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

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1019 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1019

   To designate the United States customhouse building located at 31 
  Gonzalez Clemente Avenue in Mayaguez, Puerto Rico, as the ``Rafael 
          Martinez Nadal United States Customhouse Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 13, 2007

 Mr. Fortuno introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To designate the United States customhouse building located at 31 
  Gonzalez Clemente Avenue in Mayaguez, Puerto Rico, as the ``Rafael 
          Martinez Nadal United States Customhouse Building''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The United States customhouse building located at 31 Gonzalez 
Clemente Avenue in Mayaguez, Puerto Rico, shall be known and designated 
as the ``Rafael Martinez Nadal United States Customhouse Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the United States customhouse building 
referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the 
``Rafael Martinez Nadal United States Customhouse Building''.
                                 <all>
```
582 A.2d 645

#### IN THE MATTER OF WILLIAM J. ROSS, AN ATTORNEY-AT-LAW.

November 29, 1990.

William J. DeMarco, pro se.

David E. Johnson, Jr., Director, for Office of Atty. Ethics.

CONSENT ORDER

THIS MATTER, having been opened to the Court by DAVID E. JOHNSON, JR., Director, Office of Attorney Ethics, and with the consent of the Respondent, William J. Ross, of Totowa, New Jersey, and William J. DeMarco, respondent’s counsel, and it appearing that the Office of Attorney Ethics and Respondent having agreed to Respondent being temporarily suspended from the practice of law, together with the additional relief provided in this Order, pending final disposition of all ethics grievances before the District XI Ethics Committee,

IT IS ORDERED that:

1. William J. Ross of Totowa, New Jersey, admitted to practice in this State in 1970, is temporarily suspended from the practice of law, effective immediately, pending final determination of all grievances, and until further Order of the Court.

2. The Office of Attorney Ethics takes such protective action pursuant to R.1:20-11(c), as may be appropriate to gain possession and control of the legal files, records, practice and trust assets of William J. Ross wherever situate.

3. All funds, if any, presently existing in any New Jersey financial institution including, but not limited to, Attorney Trust Account # 59-990-643-9, Attorney Business Account # 57-994-340-8, and Money Market Account # 36-007546-5 in the name of William Ross, Fiduciary for Gasper Gerardi, Gary Moshier and Evelyn Moshier, maintained at Prospect Park Savings Bank, West Paterson, Passaic County, New Jersey, pursuant to *R.*1:21-6 shall be restrained from disbursement and shall be transmitted by the banks which are the present custodians thereof to the Clerk of the Superior Court for deposit in the *514Superior Court Trust Fund pending the further Order of this Court.

4. William J. Ross is hereby restrained and enjoined from practicing law during the period of suspension.

5. William J. Ross is hereby restrained and enjoined from disbursing funds from any of the foregoing bank accounts.

6. William J. Ross shall comply with all the Administrative Guidelines of the Office of Attorney Ethics governing suspended, disbarred or resigned attorneys.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO 

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT 2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Trans Energy, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Lisa A. Corbitt, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the            Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

 

|   | (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 result of operations of the Company. |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

/S/ LISA A. CORBITT

Lisa A. Corbitt

Chief Financial Officer

August 12, 2009

 

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.
#### Jonathan Miles v. James Sprague.

(No. 2251.)

Appeal from Tom Green County.

*(Transferred from Austin, j*

*W;*H. Lessing and. Mays & Timmins, counsel for appellant.

No counsel appeared for appellee.

Opinion by

Will-son, J.

§ 199. *jDistress zvarrant; citation must be issued simzdtaneously zoith; case stated.*Appellant sued appellee for rent and advances, and sued out a distress warrant which was levied upon appellee’s crop. Four days after the issuance of the distress warrant, the justice of the peace who issued it issued a citation for appellee to appear at the next term of the county court and answer in said proceeding. Appellee appeared at said term of the county court and moved to quash the distress proceedings because the citation was not issued at the same time the distress warrant was issued. He also pleaded a counterclaim, and pleaded in recon veution for damages for the alleged wrongful and malicious suing out and levy of the distress warrant. The motion to quash the distress proceeding was sustained, and a trial upon the merits of the case resulted in a verdict and judgment for appellee for $260.J2. *Held,*there was no error in quashing the distress proceeding. Said proceeding was a nullity because citation was not issued contemporaneously with the warrant. [2 W. Con. Rep. § 353.]

§ 200. *Damages for wrongful issuance of distress warrant, not recoverable zuhen.*The defect above mentioned in the distress proceeding ivas not the fault" of appellant, but was the fault of the justice of the peace. It cannot be held that appellant is liable in damages for such defect. The warrant was not *illegally*and *zmjusthj*issued in the sense that would make appellant responsible *244therefor. In all other respects the distress proceeding .was legal, valid, and apparently just. There is no evidence in the case which would warrant the recovery of any damages by reason of said distress proceeding, and the issue of such damages should not have been submitted to the jury. It is uncertain from the-verdict of the jury whether or not damages were awarded the appellee. If damages were awarded him, the verdict and judgment are erroneous, and because they may have been awarded the judgment is reversed.

December 4, 1886.

Reversed and remanded.
News United States Air Force
 Enlisted members interested in attaché duty must apply by June 2Published April 30, 2014
                        
                        By Debbie Gildea
                        
                        
                        Air Force Personnel Center Public Affairs
                **JOINT BASE SAN ANTONIO-RANDOLPH, Texas (AFNS) --**
                Active-duty staff through senior master sergeants interested in attaché duty can apply for assignment opportunities with international affairs teams around the world, but those interested must submit their applications by June 2 to be considered, Air Force officials announced April 30. 
The office of the secretary of the Air Force, international affairs, is accepting applications for enlisted defense attaché specialists at 17 locations, with tour lengths ranging from 12 to 36 months, said Jim Yarbrough, the Air Force attaché program chief.
Enlisted attaché support positions include operations coordinator and operations NCO. Duties include managing logistics and administrative support, executing budget requirements, working various clearances, supervising foreign national staff and direct support for distinguished guest visits, Yarbrough said.
"Attaché personnel represent the secretary and chief of staff of the Air Force to the host nation government officials, and are charged with developing and maintaining harmonious and cooperative relationships between the U.S. Air Force and the host nation air force," Yarbrough said. "They must be self-starters who are flexible, persuasive and persistent."
Applicants and all immediate family members must be U.S. citizens. In addition, member and all accompanying family members' health, educational and special needs must be medically cleared. 
"Selection for enlisted attaché duty is very competitive," Yarbrough said. "Their role and impact are critical to multinational working relationships, so only exceptional NCOs will be considered." 
Air Force Personnel Center representatives will contact Airmen selected for further screening. Applications from Airmen who are not selected this cycle will be retained through the end of the cycle in the event a primary selectee is unable to fulfill the requirement. 
For more information, including eligibility criteria and application procedures, go to myPers, select "search all components" from the drop down window, and enter "27542" in the search window. In addition, information and application documents are available on the Air Force Portal. Go to https://my.af.mil and enter "attaché program" in the search window.enlisted defense attaché 



logistics 



administrative 



international Affairs Related Links
        MyPers website
            
            Air Force Portal
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1164 

To amend the Hate Crime Statistics Act to require the Attorney General 

to acquire data about crimes that manifest evidence of prejudice based 

on gender. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 16, 2007 

Mrs. MALONEY of New York (for herself, Ms. LEE, Mr. CUMMINGS, Ms. ZOE

LOFGREN of California, Ms. WOOLSEY, and Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend the Hate Crime Statistics Act to require the 

Attorney General to acquire data about crimes that 

manifest evidence of prejudice based on gender. 

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 ‘‘Hate Crime Statistics 

5 Improvement Act of 2007’’. 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1164 IH

1 SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO HATE CRIME STATISTICS ACT. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (b)(1) of the first sec3 tion of the Hate Crime Statistics Act (28 U.S.C. 534 note) 

4 is amended— 

5 (1) by striking ‘‘or’’ after ‘‘sexual orientation,’’; 

6 and 

7 (2) by inserting ‘‘or gender,’’ after ‘‘ethnicity,’’. 

8 (b) APPLICATION.—The amendment made by sub9 section (a) applies to data about crimes occurring on or 

10 after the first day of the first calendar year after the en11 actment of this Act. 

Æ 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

April 28, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

130028 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

ROBERT DANTUMA and Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, SHELLY DANTUMA, Justices Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

v SC: 130028 

 COA: 262867 
 Kent CC: 03-011366-NH 

SPECTRUM HEALTH, BUTTERWORTH

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH, INC., d/b/a

SPECTRUM HEALTH OCCUPATIONAL 

SERVICES, and DR. ROBERT RICHMOND, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 25, 2005 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

p0424 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

April 28, 2006 

Clerk
September 6, 1979.

422 A.2d 1162

#### Commonwealth v. Brazin, Appellant.

Submitted April 12, 1979.

Bruce E. Dice, for appellant; Robert L. Eberhardt, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Before CERCONE, P. J., and WIEAND and HOFFMAN, JJ.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.
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

     The  undersigned hereby certify, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as  adopted  pursuant  to  Section  906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.  They  are  the  chief  executive  officer  and  chief  financial  officer,
respectively  of  SpaceDev,  Inc.  (the  "Company");

2. The Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December
31,  2005,  that  this  certification  accompanies,  fully  complies  with  the
requirements  of  Section  13(a)  of  the  Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and,

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

Dated:  March  28,  2006

                                   By:  /s/  Mark  N.  Sirangelo
                                       ----------------------------------------
                                           Mark  N.  Sirangelo
                                           Chief  Executive  Officer

                                   And;

                                   By:  /s/  Richard  B.  Slansky
                                       ----------------------------------------
                                           Richard  B.  Slansky
                                           President and Chief Financial Officer
Order filed January 11 , 2013

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14
- 12
- 01122
- CV

____________ BEN CAVIL , Appellant

V. FV
- 1 TRUST FOR STANLEY MORTGAGE CAPITAL HOL DINGS, L . L . C . , Appellee
On Appeal from County Court No. 3 Galveston County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CV
- 0068250



### ORDER This is an appeal from a judgment signed September 2 5 , 2012. On December 17, 2012, appellant filed a motion in this court requesting a temporary stay of the judgment and execution of the writ of possession on the property located at 3937 Lake Star Drive, League City, Texas 77573. The motion was granted and a response requested from appellee, FV

- 1 in Trust for Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings, L

. L

. C . A response has been filed.Becau se no supersedeas bond was filed within ten days of the judgment, the

judgment may not be stayed pending appeal. See Tex. Prop. Code Ann. § 24.007 (West 2000) ; Wilhelm v. Fed. Nat. Mortg. Ass'n , 349 S.W.3d 766, 768 (Tex. App.

-

- Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, no pet.). Although appellant stated that he had requested that the trial judge set the bond, we find no such request in the clerk's record. Accordingly, t he stay order issued by this Court on December 17, 2012, in trial court cause number CV

- 0068250, sty led FC

- 1 in Trust for Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings, L

. L

. C

. v. Ben A. Cavil and all other occupants , is lifted. Appellee’s request for costs is denied.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Frost, Christopher, and Jamison.
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 13.2


                            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 Annual Report of IONA Technologies PLC (the
"Company") on Form 20-F for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Daniel Demmer, Chief Financial 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:

            (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/ Daniel Demmer
-----------------------
DANIEL DEMMER
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

Date: May 14, 2004


      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.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2


                            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 of Ramsay Youth Services, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Marcio C. Cabrera, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of operations of the
Company.



                                       /S/ MARCIO C. CABRERA
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Marcio C. Cabrera
                                       Chief Financial Officer
                                       November 13, 2002
May 16, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of Remarks E 1053

I did not vote for it but I believe it should be

given a chance to take effect.

When the subcommittee reaches H.R. 359

for a hearing next year, we will investigate

whether anyone besides deliberate abusers of

the patent system is likely to obtain shorter

patent life under the new law. If any inventors

are losing patent life through no fault of their

own, we will consider appropriate corrective

action.
United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

ASETEK DANMARK A/S,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

CMI USA INC., FKA COOLER MASTER USA, INC., 

COOLER MASTER CO., LTD.,

Defendants-Appellants

______________________ 

2016-1026, 2016-1183

______________________ 

Appeals from the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of California in No. 3:13-cv-00457-JST, 

Judge Jon S. Tigar.

______________________ 

ON PETITION FOR PANEL REHEARING

______________________ 

Before PROST, Chief Judge, NEWMAN, and TARANTO,

Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

O R D E R

The petition for panel rehearing is granted in part. 

The opinion of the court, Asetek Danmark A/S v. CMI 

USA INC., 842 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016), is modified as 

follows:
2 ASETEK DANMARK A/S v. CMI USA INC. 

At 842 F.3d at 1353, “Opinion dissenting in part filed 

by Chief Judge Prost” is deleted.

At 842 F.3d at 1367, the paragraph that begins “Two 

final, related points. ...” is replaced by the following: 

Two final, related points. First, the need 

for further proceedings to determine the 

proper reach of the injunction in this case 

leads us to vacate the injunction, effective 

upon issuance of our mandate, insofar as the 

injunction reaches conduct by Cooler Master 

that does not abet new violations by CMI. 

The district court is to conduct those proceedings in as reasonably prompt a fashion 

as possible. Our partial vacatur of the injunction does not foreclose Asetek from pursuing reinstatement of the vacated portion of 

the injunction should there be unjustifiable 

delay by Cooler Master in completing the 

proceedings, or from pursuing any other 

remedies against Cooler Master, if otherwise 

authorized by law.

At 842 F.3d at 1367, the sentence in the 

CONCLUSION that begins “Insofar as ...” is replaced by 

the following: 

Insofar as the injunction reaches such conduct, we vacate the injunction and remand 

for further consideration in accordance with 

this opinion.

At 842 F.3d at 1367, “AFFIRMED IN PART, 

REMANDED IN PART” is replaced by “AFFIRMED IN 

PART, VACATED IN PART, REMANDED IN PART.” 

At 842 F.3d at 1367–71, Chief Judge Prost’s partial 

dissent is withdrawn. 

The revised opinion accompanies this order.
ASETEK DANMARK A/S v. CMI USA INC. 3

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 FOR THE COURT

 April 3, 2017 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner 

 Date Peter R. Marksteiner

 Clerk of Court
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Vincent MARINELLO.

No. 2010-KO-2534.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 25, 2011.

In re Marinello, Vincent; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court Div. H, No. CR 119805; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 09-1260.

Denied.
No. 87-6403.

#### Lay *v.*Ford et al.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.