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

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 643 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  1st Session

                               H. R. 643

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

  To designate the United States courthouse to be constructed at the 
 corner of Superior and Huron Roads, in Cleveland, Ohio, as the ``Carl 
                 B. Stokes United States Courthouse''.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 643

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To designate the United States courthouse to be constructed at the 
 corner of Superior and Huron Roads, in Cleveland, Ohio, as the ``Carl 
                 B. Stokes United States Courthouse''.

    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 courthouse to be constructed at the corner of 
Superior and Huron Roads, in Cleveland, Ohio, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Carl B. Stokes United States Courthouse''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the United States courthouse referred to 
in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Carl B. Stokes 
United States Courthouse''.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 23, 1997.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DEBRA JEAN MILKE,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

DORA B. SCHRIRO,

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 07-99001

D.C. No. CV-98-00060-PHX-RCB

ORDER

Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, FARRIS and BEA, Circuit Judges.

A complete review of the record discloses no evidence supporting a finding

that petitioner voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently waived her rights under

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444–45 (1966). See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)–(e). 

Under these circumstances, an evidentiary hearing in federal court is required. See

Frantz v. Hazey, 533 F.3d 724, 745 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). We therefore

remand with instructions to conduct a limited hearing on the sole issue of whether

petitioner validly waived her Miranda rights; respondent shall have the burden of

proof. The district court must conduct the hearing and render its findings within 60

days of this order. 

FILED

SEP 28 2009

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

Case 2:98-cv-00060-RCB Document 163 Filed 09/28/09 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

          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 accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of
Franklin Finance Corporation for the quarter ended June 30, 2002, I, David L.
Shelp, President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of
Franklin Finance Corporation hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the
best of my knowledge and belief, that:

         (1)      such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Franklin Finance
                  Corporation for the quarter ended June 30, 2002, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form
                  10-Q of Franklin Finance Corporation for the quarter ended
                  June 30, 2002, fairly presents, in all material respects, the
                  financial condition and results of operations of Franklin
                  Finance Corporation.

                           /s/ David L. Shelp
                           -----------------------------------------------------
August 13, 2002            David L. Shelp
                           Director, President, Chief Executive Officer and
                           Chief Financial Officer
                           (Principal executive and principal financial officer)
If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to 

revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

-1-

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

TRACY LEE MILLER,

Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee,

UNPUBLISHED

April 25, 2024

v No. 366614

Calhoun Circuit Court

MARK ALAN MILLER, LC No. 2021-003295-DM

Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

Before: M. J. KELLY, P.J., and JANSEN and MURRAY, JJ.

MURRAY, J. (concurring).

I fully concur in the majority opinion. Though not raised by either party on appeal, I write 

separately to point out that the trial court should have conducted this trial in-person, rather than 

remotely. Prior to trial plaintiff moved to have the trial conducted in-person, and defendant 

concurred. Thus, both parties preferred that their trial—a trial that involved custody of their child 

and the division of their assets, and that would have a significant impact on the family and their 

futures—be conducted in the courtroom. At the time the court denied the motion, MCR 2.408(A) 

provided that the use of videoconferencing technology shall not be used in bench trials, unless 

after notice the court determines otherwise.1 Here, after analyzing the factors under MCR 

2.407(C)(3),(4) and (7), the court determined that an in-person trial was not necessary. But in 

addressing these factors, the court seemed to view them with a presumption to having a remote 

proceeding. For example, in its analysis of (C)(3), the court noted that it was geared towards 

providing convenience to the parties—but the parties wanted the in-person trial, so they clearly 

decided to forego any convenience to gain the advantage of presenting live testimony to the court. 

As to the remaining factors, the court simply indicated that cross-examination can effectively occur 

 

1 The motion hearing was held on September 26, 2022, and MCR 2.408 was effective September 

9, 2022. See ADM File No. 2020-08 (August 10, 2022).
-2-

over a video, and it could control the proceedings. But trials are to be held in the public 

courtrooms, MCR 2.408(A), and to not hold one in-person on the basis that it can be performed 

remotely is inconsistent with the court rules and our legal traditions.

/s/ Christopher M. Murray
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2639 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2639

              To reauthorize the Congressional Award Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 13, 2004

 Mr. Lieberman (for himself and Ms. Collins) introduced the following 
      bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                          Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
              To reauthorize the Congressional Award Act.

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

SECTION 1. REAUTHORIZATION OF THE CONGRESSIONAL AWARD ACT.

    (a) Extension of Requirements Regarding Financial Operations of 
Congressional Award Program; Noncompliance With Requirements.--Section 
104(c)(2)(A) of the Congressional Award Act (2 U.S.C. 804(c)(2)(A)) is 
amended by striking ``and 2004'' and inserting ``2004, 2005, 2006, 
2007, 2008, and 2009''.
    (b) Termination.--Section 108 of the Congressional Award Act (2 
U.S.C. 808) is amended by striking ``October 1, 2004'' and inserting 
``October 1, 2009''.
    (c) Technical Amendments.--The Congressional Award Act is amended--
            (1) in section 103(b)(3)(B) (2 U.S.C. 803(b)(3)(B)), by 
        striking ``section'' each place it appears and inserting 
        ``subsection''; and
            (2) in section 104(c)(2)(A) (2 U.S.C. 804(c)(2)(A)), by 
        inserting a comma after ``1993''.
                                 <all>
```
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Interior

###### Bureau of Reclamation

          - [145R5065C6, RR85818000, RX.59799806.1001001]

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Reclamation, Interior.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

                        The Bureau of Reclamation is announcing a 30-day extension of the public comment period for the Collection and Compilation of Water Pipeline Field Performance Data Information Collection Request (ICR). The current comment period for this ICR ends on October 31, 2014, and is being extended to December 1, 2014. This comment period was reopened through the publication of a                         **Federal Register**                         notice on October 1, 2014 (79 FR 59291).                    

# DATES:

Submit comments on this ICR on or before December 1, 2014.

# ADDRESSES:

                        Send written comments to Mr. Lee Sears, Materials Engineering Research Laboratory, 86-68180, Bureau of Reclamation, P.O. Box 25007, Denver, CO 80225; or via email at                         *lsears@usbr.gov.*

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lee Sears at (303) 445-2392.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

## Public Disclosure Statement

Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

Dated: October 24, 2014.

Richard W. LaFond,

Chief, Civil Engineering Services Division.

[FR Doc. 2014-25799 Filed 10-29-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4332-90-P
EXHIBIT 10.31.1


May 21, 2007

Lonnie D. Schnell
1721 Cannes Drive
Thousand Oaks, CA 91362


Dear Lonnie:

In accordance with the actions approved by the  Compensation  Committee on April
26, 2007 and effective as of that date, your employment  terms and conditions as
defined in your employment agreement of March 16, 2006 are modified as follows:

Page 2, TERMINATION WITHOUT CAUSE: is replaced in its entirety as follows:

TERMINATION       Subject to the provisions  below, if terminated by the Company
WITHOUT CAUSE:    without  cause or due to your  death or  permanent  and  total
                  disability, conditioned upon your (or your estate's) execution
                  and  non-revocation  of a full  release  and  waiver of claims
                  agreement in a form  prescribed  by the Company,  you (or your
                  estate) will receive (i) 12 months of your  then-current  base
                  salary, payable in 12 equal monthly installments commencing on
                  the first day of the calendar month immediately following such
                  termination and thereafter on the first day of each subsequent
                  calendar month; (ii) 12 months of continued coverage under the
                  company's  group  health  plan at the same cost to you (and/or
                  your  dependents)  as immediately  prior to your  termination,
                  subject  to your  (and/or  your  dependents')  making  a valid
                  "COBRA"  election  and to any cost  increases  affecting  plan
                  participants  generally;  and (iii)  accelerated  stock option
                  vesting deemed to occur  immediately prior to your termination
                  with  respect  to that  portion  of any  and  all  outstanding
                  options then held by you that would have vested  during the 12
                  months  immediately  following  your  termination  absent such
                  termination (the "SEVERANCE").  Notwithstanding the foregoing,
                  the payments and benefits described in clauses (i) and (ii) of
                  the preceding  sentence  shall, to the extent not already paid
                  or provided,  cease immediately if you become employed or take
                  a position as a consultant prior to their expiration.


<PAGE>


To indicate your  acceptance of the Addendum to your  employment  terms,  please
sign this letter.


Yours very truly,

/s/ Stephen Forte
--------------------------------------
Stephen Forte, Chief Executive Officer


Agreed to and accepted:

/S/ LONNIE D. SCHNELL
--------------------------------------
Lonnie D. Schnell

Date: May 25, 2007


                                       2
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4815 Introduced in House (IH)]

105th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4815

To provide that December 7 each year shall be treated for all purposes 
    related to Federal employment in the same manner as November 11.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 12, 1998

  Mr. Quinn introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
              Committee on Government Reform and Oversight

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide that December 7 each year shall be treated for all purposes 
    related to Federal employment in the same manner as November 11.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That December 7 each 
year shall be treated for all purposes related to Federal employment in 
the same manner as November 11.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

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

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

In connection with the quarterly report of The Newark Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form10-Q for the quarter ended October 31, 2006 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Joseph E. Byrne, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934;and 

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financialcondition of the Company as of the dates presented and consolidated results of operations of the Company for the periods presented. 

Dated:December 14, 2006 

 

This certification has been furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure statement. 

A signed original of this written statement required bySection 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.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Joseph Garner, et al.,

 Plaintiffs,

vs.

Mohave County, et al.,

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-15-08147-PCT-PGR 

 ORDER

 

 

 Pending before the Court is the plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to

Rule 30(d)(2) (Doc. 121), wherein the plaintiffs seek an order requiring all counsel

to comply with Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(c)(2). Although the Court does not believe that this

issue should have gotten to this point, it concludes from the submitted materials that

the parties have reasonably attempted to resolve the issue underlying the motion

without court intervention. Having considered the parties’ memoranda, the Court

finds that the motion should be granted.

The gist of the issue before the Court is whether the defendants’ counsel has

been engaging in improper speaking objections during depositions. Rule 30(c)(2)

mandates that an objection made during a deposition “must be stated concisely in

a nonargumentative and nonsuggestive manner.” An objection that is argumentative

Case 3:15-cv-08147-DJH Document 131 Filed 01/29/16 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

The Court concludes that the following objections by the defendants’

counsel are examples of improper speaking objections:

• “ Also object on the basis of foundation as this document. It says 11/25

of 2014 was the adoption date so that’s after Karen Garner’s incident

just for the record.”

• ”I am going to object to this question on the basis that it’s incomplete in

terms of you didn’t read the entire document and also foundation since

he said he was not a sworn deputy. Go ahead and answer if you can.”

• “Object to the form of the question; he’s already told you he didn’t know

the voice.”

- 2 -

or which suggests an answer to the deponent is an improper speaking objection.

Both sides have submitted sample objections made by the defendants’ counsel and

the Court agrees with the plaintiffs that some of the cited objections are in fact overly

verbose, improperly argumentative, and/or improperly suggestive of the answer to

be given by the deponent.1

 The Court expects all future deposition objections to be

succinct, nonargumentive, and noncoaching. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Rule

30(d)(2) (Doc. 121) is granted and that all counsel shall limit their deposition

objections to concise, nonargumentative, and nonsuggestive statements, as required

by Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(c)(2).

DATED this 29th day of January, 2016.

Case 3:15-cv-08147-DJH Document 131 Filed 01/29/16 Page 2 of 2
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Schuyler McHenry, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Experian Information Solutions 

Incorporated, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-15-02356-PHX-JJT

ORDER 

 Upon the Stipulation of Dismissal With Prejudice (Doc. 68) filed by Plaintiff and 

Defendant Toyota Motor Credit Corporation (erroneously sued as “Toyota Financial 

Services, an assumed name for Toyota Motor Credit Corp, a California 

corporation”)(hereinafter “Toyota”) and good cause appearing, 

 IT IS ORDERED that the above-entitled matter is hereby dismissed with prejudice 

as to Defendant Toyota only, the parties to bear their own costs and attorneys’ fees. 

 Dated this 1st day of August, 2016. 

Honorable John J. Tuchi

United States District Judge

Case 2:15-cv-02356-JJT Document 69 Filed 08/01/16 Page 1 of 1
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 of Anworth Mortgage Asset Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2006 (the Report), I, Joseph Lloyd McAdams, Chairman of the Board, President 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:



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 Company.



By:

/s/    JOSEPH LLOYD
MCADAMSJoseph Lloyd McAdams Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer May 9, 2006
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    Exhibit 99.0

                Capital One Master Trust Aggregated Data for 1998


Defaults                                               $       736,712,825.18
Total Collections                                           12,892,544,427.03
Collections of Principal Receivables                        10,870,605,662.29
Collections of Finance Charge Receivables                    2,021,938,764.74
(includes amortization of annual membership                                  
fees)                                                                        
Monthly Servicing Fee Paid                                     157,452,876.95
Aggregate amount paid to Certificateholders                    554,346,185.20
allocable to interest                                                        
Aggegate amount paid to Certificateholders                   1,596,597,205.90
allocable to principal                                                       
Class A Investor Charge-Offs                                                0
Class B Investor Charge-Offs                                                0
Class C Investor Charge-Offs                                                0
Reductions in Collateral Indebtedness Interest         $        50,347,205.90