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

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 232 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                       October 6, 1997.
    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 2160) making 
appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, 
and Related Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, and 
for other purposes. All points of order against the conference report and 
against its consideration are waived.
    Sec. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution the House shall be considered to 
have adopted the concurrent resolution specified in section 3.
    Sec. 3. The text of the concurrent resolution described in section 2 is as 
follows:
    ``Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That in 
the enrollment of H.R. 2160 the Clerk of the House shall, in title IV, in the 
item relating to `DOMESTIC FOOD PROGRAMS--food stamp program', strike the period 
and insert the following: `: Provided further, That none of the funds made 
available under this heading shall be used for studies and evaluations.'.''.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Joy E. Leo, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Artisan Components, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of
operations of Artisan Components, Inc.



By:

/s/    JOY E.
LEOJoy E. Leo Vice President, Finance and Administration, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
H. Res. 335

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

January 27, 1998.

Resolved, That a committee of two Members be appointed by the Speaker on the part of the House of Representatives to join with a committee on the part of the Senate to notify the President of the United States that a

quorum of each House has assembled and Congress is ready

to receive any communication that he may be pleased to

make.

Attest:

Clerk.
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 459 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                     September 9, 1998.
Whereas the Republic of Korea was established 50 years ago on August 15, 1948;
Whereas the United States and the Republic of Korea have long had a close 
        relationship based on mutual respect, shared security goals, and common 
        interests and values;
Whereas the United States relies on the Republic of Korea as a partner and 
        treaty ally in fostering regional stability, enhancing prosperity, and 
        promoting peace and democracy;
Whereas the American military personnel who are, and have been, stationed on the 
        Korean Peninsula have been key in deterring armed aggression for more 
        than 4 decades;
Whereas South Korean soldiers fought alongside American troops on the 
        battlefields of Korea and Vietnam;
Whereas the Republic of Korea has embraced economic reform and free market 
        principles in response to current economic circumstances;
Whereas the Republic of Korea is an important trading partner of the United 
        States, the recipient of significant direct American investment, and a 
        prominent investor in the United States;
Whereas the large Korean-American community has made significant contributions 
        to American society and culture;
Whereas the people of the Republic of Korea have demonstrated their strong 
        commitment to democratic principles and practices through free and fair 
        elections; and
Whereas the state visit of President Kim Dae-jung to the United States offered 
        the people of the United States and the people of South Korea an 
        opportunity to renew their commitment to international cooperation on 
        issues of mutual interest and concern: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) congratulates the Republic of Korea on the 50th anniversary of 
        its founding;
            (2) commends the people of the Republic of Korea on the peaceful 
        democratic transition that has taken place during the most recent 
        Presidential elections;
            (3) supports the government of President Kim Dae-jung as it takes 
        appropriate measures to address the problems in the Korean economy;
            (4) confirms that the question of peace, security, and reunification 
        on the Korean Peninsula is, first and foremost, a matter for the Korean 
        people to decide and that the Four-Party Peace Talks complement direct 
        North-South dialog; and
            (5) looks forward to a broadening and deepening of friendship and 
        cooperation with the Republic of Korea in the years ahead for the mutual 
        benefit of the people of the United States and the people of the 
        Republic of Korea.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 21-1536

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Brien Leroy Watson, Jr., also known as Brian Watson

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Iowa - Central

 ____________

 Submitted: July 16, 2021

Filed: July 21, 2021

[Unpublished]

____________

Before SHEPHERD, GRASZ, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.
Brien Watson appeals after the district court1

 revoked his supervised release

and sentenced him to 11 months in prison. His counsel has moved for leave to

withdraw, and has filed a brief challenging the sentence. 

After careful review of the record, we conclude that the district court did not

abuse its discretion in sentencing Watson, as it properly considered the applicable 18

U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, see 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e); there was no indication that it

overlooked a relevant factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing

relevant factors, see United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 915-18 (8th Cir. 2009)

(substantive reasonableness of revocation sentence is reviewed under deferential

abuse-of-discretion standard); see also United States v. White Face, 383 F.3d 733,

740 (8th Cir. 2004) (district court need not mechanically list every § 3553(a) factor

when sentencing defendant upon revocation; all that is required is consideration of

relevant matters and some reason for court’s decision); and the sentence was within

the advisory Guidelines range, and below the statutory limit, see 18 U.S.C.

§ 3583(e)(3). 

Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and affirm.

______________________________

1The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, United States District Judge for the

Southern District of Iowa.

-2-
* Pursuant to 5 T H C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-50369

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JAVIER TORRES,

Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

(DR-01-CR-117-1-FP)

-------------------- November 7, 2002

Before DAVIS, WIENER, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Defendant-Appellant Javier Torres appeals from his conditional

guilty-plea conviction for possession with intent to dist ribute

marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B). He

contends that the district court erred by denying his motion to

suppress evidence found by Border Patrol Agents in the trunks of

two inoperable automobiles that were located on property owned by

his parents within 25 miles of the border. Torres argues, contrary

to the articulation of the border patrol agents, that there were no2

exigent circumstances justifying the warrantless search of the two

vehicles, and that, in the absence of exi gent circumstances, the

search was not authorized by 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(3). We disagree.

A border patrol agent testified that he followed tracks from

the border area to the trunk of a "junked" vehicle and that the

trunk appeared to have been opened recently. He further testified

that, on three previous occasions, he had discovered illegal aliens

hiding in the trunks of vehicles. Based on findings that the

border patrol agents could reasonably believe that persons may have

been inside the trunk and possibly in need of medical assistance,

the district court concluded that e xigent circumstances existed.

Even if we assume, without deciding, that Torres had a reasonable

expectation of privacy in the vehicles and the property, we are

convinced that the district court's finding of exigent

circumstances based on the need to ensure that no one suffered harm

or injury was not clearly erroneous. S ee United States v. Blount

,

123 F.3d 831, 837 (5th Cir. 199 7); United States v. Vasquez , 953

F.2d 176, 179 (5th Cir. 1992)

.

AFFIRMED.
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 State

          - [Public Notice: 8949]

# AGENCY:

Department of State.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

                        The Department of State hereby gives notice that, on September 24, 2014, it received an application for a Presidential Permit to replace and expand the Columbus Land Port of Entry (LPOE) on the U.S.-Mexico Border at Columbus, New Mexico, and Palomas, Chihuahua, Mexico. The United States General Services Administration (GSA) filed this application. The Department of State's jurisdiction over this application is based upon Executive Order 11423 of August 16, 1968, as amended. As provided in E.O. 11423, the Department is circulating this application to relevant federal agencies for review and comment. Under E.O. 11423, the Department has the responsibility to determine, taking into account input from these agencies and other stakeholders, whether issuance of a Presidential Permit for the proposed replacement and expansion of this border crossing would serve the national interest. Interested members of the public are invited to submit written comments regarding this application on or before December 15, 2014 to the U.S.-Mexico Border Affairs Office, via email at                         *WHA-BorderAffairs@state.gov*                         or by mail at WHA/MEX—Room 3924, Department of State, 2201 C St. NW., Washington, DC 20520.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        U.S.-Mexico Border Affairs Office, via email at                         *WHA-BorderAffairs@state.gov;*                         by phone at 202-647-9894; or by mail at WHA/MEX—Room 3924, Department of State, 2201 C St. NW., Washington, DC 20520.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The application and supporting documents are available for review in the Office of Mexican Affairs, Border Affairs Unit, Department of State, during normal business hours.

Dated: November 7, 2014.

Robin Matthewman,

Director, Office of Mexican Affairs, Department of State.

[FR Doc. 2014-27012 Filed 11-13-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-29-P
H. Res. 202

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

July 30, 1997.

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall

be in order to consider the conference report to accompany

the bill (H.R. 2015) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to

subsections (b)(1) and (c) of section 105 of the concurrent

resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1998. All points of

order against the conference report and against its consideration are waived. The conference report shall be considered

as read. The conference report shall be debatable for ninety

minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and

ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget.

Attest:

Clerk.
U.S. District Court for the Northern District Of Illinois

Attorney Appearance Form

Case Title: Case Number: 

An appearance is hereby filed by the undersigned as attorney for:

Attorney name (type or print): 

Firm: 

Street address: 

City/State/Zip: 

Bar ID Number: Telephone Number: 

 Yes No

 Yes No

 Yes No

 Yes No

(See item 3 in instructions)

Email Address:

Are you acting as lead counsel in this case?

Are you acting as local counsel in this case?

Are you a member of the court’s trial bar?

If this case reaches trial, will you act as the trial attorney? 

If this is a criminal case, check your status. Retained Counsel

Appointed Counsel 

If appointed counsel, are you 

a 

 Federal Defender

 CJA Panel Attorney

______________________________________________________________________

In order to appear before this Court an attorney must either be a member in good standing of this Court’s 

general bar or be granted leave to appear pro hac vice as provided for by local rules 83.12 through 83.14. 

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Under 28 U.S.C.§1746, this 

statement under perjury has the same force and effect as a sworn statement made under oath.

Executed on 

Attorney signature: S/

(Use electronic signature if the appearance form is filed electronically.)

Revised 8/1/2015

Case: 1:20-cv-03490 Document #: 72 Filed: 10/09/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:393
Exhibit 31.1

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

I, John Yeros, certify that:

 
| 1. | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB/A of HyperSpace Communications, Inc.; |
|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

2.              Based on my knowledge, this 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 report.

 

 
|           | By:    | /s/ John Yeros                       |
|----------------|--------|--------------------------------------|
| April 28, 2006 |   | John Yeros                           |
|           |   | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |
#### Henry Stoffer v. Louisa Stoffer.

*Divorce for desertion.*

Divorce, as for desertion, was granted a husband where his wife had left him against his protest, and in response to peremptory demands he had made provision for her and she had given him a release of claims on his property; and where, also, the parties were old and had been married only a month, and though there was no evidence of collusion, the case was undefended.

Appeal from Eaton. (Hooker, J.)

Apr. 27.

Apr. 27.

Divorce bill. Complainant appeals.

Reversed.

*Sagendorph & Powers*for complainant.

Separations between married persons will be sustained where proper provision has been made for the wife, for the purpose of ending controversies and preventing litigation : *Randall v. Randall*37 Mich. 563; *Compton v. Collison*2 Bro. Ch. 377 ; *492
      *Hutton v. Hutton*3 Penn. St. 100; *Dillingers’ Appeal*35 Penn. St. 357; *Baker v. Barney*8 Johns. 73; *Shelthar v. Gregory*2 Wend. 422; *Corson v. Murray*3 Paige 483.

Pee Curiam.

Divorce is prayed in this case for the cause of desertion. The facts appear to be that the parties were married when the one was fifty and the other sixty years of age; that after living together a little more than a month the defendant avowed her purpose to separate from her husband and never live with him again; that he was opposed to the separation and endeavored through a friend to prevent it without success; that defendant demanded money from him when she went away, and that he gave her five hundred dollars, in return for which she gave him a release of claims upon his property. The separation took place more than three years before the bill was filed, and the parties have never lived together since.

If the separation had been by voluntary arrangement, the living apart in pursuance of it could not be called desertion. But in this case it appears that the separation was forced upon complainant against his desire. The provision he then made for his wife was made in pursuance of peremptory demands, and probably to avoid litigation; and we incline to hold that it should not preclude the redress he seeks. We can hardly say that the original fault was mutual; and though the case is undefended, there is no evidence of collusion.

The prayer of the bill will therefore be granted.
Exhibit 32.2



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 Access Worldwide Communications, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2005 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the Report), I, Richard A. Lyew, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                                                                                                                                   
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ RICHARD A. LYEW                                                                                                                
|Richard A. Lyew Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (principal financial and accounting
officer) November 21, 2005
CFTC Ex. 65

Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 77-3 Filed: 11/05/21 Page 1 of 12 PageID #:995
Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 77-3 Filed: 11/05/21 Page 2 of 12 PageID #:996
Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 77-3 Filed: 11/05/21 Page 3 of 12 PageID #:997
Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 77-3 Filed: 11/05/21 Page 4 of 12 PageID #:998
Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 77-3 Filed: 11/05/21 Page 5 of 12 PageID #:999
Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 77-3 Filed: 11/05/21 Page 6 of 12 PageID #:1000
Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 77-3 Filed: 11/05/21 Page 7 of 12 PageID #:1001
Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 77-3 Filed: 11/05/21 Page 8 of 12 PageID #:1002
Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 77-3 Filed: 11/05/21 Page 9 of 12 PageID #:1003
Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 77-3 Filed: 11/05/21 Page 10 of 12 PageID #:1004
Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 77-3 Filed: 11/05/21 Page 11 of 12 PageID #:1005
Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 77-3 Filed: 11/05/21 Page 12 of 12 PageID #:1006
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT C HANGGUO YU, Pe titione r, v. ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 12-73457 Age n c y No. A096-057-944 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d

June 12, 2014 ** B e fore : M c KEOW

N , WA RDLAW , a

nd M . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s. C ha ngguo Yu, a

nat ive and c i tiz e n of C hina , pe titions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a l s’ (“ B IA” ) orde r de ny ing his motion to re o pe n re m ova l proc e e d ings. W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re v ie w for a buse o f disc re tion the de n i a l of a m o tion to re ope n, N

ajmabadi v . Holde r , 597 

# FIL ED JUN 16 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).F.3d 983, 986 (9th C ir. 2010), a nd we de ny

the pe t ition for re vie w. The The B IA did not a

buse its disc re tion in de ny ing a s untim e ly Yu’ s se c ond m otion to re o pe n b e c a

use the m otion wa s file d

nine y e ars a fte r his fina l orde r of re m ova l, se e 8 C .F.R . §§ 1003.2(c )(3)(i), 1003.23(b)(4)(iii)(A) (a n a lie n ha s 180 da y s to filea

m otion to re ope n to re sc ind a n in a bse ntia orde r if the a lie n c an show that she fa ile d to a

ppe ar for the he aring due to e xc e ptiona l c irc um sta nc e s), a nd Yu fa ile d to de m onstra

te the due dilige nc e ne c e ssa ry for e quita

ble tolling, se e Av agy an v . Holde r , 646 F.3d 672, 679 (9th C ir. 2011), or e sta blish m ate ria lly

c ha nge d c ountry c onditions so a s to qua lify for the re gula

tory e xc e ption to the

tim e lim ita tions for m otions to re ope n, s e e 8 C .F.R . § 1003.2(c )(3)(ii); N ajmabadi , 597 F.3d at 987 (ne w e vide n c e “ m ust be ‘ qua lita

tive ly diffe re nt’ from the e vide nc e pre s e nte d at the pre vious he aring” ). In light of this disposition, we ne e d not re a c h Yu’ s re m a ining c onte ntions. PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

1 2 - 7 3 4 5 7 2