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

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 81 Introduced in House (IH)]

                                    

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 H. R. 81

To designate the United States courthouse located at 401 South Michigan 
  Street in South Bend, Indiana, as the ``Robert K. Rodibaugh United 
                    States Bankruptcy Courthouse''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 7, 1997

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To designate the United States courthouse located at 401 South Michigan 
  Street in South Bend, Indiana, as the ``Robert K. Rodibaugh United 
                    States Bankruptcy 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 located at 401 South Michigan Street 
in South Bend, Indiana, shall be known and designated as the ``Robert 
K. Rodibaugh United States Bankruptcy 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 ``Robert K. 
Rodibaugh United States Bankruptcy Courthouse''.
                                 <all>
```
*9587.*

#### Cooley *v.*The State.

Decided May 1, 1918.

Accusation of unlawful possession and sale of liquor; from city court of Savannah—Judge Rourke. December 22, 1917.

The instructions referred to in the decision were as follows:

1. “The law is, that if the State has adduced evidence that a beverage having the same color and taste and odor as liquor, the burden then shifts from the State to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt that’ the defendant is guilty, and- the burden is then upon *264the defendant to establish to the satisfaction of the jury that the beverage in question is not liquor; and unless the defendant so satisfies the jury, the jury shall assume that it is liquor.”

*263Bloodworth, J.

1. Even if the charge of the court complained of in reference to the burden of proof was erroneous, it was harmless, as there was direct and positive evidence that the “stuff” possessed and sold by the accused was rye whisky.

2. No error appears in the excerpts from the charge complained of in ground 6 of the motion for a new trial. *Brooks*v. *State,*19 *Ga. App.*46 (9).

3. The excerpt in ground 7 of the motion states a correct proposition of law. If a fuller charge on the subject was desired, a proper and timely written request therefor, as provided by the statute, should have been made.

4. The evidence authorized the verdict.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, P. J., and Harwell, J., concur.*

*2643. (Ground 6) “The credibility of a witness is a matter solely for the jury, but the jury should not disregard testimony of a witness simply /because he is a colored man; it is as possible for a person of the colored race to tell the truth as any one else, and it is not against his credibility that he is a colored man.” It was contended that this instruction was argumentative, and that it expressed or, intimated an opinion, or suggested to the jury that the State’s main witness, a colored man, was telling the truth.

3. (Ground *7) “You*can look to the evidence and see if a witness has been impeached, and ascertain if there is any corroboration of his testimony. If a witness has been impeached, and there is no corroboration of his testimony, his testimony should be disregarded; but even if a witness has been impeached by the rules laid down by law, if it has been established that he is unworthy of belief by the rules laid down by law, if there is corroboration.of his testimony, it is within the province of the jury to believe him.” It was contended that this extract from the charge did not set forth the correct rule of law as to the-credit to be given to an impeached witness, and was misleading and confusing.

*Shelby .Myriclc,*for plaintiff in error.

*Walter G.*Hartridge, solicitor-general, contra.
EXHIBIT
      32.2





**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**


**PURSUANT
      TO 18 U.S.C. SS. 1350 ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


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





In
      connection with the Report of Physical Property Holdings Inc. (the "Company")
      on
      Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Darrie
      Lam, 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 result of operations of the
                Company.






***/s/
      Darrie Lam***


Darrie
      Lam


Chief
      Financial Officer





November 14,
      2007
9492.

#### Liston *v.*Lake Park Bank.

Decided October 16, 1918.

Claim; from Echols superior court—Judge Thomas. October 13, 1917. '

*J. B. Hieles,*for plaintiff in error.

*Woodward & Smith, H. W. Nelson,*contra.

Luke, J.

1. The brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error' raises simply the question whether the evidence authorized the verdict. Where there is some evidence authorizing the verdict and the verdict has the approval of the trial judge, this court is powerless to interfere, and rightly so. The jury and the trial judge have the advantage of seeing as well as hearing the witnesses testify, and are in better position to credit or disbelieve testimony when they are so situated. We can not say that the court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Wade, O. J., and Jenloins, J., concur.*
#### JOSEPH MANGANI ET AL., TRADING, ETC., RESPONDENTS, v. STADIUM BOWLING ACADEMY, INC., ET AL., APPELLANTS.

Submitted May 25, 1945

Decided September 27, 1945.

For the respondents, *Louis II. Hollander.*

For the appellants, *Porter*cG *Hobart.*

Per Curiam.

The judgment under review herein should he affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Parker in the Supreme Court.

*For affirmance*— The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Case, Bodine, Donges, Heiter, Perskie, Oliphant, Wells, Rafferty, Dill, Freund, JJ. 12.

*For reversal*— MoGeeuan, J. 1.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

CHAPTER 4 CORP., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SUPREMETSHIRT.US, et al., 

 Defendants 

Case No. 20-cv-02444 

Judge John Robert Blakey 

Magistrate Judge Jeffrey I. Cummings 

SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT 

WHEREAS, a judgment was entered in the above action on July 27, 2020 [68], in favor of 

Plaintiff Chapter 4 Corp. (“Plaintiff”) and against the Defendants Identified in Schedule A in the 

amount of five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) per Defaulting Defendant, and Supreme 

acknowledges payment of an agreed upon damages amount, costs, and interest and desires to 

release this judgment and hereby fully and completely satisfy the same as to the following 

Defendants: 

Defendant Name Line No. 

HyperCity 89 

MinNi 97 

THEREFORE, full and complete satisfaction of said judgment as to the above-referenced 

Defendants are hereby acknowledged, and the Clerk of the Court is hereby authorized and directed 

to make an entry of the full and complete satisfaction on the docket of said judgment. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02444 Document #: 69 Filed: 07/31/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:2932
2 

Dated this 31st day of July 2020. Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Allyson M. Martin 

Amy C. Ziegler 

Justin R. Gaudio 

Allyson M. Martin 

Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd. 

300 South Wacker Drive, Suite 2500 

Chicago, Illinois 60606 

312.360.0080 

312.360.9315 (facsimile) 

aziegler@gbc.law 

jgaudio@gbc.law 

amartin@gbc.law 

Counsel for Plaintiff Chapter 4 Corp.

Case: 1:20-cv-02444 Document #: 69 Filed: 07/31/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:2933
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Roxana Bardan","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/dbardan\/","title":"Seven US Companies Collaborate with NASA to Advance Space Capabilities","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"BzkYPcz7tM\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/seven-us-companies-collaborate-with-nasa-to-advance-space-capabilities\/\">Seven US Companies Collaborate with NASA to Advance Space Capabilities<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/seven-us-companies-collaborate-with-nasa-to-advance-space-capabilities\/embed\/#?secret=BzkYPcz7tM\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Seven US Companies Collaborate with NASA to Advance Space Capabilities” — NASA\" data-secret=\"BzkYPcz7tM\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/orbital-launch-site-aerial-1_2.jpg?w=320","thumbnail_width":320,"thumbnail_height":169}
I

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 805

To amend title 10, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary of Defense

to assign Department of Defense personnel to assist the Immigration

and Naturalization Service and the United States Customs Service in

the performance of their border protection functions.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 13, 1997

Mr. TRAFICANT (for himeslf and Mr. HUNTER) introduced the following bill;

which was referred to the Committee on National Security

A BILL

To amend title 10, United States Code, to authorize the

Secretary of Defense to assign Department of Defense

personnel to assist the Immigration and Naturalization

Service and the United States Customs Service in the

performance of their border protection functions.

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

•HR 805 IH

1 SECTION 1. ASSIGNMENT OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

2 PERSONNEL TO ASSIST IMMIGRATION AND

3 NATURALIZATION SERVICE AND CUSTOMS

4 SERVICE.

5 (a) ASSIGNMENT AUTHORITY OF SECRETARY OF DE6 FENSE.—Chapter 18 of title 10, United States Code, is

7 amended by inserting after section 374 the following new

8 section:

9 ‘‘§ 374a. Assignment of personnel to assist border pa10 trol and control

11 ‘‘(a) ASSIGNMENT AUTHORIZED.—The Secretary of

12 Defense may assign up to 10,000 Department of Defense

13 personnel at any one time to assist—

14 ‘‘(1) the Immigration and Naturalization Serv15 ice in preventing the entry of terrorists, drug traf16 fickers, and illegal aliens into the United States; and

17 ‘‘(2) the United States Customs Service in the

18 inspection of cargo, vehicles, and aircraft at points

19 of entry into the United States.

20 ‘‘(b) REQUEST FOR ASSIGNMENT.—The assignment

21 of Department of Defense personnel under subsection (a)

22 may only occur—

23 ‘‘(1) at the request of the Attorney General, in

24 the case of an assignment to the Immigration and

25 Naturalization Service; and
3

•HR 805 IH

1 ‘‘(2) at the request of the Secretary of the

2 Treasury, in the case of an assignment to the Unit3 ed States Customs Service.’’.

4 ‘‘(c) REIMBURSEMENT REQUIREMENT.—Section 377

5 of this title shall apply in the case of Department of De6 fense personnel assigned under subsection (a).’’.

7 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections

8 at the beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting

9 after the item relating to section 374 the following new

10 item:

‘‘374a. Assignment of personnel to assist border patrol and control.’’.

Æ
9402.

#### Beck *v.*Armour Fertilizer Works.

Decided May 17, 1918.

Complaint; from Murray superior court—Judge Tarver. November 3, 1917.

*E. II. Bech, W-. E. Mann,*for plaintiff in error.

*King & Starr,*contra.

Bloodworth, J.

There is no merit in any of the grounds of the amendment to the motion for a new trial. The evidence authorized the verdict.’ *Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, P. J., and Harwell, J., concur.*(
Case 2:15-mj-01816-JFM Document 3 Filed 11/05/15 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01816-JFM Document 3 Filed 11/05/15 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01816-JFM Document 3 Filed 11/05/15 Page 3 of 3
Exhibit
13.1





PRINCIPAL
EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In
connection with this Annual Report of CalPetro Tankers (Bahamas III) Limited
(the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the annual period ended December 31, 2006, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) on or about the
date hereof (the “Report”), I, Tor Olav Trøim, the Principal 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; and





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





A
signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and
will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.





Date:  June
24, 2008





/s/ Tor Olav
Trøim


Tor
Olav Trøim


Principal
Executive Officer
9636.

#### Port Wentworth Lumber Company *v.*McLean.

Decided October 22, 1918.

■ Complaint; from city court of Savannah—Judge Freeman. March 4, 1918. . ' .

Bloodworth,. J.

The demurrer to the petition was properly overruled. “The defense of statute of frauds can be raised by demurrer to the petition only when the facts alleged in the. petition affirmatively show that the contract is oral and that there has not been suchiperformanee as to raise an exception.” . *Marks*v. *Talmadge,*8 *Ga. App.*557 (69 S. E. 1131); *Kinney*v. *Kinney,*20 *Ga. App.*816 (93 S. E. 496).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, P. J., and. Harwell, J., concur.*

*738The petition alleges that the Port Wentworth Lumber Company is indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of $125' on an account, a copy of which is attached to. the petition. The account consists of two items, dated November 28, 1916, as follows: “2 timber cars complete, $100; 125 feet of steel loading chain, $25.” The demurrer was on the following grounds: “ (1) The petition sets forth no cause of action and is insufficient in law. (2) The petition fails to show when, where, or through whom the alleged account was contracted on the part of the defendant. (3) The petition fails to show the terms or conditions of the alleged contract of sale, and fails to show when the alleged indebtedness was to be paid. (4) The petition fails to show whether the alleged sale was made orally or in writing.” (5) The petition shows no writing signed by or in behalf of the defendant, and, being an account for the sale of goods and merchandise to the amount of more than $50, the sale is unenforceable under 'the statute of frauds, there being no allegation that the defendant accepted and actually received the goods or a part thereof,'or gave something to bind the bargain or in part payment.

*Hitch & Denmark,*for plaintiff in error.

*Seabroolc & Kennedy,*contra.
Exhibit 23.1
------------


                                                                 THOMAS W. KLASH
                                                     CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT


                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITOR
                         ------------------------------


I consent to the use in this Annual Report, Form 10-KSB, of my report dated
February 15, 2006, relating to the financial statements of Renewable Assets,
Inc., as of December 31, 2005 and for the two years then ended.


/s/ THOMAS W. KLASH
---------------------------
Thomas W. Klash
March 14, 2006




    1909 TYLER STREET - SUITE 603 - HOLLYWOOD, FLORIDA 33020 (954) 925-4900
                                www.tklash.com
                                --------------
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Karl B. Hille","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/khille\/","title":"Media Invited to National Kickoff of NASA’s Lunar Surface Innovation Consortium","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"E599896hLQ\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/media-invited-to-national-kickoff-of-nasas-lunar-surface-innovation-consortium\/\">Media Invited to National Kickoff of NASA’s Lunar Surface Innovation Consortium<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/media-invited-to-national-kickoff-of-nasas-lunar-surface-innovation-consortium\/embed\/#?secret=E599896hLQ\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Media Invited to National Kickoff of NASA’s Lunar Surface Innovation Consortium” — NASA\" data-secret=\"E599896hLQ\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/02\/phase_waning_gibbous.2449_print.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":600}
#### Faulkner v. Todd and Another.

SCIRE FACIAS on a mortgage. Plea, a former judgment for the debt secured by the mortgage — an execution on that judgment — a replevin — and an execution on the replevin bond levied on real estate, the property remaining in the sheriff’s hands unsold for want of buyers.

*Held,*on general demurrer, that the plea was good; the defendant not being liable to other proceedings for the same debt, while the property seized remained unsold in the hands of the sheriff. *M'Intosh et al.*v. *Chew et al.*ante, p. 289.
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 922 Introduced in House (IH)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 922

  To prohibit the expenditure of Federal funds to conduct or support 
                   research on the cloning of humans.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 5, 1997

  Mr. Ehlers introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
Committee on Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Science, for 
a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 
consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the 
                          committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To prohibit the expenditure of Federal funds to conduct or support 
                   research on the cloning of humans.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Human Cloning Research Prohibition 
Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION AGAINST EXPENDITURE OF FEDERAL FUNDS FOR RESEARCH 
              ON CLONING HUMANS.

    None of the funds made available in any Federal law may be expended 
to conduct or support any project of research that involves the use of 
a human somatic cell for the process of producing a human clone.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 106 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                        March 21, 1997.
    Resolved, That the following named Member be, and is hereby, elected to the 
following standing committee of the House of Representatives:
    Committee on International Relations: Mr. Luther of Minnesota.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```