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

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4094 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4094

     To extend the period in which States may spend funds from the 
  additional allotments provided to States under the Social Services 
Block Grant program for necessary expenses related to the consequences 
  of Hurricane Katrina and other hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico in 
                                 2005.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            December 6, 2006

 Ms. Landrieu introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To extend the period in which States may spend funds from the 
  additional allotments provided to States under the Social Services 
Block Grant program for necessary expenses related to the consequences 
  of Hurricane Katrina and other hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico in 
                                 2005.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF PERIOD FOR EXPENDITURE OF ADDITIONAL SSBG 
              ALLOTMENTS FOR NECESSARY EXPENSES RELATED TO THE 
              CONSEQUENCES OF HURRICANE KATRINA AND OTHER HURRICANES IN 
              THE GULF OF MEXICO IN 2005.

    Notwithstanding section 2002(c) of the Social Security Act (42 
U.S.C. 1397a(c)), the additional allotments for States from amounts 
appropriated under the heading ``Social Services Block Grant'', under 
the heading ``Administration for Children and Families'', under the 
heading ``Department of Health and Human Services'' of the Department 
of Defense, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations to Address Hurricanes 
in the Gulf of Mexico, and Pandemic Influenza Act, 2006 (Public Law 
109-148, 119 Stat. 2768) shall remain available for obligation through 
September 30, 2008.
                                 <all>
```
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,

J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk April 1, 2009

p0325 

# Order

April 1, 2009

136636

ERIC C. FROHRIEP, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v SC: 136636 COA: 273426 Ingham CC: 06-000430-NZ MICHAEL P. FLANAGAN, JEREMY M. HUGHES, and FRAN K P. CILOSKI, Defendants-Appellees.

________________ _______________ __________/

By order of October 27, 2008, the appli cation for leave to appeal the April 29, 2008 judgment of the Court of Appeals was held in ab eyance pending the decision in Odom v Wayne Co (Docket No. 133433). On order of the Court, the case having been decided on December 30, 2008, 482 Mich 459 (2008), the app lication is again considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of granting leave to a ppeal, we REVERSE in part the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and we REMAND this case to the Ingham Circuit Court for further proceedings in light of the Odom decision. We agree with the Court of Appeals that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, but do not ag ree that the plaintiffs fail ed to state claims for the remaining intentional torts. The Court of A ppeals erred in concluding that the burden of proof with regard to the qu alified governmental immunity applicable to the defendants Hughes and Ciloski under Ross v Consumers Power (On Rehearing ), 420 Mich 567; 363 NW2d 641 (1984), lay with the plaintiffs, rather than with th e defendants. See Odom,

supra

.
Exhibit
32.2




CERTIFICATION
OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO


RULE
13A-14(B) OR RULE 15D-14(B)


OF
THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED, AND


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002






In
connection with the annual report on Form 10-K of Consolidation Services, Inc.
(the “Company”) for the period ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John C.
Francis, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:




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




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






Dated:
March 25, 2009


CONSOLIDATION
SERVICES, INC.






By: /s/ John C. Francis


John C.
Francis


Chief
Financial Officer




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
by Section 906, has been provided to Consolidation Services, Inc. and will be
retained by Consolidation Services, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 664 

To adjust the boundaries of Green Mountain National Forest. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 17, 2005 

Mr. LEAHY introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry 

A BILL

To adjust the boundaries of Green Mountain National 

Forest.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Green Mountain Na5 tional Forest Adjustment Act of 2005’’. 

6 SEC. 2. GREEN MOUNTAIN NATIONAL FOREST ADJUST7 MENT. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—The boundaries of the Green 

9 Mountain National Forest are modified to include all par10 cels of land depicted on the forest maps entitled ‘‘Green 

11 Mountain Expansion Area Map I’’ and ‘‘Green Mountain 
2

•S 664 IS

1 Expansion Area Map II’’, each dated February 20, 2002, 

2 which shall be on file and available for public inspection 

3 in the Office of the Chief of the Forest Service, Wash4 ington, District of Columbia. 

5 (b) MANAGEMENT.—Federally owned land delineated 

6 on the maps acquired for National Forest purposes shall 

7 continue to be managed in accordance with the laws (in8 cluding regulations) applicable to the National Forest Sys9 tem. 

10 (c) LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND.—For 

11 the purposes of section 7 of the Land and Water Con12 servation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460 l–9), the 

13 boundaries of the Green Mountain National Forest, as ad14 justed by this Act, shall be considered to be the boundaries 

15 of the national forest as of January 1, 1965.

Æ
* 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. 00-51105

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE IBARRA-CRUZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. DR-00-CR-327-ALL

- - - - - - - - - -

June 15, 2001

Before WIENER, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Ibarra-Cruz appeals his sentence following his guilty

plea conviction for illegal re-entry after deportation in

violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Ibarra argues that his sentence

should not have exceeded the two-year maximum sentence under 8

U.S.C. § 1326(a). Ibarra acknowledges that his argument is

foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224

(1998), but he seeks to preserve the issue for Supreme Court

review in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). 
No. 00-51105

- 2 -

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 121 S. Ct. 1214 (2001). Ibarra’s

argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres, 523 U.S. at 235. 

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks

that the judgment of the district court be affirmed and that an

appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is granted.

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
**EXHIBIT 31.1**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, WILLIAM A. OWENS, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the second quarter of 2004 of NortelNetworks Corporation; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter(the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
 (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.
Date: January 31, 2005
/s/ WILLIAM A. OWENSWILLIAM A. OWENS
Exhibit 32

                                  CERTIFICATION





Exhibit 32

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I,  Robert A. Doak,  President,  CEO,  and  Acting  Chief  Financial  Officer of
Mountains West Exploration, Inc. (the "Company"), certify that:

1. The  Quarterly  Report on Form  10QSB of the  Company  for the  period  ended
June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the
date hereof (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.

         Dated:  August 5, 2004           Officer:   Robert A. Doak

                                        Name:       /s/ Robert A. Doak
                                                    ----------------------------
                                        Position:  President, CEO
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Steven P. LAWSON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-6076.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Sept. 27, 2006.

Decided: Oct. 16, 2006.

Steven P. Lawson, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Jean Howard, Office of the United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILLIAMS, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM.

Steven P. Lawson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appeal-ability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A *431certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2258(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Lawson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED.*
#### Bianca Razzano, Appellant, v Woodstock Owners Corp. et al., Respondents.

[975 NYS2d 38]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul Wootten, J.), entered October 16, 2012, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs and at oral argument, granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1), *523and denied plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment with respect to her claim that defendant Woodstock Owners Corp.’s (Woodstock) sublet policy violates Business Corporation Law § 501 (c), unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion denied and the cross motion granted to the extent of declaring that Woodstock’s sublet policy violates said statute.

In this dispute between plaintiff shareholder and defendant Woodstock, a cooperative corporation, the sublet policy at issue, which allows those who purchased their shares before October 2002 to sublet, while prohibiting those who purchased their shares after that date from subletting, violates Business Corporation Law § 501 (c) *(see e.g. Spiegel v 1065 Park Ave. Corp.,*305 AD2d 204, 205 [1st Dept 2003]; *Krakauer v Stuyvesant Owners,*301 AD2d 450, 451 [1st Dept 2003]). Because the sublet policy violates the Business Corporation Law, it is not protected by the business judgment rule *(see White v Gilbert,*2012 NY Slip Op 32042[U], *10 [Sup Ct, NY County 2012]; see *also Fe Bland v Two Trees Mgt. Co.,*66 NY2d 556, 565 [1985]; *Wirth v Chambers-Greenwich Tenants Corp.,*87 AD3d 470, 472 [1st Dept 2011]).

On appeal, plaintiff makes no argument with respect to her causes of action that are unrelated to Business Corporation Law § 501 (c), such as fraud and negligent misrepresentation; hence, her appeal from the dismissal of those causes of action is deemed abandoned *(see e.g. Matter of Metropolitan Museum Historic Dist. Coalition v De Montebello,*20 AD3d 28, 34 [1st Dept 2005]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Saxe, Moskowitz and DeGrasse, JJ.
Exhibit 32.1

Certification Required by Rule 13a-14(b) or

Rule 15d-14(b) and Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Permian Basin Royalty Trust (the Trust) on Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, not in its individual capacity but solely as the trustee of the Trust, certifies pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to its knowledge:

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

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



|                  |  |  |  |                                                         |  |                                            
|----------------- |  |  |  | ------------------------------------------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------
|                  |  |  |  | SOUTHWEST BANK, TRUSTEE FOR PERMIAN BASIN ROYALTY TRUST
|                  |  |  | 
|Date: May 5, 2017 |  |  |  | By:                                                     |  | /s/ RON E. HOOPER                          
|                  |  |  |  |                                                         |  | Ron E. Hooper,                             
|                  |  |  |  |                                                         |  | SVP Royalty Trust Management Southwest
Bank

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Permian Basin Royalty Trust and
will be retained by Permian Basin Royalty Trust and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**Certification Required by Rule 13a-14(b) or**

**Rule 15d-14(b) and Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Permian Basin Royalty Trust (the “Trust”) on Form 10-Q for thequarterly period ended March 31, 2023, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, not in its individual capacity but solely as the trustee of the Trust, certifies pursuantto 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to its knowledge: 

(1) The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 

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

 
          ARGENT TRUST COMPANY, TRUSTEE FOR PERMIAN BASIN ROYALTY TRUSTDate: May 10, 2023  By: 
/s/ RON E. HOOPER
   Ron E. Hooper,   SVP Royalty Trust Services
A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Permian Basin Royalty Trust andwill be retained by Permian Basin Royalty Trust and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. 
**
#### Awards.com, LLC, et al., Appellants, v Kinko's, Inc., et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant.

Submitted March 26, 2009;

decided May 12, 2009

On the Court’s own motion, appeal dismissed, without costs, upon the ground that no appeal lies as of right pursuant to CPLR 5601 (d) from the Supreme Court judgment to bring up for review the prior nonfinal order of the Appellate Division, where the Appellate Division order was unanimous and did not directly involve a substantial constitutional question. Motion for leave to appeal granted.
##### 



EXHIBIT 4 AUDITORS CONSENT We consent to the use of our
report dated February 14, 2005 appearing in this Annual Report on
Form 40-F of Sun Life Financial Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2004. /S/ Deloitte & Touche LLP Chartered Accountants
Toronto, Canada
February 14, 2005
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

CATHY SUKER and JOHNNY SUKER , Appellant s ,

v.

WHITE FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP and PSL DONUTS, LLC , Appellee s

.

No. 4D 15

- 1350

[ June 8, 2016 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County ; James W. Midelis , Judge; L.T. Case No. 562013CA003123

.

William T. Viergever of Sonneborn Rutter & Cooney, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Joan Carlos Wizel, Amir Ghaeenzadeh and Shaun Robert Koby of Ly decker Diaz, Miami, for Appellee PSL Donuts, LLC.

P ER C URIAM

.

This appeal stems from a slip and fall accident that occurred in front of a Dunkin Donuts operated by defendant PSL Donuts, LLC. The plaintiffs, Cathy and Johnny Suker, appeal the final summa ry judgment entered in
favor of the defendant. 1 The trial court granted summary judgment based on Section 768.0755, Florida Statutes (2013) , finding that the plaintiffs failed to present any genuine issue s of material fact as to whether the
defendant knew or should have known of the dangerous condition s or that
the dangerous condition s occurred with regularity and were therefore
foreseeable. We reverse.

“A trial court’s entry of a final summary judgment is reviewed de novo .”
Burton v. MDC PGA Plaza Corp. , 78 So.3d 732, 733 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)

. “In reviewing a summary judgment, [the court] must consider all record evidence in a light most favorable to the non

- moving party. If material facts are at issue and the slightest doubt exists, summary judgme nt must

1 The plaintiffs do not appeal the summary judgment entered in favor of White Family Limited Partnership.2 be reversed.” Aery v. Wallace Lincoln

- Mercury, LLC , 118 So. 3d 904, 910 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (alteration in original) (quoting Mills v. State Farm Mut.

Auto. Ins. Co. , 27 So. 3d 95, 96 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)).

In this case, where plaintiffs filed th e depositions of three witnesses, including the deposition of an employee of the defendant, that tended to
show the defendant’s actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous
conditions that existed at the til ed entrance to the establishment when t he
ti le was wet, we conclude that genuine issues of material fact remained
and that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment for the
defendant. We also find the defendant’s alternative arguments for affirming the summary judgment to be unpersuasive.

Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

Reversed and Remanded.

C IKLIN , C.J., T AYLOR and M AY , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.