alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
H. Res. 422

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

May 12, 1998.

Whereas law enforcement officers work daily in communities

across the Nation, assisting individuals in the pursuit of

life, liberty, and happiness;

Whereas law enforcement officers are, most often, the first

contact individuals have with their representatives of government, and they perform the duties and responsibilities

of that important liaison role with wisdom and compassion;

Whereas law enforcement officers are expected to perform duties above and beyond those of the average person, including duties such as rescuing individuals from a multitude of life-threatening incidents and assisting families

during times of great personal sorrow;

Whereas law enforcement officers engage in a variety of

tasks, from visiting with home-bound elderly citizens, mediating domestic disputes, and providing counsel to

youngsters on our streets, to retrieving lost pets and

bringing a spirit of friendship and compassion to an environment often lacking in these essential qualities;

Whereas law enforcement officers daily encounter individuals

within our society who reject all moral values and ethical

codes of conduct in pursuit of criminal activities;
2

•HRES 422 EH

Whereas law enforcement officers risk their health, lives, and

future happiness with their families in order to safeguard

communities from criminal predation;

Whereas in the course of their duties, law enforcement officers may find themselves not only in harm’s way, but

also victims of violent crime; and

Whereas 159 law enforcement officers throughout the country

lost their lives in the performance of their duty in 1997,

and more than 14,000 men and women have made that

supreme sacrifice to date: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the contributions made by law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty should be honored, their dedication and sacrifice recognized, and their unselfish service to

the Nation remembered.

Attest:

Clerk.
##### 



Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of US Dataworks, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light
of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the
period covered by this quarterly report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented
in this quarterly report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
    5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
    /s/ John S. ReilandJohn S. Reiland,Chief Financial Officer
#### Bouche *v.*Ryan, in Error.

IF the plaintiff is an infant, the form of the writ may be the same as in other cases, but the declaration must be by guardian or next friend (1).

A defendant, by obliging the plaintiff to give security for costs, does not waive the right to plead the infancy of the plaintiff in abatement.

An infant plaintiff is not liable for costs. 1 Tidd, 72.

(1)

 Vide note (4) to *Findley*v. *Buchanan,*Vol. 1, of these Rep. 13.—*Shirley*v. *Hagar,*ante, p. 225.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001049530
<NAME> ACME INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           4,182
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,574
<ALLOWANCES>                                       902
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                33,226
<PP&E>                                          33,840
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,740
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 356,453
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           24,148
<BONDS>                                        221,723
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      75,566
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   356,453
<SALES>                                         35,387
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                35,387
<CGS>                                           26,577
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   38,554
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (11,523)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (13,072)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (14,690)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,586
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (10,104)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (10,104)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
H. Res. 352

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

February 11, 1998.

Resolved, That it shall be in order at any time on

Wednesday, February 11, 1998, or on Thursday, February

12, 1998, for the Speaker to entertain motions that the

House suspend the rules. The Speaker or his designee shall

consult with the minority leader or his designee on the designation of any matter for consideration pursuant to this resolution.

Attest:

Clerk.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7097

DAVID ATKINS, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

MEDICAL DEPARTMENT, of Middle River Regional

Jail; DOCTOR QUINN; CATHY RILEY, Head Nurse,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge.

(7:06-cv-00636-GEC)

Submitted: December 20, 2007 Decided: December 27, 2007

Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Atkins, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Rosalie Pemberton Fessier,

TIMBERLAKE, SMITH, THOMAS & MOSES, PC, Staunton, Virginia, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

David Atkins, Jr., appeals the district court’s order

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Atkins v.

Med. Dep’t of Middle River Reg’l Jail, No. 7:06-cv-00636-GEC (W.D.

Va. July 10, 2007). Atkins’ motions for appointment of counsel,

for trial by jury, and for a new trial and for judgment as a matter

of law, and his request to reargue are denied. 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
1

DRAFT Agenda, Meeting of the IEEE Standards Working Group P1622 on

Voting Systems Electronic Data Interchange

March 8-9, 2012

Building 222, Room A314, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 

Gaithersburg MD

Thursday March 8:

8:30 AM Welcome and Introductions – John Wack, Belinda Collins: NIST; Arthur Keller: 

P1622 chair; Malia Zaman, IEEE

 NIST introductions and role in standards development and support of IEEE 

P1622

 Aims of the meeting

 IEEE call for patents

 Agenda overview

 Elections of officers (Requires a majority vote)

9:15 AM Initial roadmap discussion - John Wack, NIST; Arthur Keller, P1622 chair

 What are the use case standards under consideration, what is their priority?

 Which PAR structure should we use?

10:00 AM Break

10:20 AM Use Case Standard Discussion: Voter Registration DB export 

11:45 AM Lunch (NIST cafeteria)

1:00 PM Use Case Standard Discussion: Election and Audit information reporting

2:30 PM Break

2:45 PM Use Case Standard Discussion: Interoperability

4:00 PM Lessons learned from P1622-2011 standard – John Wack, NIST; Malia Zaman, 

IEEE; Arthur Keller, P1622 chair

4:30 PM Adjourn
2

DRAFT Agenda, Meeting of the IEEE Standards Working Group P1622 on

Voting Systems Electronic Data Interchange

March 8-9, 2012

Building 222, Room A314, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 

Gaithersburg MD

Friday March 9:

8:30 AM Documenting EML Usage Identification of worked examples

 Manufacturer registry of usage

 Online documentation project at code.google.com

9:15 AM Use Case Standard Discussion: Election statistics export 

10:30 AM Break

10:45 AM Use Case Standard Discussion: Election log export

12:00 PM Lunch (NIST cafeteria)

1:15 PM Decisions of next steps – Arthur Keller, P1622 Chair; Malia Zaman, IEEE

 Submitting new PAR(s)

 IEEE policy changes

 Ratification of next steps (Requires a majority vote)

2:45 PM Wrap-up – Arthur Keller, P1622 chair

3:00 PM Adjourn
NO. 07-07-0254-CR

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL D

	FEBRUARY 11, 2008

	______________________________

	MARSHALL MCGALLIARD, JR., APPELLANT

	V.

	THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 39TH DISTRICT COURT OF KENT COUNTY;

	NO. 806; HONORABLE SHANE HADAWAY, JUDGE

	_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ.

	ON MOTION TO DISMISS

	Pending before the Court is appellant’s motion to dismiss his appeal.  Appellant and his attorney both have signed the motion.  Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a).  No decision of this Court having been delivered to date, we grant the motion.  Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.  No motion for rehearing will be entertained and our mandate will issue forthwith.

						James T. Campbell

						          Justice

Do not publish.
#### Anthony D. AMAKER Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ZON, Supt. Deputy; Donnelly, Supt. Deputy; Walter R. Kelly, Supt.; Sugg, C.O., Defendants, FOLEY, C.O.; Fleckerstein, C.O.; Monin, Sgt.; G. Strubbel; Connors, C.O., Being sued individually and in their official capacities for violation of plaintiff's constitutional rights. Defendants-Appellees.

No. 03-0097.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Jan. 14, 2005.

Anthony D. Amaker, Comstock, NY, for Appellant, pro se.

Martin A. Hotvet, Assistant Solicitor General (Nancy A. Spiegel, Senior Assistant Solicitor General, Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General of the State of New York, on *807the brief), Office of the Attorney General, Albany, NY, for Appellees, of counsel.

PRESENT: CABRANES, SACK, Circuit Judges, and KORMAN, District Judge.*

*

The Honorable Edward R. Korman, Chief Judge of the United States District Court of the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff, Anthony D. Amaker, an inmate at the Clinton Correctional Facility, proceeds *pro se*against defendants, employees of the New York State Department of Correctional Services. Plaintiff brought this action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1988, 1985 & 1986 claiming, *inter alia,*that defendants discriminated against him on the basis of his race with the intent of depriving him of equal protection, adequate access to the courts, and other constitutional rights. The District Court denied plaintiffs motion for additional discovery and further granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to all claims, finding that plaintiff had raised no triable issue of fact.

The District Court did not abuse its discretion in determining that plaintiff had failed to show the need for additional discovery. Nor did it err in granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

We have considered all of plaintiffs arguments and have found each of them to be without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is hereby AFFIRMED for substantially the reasons stated by the District Court in its Memorandum and Order of February 18, 2003. *Amaker v. Foley,*No. 94-cv-0843e(sr), 2003 WL 21383010 (W.D.N.Y. Feb.18, 2003).
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening 

attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. 

FYI 

Subject: NIST 2.0 Concept Paper FEEDBACK 

Hello 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the NIST CSF 2.0 Concept Paper. I have used NIST for 

six or seven years to guide my digital transformation and cybersecurity projects. I have conducted 

NIST-aligned internal audits. 

I now teach project management at the bachelor, master, and PhD levels in Australia. I wrote Shields 

Up: Cybersecurity Project Management (2022) and finishing up Cybersecurity Training: A Path to 

Readiness. Therefore, I have practical and academic perspectives on the NIST CSF 2.0 Concept Paper 

for your consideration. 

I recommend against creating a GOVERN function: 

1. Adding a new function complicates the NIST framework.

2. Govern is strategically oriented, while the other five are more tactical. The five-function

approach sits well with front-line cybersecurity teams that are tactically oriented.

3. Governance can be managed and optimized through categories and subcategories.

4. Quality management is also a “cross-cutting” best practice that could be elevated to a NIST

function for the same reasons as governance.

5. Cybersecurity governance can be improved by following ITIL or COBIT service management

frameworks; no need to reinvent the wheel. 

Thank you for this opportunity to contribute and for your fine work. 

Sincerely, 

Greg 
https://www.linkedin.com/in/gregoryskulmoski/ [gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com] 

Books in Print: Shields Up: Cybersecurity Project Management 

Forthcoming Book: Cybersecurity Training: A Path to Readiness
Opinion issued November 21, 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals

For The 

## First District of Texas

————————————

NO. 01

- 14

- 00916

- CV

——————————— IN RE WALLER COUNTY, TEXAS, WALLER JUDGE GLENN BECKENDORFF, WALLER COUNTY COMMISSIONER FRANK POKLUDA, WALLER COUN TY COMMISSIONER STAN KITZMAN, WALLER COUNTY COMMIS SIONER JERON BARNETT , AND WALLER COUNTY COMMIS SIONER JOHN AMSLER, IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES AS THE WALLER COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT , Rel ator s

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus2 MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relators ’ petition for writ of mandamus is denied

. * We dismiss all pending

motions, including relators’ emergency motion for stay, as moot.

PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Massengale , and Brown

.

* The underlying case is City of Hempstead, Texas and Citizens Against the Landfill in Hempstead v. Waller County, Texas, County Judge Glenn Beckendorff, Commissioner Frank Pokluda, Commissioner Stan Kitzman, Commissioner Jeron Barnett, Commissioner John Amsler, and Pintail Landfill, L.L.C. , cause number 13

- 03

- 21872, pending in the 506th District Court of Waller County, Texas, the Hon. Terrill L. Flenniken presiding.
Exhibit 32.1.1

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADDED BY

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I have reviewed the Amended Annual Report of OptimumBank Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K/A for the
year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), and I, Richard L. Browdy, President and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Executive and Principal Financial Officer) of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1350, as added by § 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. | To my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as
of and for the period covered by the Report.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |                                                         
|-------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------------
|Date: April 29, 2011 |  | /s/ Richard L. Browdy                                   
|                     |  | Richard L. Browdy, President and Chief Financial Officer
|                     |  | (Principal Executive and Principal Financial Officer)
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   15-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-25-1999             APR-25-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-27-1998             APR-25-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-26-1998             JUL-26-1998
<CASH>                                             658                     547
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,119                   1,031
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,777                   1,612
<PP&E>                                          55,017                  40,942
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  98,079                  95,877
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,910                   7,904
<BONDS>                                         75,000                  75,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                             0                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                      12,169                  12,973
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    98,079                  95,877
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0                       0
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,254                   6,275
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (804)                 (2,836)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (804)                 (2,836)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (804)                 (2,836)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0                       0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0                       0
        

</TABLE>
THEATTORNEY GENERAL 

OF TEXAS 

GHlALD C. MANN 

Aus~lrnr m.T-s 

Honorable Beauford Jester, Chairman 

Railroad Commission of Texas 

Austin, Texas 

Dear Sir: Opinion No. O-5624 

Re: Liability of Texas Public Service 

opinion 

Company 

Article 

Company for gas utility tax. 

We have your letter of recent date requesting our 

upon the question of whether the Texas Public Service 

is required to pay the gross receipts tax levied by 

6060, Vernon's Annotated Civil Statutes. 

From the correspondence submitted, we understand the 

company refuses to pay this tax because of Section 10 of H.B. 

547, Acts of the 42nd Legislature, 1931, limiting the tax to 

persons owning, operating or managing pipe lines. In our 

opinion No. O-5239'; with which you are familiar, we held this 

Act unconstitutional. 

We still adhere to the view expressed in that opinion. 

While we have not been furnished a description of~the activities 

of the Texas Public Service Company, we advise you that if it is 

a company having a franchise or permit to sell or deliver natural 

gas to the public for domestic or other use, and is actually 

engaged in such business, or is otherwise "a gas utility” as 

defined in Article 6050, Vernon's Annotated Civil Statutes, it Is 

required under the law to fi1.e the reports and pay'the tax 

levied by Article 6060, Vernon's Annotated Civil Statutes. 

Very truly yours, 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

JDS:EP:wc 

APPROVED OCT 6, 1943 

s/Grover Sellers 

FIRST ASSISTANT 

ATTORNEY GENERAL 

By s/Jas. D. Smullen 

Jas. D. Srmllen 

Assistant 

Approved Opinion Committee By s/%fB Chairmar
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-40702

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

COURTNEY RODELL SIMS,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:96-CR-120-2

- - - - - - - - - -

April 8, 1998

Before JOLLY, JONES, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Courtney Rodell Sims appeals his guilty-plea conviction for

possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine in violation

of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Sims contends that the district court

clearly erred in refusing to reduce his offense level for his

minor or minimal role in the offense pursuant to U.S. Sentencing

Guidelines § 3B1.2. Because Sims was sentenced based on only the

actual amount of cocaine involved in the charged offense and not

the entire amount involved in the drug conspiracy, Sims was not

entitled to a reduction in his base offense level under § 3B1.2 
No. 97-40702 

-2-

even if his role in the larger conspiracy may have been minor or

minimal. See United States v. Flucas, 99 F.3d 177, 181 (5th Cir.

1996), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 1097 (1997); United States v.

Atanda, 60 F.3d 196, 199 (5th Cir. 1995).

AFFIRMED.