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

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 991 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 991

Expressing support for designation of March 1 as ``National Healthcare 
 Professional Appreciation Day'' in commemoration of the day the first 
 American healthcare professional became infected with COVID-19 while 
                         caring for a patient.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 4, 2020

   Mr. Fitzpatrick (for himself, Ms. Johnson of Texas, Mr. Joyce of 
 Pennsylvania, and Ms. Underwood) submitted the following resolution; 
       which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Expressing support for designation of March 1 as ``National Healthcare 
 Professional Appreciation Day'' in commemoration of the day the first 
 American healthcare professional became infected with COVID-19 while 
                         caring for a patient.

Whereas healthcare professionals have put saving and caring for others above 
        their own personal health and safety;
Whereas healthcare professionals have gone above and beyond their call of duty 
        to help stem the spread of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (in this resolution 
        referred to as ``COVID-19'') through treating and testing millions of 
        Americans and by performing vaccine research;
Whereas healthcare professionals have saved thousands of lives during the COVID-
        19 pandemic with their selfless care;
Whereas through these unprecedented times healthcare professionals have 
        continued to treat and comfort those most affected by COVID-19 even when 
        those professionals have not had access to adequate personal protective 
        equipment;
Whereas over 10,000 healthcare professionals have tested positive for COVID-19;
Whereas brave healthcare professionals have left their families daily to tend to 
        those in need, and some have not seen their loved ones for extended 
        periods of time;
Whereas many healthcare professionals have been working around the clock, seven 
        days a week;
Whereas hundreds of healthcare professionals have lost their lives to COVID-19; 
        and
Whereas February 29, 2020, a leap day, was the date on which the first 
        healthcare professional was infected with COVID-19: Now, therefore, be 
        it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) supports the designation of ``National Healthcare 
        Professional Appreciation Day''; and
            (2) acknowledges the heroism and sacrifice of healthcare 
        professionals in addressing the COVID-19 pandemic.
                                 <all>
```
Case 3:11-cv-00597-JAP -LHG Document 1 Filed 02/01/11 Page 1 of 12 PageID: 1
Case 3:11-cv-00597-JAP -LHG Document 1 Filed 02/01/11 Page 2 of 12 PageID: 2
Case 3:11-cv-00597-JAP -LHG Document 1 Filed 02/01/11 Page 3 of 12 PageID: 3
Case 3:11-cv-00597-JAP -LHG Document 1 Filed 02/01/11 Page 4 of 12 PageID: 4
Case 3:11-cv-00597-JAP -LHG Document 1 Filed 02/01/11 Page 5 of 12 PageID: 5
Case 3:11-cv-00597-JAP -LHG Document 1 Filed 02/01/11 Page 6 of 12 PageID: 6
Case 3:11-cv-00597-JAP -LHG Document 1 Filed 02/01/11 Page 7 of 12 PageID: 7
Case 3:11-cv-00597-JAP -LHG Document 1 Filed 02/01/11 Page 8 of 12 PageID: 8
Case 3:11-cv-00597-JAP -LHG Document 1 Filed 02/01/11 Page 9 of 12 PageID: 9
Case 3:11-cv-00597-JAP -LHG Document 1 Filed 02/01/11 Page 10 of 12 PageID: 10
Case 3:11-cv-00597-JAP -LHG Document 1 Filed 02/01/11 Page 11 of 12 PageID: 11
Case 3:11-cv-00597-JAP -LHG Document 1 Filed 02/01/11 Page 12 of 12 PageID: 12
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 Regal  Rock,  Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the period ended August 31, 2006 as filed  with  the  Securities
and  Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned,  in
the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  Section  1350,  as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to his 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.


Date:  October 13, 2006


/s/ Wu Chih Chun
---------------------------------------
Wu Chih Chun, Principal Financial Officer
CnitPDCHE, pf SeaviCe

 L manuen) Alea hituck Merta-H (958684 | Malev jenny
Leet ty OK/ THES ite he of uly AOLS fl Thee Merl Caeacey Cory
pF le Mtoe Has fewss mbild, » qwe \srcc Mae havi k

- blob R0,bovt9s, Llabuele FeA5, 16033 bq Aloesne SAME

ee we Us. hrm DOLL fastaee Leepied.

ie 0) Higa 958



EVENTS. Lat (Aap Reed rH THE Tel Conga THAT.
-Applecanr ComAlacls phi

(ueneroee psning tans Couns oa) Proreal consresl
. mee ALlEGATTOIS Lraearlly,

‘RespeETFU Li Se

Marincrd AAllal Leck
TACT=T) # 1Q5SVORA
este Ue Luc
Aet FM, 34-79
@ re HventT5 VElle Fewrs 17T3AO

_ N aclanatice/
LZ, Manse Mlled Lucca, That LOH |15P 694, fecotaonice Aovleoruh

_Leeepl SATE THE - Agere. wl Pineoosme 15 TUE nel __|
Ce 8 Bae Hy ON



EBS OL

@ ou aes = i ——
Wisma Clee RR EINED TN
Kaur. Fesnedea! : : — JUL-2 a
Count of Caamntil pucks. - a
PO. Rex user Caectol Sra) _ AtelAcosa, Clerk

| fasta TAS. 7

Bi lause. 1h E-0ass-4
sq le tt EX fears Mate Alla: Leuk

dene CC Ola’ .

@
Ent tls Plans kaw, Moric lla Lanek, Aebleca!T DTH
| Fonetaonnle Meretil 0. Aeolicmis hespsise To Jmreg Ooventh(
Auswur ves 17 Coutmenhs seuRAal MUSETATOGITS DF AP vA
eaten 1.04 Was pk Lasers, Coens,

 Flesge Pocseatt D The Lowsat Ar The (nehen Thre, Wak You

Kespectilly,

meted Mla Lue hk 958683

. Estelle Uae

e we fbf 4:71, S498
a ea ELE TEMAS 97730



@

-

Cause No. F d0ass-A

ey Paare | : 3 eae) "oe om Sa —
MetHens Atle Leuckd : hesrezet Cowsor_ BF
— 3 AbetAcosia, Cleric”
ApnlicnnT : 8 Tebnscu/ CocindTY, TE.

— Moalccaners Rasonssie ra a a

Neplecrxr Maric AlLeds Ls ucM. ewe Fe les THES
Wes Restos Th THE Pesnourdertts beiGrunl Ani SER
Wc wns File o7MAQD on 08 About Tuly 13,A0ls,

L

‘Ap lebawt Feles tuts Mes Riz Me TAL 1 Fears Masi.
AD Faves THe. Follow: _

Arolscour Cernitais Reashoulbeatr cl 63 Answer

clenal4 missTATES THée Ameatca! Baqe ASsecTATIOUs |
Mode ble NamBee 3.2. Kesrotban sreres Mot.
Rule 33, wwHeaziy Posscaly mrs lem drake THES Cowrr

pe lasmsnigt Arpenls 1 Revie: 4A ule teat hoes

r menidee IL.

Or! Arbly, THES TS. seb Tas ATES Paengenoey

THe Zu. STATES. Pnon conor. Alamiee Z Dbplscaalr
Q)



CamtelOS “Tb Westend Tue Cont. AGATA, Apolzcanis
TREAL Arromucy Me. fob wae WAS -APPOTMEL Kuve.
Count To RPkesealr Aphlicadr Lowel Fees7 peeesred,

He Mazot po KRepee te Won pf Count THé Casé was
all Kur Me. ube WAS_M6r Peesent,

6 7acHl JTUAGE Revuseo qe Reser nas Case (00
Proceden To Akeomut AuotHee Arroantey APA lorat
Crwinlo7 PRolibE MANES de Mbbacsces because The
Srate RUSS Tp Proribe Apilecanir wrtid jacml
Rewehs ef tH05 Latsé tol eben eo faorzaly Medle
Urs cose Paerenly, Hered Placing AuoTnerR Bindi! —

@ Ou Arolecanur. Leavene Leon To Rely ont Hes Memprey
, OF BVEMES._

Appleonus hows Cores Tite Arrpenley ppheanires
aD Retassent Hem ou tHe bay vf Coun Thee Mio ele
uss wer AUewe tel hays zo Aeemnae lo< TR. wi _|
Lss_ only comveasA7Dw/_uscTH 4ebh€ LlaatZ ws A PLEA
Bawehtal DebER (nen THE cire7e. Ah PeTe7renlere pe

| Abelicradr unl Be Allowed JO SECM fox thoceremed

| Aa Go Heme.

Ty 15 THe wuempeous ERRORS AGALU By THe Fecal
Guard FaosecuTo8 wus mis- haba. THE Fast. a
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-13-00484-CR

Arthur Lee PARSONS,

Appellant

v.

The State of 

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 85th Judicial District Court, Brazos County, Texas

Trial Court No. 11-02236-CRF-85

Honorable Jimmy Don Langley, Judge Presiding

Opinion By: Karen Angelini, Justice

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: June 11, 2014

AFFIRMED, MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED

Arthur Lee Parsons pled guilty to the offense of violation of a protective order by assault, 

a third degree felony. There was no plea agreement. After hearing evidence on punishment, the 

trial court sentenced Parsons to nine years in prison. Parsons appealed.

Parsons’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in 

which he concludes that this appeal is frivolous and without merit. See Anders v. California, 386 

U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel states that 

Parsons was provided with a copy of the motion to withdraw and the brief, and was informed of 
04-13-00484-CR

his right to review the record and file his own brief. See Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 

(Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.). Parsons has not filed a pro se brief.

We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief. We agree that this appeal is frivolous 

and without merit. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed, and counsel’s motion to withdraw

is granted. See Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns,

924 S.W.2d at 177 n.1.

No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Parsons wish to seek further review of this 

case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for 

discretionary review or file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary 

review must be filed within thirty days from the later of (1) the date of this opinion, or (2) the date 

the last timely motion for rehearing is overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any 

petition for discretionary review must be filed in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Rule 

68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4.

Karen Angelini, Justice

DO NOT PUBLISH

- 2 -
EXHIBIT 31.1

              CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO
                      SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT


I, Marvin Wosk, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Maple Mountain
     Explorations Inc.;

2.   Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
     statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to
     make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
     statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by
     this quarterly report;

3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
     information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all
     material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash
     flows of the registrant as of, and for, the period presented in this
     quarterly report;

4.   I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
     procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the
     registrant and have:

     a.   designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
          material information relating to the registrant, including its
          consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
          entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly
          report is being prepared;
     b.   evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
          and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of
          this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and
     c.   presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
          effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
          evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5.   I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the registrant's
     auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or
     persons performing the equivalent functions):

     a.   all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
          controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to
          record, process, summarize and report financial data and have
          identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in
          internal controls; and
     b.   any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
          employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
          controls; and

6.   I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were
     significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could
     significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most
     recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to
     significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
8th day of September, 2006.


/s/ Marvin Wosk
---------------------------
Chief Executive Officer
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-30602

Summary Calendar

 

PAUL O. IWENJIORA,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION

SERVICE,

Respondent-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 96-CV-2899

- - - - - - - - - -

December 2, 1997

Before DUHE’, DeMOSS and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Federal immigration detainee Paul O. Iwenjiora, no. 09915-

265, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C.

§ 2241 petition and request for a stay or suspension of

deportation for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to exhaust

administrative remedies.

Iwenjiora does not argue whether the district court erred by

dismissing his federal habeas petition due to lack of
No. 97-30602

-2-

jurisdiction and for failure to exhaust administrative remedies,

which is the only proper issue for appeal. See Searcy v. Houston

Lighting & Power Co., 907 F.2d 562, 564 (5th Cir. 1990). Rather,

Iwenjiora argues on appeal the merits of the issues he raised in

his originally filed petition. Because Iwenjiora does not

address the proper issue for review, he has abandoned it. See

Brinkmann v. Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).

Because Iwenjiora fails to address the proper issue for

appeal, his appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See 5th Cir.

R. 42.2.

We caution Iwenjiora that any additional frivolous appeals

filed by him or on his behalf will invite the imposition of

sanctions. To avoid sanctions, Iwenjiora is further cautioned to

review any pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise

arguments that are frivolous. 

APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
905 A.2d 870

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. DELANEY S. CALDWELL JR. DEFENDANT-PETITIONER, AND DARNELL CALDWELL, DEFENDANT.

August 4, 2006.

ORDERED that the petition for certification is granted on the issue of defendant’s sentence, and the matter is summarily remanded to the trial court for resentencing in light of the Court’s decision in *State v. Pierce,*188 *N.J.*155, 902 A.2d 1195 (2006).
ERNST & YOUNG LLP
                                 60 STATE STREET
                                 BOSTON, MA  02109








December 28, 1998



Mr. John A. Hanna, Jr.
Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
Metrisa, Inc.
25 Wiggins Avenue
Bedford, MA  01730

Dear Jack:

Enclosed is a manually signed copy of our opinion on the 1997 financial
statements of Tytronics Incorporated.  Please retain this letter in your
files as evidence of our authorization to include the attached opinion and
our typed signature in your 1998 Annual Report on Form 10-K filed by
Metrisa, Inc. with the Securities and Exchange Commission under Regulation
S-T.

If you have any questions regarding the form or use of this opinion, please
call me at (617) 859-6458.

                                        Sincerely,



                                        John K. Haley
                                        Partner
EXHIBIT 32.1

Section 1350 Certifications

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of Dollarama Group L.P. (the Company) for the fiscal quarter ending
May 6, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the report), we, Larry Rossy and Robert Coallier, certify that to our knowledge:

1. the report complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange 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 Company.

Date: December 14, 2007



/s/ Larry RossyLarry RossyChief Executive Officer/s/ Robert CoallierRobert CoallierChief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         294,172
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  351,813
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            25,870,865
<PP&E>                                         852,177
<DEPRECIATION>                                 105,618
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              28,052,259
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       25,960,529
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       191,996
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,899,734
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,091,730
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,929,177
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                9,281,013
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              36,696
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (4,351,836)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (4,351,836)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (4,351,836)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.35)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.35)


</TABLE>
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 14

- 00410

- CV

Glenn Alexander Clamon

v.

Jeffrey DeL ong and Dennis Holmes §

§

§

§ From County Court at Law No. 3

o f Tarrant County (2014

- 003040

- 3 )

October 8, 2015

Opinion by Justice Walker



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of

the trial court i s affirmed.

It is further ordered that appellant Glenn Alexander Clamon shall pay all of

the costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By

_ /s/ Sue Walker

____________________ Justice Sue Walker
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### JUN 23 1998 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. WILLIAM L. GARRETT,

Defendant-Appellant. No. 97-6407 (D.C. No. CR-97-13-A) (W.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before KELLY , BARRETT , and HENRY , Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a dec ision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The c ase is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.1 The amount of restitution ordered is not disputed o n appeal, and does not

include any portion of the $120,000 that is dispute d on appeal. - 2 - Defendant William L. Garrett appeals from the sente nce imposed under U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1 after he entered a plea of nolo co ntendere to ten counts of mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 2. We dismiss the appeal as moot. Defendant argues on appeal that a $120,000 loan sho uld not have been included as relevant conduct under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3 (a)(2) or in the total amount of loss under § 2F1.1(b). Because the district court included the $120,000 in the amount of loss, defendant’s offense level was calcu lated to be thirteen, which called for a guideline range of 12-18 months’ impri sonment. Without the loan amount, his offense level would have been ten, whic h would have resulted in a guideline range of 6-12 months’ imprisonment. The district court sentenced defendant to twelve months’ imprisonment to be foll owed by three years’ supervised release, and restitution in the amount of $24,500. 1 See R. Vol. 4, at 80-81. It stated: The reason I imposed confinement for a period of tw elve months is [because] that is the overlapping quantum as betwee n levels 13 and level ten. And Mr. Garrett has every right to purs ue, of course, if he . . . decide[s] to appeal, the question of the amount of loss. And the only significant aspect of that now is the $120,000 component of that. And should he prevail on that issue, which c ertainly can happen, then he would be at a Guideline level in wh ich twelve months was the maximum permitted.- 3 -

Id. at 82-83. We believe this is a clear indication that defendant’s sentence would be the same even if the loan amount were subtractedfrom relevant conduct, and the appeal is therefore moot. Cf. United States v. Mondaine , 956 F.2d 939, 943 (10th Cir. 1992) (holding that appeal was not moot where district court did not clearly state that sentence would be the same undereither of two arguably applicable guideline ranges); United States v. Urbanek , 930 F.2d 1512, 1515-16 (10th Cir. 1991) (same). DISMISSED as MOOT.

Entered for the Court

Paul J. Kelly, Jr. Circuit Judge