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

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 83 (Thursday, May 18, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H5237]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      PRESIDENT'S PROMISED VETO OF RESCISSIONS BILL IRRESPONSIBLE

  (Mr. CHRISTENSEN asked and was given permission to address the House 
for 1 minute.)
  Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, President Clinton's promise to veto the 
rescissions bill is irresponsible and lacking of leadership: 
irresponsible because just 2 weeks ago the President pretended to 
negotiate in good faith with House Republicans, only to back out at the 
last minute for short-term political gain; lacking of leadership 
because this President who only 2 years ago was promising a balanced 
budget by 1996 is now incapable of cutting $16 billion, $16 billion, 
that is only 1 percent that he says he cannot cut.
  What reasons does he give? Well, first he says he wants to eliminate 
more pork, but then turns around and says well, we cannot cut the 
AmeriCorps program, the biggest boondoggle there ever was.
  Then he says, ``You can't cut efforts to help people,'' and then 
turns around and says he is going to veto the relief package to 
Oklahoma City.
  The fact the President would save his veto for this bill demonstrates 
that he is more interested in playing politics than acting as leader. 
Does anyone wonder why the American people consider the President 
irrelevant to the process?

                          ____________________
```
News United States Air Force
 Around the Air Force: June 17Published June 17, 2016
                        
                        By Air Force TV
                
                **FORT GEORGE G. MEADE, Md. (AFNS)** -- On this look around the Air Force, the National Museum of the U.S. Air Force opens a fourth building and now offers a virtual tour; and a Delta IV rocket launches from Cape Canaveral, Florida. Hosted by Staff Sgt. Traci Keller.
For previous episodes, click here.
Related links:
- 45th SW supports successful launch
- Air Force Space Command Facebook page
- National Museum of the U.S. Air Force Facebook page
- National Museum of the U.S. Air Force homepageFeatured Videos 



Florida 



Cape Canaveral 



National Museum of the U.S. Air Force 



Delta IV 



rocket 



launch 



Wright-Patterson AFB 



Ohio 



Virtual Tour 



ATAF
News United States Air Force
 Senate confirms Gina Ortiz Jones to be Air Force Under SecretaryPublished July 23, 2021
                        
                        
                        Secretary of the Air Force Public Affairs
                **WASHINGTON (AFNS) --**
                The Senate on July 22 unanimously confirmed Gina Ortiz Jones to be Under Secretary of the Air Force, clearing the way for the former Air Force intelligence officer to become the department’s second highest-ranking civilian leader.
President**Joe Biden** selected Jones for the post in April.In explaining the basis for choosing Jones, the White House highlighted that she was commissioned through the Air Force ROTC program while a student at Boston University and “has spent her career working to protect U.S. economic and national security.”
During her Air Force career, Jones served as an intelligence officer and deployed to Iraq with the 18th Air Support Operations Group, supporting close air support operations. Additionally, at a time when President Biden and Secretary of Defense**Lloyd Austin** have made diversity and inclusion high priorities across the entire military, Jones brings insight to the effort as a member of the LGBTQ community who served under “don’t ask, don’t tell.”After separating from active duty, Jones remained closely connected to efforts to ensure the nation’s security, advising on military operations in Central and South America with the 470th Military Intelligence Brigade and**U.S. Army South**. She joined the Defense Intelligence Agency as an inaugural member of **U.S. Africa Command** in Stuttgart, Germany, and served in the Libya Crisis Intelligence Cell.With her confirmation accomplished, Jones will step into a position currently filled by**Anthony Reardon**, administrative assistant to the Secretary of the Air Force who has been performing the duties of the under secretary of the Air Force since Feb. 2.AFWN 



USAF 



AF 



Air Force 



Gina Ortiz Jones 



nomination 



confirmation 



senate 



Senate Armed Services Committee 



space force 



DAF 



Department of the Air Force 



18th Air Support Operations Group 



470th Military Intelligence Brigade 



Under Secretary
<Page>


                                                                    Exhibit 99.1


            CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of PRAECIS PHARMACEUTICALS
INCORPORATED (the "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Malcolm L. Gefter, Ph.D., as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

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

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

/s/ Malcolm L. Gefter, Ph.D.
---------------------------------
Name:  Malcolm L. Gefter, Ph.D.
Title: Chief Executive Officer
Date:  March 19, 2003

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
News United States Air Force
 Around the Air Force: Sept. 27Published Sept. 27, 2016
                        
                        By Staff Sgt. Traci Keller
                        
                        
                        Air Force TV
                
                **FORT GEORGE G. MEADE, Md. (AFNS)** -- On this look around the Air Force, U-2 flying operations have not been impacted after a recent crash and Chief Master Sgt. of the Air Force James A. Cody reflects on his years of service. Hosted by Staff Sgt. Traci Keller.
For previous episodes, click here.
Related links:
- Global U-2 Flying Operations Not Impacted by recent crash
- Pilot identified in fatal U-2 crash
- Goldfein announces Cody’s retirementATAF 



U-2 



Beale AFB 



CMSAF 



crash 



ACC
* 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

December 13, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-40580

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE SALBADOR LIRA-LOPEZ, also known as Jose Juan

Uscanga-Hernandez,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:04-CR-38-ALL

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

Before GARZA, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Salbador Lira-Lopez, also known as Jose Juan

Uscanga-Hernandez, appeals from his guilty-plea conviction for

illegal reentry into the United States following deportation

pursuant to an aggravated-felony conviction. He first argues,

and the Government concedes, that the district court erred in

calculating his criminal history score, which affected his

criminal history category. Lira-Lopez admits that this error is

reviewed only for plain error because he failed to challenge that
No. 04-40580

-2-

calculation in district court. When reviewing for plain error in

the sentencing context, “this court has concluded that if the

trial judge, on remand, could reinstate the same sentence, it

will uphold the sentence imposed despite the trial court’s

error.” United States v. Leonard, 157 F.3d 343, 346 (5th Cir.

1998)(citations omitted). Despite Lira-Lopez’s arguments to the

contrary, Leonard is controlling precedent and may not be

overruled by this panel without en banc consideration or an

intervening Supreme Court opinion. See Hogue v. Johnson, 131

F.3d 466, 491 (5th Cir. 1997). Lira-Lopez admits that, even if

his criminal history score were corrected, the district court

could impose the same 46-month sentence on remand. Accordingly,

Lira-Lopez has not shown plain error. See id.

Also for the first time on appeal, Lira-Lopez argues that 

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) is unconstitutional on its face and as applied

in his case because it does not require the fact of a prior

felony or aggravated felony conviction to be charged in the

indictment and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. He thus

contends that his sentence is invalid and argues that it should

not exceed the two-year maximum term of imprisonment prescribed

in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). 

Lira-Lopez acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but

asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by Apprendi v.

New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). He seeks to preserve his
No. 04-40580

-3-

argument for further review. Apprendi did not overrule

Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 489-90; United

States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). This court

must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court

itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

AFFIRMED.
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1312 

To expedite adjudication of employer petitions for aliens of extraordinary 

artistic ability. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 5, 2007 

Mr. BERMAN (for himself, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Mr. WEINER, Mr. COBLE, Mr. 

NADLER, Mr. CHABOT, Mr. SCHIFF, and Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of 

California) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To expedite adjudication of employer petitions for aliens of 

extraordinary artistic ability. 

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 ‘‘Arts Require Timely 

5 Service (ARTS) Act’’. 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1312 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXPEDITED ADJUDICATION OF EMPLOYER PETI2 TIONS FOR ALIENS OF EXTRAORDINARY AR3 TISTIC ABILITY. 

4 Section 214(c) of the Immigration and Nationality 

5 Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(c)) is amended— 

6 (1) by striking ‘‘Attorney General’’ each place 

7 it appears and inserting ‘‘Secretary of Homeland Se8 curity’’; and 

9 (2) in paragraph (6)(D)— 

10 (A) by striking ‘‘Any person’’ and inserting 

11 ‘‘(i) Except as provided in clause (ii), any per12 son’’; and 

13 (B) by adding at the end the following: 

14 ‘‘(ii) The Secretary of Homeland Se15 curity shall adjudicate each petition for an 

16 alien with extraordinary ability in the arts 

17 (as described in section 101(a)(15)(O)(i)), 

18 an alien accompanying such an alien (as 

19 described in clauses (ii) and (iii) of section 

20 101(a)(15)(O)), or an alien described in 

21 section 101(a)(15)(P) not later than 30 

22 days after— 

23 ‘‘(I) the date on which the peti24 tioner submits the petition with a 

25 written advisory opinion, letter of no 

26 objection, or request for a waiver; or 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
3 

•HR 1312 IH

1 ‘‘(II) the date on which the 15- 

2 day period described in clause (i) has 

3 expired, if the petitioner has had an 

4 opportunity, as appropriate, to supply 

5 rebuttal evidence. 

6 ‘‘(iii) If a petition described in clause 

7 (ii) is not adjudicated before the end of the 

8 30-day period described in clause (ii) and 

9 the petitioner is a qualified nonprofit orga10 nization or an individual or entity peti11 tioning primarily on behalf of a qualified 

12 nonprofit organization, the Secretary of 

13 Homeland Security shall provide the peti14 tioner with the premium-processing serv15 ices referred to in section 286(u), without 

16 a fee.’’. 

Æ 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
CKE RESTAURANTS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES


EXHIBITS AND REPORTS ON FORM 8-K


(Dollars in thousands)





EXHIBIT 99.2





CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC
FINANCIAL REPORTS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1350





The undersigned hereby certifies that he is the duly appointed and acting Chief
Financial Officer of CKE Restaurants, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company), and hereby further certifies as follows.





1.  The periodic report containing financial statements to which this certificate is an exhibit fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.





2.  The information contained in the periodic report to which this certificate is an exhibit fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.





In witness whereof, the undersigned has executed and delivered this certificate as
of the date set forth opposite his signature below.





Date:  December 4, 2002

/s/  DENNIS J.
LACEYDennis J. LaceyChief Financial Officer
September 15, 2003

Brenntag Latin America Incorporated
5300 Memorial Drive
11th Floor
Houston, Texas  77007

Mr. Alfonso Velez:

The purpose of this letter is to confirm in writing the agreement between
Brenntag ("BLAI") and EnerTeck ("ECC") regarding the sale of EnerBurn by
Brenntag into certain Latin American countries. Your capacity will be that as an
exclusive distributor, an independent contractor, and you will be strictly
confined to sales into Columbia, Venezuela, Ecuador, and the Dominican Republic
("BLAI countries"). Since EnerTeck has other third party contractual commitments
in other Latin American countries, you agree to confine all your sales
activities to those BLAI countries only, with no activity whatsoever or resale
to other countries. You agree that BLAI is expressly forbidden from any sales
inquiries or activities outside of the BLAI countries defined herein. .

ECC will sell EnerBurn to BLAI at $53.50 (USD) per gallon and your resale price
will range between $90 and $100 per gallon. During the time that this agreement
is in effect, BLAI agrees not to sell and/or handle any other product which
would compete with EnerBurn.

This agreement is for a period of one year from the date hereof and may be
extended by mutual agreement of both parties in writing. However, BLAI should
purchase a minimum of 4,000 gallons of EnerBurn within the first year in order
to maintain sales exclusivity in the BLAI countries.

This agreement supercedes any other agreements, oral and/or written, regarding
this matter, but does not supercede that earlier secrecy agreement between the
parties and which remains valid and in full force and effect.

Any disputes between the parties will be resolved under Texas law and in the
courts of Harris County, Texas.

<PAGE>

If BLAI is in agreement with the terms and conditions set forth above, please
execute both originals of this letter and return one original to the
undersigned.

We look forward to a good and mutually beneficial business relationship.

Very truly yours,

Dwaine Reese
Chairman and CEO


ACCEPTED & AGREED TO:

BRENNTAG LATIN AMERICA INC.


___________________________________


Date:
#### Luis M. RODRIGUEZ v. DIRECT GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF LOUISIANA, Progressive Security Insurance Company & Debbie P. Levine.

No. 2012-C-0431.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 13, 2012.

In re Rodriquez, Luis M.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. J, No. 671-137; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 11-CA-589.

Denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

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

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999             SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          11,505                  11,313
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,435                     174
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                        833                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                18,406                  11,854
<PP&E>                                           4,126                   1,478
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  79,773                  13,419
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,896                   3,248
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                     629
<COMMON>                                           510                     252
<OTHER-SE>                                     189,847                  93,963
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    79,773                  13,419
<SALES>                                          6,219                   1,659
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0                       0
<CGS>                                            1,147                     338
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   41,565                   9,474
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (13)                 (1,642)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0                       0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (35,359)                (14,936)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.02)                  (0.88)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.02)                  (0.88)


</TABLE>
#### James Everette TREECE, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. NORTH CAROLINA ATTORNEY GENERAL; North Carolina Department Of Corrections; Superintendent of Brown Creek Correctional Facility, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 00-6945.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 30, 2000.

Decided Jan. 5, 2001.

Henry Turner Drake, Drake & Pleasant, Marshville, NC, for appellant. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, Office of the Attorney General of North Carolina, Raleigh, NC, for appellees.

Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

*123PER CURIAM.

James Everette Treece, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. *See Treece v. Attorney General,*No. CA-99-491 (M.D.N.C. June 14, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
#### A. B. Caruthers v. W. C. Cherry et al.

(No. 6548.)

Appeal from Hill County.

J. G-. Abney, counsel for appellant.

No counsel appeared for appellees.

Opinion by

Willson, J.

§ 118. *Failure of consideration; burden of proof of; Charge of*court, Suit by appellant against appellees upon two promissory notes, each for the sum of $166.04. Appellees pleaded failure of consideration; that said notes were given for cotton seed sold them by appellant; that appellant fraudulently and falsely represented that said cotton seed was of a superior kind, etc. Appellees also pleaded in reconvention for damages alleged to have been sustained by reason of the premises. Judgment for appellees upon their plea of failure of consideration, and upon their plea in reconvention for $124.30. We think that the charge of the court is .erroneous, in that it does not inform the jury that the burden of proof was upon appellees to establish their plea of failure of consideration. A jury might conclude from the charge as given that it devolved upon appellant to prove that the consideration of the notes had not failed. Appellant requested a special instruction which would have corrected the charge in this respect, and the court erred in refusing to give it. We are of the opinion that the court should have instructed the jury that, to sustain appellees5 plea of failure of consideration, it devolved upon appellees to show by evidence (1) that the representations, in whole or in part, made by appellant to appellees in regard to the cotton seed were false; (2) that the false representation was as to a material matter; (3) that the same was relied upon by appellees, and influenced them to purchase the cotton seed. These propositions are not clearly *181presented in the charge given to the jury, but were called to the attention of the court in a special charge requested by appellant, and refused by the court, but which special charge was properly refused, perhaps because not precisely correct. It was nevertheless sufficient to call the attention of the court to the insufficiency of the main charge.

May 28, 1890.

Reversed and remanded.
<PAGE>
                                  EXHIBIT 32.1

                            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 MRO Software, Inc., (the
"Company") for the quarter ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the
undersigned President & Chief Executive Officer, and Executive Vice President of
Finance & Administration, CFO & Treasurer of the Company, certifies, to the best
knowledge and belief of the signatory, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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


/s/ Norman E. Drapeau, Jr.              /s/ Peter J. Rice
-------------------------------------   ----------------------------------------
Norman E. Drapeau, Jr.                  Peter J. Rice
President & Chief Executive Officer     Executive Vice President, Finance &
Date: February 9, 2005                  Administration, CFO & Treasurer
                                        Date: February 9, 2005