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

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 976 

Authorizing and directing the Committee on the Judiciary to inquire whether 

the House of Representatives should impeach Emmet G. Sullivan, a 

judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 22, 2020 

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio submitted the following resolution; which was referred 

to the Committee on Rules 

RESOLUTION 

Authorizing and directing the Committee on the Judiciary 

to inquire whether the House of Representatives should 

impeach Emmet G. Sullivan, a judge of the United 

States District Court for the District of Columbia. 

1 Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary shall 

2 inquire whether the House of Representatives should im3 peach Emmet G. Sullivan, a judge of the United States 

4 District Court for the District of Columbia. 

5 SEC. 2. The Committee on the Judiciary or any sub6 committee or task force designated by the Committee may, 

7 in connection with the inquiry under this resolution, take 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 976 IH 

1 affidavits and depositions by a member, counsel, or con2 sultant of the Committee, pursuant to notice or subpoena. 

3 SEC. 3. There shall be paid out of the applicable ac4 counts of the House of Representatives such sums as may 

5 be necessary to assist the Committee on the Judiciary in 

6 conducting the inquiry under this resolution, any of which 

7 may be used for the procurement of staff or consultant 

8 services. 

9 SEC. 4. (a) For the purpose of the inquiry under this 

10 resolution, the Committee on the Judiciary is authorized 

11 to require by subpoena or otherwise— 

12 (1) the attendance and testimony of any person 

13 (including at a taking of a deposition by a member, 

14 counsel, or consultant of the Committee); and 

15 (2) the production of such things, 

16 as it deems necessary to such inquiry. 

17 (b) The Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, 

18 after consultation with the Ranking Member, may exercise 

19 the authority of the Committee under subsection (a). 

20 (c) The Committee on the Judiciary may adopt a rule 

21 regulating the taking of depositions by a member, counsel, 

22 or consultant of the Committee. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed September 7, 2022.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D20-1893

Lower Tribunal No. 15-23051

________________

Anita Najiy,

Appellant,

vs.

Javier Ortiz, etc., et al.,

Appellees.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Veronica 

Diaz, Judge.

Milson Law, P.A., and Nicole A. Milson, for appellant.

Murray, Morin & Herman, P.A., and Christopher S. Morin and Jennifer 

M. Clark (Tampa), for appellees.

Before LOGUE, SCALES and LOBREE, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Skupin v. Hemisphere Media Grp., Inc., 314 So. 3d 353, 
2

356 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (“[W]hether a statement is one of fact or opinion is 

a question of law for the court and not a jury.”).
32 Occupational Outlook Quarterly • Summer 2009

About 5.4 million people with disabilities were 

employed in April, according to the U.S. Bureau of 

Labor Statistics. These workers represent about 4 percent 

of total employment.

As the charts show, workers with disabilities were 

distributed across occupational groups in a way similar 

to those without disabilities. Notable differences existed 

in the share of each type of worker in two occupational 

groups. The percentage of workers with disabilities 

employed in service occupations was somewhat higher 

than the percentage of workers without disabilities. 

And in professional and related occupations, the share 

of workers without disabilities was notably higher than 

workers with disabilities. However, these two occupational groups also employed the largest share of both 

types of workers.

Data in the chart come from the Current Population 

Survey. According to the data, 23 percent of people with 

disabilities were in the labor force in April, which means 

that they were either working or looking for work. About 

13 percent of people with disabilities in the labor force 

were unemployed that month, compared with the almost 

9 percent unemployment rate for workers without disabilities.

For more information, visit www.bls.gov/cps/

cpsdisability.htm or contact the Division of Labor Force 

Statistics by writing to 2 Massachusetts Ave. NE., Suite 

4675, Washington, DC 20212; calling (202) 691–6378; 

or sending an e-mail using the link provided on the Web 

site.

Occupational employment of workers 

without disabilities and workers 

with disabilities, April 2009



















 







-ANAGEMENTBUSINESS

ANDFINANCIALOPERATIONS

0ROFESSIONAL

ANDRELATED

3ERVICE

3ALESAND

RELATED

/FFICEAND

ADMINISTRATIVE

SUPPORT

.ATURALRESOURCES

CONSTRUCTIONAND

MAINTENANCE

0RODUCTIONTRANSPORTATION

ANDMATERIALMOVING

Employment distribution of workers without disabilities and workers 

with disabilities, by major occupational group, April 2009 (percent)

Workers 

with 

disabilities

Workers without 

disabilities
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Robert Ramirez, Appellant.

[853 NYS2d 604]

The hearing court properly denied that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence recovered from his vehicle at the time of his arrest. The hearing record demonstrates that the police possessed probable cause to believe that the defendant had been involved minutes earlier in an attempt to break into a vehicle parked at a shopping mall, and that the defendant’s own vehicle could contain evidence of the crime *(see People v Hayes,*291 AD2d 334 [2002]; *People v Jackson,*282 AD2d 473 [2001]; *People v Evans,*256 AD2d 520 [1998]; *People v Lloyd,*236 AD2d 631 [1997]).

The defendant’s contention that the prosecution failed to present legally sufficient evidence of his guilt of attempted grand larceny in the second degree is without merit. Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the evidence was legally sufficient to establish that he intended to steal the subject vehicle. The defendant’s further contention that the People failed to prove his guilt of criminal mischief in the second degree beyond a reasonable doubt is unpreserved for appellate review *(see People v Gray,*86 NY2d 10 [1995]; *People v Dixon,*184 AD2d 725 [1992]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620, 621 *668[1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he caused damage exceeding $1,500 to the complainant’s vehicle, and was thus guilty of criminal mischief in the second degree *(see*Penal Law § 145.10). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power *(see*CPL 470.15 [5]), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Romero,*7 NY3d 633 [2006]). Skelos, J.P., Fisher, Covello and Eng, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 12-1150

_____________

JOHN M. DRAKE; GREGORY C. GALLAHER; 

LENNY S. SALERNO; FINLEY FENTON; 

SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION, INC.; 

ASSOCIATION OF NEW JERSEY RIFLE & PISTOL CLUBS, INC.,

 Appellants

v.

THE HON. RUDOLPH A. FILKO, 

in his Official Capacity as Judge of the Superior Court of Passaic County; 

HON. EDWARD A. JEREJIAN, 

in his Official Capacity as Judge of the Superior Court of Bergen County; 

THE HON. THOMAS V. MANAHAN, 

in his Official Capacity as Judge of the Superior Court of Morris County;

SUPERINTENDENT NEW JERSEY STATE POLICE; CHIEF RICHARD COOK, 

in his Official Capacity as Chief of the Montville, New Jersey Police Department; 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW JERSEY; ROBERT JONES, 

in his Official Capacity as Chief of the Hammonton, New Jersey Police Department

__________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of New Jersey

(D.C. Civil No. 2-10-cv-06110)

District Judge: Honorable William H. Walls

__________

Argued February 12, 2013

Before: HARDIMAN and ALDISERT, Circuit Judges, and STARK, District Judge.

__________

 



The Honorable Leonard P. Stark, Judge of the United States District Court for the 

District of Delaware, sitting by designation.

Case 2:10-cv-06110-WHW-MCA Document 46 Filed 09/04/13 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 447
2

JUDGMENT

__________

This cause came on to be heard on the record from the United States District Court 

for the District of New Jersey and was argued on February 12, 2013.

On consideration whereof, it is now hereby ADJUDGED and ORDERED that the 

judgment of the District Court entered January 13, 2012 be and the same is hereby 

affirmed.

All of the above in accordance with the opinion of this Court. Costs taxed to 

Appellants. 

ATTEST:

/s/ Marcia M. Waldron

Clerk

DATED: July 31, 2013

Case 2:10-cv-06110-WHW-MCA Document 46 Filed 09/04/13 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 448
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

U.S. BANK, N.A.,

SUCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO BANK OF

AMERICA, N.A. AS TRUSTEE FOR

STRUCTURED ASSET INVESTMENT

LOAN TRUST MORTGAGE

PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES,

SERIES 2003-BC13

 v.

AARON A. THOMAS AND ANDREA

MARTIN-THOMAS

PETITION OF: AARON A. THOMAS

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 396 MAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 6th day of October, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED.
FILED IN6th COURT OF APPEALS    TEXARKANA, TEXAS7/22/2015 11:03:27 AM        DEBBIE AUTREY                Clerk
# Result 8.2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                            2111
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      329
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  3264
<PP&E>                                           30436
<DEPRECIATION>                                   11869
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   22040
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              783
<BONDS>                                          12431
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                        8826
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     22040
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  5186
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     3050
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  1613
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                1268
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (745)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (745)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (745)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (24.58)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (24.58)
        

</TABLE>
```

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 125 (Wednesday, July 1, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 31462]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-15564]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

[Docket No. FR-5300-N-30]

Notice of Availability: Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for 
Fiscal Year (FY) 2009 the Historically Black Colleges and Universities 
(HBCU) Program

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and 
Research, HUD.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Through this notice, HUD announces the availability on its Web 
site of the application information, submission deadlines, funding 
criteria, and other requirements for the FY2009 Historically Black 
Colleges and Universities (HBCU) Program NOFA. This NOFA makes 
approximately $9 million available to assist Historically Black 
Colleges and Universities (HBCU) of Higher Education expand their role 
and effectiveness in addressing community development needs in their 
localities, including neighborhood revitalization, housing, and 
economic development, principally for persons of low- and moderate-
income, consistent with the purposes of Title I of the Housing and 
Community Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.) as amended. 
The notice providing information regarding the application process, 
funding criteria and eligibility requirements is available on the HUD 
Web site at http://www.hud.gov/offices/adm/grants/fundsavail.cfm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning the 
Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) Program, contact 
Ophelia Wilson, Office of University Partnerships, Office of Policy 
Development and Research, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 
451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 8226, Washington DC 20410; telephone 202-
402-4390 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with speech or 
hearing impairments may access this telephone number via TTY by calling 
the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service during working hours at 
800-877-8339.

    Dated: June 9, 2009.
Jean Lin Pao,
General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research.
[FR Doc. E9-15564 Filed 6-30-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
```
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 this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Vitamin Shoppe, Inc. (the Company) for the quarter ended March 27, 2010 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Richard L. Markee, Chief Executive 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:



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



|(ii) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of VS Holdings, Inc.
|---- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: April 30, 2010



/s/ Richard L. MarkeeRichard L. MarkeeChief Executive Officer and Director(Principal Executive Officer)


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of this Report.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6712

CALVIN WAYNE BARBER,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

RANDY REGISTER,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, 

District Judge. (5:15-hc-02016-FL)

Submitted: July 23, 2015 Decided: July 28, 2015

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

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Calvin Wayne Barber, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Calvin Wayne Barber seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition without prejudice 

as an unauthorized, successive petition. The order is not 

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate 

of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate 

of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of 

the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) 

(2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable 

jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the 

constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 

529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 

336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Barber has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 

a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 
3

in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### DAUPHINEE v. AMERICAN RANGE LINE, Inc.

No. 20260.

District Court, E. D. Pennsylvania.

Sept. 17, 1940.

E. Herman Fuiman, of Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.

Krusen, Evans & Shaw and Edwin Longcope, all of Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant.

KIRKPATRICK, District Judge.

Rule 41(b), Rules of Civil Procedure for District Courts, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, provides that a judgment of dismissal “For failure of the plaintiff to prosecute or to comply with these rules,” shall, unless otherwise specified, operate as an adjudication upon the merits. This suit was dismissed for want of prosecution February 1, 1940. Rule 60(b) provides that, provided the motion is made within six months after judgment, a party may be relieved on motion from a judgment taken against him through his excusable neglect. This rule, I think, gives the Court power to act in this case.

I think that the plaintiff’s petition to set aside the order of dismissal shows sufficient excuse for failure to prosecute to make it proper to set aside the judgment of dismissal. The defendant denies the facts, and, of course, the plaintiff will have to prove them.

I therefore direct that the case be placed upon the next trial list. A hearing will be held upon the, petition to vacate the order of dismissal when the case is called. If the allegations of the plaintiff’s petition are sustained by the evidence, the order of dismissal will be vacated, and the trial of the case will proceed forthwith.
Exhibit 10.5

Agreement Between Enfacet and the Company, dated August 24, 2001

                                 August 24, 2001

Vasu Vijayaraghavan, President
ENFACET, INC.
1524 S. IH 35, Suite 312
Austin, TX 78704

      Re:   Vertical Computer Systems, Inc. Stock Purchase

Dear Vasu:

      This letter will confirm that with respect to Vertical Computer Systems,
Inc.'s ("Vertical") purchase of one hundred percent (100%) of the outstanding
and issued stock of Enfacet, Inc. ("Enfacet"), pursuant to that certain Stock
Purchase Agreement, by and between Vertical and Enfacet, dated as of August 21,
2001 (the "SPA"), we have agreed to the following additional terms:

      1.    Vertical shall transfer to Enfacet by Monday, August 24, 2001, the
            sum of FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS (US $5,000.00) for its short term cash
            flow needs;

      2.    Next week, after Vertical has received its anticipated interim
            financing, Vertical will transfer to Enfacet an additional
            TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS (US $25,000.00) for its short term cash
            flow needs;

      3.    On or after August 20, 2002 (the "Anniversary Date"), Enfacet shall
            distribute one-half of the 30,000 shares Vertical Preferred Series C
            Stock, received in consideration of the execution of the SPA, to
            those Enfacet employees employed by Enfacet on the Anniversary Date
            ("Initial Employees")who were employed continuously by Enfacet from
            the date of execution of the SPA to and through the Anniversary
            Date; the remaining 15,000 shares of Vertical Preferred Series C
            Stock will be used for additional funding or similar purposes, at a
            later date, by EnFacet's current management.

      4.    Vertical shall issue to the Initial Employees employed with Enfacet
            after Ninety days from the execution of the SPA options or warrants
            for the total of FIVE MILLION (5,000,000) shares of Vertical's
            common stock, at (current market price as on 8/24/01) of $0.0250
            (the "Options"). A portion of these shares shall be in the form of
            registered/free trading shares. These shall be covered under the
            standard Vertical leak-out agreement. The Options shall be
            distributed to such eligible Initial Employees in accordance with a
            plan submitted by you and approved by Vertical.
<PAGE>

      The SPA shall not otherwise be modified. By executing a copy of this
letter, you hereby indicated you acknowledged and agreement to the terms
outlined herein.

                                        Sincerely,

                                        VERTICAL COMPUTER SYSTEMS, INC.


                                        By: ____________________________________
                                            Richard Wade, President

ACKNOWLEDGED, ACCEPTED AND AGREED:

ENFACET, INC.


By: ____________________________________
    Vasu Vijayaraghavan, President
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 Driver Passport Inc. (the "Company")
        on
        Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending June 30, 2007, as filed with the
        Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
        Randy
        Brown, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
        certify to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
        as
        adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
        that:
  (1)
        The
        Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
        the
        Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
  (2)
        The
        information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
        the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
  A
        signed
        original of this written statement required by Section 906, another 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 the Company. and will be retained by
        the
        Company. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
        upon request.
  **DRIVER
                  PASSPORT, INC.**Date:
                  July 27,
                  2007
              By:
              /s/
                  Randy BrownName:
                Randy BrownTitle:
Chief
                Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer