. If,

however, the court finds that the prejudicial effect of the prior

conviction outweighs its probative va lue, the court must examine

whether there is any reasonable possibility that the admission of

the conviction affected the outcome of the case. P reston

, 608 F.2d

at 639-640. If the prior conviction did not affect the outcome of

the case, the conviction will stand; again, subject to Myles’s

further appeal. If the district court finds that the admission of

the prior conviction affected the outcome of the case, Myles must

be afforded a new trial.REMANDED.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7364
BERNARD BAGLEY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus MICHAEL MOORE, Director of the South Carolina Department of Corrections; CHARLES MOLONY CONDON, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (CA-95-1786-2-23) Submitted: January 22, 1998 Decided: February 3, 1998 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bernard Bagley, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1994) (current version at 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997)). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate j udge and find no reversibleerror. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Bagley v. Moore , No. CA-95-1786-2-23 (D.S.C. Aug. 13, 1996). See Lindh v. Murphy , 521 U.S. ___, 65 U.S.L.W. 4557 (U.S. June 23, 1997) (No. 96-6298). We d ispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED