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

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3757 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3757

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 950 Missouri Avenue in East St. Louis, Illinois, as the ``Katherine 
                     Dunham Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                July 27 (legislative day, July 26), 2006

 Mr. Obama (for himself and Mr. Durbin) introduced the following bill; 
which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 950 Missouri Avenue in East St. Louis, Illinois, as the ``Katherine 
                     Dunham Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. KATHERINE DUNHAM POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 950 Missouri Avenue in East St. Louis, Illinois, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Katherine Dunham Post Office Building''.
    (b) Reference.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Katherine 
Dunham Post Office Building''.
                                 <all>
```
<SEQUENCE>13

                                  EXHIBIT 32.a


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

                                 18 U.S.C. 1350,

                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Regent Technologies, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2002, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, David A. Nelson, in my capacity as Chief Executive Officer and Principal
Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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


                                        /S/ DAVID A. NELSON
                                        -------------------
Date: September 13, 2005
                                        David A. Nelson,
                                        Chief Executive Officer and Principal
                                        Accounting Officer
#### Vinson *v.*Northen, governor.

This case is ruled by *Rich*v. *Colquitt, governor,*61 *Ga.*197.

July 23, 1894.

*Scire facias.*Before Judge Boss. City court of Macon. December term, 1893.

L. D. Moore, for plaintiff in error. W. H. Belton, Jr., solicitor-general, by Harrison & Peeples, *contra.*

*Judgment affirmed.*
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gregory TAYLOR, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-1360.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 11, 2006.

Decided Oct. 19, 2006.

Timothy J. Chapman, Office of the United States Attorney, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Richard H. Parsons, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Peoria, IL, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before Hon. JOHN L. COFFEY, Circuit Judge, Hon. FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge, Hon. DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge.

ORDER

Gregory Taylor traveled to Mississippi and purchased three .45-caliber pistols hoping that he might be able to sell them in Illinois. He was arrested in Chicago when he delivered the guns to the potential buyer, a gang member who was cooperating with the police. Taylor plead guilty to a single count of possession of a firearm by a felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and was sentenced to 120 months’ of imprisonment. In his plea *717agreement, Taylor stipulated that during the two years prior to his arrest he had also purchased approximately 50 other guns in Mississippi and sold them to Chicago gang members. In his plea agreement Taylor specifically bargained for the sentence he received, *see*Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(c)(1)(C), and waived his right to appeal his sentence with limited exceptions. Taylor appealed anyway, and his counsel now seeks to withdraw under *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), because he is unable to discern any nonfrivolous basis for argument. We invited Taylor to respond to his counsel’s motion, *see*Cir. R. 51(b), and he has done so. Thus, our review is limited to the potential issues identified in counsel’s facially adequate brief and Taylor’s response. *See United States v. Schuh,*289 F.3d 968, 973-74 (7th Cir.2002).

Counsel has advised us that Taylor does not want his guilty plea set aside, and Taylor does not dispute that representation in his Rule 51(b) response. Thus, counsel appropriately refrains from discussing potential challenges to the conviction. *See United States v. Knox,*287 F.3d 667, 671-72 (7th Cir.2002).

Counsel is left with the possibility of challenging the appeal waiver’s validity. *See United States v. Lockwood,*416 F.3d 604, 607-08 (7th Cir.2005); *United States v. Whitlow,*287 F.3d 638, 640 (7th Cir. 2002); *United States v. Hare,*269 F.3d 859, 860-61 (7th Cir.2001). In his Rule 51(b) response, Taylor argues that the district court should not have factored in the additional 50 guns when calculating his guidelines imprisonment range. But since Taylor still wants to retain the benefit of the government’s concessions in the plea agreement, any attempt to escape the appeal waiver would be frivolous. *See Whit-low,*287 F.3d at 640 (“[A] waiver of appeal stands or falls with the rest of the bargain”); *Hare,*269 F.3d at 861 (“[A] waiver of appeal is valid, and must be enforced, unless the agreement in which it is contained is annulled”).

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the appeal is DISMISSED.
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 of Acquired Sales Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gerard M. Jacobs, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to 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 results of operations of the Company.




/s/ Gerard M. JacobsGerard M. Jacobs Principal Executive Officer

Principal Financial Officer

March 30, 2011
Exhibit 10.16


                            OFFER TO PURCHASE SHARES


         TO:  The Board of Directors of Silver Key Mining Company, Inc.

         The undersigned offers to purchase 474,797 shares of the Common Stock
of Silver Key Mining Company, Inc. (the "Corporation") for an aggregate purchase
price of $474.80, payable in cash at the time of the issuance and deliver of the
Shares.

         Deluxe Investment Company ("Deluxe") understands that the Shares have
not been registered under the Securities Act of 1933 or certain State Blue Sky
Laws, and that the Shares must be held indefinitely unless subsequently
registered thereunder or unless an exemption from such registration is
available. Deluxe represents and warrants that it is an Accredited Investor as
defined in the Rules and Regulations promulgated under the Securities Act of
1933. Deluxe understands that the share certificate for the Shares will be
imprinted with a legend which prohibits the transfer of the Shares unless they
are registered or such registration is not required in the opinion of counsel
for the Corporation.

         Deluxe is purchasing the Shares for its own account for investment
purposes only, and not with a view to, or for the sale in connection with any
distribution thereof. Deluxe does not have any present intention of selling or
otherwise transferring the Shares or any interests thereof.

         Deluxe also acknowledges that the Corporation has made available
certain information, including the Corporation's books, records and financial
information, and has provided it the opportunity to ask questions of, and
receive answers from, the Corporation, or any person acting on the Corporation's
behalf concerning the Corporation.

                                               Deluxe Investment Company

         Dated:  October 16, 2002              By:/s/ Ian Markofsky
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                    Ian Markofsky, President
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cesar Armando LEAL-RIVERA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-40014.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Oct. 25, 2006.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Michael L. Herman, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Cesar Armando Leal-Rivera pleaded guilty to illegal reentry and was sentenced to 28 months of imprisonment to be followed by a two-year term of supervised release. He now appeals the 24-month sentence imposed following the revocation of his term of supervised release.

Leal argues that the district court imposed a sentence above the statutory maxi*638mum. He contends that the top of the sentencing guidelines range found applicable by the district court, rather than the statutory maximum under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b), governs the classification of his underlying felony for purposes of revocation of supervised release.

In *United States v. Alfaro-Hernandez,*453 F.3d 280, 281-82 (5th Cir.2006), the court held that, in determining the statutory maximum penalty that can be imposed upon revocation of supervised release, the felony classification of the defendant’s underlying offense was to be determined by statute and not by the Sentencing Guidelines. Leal acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by *Alfaro-Hemandez,*but he wishes to preserve the argument for possible further Supreme Court review.

The sentence is AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 449 

To facilitate shareholder consideration of proposals to make Settlement Common Stock under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act available 

to missed enrollees, eligible elders, and eligible persons born after December 18, 1971, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 17, 2005 

Ms. MURKOWSKI introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs 

A BILL 

To facilitate shareholder consideration of proposals to make 

Settlement Common Stock under the Alaska Native 

Claims Settlement Act available to missed enrollees, eligible elders, and eligible persons born after December 18, 

1971, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. TECHNICAL AMENDMENT TO ALASKA NATIVE 

4 CLAIMS SETTLEMENT ACT. 

5 Section 36(d)(3) of the Alaska Native Claims Settle6 ment Act (43 U.S.C. 1629b) is amended— 

7 (1) by striking ‘‘(d)(3)’’ and inserting ‘‘(3)’’; 
2 

•S 449 IS

1 (2) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), 

2 by striking ‘‘of this section’’ and inserting ‘‘or an 

3 amendment to articles of incorporation under section 

4 7(g)(1)(B)’’; 

5 (3) in subparagraph (A)— 

6 (A) by striking ‘‘, or’’ and inserting ‘‘; or’’; 

7 and 

8 (B) by striking ‘‘such resolution’’ and in9 serting ‘‘the resolution or amendment to arti10 cles of incorporation’’; and 

11 (4) in subparagraph (B), by striking ‘‘such res12 olution’’ and inserting ‘‘the resolution or amendment 

13 to articles of incorporation’’. 

Æ
**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 Cubic Energy, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, as C.F.O., 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 results of operations of the Company.

 

Date: May 16, 2011

 
| Signature: | /s/   Larry G. Badgley   |   |
|------------|--------------------------|--------|
|       | Larry G. Badgley, C.F.O. |   |

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                             112
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   16,954
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                19,434
<PP&E>                                         386,361
<DEPRECIATION>                               (234,520)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 202,462
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           20,623
<BONDS>                                        100,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           142
<OTHER-SE>                                      46,597
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   202,462
<SALES>                                         23,667
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                24,545
<CGS>                                           13,604
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   18,889
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,876
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,409
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,656
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (17,734)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             23,390
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    23,390
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.69
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.67


</TABLE>
[922 NE2d 881, 895 NYS2d 294]

#### In the Matter of Emrey Properties, Inc., Respondent, v Patricia A. Baranello et al., Appellants.

Decided January 12, 2010

*916APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Sinnreich Kosakoff & Messina, LLP,*Central Islip *(Vincent J. Messina, Jr.,*and *Timothy F. Hill*of counsel), for appellants.

*Forchelli, Curto, Deegan, Schwartz, Mineo, Cohn & Terrana, LLP,*Uniondale *{Andrea Tsoukalas*of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order reversed, with costs, and matter remitted to the Appellate Division, Second Department, for consideration of issues raised but not considered on the appeal to that court. The Zoning Board’s determination, upholding the Planning Board’s denial of a building permit for petitioner to intensify an existing nonconforming use, was not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to the Town Code *{see generally Matter of Pecoraro v Board of Appeals of Town of Hempstead,*2 NY3d 608, 612-613 [2004]).

Concur: Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones.
```

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 10 (Thursday, January 15, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 2121]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00549]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Indian Affairs

[156A2100DD.AADD001000]

Advisory Board for Exceptional Children Meeting

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) is announcing that the 
Advisory Board for Exceptional Children (Advisory Board) will hold its 
next meeting in Albuquerque, New Mexico. The purpose of the meeting is 
to meet the mandates of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 
of 2004 (IDEA) for Indian children with disabilities.

DATES: The Advisory Board will meet on Thursday, March 26, 2015, from 
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. and Friday, March 27, 2015, from 8:30 a.m. to 
4:30 p.m. Mountain Time.

ADDRESSES: The meeting and orientation will be held at the Manuel 
Lujan, Jr. Indian Affairs Building, 1011 Indian School Road NW., 
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87104; telephone number (505) 563-5383.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Sue Bement, Designated Federal 
Official, Bureau of Indian Education, Albuquerque Service Center, 
Division of Performance and Accountability, 1011 Indian School Road 
NW., Suite 332, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87104; telephone number (505) 
563-5274.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app.), the BIE is announcing that the Advisory 
Board will hold its next meeting in Albuquerque, New Mexico. The 
Advisory Board was established under the Individuals with Disabilities 
Education Act of 2004 (20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.) to advise the Secretary 
of the Interior, through the Assistant Secretary-Indian Affairs, on the 
needs of Indian children with disabilities. The meetings are open to 
the public.
    The following items will be on the agenda:
     Introduction of Advisory Board members;
     Appointment of Advisory Board Chair and Vice Chair;
     Report from Ms. Gloria Yepa, Supervisory Education 
Specialist, BIE, Division of Performance and Accountability;
     Report from BIE Director's Office;
     Report from Dr. Jeffrey Hamley, Associate Deputy Director 
of the Division of Performance and Accountability;
     Stakeholder input on BIE Annual Performance Report and 
State Systemic Improvement Plan;
     Public Comment (via conference call, March 26, 2015, 
meeting only *); and
     BIE Advisory Board-Advice and Recommendations.
    * During the March 26, 2015 meeting, time has been set aside for 
public comment via conference call from 1:30-2:00 p.m. Mountain Time. 
The call-in information is: Conference Number 1-888-417-0376, Passcode 
1509140.

    Dated: January 6, 2015.
Kevin K. Washburn,
Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2015-00549 Filed 1-14-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-6W-P
```
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 9 (Wednesday, January 14, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 1915]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00428]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Notice of Proposals to Engage in or to Acquire Companies Engaged 
in Permissible Nonbanking Activities

    The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 
4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and 
Regulation Y, (12 CFR part 225) to engage de novo, or to acquire or 
control voting securities or assets of a company, including the 
companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a 
subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in 
Sec.  225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has 
determined by Order to be closely related to banking and permissible 
for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, these activities 
will be conducted throughout the United States.
    Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank 
indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the 
offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their 
views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the 
standards of section 4 of the BHC Act.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be 
received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of 
Governors not later than January 29, 2015.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (Gerald C. Tsai, Director, 
Applications and Enforcement) 101 Market Street, San Francisco, 
California 94105-1579:
    1. Cathay Financial Holding Co., Ltd., Cathay Life Insurance Co., 
Ltd, and Lin Yuan Investment Co., Ltd., all of Taipei, Taiwan, and Wan 
Bao Development Co., Ltd., New Taipei, Taiwan; to acquire Conning 
Holdings Corp., Hartford, Connecticut, and thereby engage in financial 
and investment advisory activities, and agency transactional services 
for customer investments, pursuant to sections 225.28(b)(6) and 
225.28(b)(7), respectively.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, January 9, 
2015.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2015-00428 Filed 1-13-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
**EXHIBIT 35.2**

 

**WASHINGTON MUTUAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES CORP.**

**OFFICER’S CERTIFICATEANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE**

            I, Barbara Campbell, an authorized officer of Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corp. (the “Administrative Agent”), dohereby certify to WaMu Asset Acceptance Corp. (the “Depositor”) and Washington Mutual Bank (the “Servicer”), pursuant to the Amended and Restated Administrative Agent Agreement dated as of February 1, 2005 (the“Servicing Agreement”) by and between the Servicer, and the Administrative Agent the following with respect to Washington Mutual Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates WMALT Series 2007-HY2 Trust for the 2007 fiscal year  (the “RelevantYear”): 

1.                  A review of the activities of the AdministrativeAgent during the Relevant Year and of performance under the Servicing Agreement has been made under my supervision.

2.                  To the best of my knowledge, based on such review,the Administrative Agent has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout the Relevant Year.

Dated as of March 1, 2008.

| /s/ Barbara Campbell Name:  Barbara Campbell Title:    First Vice President |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|