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

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 914 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  1st Session

                               H. R. 914

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To make certain technical corrections in the Higher Education Act of 
             1965 relating to graduation data disclosures.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 914

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To make certain technical corrections in the Higher Education Act of 
             1965 relating to graduation data disclosures.

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

SECTION 1. TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS RELATING TO DISCLOSURES REQUIRED WITH 
              RESPECT TO GRADUATION RATES.

    (a) Amendments.--Section 485 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 
(20 U.S.C. 1092) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a)(3)(B), by striking ``June 30'' and 
        inserting ``August 31''; and
            (2) in subsection (e)(9), by striking ``August 30'' and 
        inserting ``August 31''.
    (b) Effective Dates.--
            (1) In General.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
        amendments made by subsection (a) are effective upon enactment.
            (2) Information dissemination.--No institution shall be 
        required to comply with the amendment made by subsection (a)(1) 
        before July 1, 1998.

            Passed the House of Representatives March 11, 1997.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
<PAGE> 1

Exhibit 99

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 amended Quarterly Report of Powerball International,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2002 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on this date (the "Report"),
I, Robert K. Ipson, Chief Executive Officer and 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 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 result of operations of the Company.


/S/ Robert K. Ipson

Robert K. Ipson
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
June 19, 2003
#### Edna M. Pogue, Plaintiff, *v.*Daniel S. Todd, Defendant.

(Supreme Court, Monroe Special Term,

March, 1920.)

Stay — when granted — actions — incompetent persons.

Where after the commencement of an action the defendant is duly declared an incompetent, a motion by his committee for a stay will be granted without prejudice to any application the plaintiff may be advised to make.

Motion to stay action.

McGuire & Wood (J. Sawyer Fitch, of counsel), for motion.

Forsyth & Forsyth, opposed.

Rodenbeck, J.

The defendant is entitled to a stay of this action. He has been declared incompetent and a committee has been appointed over his property. Under these circumstances the action cannot be prosecuted against him without the consent of the court. An incompetent is a ward of the court and upon inquisition found, the court assumes the custody and control of his estate which it manages through the committee as its bailiff or agent. *Carter*v. *Beckwith,*128 N. Y. 312, 316. The incapacity of the incompetent to deal with Ms property, however, does not relieve him from his liabilities incurred prior to his incompetency, but he cannot be sued thereafter without permission of the court. Id. If a suit was brought against him before inquisition found, the action cannot be continued without leave of the court. *Grant*v. *Humbert,*114 App. Div. 462. Until he has been declared incompetent, he may be sued and dealt with *297the same as any other person, subject to the revocation of his acts in a proper case, but after inquisition found, his acts are void and he cannot prosecute or defend an action. If he was sued prior to inquisition found or is subsequently sued, the court may stay the action and determine the course to be pursued with reference to the claim. *Grant*v. *Humbert, supra.*The motion for a stay is, therefore, granted without costs and without prejudice to any application that the plaintiff may be advised to make.

Ordered accordingly.
**EXHIBIT 32.1****Written Statement Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**The undersigned, the President of Webster Preferred Capital Corporation (the “Company”),hereby certifies that, to his knowledge on the date hereof:(a) the Form 10-Q Report of the Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 filed on the datehereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”) fully complies with therequirements of Section 13a or 15d of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(b) information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.       /s/ William T. Bromage     William T. Bromage,    President    Principal Executive Officer    May 11, 2006  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided toWebster Preferred Capital Corporation and will be retained by Webster Preferred Capital Corporationand furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
0

HTTP/1.1 404 Not Found
Server: nginx
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2024 00:01:13 GMT
Content-Type: application/json; charset=UTF-8
Transfer-Encoding: chunked
Connection: keep-alive
X-Robots-Tag: noindex
Link: <https://www.nasa.gov/wp-json/>; rel="https://api.w.org/"
X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff
Access-Control-Expose-Headers: X-WP-Total, X-WP-TotalPages, Link
Access-Control-Allow-Headers: Authorization, X-WP-Nonce, Content-Disposition, Content-MD5, Content-Type
Allow: GET
X-rq: mdw1 96 184 443
Age: 0
X-Cache: hit
Vary: Accept-Encoding, Origin
Strict-Transport-Security: max-age=31536000

49
{"code":"oembed_invalid_url","message":"Not Found","data":{"status":404}}
0
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Madalynn McKenzie,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

MDL Case No. 2:15-md-02641-DGC

Civil Action No. CV-17-03439-PHX-DGC

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To: Freese & Goss PLLC - Birmingham, AL

(Name of plaintiff’s attorney or unrepresented plaintiff)

I have received your request to waive service of a summons in this action along with a copy of the complaint, two 

copies of this waiver form, and a prepaid means of returning one signed copy of the form to you.

I, or the entity I represent, agree to save the expense of serving a summons and complaint in this case.

I understand that I, or the entity I represent, will keep all defenses or objections to the lawsuit, the court’s 

jurisdiction, and the venue of the action, but that I waive any objections to the absence of a summons or of service.

I also understand that I, or the entity I represent, must file and serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 within 

60 days from 10/23/2017, the date when this request was sent (or 90 days if it was sent outside the United States). If I fail 

to do so, a default judgment will be entered against me or the entity I represent.

Date: October 26, 2017 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr.

Signature of the attorney or unrepresented party

C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral

Vascular, Inc.

Printed name of parties waiving service of 

summons

Richard B. North, Jr. (Ga. Bar No. 545599)

Printed Name

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP

201 17th St., NW, Suite 1700, Atlantic Station, Atlanta, GA 30363

Address

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com

E-mail Address

(404) 322-6155

Telephone number

Duty to Avoid Unnecessary Expenses of Serving a Summons

Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires certain defendants to cooperate in saving unnecessary expenses of serving a 

summons and complaint. A defendant who is located in the United States and who fails to return a signed waiver of service requested by a plaintiff 

located in the United States will be required to pay the expenses of service, unless the defendant shows good cause for the failure. 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8514 Filed 11/01/17 Page 1 of 2
2

“Good cause” does not include a belief that the lawsuit is groundless, or that it has been brought in an improper venue, or that the court has 

no jurisdiction over this matter or over the defendant or the defendant’s property. 

If the waiver is signed and returned, you can still make these and all other defenses and objections, but you cannot object to the absence of 

a summons or of service. 

If you waive service, then you must, within the time specified on the waiver form, serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 on the 

plaintiff and file a copy with the court. By signing and returning the waiver form, you are allowed more time to respond than if a summons had been 

served.

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8514 Filed 11/01/17 Page 2 of 2
Order entered October 7, 2013

In The



## Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 13

- 0084 1

- CR

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellant

V.

JESUS ALBERTO VILLEG AS, JR.

, Appellee

On Appeal from the 2 03rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. WX13

- 90003



### O RDER

The Court DENIES as moot appellee’s September 25, 2013 second motion to extend

time to file his brief. Appellee’s brief was timely filed on October 1, 2013 pursuant to the

Court’s September 18, 2013 order.

/s/ M ICHAEL J. O’NEILL

PRESIDING JUSTICE
CERTIFICATIONS OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Most Home Corp., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended October 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), Scott Munro, Treasurer and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, does hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that to his 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 result of operations of the Company.





|Date:  December 21, 2005 | /s/  Scott Munro
Scott Munro
Treasurer and Principal Financial Officer
|------------------------ | ----------------------------------------------------------------------

[A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Most Home Corp. and will be retained by Most Home Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.]
I

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 54

To amend the Andean Trade Preference Act to prohibit the provision of

duty-free treatment under that Act for live plants and fresh cut flowers

described in chapter 6 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United

States.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 7, 1997

Mr. FARR of California (for himself, Mr. CAMPBELL, Ms. ESHOO, Mr. RIGGS,

Mr. FAZIO of California, Mr. CUNNINGHAM, Mr. LANTOS, and Ms.

LOFGREN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Andean Trade Preference Act to prohibit

the provision of duty-free treatment under that Act for

live plants and fresh cut flowers described in chapter

6 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United

States.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 54 IH

1 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON PROVISION OF DUTY-FREE

2 TREATMENT FOR LIVE PLANTS AND FRESH

3 CUT FLOWERS UNDER THE ANDEAN TRADE

4 PREFERENCES ACT.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 204 of the Andean Trade

6 Preference Act (19 U.S.C. 3203) is amended—

7 (1) in subsection (b)—

8 (A) in paragraph (7), by striking ‘‘or’’ at

9 the end;

10 (B) in paragraph (8), by striking the pe11 riod at the end and inserting ‘‘; or’’; and

12 (C) by adding at the end the following:

13 ‘‘(9) live plants and fresh cut flowers described

14 in chapter 6 of the HTS.’’; and

15 (2) in subsection (e)(5)—

16 (A) by striking subparagraph (A); and

17 (B) by redesignating subparagraphs (B)

18 through (D) as subparagraphs (A) through (C),

19 respectively.

20 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

21 subsection (a) shall apply with respect to goods that are

22 entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption,

23 on or after the date that is 15 days after the date of enact24 ment of this Act.

Æ
Exhibit 32

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

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 Powerball International, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10 QSB for the quarter ending June 30, 2003, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Robert K. Ipson, Chief Executive Officer and 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 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/ Robert K. Ipson
Robert K. Ipson, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

Date: August 12, 2003


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature
that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written
statement 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.
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 21

- 40097 Summary Calendar

**United States of America,**

Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus

**Irving Ernesto Arias,**

Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:19

- CR

- 14

- 7

Before **Owen,** Chief Judge , and **Southwick** and **Wilson,** Circuit Judges

. **Per Curiam :**  * Irving Ernesto Arias pleaded guilty to one count of conspiring to

possess fifty grams or more of methamphetamine and was sentenced to 262

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  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 cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED December 29, 2021
Lyle W. C ayce Clerk Case: 21-40097 Document: 00516148408 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/29/2021No. 21

- 40097

2 months ’ i mprisonment and a five

- year term of supervised release. H e challenges the district court’s denial of his mot ion to withdraw his plea.
District courts are given “broad discretion” with respect to their rulings on motions to withdraw pleas. United States v. Carr , 740 F.2d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 1984) (quoting United States v. Morrow , 537 F.2d 120, 146 (5th Cir. 1976) )

. W e review the denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea for
abuse of this discretion. United States v. Lord , 915 F.3d 1009, 1013 (5th Cir. 2019). “ [ A ] district court abuses its discretion if it bases its decision on an error of law or a clearly err oneous assessment of the evidence.” Id . at 1013

- 14 ( quoting United States v. Powell , 354 F.3d 362, 370 (5th Cir. 2003) ).
When considering Arias ’s motion, the district court conducted an exhaustive analysis of the Carr factors. Our review of the record a nd the district court’s opinion in light of these factors shows no abuse of discretion , and Arias’s arguments to the contrary are not persuasive

.
**AFFIRMED**

. Case: 21-40097 Document: 00516148408 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/29/2021
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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

 

Plaintiffs Keith and Tammy Early and Lauren Maggi, Conservator for minor child 

MME, brought this civil rights action through counsel pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 

Arizona law. 

The Honorable Deborah M. Fine, United States Magistrate Judge, issued a Report 

and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 258), recommending that the Court grant 

Defendants’ motion to preclude Plaintiffs’ damages expert, Dr. Luna, from testifying at 

trial due to untimely disclosure (Docs. 236, 237). Judge Fine further advised the parties 

that they had fourteen (14) days to file objections to the R&R and that failure to do so could 

be considered a waiver of the right to obtain review of the R&R (Doc. 165) (citing 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, 72; United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 

1121 (9th Cir. 2003)). 

The parties did not file objections, which relieves this Court of its obligation to 

review the R&R. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 

(1985) (“[Section 636(b)(1)] does not . . . require any review at all . . . of any issue that is 

Keith Early, et al., 

 

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

State of Arizona, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

No. CV-16-00031-PHX-SPL (DMF) 

ORDER 

 

Case 2:16-cv-00031-SPL-DMF Document 263 Filed 04/08/19 Page 1 of 2
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 the subject of an objection.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge must 

determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly 

objected to.”). The Court has nonetheless reviewed the R&R and finds that it is well-taken. 

The Court will thus adopt the R&R and will grant Defendants’ Motion to Preclude (Docs. 

236, 237). Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Deborah M. Fine’s Report and 

Recommendation (Doc. 258) is accepted and adopted by the Court. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Preclude (Docs. 236, 

237) is granted. 

 Dated this 8th day of April, 2019. 

Honorable Steven P. Logan 

United States District Judge 

Case 2:16-cv-00031-SPL-DMF Document 263 Filed 04/08/19 Page 2 of 2
No. 108, Orig.

#### Nebraska *v.*Wyoming et al.

Motion of Basin Electric to file a response to plaintiff’s motion to amend petition granted. Motion of plaintiff to amend petition for an order enforcing decree and for injunctive relief denied. [For earlier order herein, see, *e. g.,*484 U. S. 1040.]
**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 theAnnual Report of Williams Scotsman International, Inc. (the “Company”) onForm 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2006, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, GerardE. Holthaus, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)                                  TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)                                  Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|        |   |           |   | /s/ Gerard E. Holthaus  |
|--------|--------|----------------|--------|-------------------------|
|   |   |           |   | Gerard E. Holthaus      |
|   |   |           |   | Chief Executive Officer |
| Date:  |   | March 12, 2007 |   |                    |

 

----
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-10-00015-CV

IN RE C.D.S. ENTERPRISES, INC.

D/B/A TEXCON GENERAL CONTRACTORS, 

JOE SCHULTZ AND CIVIL DEVELOPMENT, LTD.:

AND MAIN STREET HOMES-CS, LTD.

Original Proceeding

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relators have filed “Relators’ Agreed Voluntary Dismissal Motion” in this 

original proceeding and state that they no longer wish to pursue this original 

proceeding. We grant the motion, and the petition is dismissed.

REX D. DAVIS

Justice
In re C.D.S. Enterprises, Inc. Page 2

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Reyna, and 

Justice Davis

Motion granted; petition dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed May 19, 2010

[OT06]
## Court of Appeals

Twelfth Court of Appeals District at Tyler



## B I L L O F C O S T S

Court of Appeals No. 12-16-00123-CV

Trial Court No. 369-12-4849

Brinda Redwine d/b/a Texas Working Dogs

Vs.

Brian Peckinpaugh d/b/a Monster Malaks/Natural Born Guardians

DOCUMENTS FILED AMOUNT FEE PAID BY

Motion fee

Motion fee

Motion fee Reporter's record

Motion fee Reporter's record Filing Required Texas.gov efiling fee Supreme Court chapter 51 fee Indigent

Clerk's record $10.00
$10.00
$10.00 $3,154.00
$10.00
$250.00
$100.00
$30.00
$50.00
$25.00
$468.00 Judith R Carnes

Angele Ortiz Angele Ortiz Indigent Angele Ortiz

No payment made

Brinda Redwine

Brinda Redwine

Brinda Redwine

Brinda Redwine

BRINDA REWINE

TOTAL: $4,117.00

I, Pam Estes, Clerk of the Court of Appeals, Twelfth Court of Appeals District at Tyler, Texas, certify that the above copy of the Bill of Costs is true and correct. GIVEN UNDER MY HAND

AND SEAL OF SAID COURT, at Tyler, this 1st day of December 2017

, A.D.

PAM ESTES, CLERK

By:

_____________________________ Katrina McClenny, Chief Deputy Clerk
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 Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Inland Real Estate Corporation (the Company) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Mark E. Zalatoris certifies, 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 his knowledge:  1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and  2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  Date:   May 7, 2009 By:  /s/ MARK E. ZALATORIS Name:  Mark E. Zalatoris Title:  President and Chief Executive Officer  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.  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.