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

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 5 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating 

to contributions and expenditures intended to affect elections. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 21, 2015 

Mr. UDALL (for himself, Mr. BENNET, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. SANDERS, Mr. 

TESTER, Ms. BALDWIN, Mr. BLUMENTHAL, Mrs. BOXER, Mr. BROWN, 

Mr. CARDIN, Mr. CARPER, Mr. CASEY, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. FRANKEN, 

Mrs. GILLIBRAND, Mr. HEINRICH, Ms. HEITKAMP, Ms. HIRONO, Mr. 

KING, Ms. KLOBUCHAR, Mr. MARKEY, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr. MERKLEY, 

Ms. MIKULSKI, Mr. MURPHY, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. PETERS, Mr. REED, 

Mr. REID, Mr. SCHUMER, Mrs. SHAHEEN, Ms. STABENOW, Ms. WARREN, 

Mr. WHITEHOUSE, and Mr. WYDEN) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United 

States relating to contributions and expenditures intended to affect elections. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives 

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two3 thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all 

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SJ 5 IS 

1 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several 

2 States: 

3 ‘‘ARTICLE— 

4 ‘‘SECTION 1. To advance democratic self-government 

5 and political equality, and to protect the integrity of gov6 ernment and the electoral process, Congress and the 

7 States may regulate and set reasonable limits on the rais8 ing and spending of money by candidates and others to 

9 influence elections. 

10 ‘‘SECTION 2. Congress and the States shall have 

11 power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate 

12 legislation, and may distinguish between natural persons 

13 and corporations or other artificial entities created by law, 

14 including by prohibiting such entities from spending 

15 money to influence elections. 

16 ‘‘SECTION 3. Nothing in this article shall be con17 strued to grant Congress or the States the power to 

18 abridge the freedom of the press.’’. 

Æ 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Universal Hospital Services, Inc.(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008, asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Rex T.Clevenger, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002, that:

 

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

 

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

 

Date:May 12, 2008

 
| /s/  Rex T. Clevenger         |   |
|-------------------------------|--------|
| Rex  T. Clevenger             |   |
| Executive  Vice President and |   |
| Chief  Financial Officer      |   |

 

----
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 7239

BRIAN JEROME SCOTT , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director Virginia Dept. of Corrections , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond

. M. Hannah Lauck , District Judge. ( 3:18

- cv - 00851

- MHL )

Submitted : March 10, 2020 Decided: March 17, 2020

Before WILKINSON, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Brian Jerome Scott, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Brian Jerome Scott seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissin g his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (201 8 ) petition as successive and unauthorized and he has filed a motion for a certificate of appealab i lity . The district court’s order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U .S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (20 18 ). 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) (201 8 ). 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

w rong. 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 procedura l 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 Scott has failed to make the requisite showing

. Accordingly, we deny Scott’s motion for 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 in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLAR

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-01-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                      36,134,198
<SECURITIES>                                26,564,911
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,980,453
<ALLOWANCES>                                   422,000
<INVENTORY>                                  2,974,792
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            75,302,558
<PP&E>                                       9,391,123
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,056,645
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              84,536,750
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       11,072,385
<BONDS>                                      3,399,674
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       170,290
<OTHER-SE>                                  68,645,225
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                84,536,750
<SALES>                                     20,725,544
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            20,725,544
<CGS>                                        6,465,435
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               22,189,326
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                15,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         (1,882,588)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                418,806
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            418,806
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   418,806
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.03


</TABLE>
III 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 10 

Notifying the House of Representatives of the election of the Secretary of 

the Senate. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 6, 2015 

Mr. MCCONNELL submitted the following resolution; which was considered 

and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Notifying the House of Representatives of the election of 

the Secretary of the Senate. 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives be noti2 fied of the election of the Honorable Julie E. Adams as 

3 Secretary of the Senate. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
----

----

| 1.   | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods indicated. |

|                                     |   |   |                                    |
|------------------------------------------|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------|
|                                     |   |   |                                    |
| /s/ Robert A. Whitman               |   |   | /s/ Stephen D. Young               |
| Robert A. WhitmanChief Executive Officer |   |   | Stephen D. YoungChief Financial Officer |
| Date: January 5, 2012                    |   |   | Date: January 5, 2012                   |
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JAMES M. YEAGER,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 78 WAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 25th day of September, 2023, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
Exhibit 35.3

OFFICERS CERTIFICATE

I, Karen Montbach, a
Managing Director of Citibank, N.A. (the Company), hereby certify, with respect to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated as of April 1, 2013 (the Agreement), by and among Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Securities
Inc., as depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as master servicer, LNR Partners, LLC, as special servicer, Pentalpha Surveillance LLC, as operating advisor, Citibank, N.A., as certificate administrator (the Certificate
Administrator), and U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee, the following:



| | 1. | A review of the Companys activities as Certificate Administrator during the reporting period ending December 31, 2014 and its performance under the Agreement has been made under my supervision.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, as of and for the reporting period ending December 31, 2014, the Company has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects
throughout the reporting period.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This statement is given by the undersigned as an authorized officer of the Company and not in the
undersigneds individual capacity.

Date: February 27, 2015



Citibank, N.A.By:

/s/ Karen MontbachName:

Karen MontbachTitle:

Managing Director
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, the undersigned officer of Geron Corporation (the Company) hereby
certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:

| | (i)  |  | the accompanying
      quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended June
      30, 2009 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section
      13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, 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 the
  Company.                                                                                                                     

Dated: July31, 2009

|/s/ DAVID L. GREENWOOD                                    
|----------------------------------------------------------
|David L.
      Greenwood                                  
|Executive Vice
      President and Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Geron Corporation and
will be retained by Geron Corporation and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

February 4, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

WILLIS YAZZIE,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 15-2199

(D.C. Nos. 1:14-CV-00894-JB-CG &

1:10-CR-01761-JB-1)

(D.N.M.)

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY*

Before GORSUCH, O’BRIEN, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.

After Willis Yazzie pleaded guilty to aggravated sexual abuse and waived

his right to appeal he filed a collateral challenge under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, alleging

ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court denied relief. Mr. Yazzie

now asks us to grant him a certificate of appealability (COA) to contest the

district court’s judgment. But we do not see how we can. We may issue a COA

only if the petitioner makes “a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). And that much we do not see, even

construing Mr. Yazzie’s pro se filings as liberally as we might.

*

 This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of

the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its

persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
Mr. Yazzie contends that his counsel acted deficiently by failing to file a

motion to suppress certain incriminating statements he made. But as the district

court explained, Mr. Yazzie has not alleged any facts suggesting that counsel’s

decision was anything other than a reasoned decision based on law and strategy. 

Indeed, the record shows that Mr. Yazzie had a chance to consult with a second

attorney about the potential for a suppression motion and that attorney too

concluded there was no legal basis for it. In this light, we see no way in which

we might disagree with the district court’s assessment that Mr. Yazzie has failed

to establish either deficient performance or prejudice, prerequisites both to prove

a Sixth Amendment violation.

Separately, Mr. Yazzie contends that his counsel should not have allowed him

to enter a plea agreement in which he waived his right to appeal. But he supplies no

factual allegations to support this claim other than repeating his allegation that

counsel failed him by declining to file a motion to suppress. In this way and as the

district court observed, this second claim folds back into the first and fails for the

reasons already identified.

The application for COA is denied and this appeal is dismissed. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Neil M. Gorsuch

Circuit Judge

- 2 -
No. 894.

#### Morgan *v.*Parker, Warden.

May 6, 1946.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Missouri denied.

Mr. Justice Murphy is of the opinion that the petition for certiorari should be granted.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

NAVDEEP SINGH,

 Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 13-70349

Agency No. A099-482-951

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted September 21, 2015** 

Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

Navdeep Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen

removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for

FILED

SEP 25 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. Bhasin v. Gonzales,

423 F.3d 977, 983 (9th Cir. 2005). We grant the petition for review and remand.

The BIA abused its discretion in finding that Singh’s father’s affidavit

conflicted with the country report and in otherwise discrediting the affidavit, and

thus in concluding Singh failed to establish that the government is unable or

unwilling to protect him and failed to establish that he could not safely relocate

within India. See id. at 987 (“facts presented in affidavits supporting a motion to

reopen must be accepted as true unless inherently unbelievable”). The BIA also

abused its discretion in finding Singh did not make a prima facie showing of a

nexus to a protected ground. See Maini v. INS, 212 F.3d 1167, 1175-76 (9th Cir.

2000) (“persecution aimed at stamping out an interfaith marriage is without

question persecution on account of religion”). Further, in finding Singh did not

establish a material change in India, the BIA did not have the benefit of this court’s

decision in Chandra v. Holder, 751 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2014). Thus, we grant the

petition for review and remand for further proceedings consistent with this

disposition, including a determination of the impact, if any, of Chandra. See INS

v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002).

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

2 13-70349
ARROW
      INTERNATIONAL, INC.




**Exhibit
      32.1**





**Section
      1350 Certification of the Chief Executive Officer**


In
        connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
        ended
        February 28, 2007 of Arrow International, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation
        (the
“Company”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
        hereof (the “Report”), I, Carl G. Anderson, Jr., the Chairman and Chief
        Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as
        adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my
        knowledge and based upon a review of the Report, 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 as of the
        dates
        and for periods presented as required by such Report.
 
 This
        certification is based upon, among other things, my responsibilities as Chief
        Executive Officer of the Company, my own due diligence and representations
        made
        by certain other members of the Company’s senior management.
 
 Date:
        April 9, 2007


/s/ Carl G. Anderson,
              Jr.
              Carl
                G. Anderson, Jr.
              Chairman
                and Chief Executive Officer
              (Principal
                Executive Officer)
FIFTH DIVISION

DILLARD, C. J.,

REESE, J., and BETHEL, J.

NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be

physically received in our clerk’s office within ten

days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed.

http://www.gaappeals.us/rules

June 7, 2018

In the Court of Appeals of Georgia

A16A0640. SUMMEROUR v. CITY OF MARIETTA.

DILLARD, Chief Judge.

In City of Marietta v. Summerour,

1

the Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed in

part and reversed in part our previous decision in Summerour v. City of Marietta.

2

Specifically, the Supreme Court affirmed our holding reversing the Superior Court

of Cobb County’s condemnation order on the ground that the City failed to fulfill its

obligations under OCGA § 22-1-9. But the Supreme Court reversed our holding

remanding the case for the superior court to consider whether the City’s failure to

comply with the aforementioned obligations constituted bad faith. Instead, the

Supreme Court held that compliance with OCGA § 22-1-9 is an essential prerequisite

1

 302 Ga. 645 (807 SE2d 324) (2017).

2

 338 Ga. App. 259 (788 SE2d 921) (2016).
to the filing of a condemnation petition, and thus, the City’s failure to comply with

the statute required dismissal of its petition regardless of whether or not it acted in

bad faith. Accordingly, we adopt the judgment of the Supreme Court of Georgia as

our own and direct the superior court to dismiss the City’s condemnation petition.

Judgment reversed. Reese and Bethel, JJ., concur.

2