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

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1425 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

  1st Session
                                H. R. 1425

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 22, 2007

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 4551 East 52nd Street in Odessa, Texas, as the ``Staff Sergeant 
               Marvin `Rex' Young Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. STAFF SERGEANT MARVIN ``REX'' YOUNG POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 4551 East 52nd Street in Odessa, Texas, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Staff Sergeant Marvin `Rex' Young Post Office 
Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Staff 
Sergeant Marvin `Rex' Young Post Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives May 21, 2007.

            Attest:

                                            LORRAINE C. MILLER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1785
KAREN VAN GORKOM, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DEUTSCHE BANK, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (1:04-cv-02802-WDQ) Submitted: November 15, 2007 Decided: November 20, 2007 Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Karen Van Gorkom, Appellant Pro Se. Tom A. Jerman, Evelyn L. Becker, Heejung Heidi Son, Sarah A. Goldfrank, Anne Nicole Cortina, O’MELVENY & MYERS, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Karen Van Gorkom appeals the district court’s order granting Defendant’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) motion to dismiss her claims for failure to prosecute. We have reviewed the record and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Van Gorkom v. Deutsche Bank , No. 1:04-cv-02802-WDQ (D. Md. July 12, 2007). 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.

AFFIRMED
<PAGE>

                                  Exhibit 21.1
                         Subsidiaries of the Registrant


                                                    State or Jurisdiction of
Name of Subsidiary                                  incorporation
------------------                                  -------------------------

3013439 Nova Scotia Company                         Nova Scotia, Canada
504087 N.B. Inc.                                    New Brunswick, Canada
COS Information, Inc.                               Quebec, Canada
Electronic Imaging Services, Inc.                   Delaware
Lirpaco, Inc.                                       Canadian (Federal)
Vestcom Ontario                                     Ontario, Canada
Vestcom Connecticut, Inc.                           Connecticut
Vestcom Investments, Inc.                           New Jersey
Vestcom Internet Solutions Group, Inc.              New Jersey
Vestcom Massachusetts, Inc.                         Massachusetts
Vestcom Mid-Atlantic, Inc.                          Delaware
Vestcom New England, Inc.                           Rhode Island
Vestcom Northwest, Inc.                             Delaware
Vestcom Retail Solutions Group, Inc.                Missouri
Vestcom Rhode Island Corp.                          Rhode Island
Vestcom St. Louis, Inc.                             Delaware
Vestcom Wisconsin, Inc.                             Wisconsin
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                      23,272,300
<SECURITIES>                                   276,605
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,097,709
<ALLOWANCES>                                   166,681
<INVENTORY>                                  2,943,471
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            31,128,400
<PP&E>                                       2,025,910
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,836,307
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              33,489,032
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,141,005
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        12,059
<OTHER-SE>                                  29,335,968
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                33,489,032
<SALES>                                     15,506,498
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            17,006,498
<CGS>                                        5,261,664
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,261,664
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,526,918
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,017,196
<INCOME-TAX>                                   766,520
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,250,676
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,250,676
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .13


</TABLE>
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTHCOURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH 

	NO. 2-06-006-CV

NO. 2-06-155-CV

Ex Parte S.R.D., a child

In the Interest of B.G.D. a/k/a S.R.D., A Child	APPELLANT

	----------

	FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 COURT OF WICHITA COUNTY	NO. 2-006  -04400    0916-163              -CV

JOSEPH H. LEE, III, VIRGINIA K. LEE AND 	APPELLANTS

PATRICIA LEE BARROW AND SAVINGS 

OF AMERICA, INC.	Q'SsSoO, IiInNcC., AaAmMyY AaArRnNoOlLdDtT, aAnNdD FfFrReEdDrRiIcCkK AaArRnNoOlLdDtT	   APPELLANTS	

FREDRICK ARNOLDT

	V.

CaApPiItTaAlL OnNeE, N.A. OPAL LEE, IN HER CAPACITY AS 	APPELLEE

 TEMPORARY ADMINISTRATOR OF 

THE ESTATE OF DALE T. LEE, DECEASED	

	----------

	FROM THE 342ND          PROBATE DISTRICT COURT  NO. 2 OF TARRANT                     TARRANT COUNTY

	----------

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

	----------

	We have considered “aaAppellant’s [s’]’ “Motion To Dismiss aAppealNotice Of Nonsuit.”  It is the court’s opinion that the motion should be granted; therefore, we dismiss the appeal.  See TEX. R. APP. P.Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f).

	Costs of the appeal shall be paid by the appellants [ [s][- [oOR the the party incurring the same], for which let execution issue.  See Tex. R. App. P.Tex. R. App. P. 43.4.

								PER CURIAM

PANEL D:    MEIER, LIVINGSTON, and WALKER, JJ.

    HOLMAN, GARDNER, and WALKER                                     , JJ.

DELIVERED:    September 28, 2006  June 168, 2009
OFFICE OF THE Al7ORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

xr. Fred ?Iiom 

De?artmnt or ?ublic .iarety Austin, Texas 

'&2"1ary 16, 1939 

/ll%$al limb forB&jh$ay 

, badges, arza and sor 

emsm:tioo, raBio9, first sld sup3lia8, 

cmtingent expmses and all othm reason- ALL. 31, Aug. 31, 

able md neceasesy expemee, inoludI.zg 1930 1939 

;E3intenanoe, labor and eQti&uent of the . . 

tralnln~ school for ptroken. . . . . . %U38;000.00 3183,000100* 
"The tera *neCiclneq 113 mt lidi t:, subste.aces supposed to pxsese J-Jrst:ve 2s remdial 

?roperties, but h-r also Cie zaeting 31 tCe :;aallq 

art-the so2ance of p3se,mfag h33lth ad treathg 

d%seEtSe SOT the purpose of cure--%kstkr s:ich treatssat infolves tbs cse aC zedicsl sl;bstanees .or 3ot.* 

Pm23 ths opiuL35 of th3 calirma d.vpem Court, Ia 

3tion Iron York8 t. izzkssr;rial Ace. !ha5issl3n, WV zfio. 410, 

we quote: 

-It th8lTtfOIW fG~OW3 c-at the reGic%l and surg.Zcal services ooate!wlated and called for by the statute 

ia.questioa strclrld be suoh as orill tend to seoure the 

rstum of the worksum to poduotivo Baployaent.* 

The above o&sea do sot invalve.the @at la.qtiea%ko& 

Xe sere4 include.the~.@otatione as indiloatiue of the faot that 

the term %edio%~e~ la riot cxfined to drugs alon.8, and tix& t?re 

tern %edloal eerv%cezP-Is ~2ot omflned to the ad&nisteriag 0r 

zedZoiaeealone, but imludes ax& *Coal treatzteat as zfiy be 

neosssaxyto restore a zm As mar'ae CYB be to norxl condition 

3f healtli and aatlvity. 

Zit?wut Sesitstioa, we 3Ovise thet :.i;?~ia-~y be used rrnz 

%a ssceg t&us agpmpr%ated t3 ~.xrcWw3 kr. Ley en artltioial lizb. 

hw3 vexi tr-ily
##### 



Exhibit 99.2

United States Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street NW
Washington, DC 50249



| | Re: | MakeMusic! Inc.
File No. 0-26192
Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ladies and Gentleman:

In connection with the Quarterly Report of MakeMusic! Inc. (the Company)
on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Barbara S. Remley, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as
adopted pursuant to §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.

November 14, 2002



| | /s/ Barbara S. Remley
Chief Financial Officer
| | ---------------------------------------------
Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 News
    
        Photos

    Week in Photos

    Air Force TV

    Commentaries

    Features

    Art

    About Us
    
        Air Force Senior Leaders
    
        SECAF

    CSAF

    CMSAF

    Biographies

    Fact Sheets

    SECAF Reading List

    CSAF Leadership Library
    
        CSAF Leadership Library 2022

    CSAF Leadership Library 2021

    CSAF Reading List Pre-2020 Archive
    
        2018 CSAF Reading List

    2017 CSAF Reading List

    2016 CSAF Reading List

    CSAF Leadership Library 2023

    CMSAF Leadership Library

    50 Years of the CMSAF

    Adjunct Professors

    Air Force Strategic Documents

    Arctic Strategy

    Empowered Airmen

    State Licensure Portability

    Careers

    AF Federal Advisory Committees

    AF 75th Anniversary

    Policy Updates

    AF Content Management

    Contact Us

    AF Sites
    
        Site RegistrationU.S. Air Force LogoAir Force

        Policy UpdatesNewsroomReoptimizationBIOGRAPHIESAF Senior Leaders   
   Disclaimer
    **Disclaimer for DAF Influencers**
The views expressed are my own and do not constitute endorsement by the Department of Defense, Department of the Air Force, or the U.S. Government. My participation and appearance in any private or public events, sponsored or otherwise, or references, including external hyperlinks, to non-federal entities do not constitute or imply Department of Defense, Department of the Air Force or U.S. Government endorsement of any company or organization.

**Other Web Policies**
Interested in knowing the Web policies of the Department of the Air Force and the Department of Defense? You can read the policies here. Please let us know about existing external links which you believe are inappropriate and about specific additional external links which you believe ought to be included.
        Related Links
    Web Policy
 DAF Disclaimer Page
 National Archives and Records Administration General Schedule 20  Quick Links
AccessibilityContact UsEqual OpportunityFOIA | Privacy | Section 508Information QualityInspector GeneralJAG Court-Martial DocketLink DisclaimerNo FEAR ActOpen GovernmentOSI Tip LinePlain LanguageQuestionsResilienceRSSSite MapVeterans Crisis LineCareers
Join the Air ForceAir Force BenefitsAir Force CareersAir Force ReserveAir National GuardCivilian ServiceConnect
            Get Social with Us
            
            Official United States Air Force Website
    Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Tyrone HUNTER.

No. 2011-KO-0889.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 4, 2011.

In re Hunter, Tyrone; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. 5, No. 266,549; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 46,194-KA.

Denied.

JOHNSON, J., would grant.
#### HORACE MANN INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Allison N. CHASE, individually and as Co-Personal Representative of the Estate of Richard Chase, deceased, Appellee.

No. 1D10-5764.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 3, 2011.

Tammy De Soto Cicchetti and Michael A. Cinquino of the Cicchetti Law Firm, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Benjamin E. Richard of Pajcic & Pajcic, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellee.

*718PER CURIAM.

DISMISSED. *See Workmen’s Auto Ins. Co. v. Franz,*24 So.3d 638, 640 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009).

KAHN, DAVIS, and HAWKES, JJ, concur.
IIB 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1402 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 24, 2007 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 320 South Lecanto Highway in Lecanto, Florida, as the ‘‘Sergeant Dennis J. Flanagan Lecanto Post 

Office Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
2 

HR 1402 RFS

1 SECTION 1. SERGEANT DENNIS J. FLANAGAN LECANTO 

2 POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

4 Postal Service located at 320 South Lecanto Highway in 

5 Lecanto, Florida, shall be known and designated as the 

6 ‘‘Sergeant Dennis J. Flanagan Lecanto Post Office Build7 ing’’. 

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

10 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

11 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Sergeant Dennis J. 

12 Flanagan Lecanto Post Office Building’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives April 23, 2007. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Luella L. JACKSON.

No. 2010-K-1808.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 4, 2011.

In re Jackson, Luella L.; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Caddo, Shreveport City Court, No. 9K025957; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 45,690-KW.

Denied.
583 A.2d 343

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. ROBERT POLK, SR.

March 20, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
#### Francis J. MAMMANO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY, MARYLAND; John S. Farrell, Chief, Prince George’s County Police Department, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 00-1485.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 30, 2000.

Decided Jan. 5, 2001.

*115Michael Marshall, Schlachman, Belsky & Weiner, P.A., Baltimore, MD, for appellant. Sean D. Wallace, County Attorney, John A. Bielec, Deputy County Attorney, William A. Snoddy, Associate County Attorney, Upper Marlboro, MD, for appel-lees.

Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Francis J. Mammano appeals the district court’s order granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.2000) action. To state a First Amendment retaliation claim under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983, a plaintiff must establish three elements: (1) that his speech was constitutionally protected; (2) that he was deprived of some valuable benefit as a result of the speech; and (3) that “but for” the speech, the Defendants would not have taken the retaliatory actions they did. *DiMeglio v. Haines,*45 F.3d 790, 804 (4th Cir.1995). Because Mammano failed to proffer facts sufficient to support a finding that he has been deprived of a valuable employment benefit, we affirm the district court’s order. 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.

*AFFIRMED.*
EXHIBIT 32

                             CERTIFICATION PURSUANT

We hereby  certify  that  this  Annual  Report  on Form 10-K for the year  ended
December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission,  to the
best of our knowledge,  complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the  Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 and that the  information  contained in
this report fairly presents,  in all material respects,  the financial condition
and results of operations of Unified Financial Services, Inc.

                                           /s/ John S. Penn
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           John S. Penn
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer



                                           /s/ Thomas G. Napurano
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Thomas G. Napurano
                                           Chief Financial Officer

March 2, 2004

     This  certificate  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.
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**





**CERTIFICATE
      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 Targeted Genetics Corporation (the
      “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the
      Securities & Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, David
      J. Poston, 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 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.





/s/
                David J. Poston
                David
                  J. PostonVice
                President, Finance and Chief Financial OfficerAugust
                7, 2007




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.




This
      certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
      as
      Exhibit 32.2 to the Form 10-Q pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
      Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and in accordance
      with Item 601(b)(32)(ii) of Regulation S-K. This certification is not being
“filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
      and is not and should not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into the
      Form 10-Q or any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7623

RALPH SINGLETARY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

RONALD JONES,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District

Judge. (CA-96-550-H)

Submitted: March 13, 1997 Decided: March 19, 1997

Before HALL, ERVIN, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ralph Singletary, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on

his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-

132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record and the district

court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate

judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant

a certificate of appealability and modify the district court's

order to reflect that the action was dismissed without prejudice,

we affirm the order as modified on the reasoning of the district

court. Singletary v. Jones, No. CA-96-550-H (E.D.N.C. Oct. 15,

1996). We deny Appellant's motions for appointment and assigning of

counsel, and 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.

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

May 31, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 130166 & (18) Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 130166 

 COA: 262284 

Wayne CC: 01-005308-01 

DAMON D. HUDSON, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 6, 2005 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). The 

motion to remand is DENIED. 

KELLY, J., would, in lieu of this Court’s order denying the application for leave to 

appeal, direct the defendant to provide this Court with a complete copy of his Presentence 

Investigation Report. 

d0524 

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. 

May 31, 2006 

Clerk