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

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 12 

Notifying the President of the United States of the election of a Sergeant 

at Arms and Doorkeeper 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 President of the United States of the election 

of a Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate. 

1 Resolved, That the President of the United States be 

2 notified of the election of the Honorable Frank J. Larkin 

3 as Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate. 

Æ 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### HARPER FEED MILES, Inc. v. AMERICAN GUARANTEE & LIABILITY INS. CO.

Civ. No. 6174.

United States District Court W. D. New York.

May 26, 1954.

McMahon & Crotty, Buffalo, N. Y., Thomas P. McMahon, Buffalo, N. Y., of counsel, for plaintiff.

Brown, Kelly, Turner & Symons, Buffalo, N. Y., Mark N. Turner, Buffalo, N. Y., of counsel, for defendant.

KNIGHT, Chief Judge.

Defendant has moved under Rule 12 '(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., for an order requiring plaintiff to make its complaint more definite and certain.

The notice bringing on the motion states that the complaint is so vague and ambiguous that defendant cannot reasonably be required to frame its answer for the reasons that the terms of the bond, copy of which is attached to and made a part of the complaint, have not been performed by plaintiff; that plaintiff without designating the persons, whose names were struck from paragraph 12 of the complaint prior to its filing, has alleged in paragraph 17 demand for $120,000 loss; that the limits of coverage under the bond as to any one designated • employee of plaintiff is $100,000, and, if loss is caused by unidentified employees, the limit of liability in the aggregate shall not exceed $100,000; that in the complaint damages are alleged in the amount of $120,000.

The complaint does not designate its employees who, by fraud or dishonesty, have caused plaintiff’s loss. It would appear that more than one employee was involved in view of the amount of damages sought being in excess of the coverage of $100,000 specified in the bond for one employee.

The test here is not that the information may be obtained by defendant through other sources such as a bill of particulars, discovery or deposition indicated by plaintiff. Rather the inconsistencies in the complaint with respect to the ultimate facts should be clarified. Hartman Electrical Mfg. Co. v. Prime Mfg. Co., D.C., 9 F.R.D. 510; Cox v. Doherty, D.C., 1 F.R.D. 564. While plaintiff may feel that defendant’s position is unduly technical, yet the amendment of the complaint will further the *24purpose and effectiveness of the Rules if the issues are created by the pleadings. Maryland Casualty Co. v. Kelly, D.C., 3 F.R.D. 28. Defendant has shown the necessity for particularization in order to invoke the exercise of the Court’s discretion. Montgomery v. Kingsland, 83 U.S.App.D.C. 66, 166 F.2d 953. If the complaint is amended, defendant will be able to determine the content of its answer or otherwise proceed in this litigation. Automatic Washer Co. v. Easy Washing Machine Corp., D.C., 9 F.R.D. 335.

The motion is sustained insofar as it relates to the restoration in the complaint of the deleted names of the employees alleged to be dishonest or, in the alternative, that plaintiff state its inability to designate the names of its employees claimed to have caused plaintiff’s loss through dishonest or fraudulent acts. Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint. In all other respects defendant’s motion is denied.

Present order in accordance herewith.
IIA 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. J. RES. 33 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United 

States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Labor relating 

to the definition of the term ‘‘fiduciary’’ and the conflict of interest 

rule with respect to retirement investment advice. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 18, 2016 

Mr. ISAKSON (for himself, Mr. ALEXANDER, Mr. ENZI, Ms. AYOTTE, Mr. 

BARRASSO, Mr. BLUNT, Mr. BOOZMAN, Mrs. CAPITO, Mr. CASSIDY, Mr. 

COATS, Mr. COCHRAN, Mr. CRAPO, Mr. DAINES, Mrs. ERNST, Mrs. 

FISCHER, Mr. HATCH, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. JOHNSON, Mr. KIRK, Mr. 

LANKFORD, Mr. LEE, Mr. MCCONNELL, Mr. MORAN, Ms. MURKOWSKI, 

Mr. PAUL, Mr. PERDUE, Mr. ROBERTS, Mr. RUBIO, Mr. THUNE, Mr. 

TILLIS, Mr. VITTER, Mr. WICKER, Mr. SCOTT, and Mr. SASSE) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of 

title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by 

the Department of Labor relating to the definition of 

the term ‘‘fiduciary’’ and the conflict of interest rule 

with respect to retirement investment advice. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the De4 partment of Labor relating to the definition of the term 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SJ 33 IS 

1 ‘‘fiduciary’’ and the conflict of interest rule with respect 

2 to retirement investment advice (published at 81 Fed. 

3 Reg. 20946 (April 8, 2016)), and such rule shall have no 

4 force or effect. 

Æ 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### Kenneth Brian JOYNER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J.C. COMBS, Major; Major Fleming; A. David Robinson, Warden; Adam Harvey, Assistant Warden; M. Hensley, ICA-TPS; W.R. Hensley, IHO; Larry Huffman, Regional Director; C. Stanley, Sergeant; Captain Janeway; Sergeant Greer; Sergeant Peters, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 07-7481.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 17, 2008.

Decided: Jan. 28, 2008.

Kenneth Brian Joyner, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Ralph Darn, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Kenneth Brian Joyner appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Joyner v. Combs,*No. 7:06-cv-00377-jct, 2007 WL 2693194 (W.D.Va. Sept. 13, 2007). 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.

*AFFIRMED.*
III 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 53 

Directing the Clerk of the House of Representatives to make a correction 

in the enrollment of H.R. 5325. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 28, 2016 

Mr. COCHRAN submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 

considered and agreed to 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Directing the Clerk of the House of Representatives to make 

a correction in the enrollment of H.R. 5325. 

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring), That, in the enrollment of the bill H.R. 5325, 

3 the Clerk of the House of Representatives shall make the 

4 following correction to the title so as to read: ‘‘Making 

5 continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2017, and for 

6 other purposes.’’. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-6849

ALEXANDER CAMERON, 

 Petitioner - Appellant, 

 v. 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, 

 Respondent - Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior 

District Judge. (1:08-cv-01346-JCC-IDD) 

Submitted: September 22, 2009 Decided: October 6, 2009 

Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Alexander Cameron, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

Alexander Cameron seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order treating his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as a successive 

28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition, and dismissing it on that 

basis. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1) (2006); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th 

Cir. 2004). 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) (2006). 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 (2003); Slack v. 

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 

683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the 

record and conclude that Cameron has not made the requisite 

showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability 

and dismiss the appeal. 

Additionally, we construe Cameron’s notice of appeal 

and informal brief as an application to file a second or 

successive petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. United States v. 

Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to 

2 
3 

obtain authorization to file a successive § 2254 petition, a 

prisoner must assert claims based on either: (1) a new rule of 

constitutional law, previously unavailable, made retroactive by 

the Supreme Court to cases on collateral review; or (2) newly 

discovered evidence, not previously discoverable by due 

diligence, that would be sufficient to establish by clear and 

convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no 

reasonable factfinder would have found the petitioner guilty of 

the offense. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2) (2006). Cameron’s claims 

do not satisfy either of these criteria. Therefore, we deny 

authorization to file a successive § 2254 petition. 

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
Involuntary part-time employment by reason, April 2006 and November 2008 (millions)

	 		          	     Millions	
	 			    April 2006	    November 2008
Total					3.932		7.321
Slack work or business conditions	2.455		5.426
Could only find a part-time job		1.163		1.572
		
Total includes categories not shown on chart.
Exhibit 32.1

   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) OF THE EXCHANGE ACT AND 18 U.S.C.
 SECTION 1350, AS ENACTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
                                      2002

         In connection with the filing of Zunicom, Inc. and Subsidiaries (the
"Company")  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q for the three and nine month  periods
ending  September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission
on the date hereof (the "Report"),I,  William Tan, President and Chief Executive
Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) of the Exchange Act
and  18  U.S.C.   (SS)  1350,  as  enacted   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 Act of 1934;
                   and

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


/s/ William Tan
--------------------
William Tan
President and Chief Executive Officer
(principal executive officer)

November 14, 2005



























                                Exhibit 32.1 - 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Balance Sheet at March 31, 1999 (Unaudited) and the Statement of Operations
for the Three Months Ended March 31, 1999 (Unaudited) and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          25,481
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,947
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                41,428
<PP&E>                                       2,029,769
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,556,862
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 514,335
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     514,335
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   514,335
<SALES>                                          9,562
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                10,045
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                26,932
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (16,887)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (16,887)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (16,887)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (3.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (3.08)
        

</TABLE>
| (logo) WELLS            FARGO | Commercial Mortgage Servicing

D1086-120, 12th Floor

550 South Tryon Street

Charlotte, NC 28202

1-800-326-1334 |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

**A****NNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE**

 

Reference is hereby made to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of June 1, 2013, by and among WELLS FARGO COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES, INC., as Depositor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Master Servicer, RIALTO CAPITAL ADVISORS, LLC, as Special Servicer, PENTALPHA SURVEILLANCE LLC, as Trust Advisor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Certificate Administrator, as Tax Administrator and as Custodian, and U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee, with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates WFRBS Series 2013-C14 (the "Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 11.12 of this Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that:

 

1.         A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period from January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2014 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance per the Agreement during such period has been made under my supervision, and

 

2.         To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under this Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 6th day of March 2015.

 

 

 

\s\ Daniel Bober

Daniel Bober

Executive Vice President

Wells Fargo Bank

 

 

 

 

 
| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together we’ll go far |
|------------------------|------------------------------------|
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 22

- 00415

- CV

Richard A. GARCIA

, Appellant

v.

Elizabeth J. RANFT

- GARCIA

, Appellee

From the 37th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017CI12755

Honorable John D. Gabriel Jr. , Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE WATKINS

, JUSTICE RODRIGUEZ , AND JUSTICE VALENZUELA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s “Enforcement Order” is AFFIRMED in part as to the granting of appellee Elizabeth J. Ra nft

- Garcia’s motion to enforce the divorce decree, award of attorney’s fees, and the denial of appellant Richard A. Garcia’s motion to enforce. The portion of the trial court’s order granting appellee’s breach of contract claims is REVERSED and judgment is RENDERED

, reducing the judgment awarded to appellee to a total of $4,881.14. Costs of the appeal are taxed against the appellant

.

SIGNED March 20, 2024.

_____________________________ Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice
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 Annual Report of Black Cactus Global, Inc.,
(the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended April 30, 2020 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jeremy Towning, Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:  (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13
(a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  Date: July 29, 2020/s/ Jeremy Towning
Jeremy Towning
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

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 on
Form 10-K of Goldman Sachs BDC, Inc. (the Company) for the annual period ended December 31, 2016 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), Brendan McGovern, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Jonathan Lamm, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each 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 the best of his knowledge:

1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) 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 Company.

Date: February 28, 2017



|                                                                      
|----------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Brendan McGovern                                                  
|Brendan McGovern Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)

Date: February 28, 2017



|                                                                   
|-------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Jonathan Lamm                                                  
|Jonathan Lamm Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
III 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 102 

Requiring authorizing committees to hold annual hearings on Government 

Accountability Office investigative reports on the identification, consolidation, and elimination of duplicative Government programs. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 17, 2015 

Mr. GARDNER (for himself and Mr. PETERS) submitted the following 

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration 

RESOLUTION 

Requiring authorizing committees to hold annual hearings 

on Government Accountability Office investigative reports 

on the identification, consolidation, and elimination of 

duplicative Government programs. 

1 Resolved, 

2 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

3 This resolution may be cited as the ‘‘Congressional 

4 Oversight to Start Taxpayer Savings Resolution’’ or the 

5 ‘‘COST Savings Resolution’’. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•SRES 102 IS 

1 SEC. 2. REQUIRING COMMITTEE HEARINGS ON GOVERN2 MENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE REPORTS. 

3 (a) DUPLICATION REPORTS.—Not later than 90 days 

4 after the date on which the Comptroller General of the 

5 United States transmits each annual report to Congress 

6 identifying programs, agencies, offices, and initiatives with 

7 duplicative goals and activities within the Government 

8 under section 21 of the joint resolution entitled ‘‘Joint 

9 Resolution increasing the statutory limit on the public 

10 debt’’ (Public Law 111–139; 31 U.S.C. 712 note), each 

11 standing committee of the Senate (except the Committee 

12 on Appropriations) with jurisdiction over any such pro13 gram, agency, office, or initiative covered by that report 

14 shall conduct hearings on the recommendations for con15 solidation and elimination of such program, agency, office, 

16 or initiative. 

17 (b) HIGH RISK LIST.—Not later than 90 days after 

18 the date on which the Comptroller General of the United 

19 States publishes a High Risk List, or any successor there20 to, each standing committee of the Senate (except the 

21 Committee on Appropriations) with jurisdiction over any 

22 agency or program area on the High Risk List shall con23 duct hearings on the vulnerabilities to fraud, waste, abuse, 

24 and mismanagement, or need for transformation, of the 

25 agency or program area. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

3 

•SRES 102 IS 

1 (c) JOINT HEARINGS.—For any program, agency, of2 fice, initiative, or program area over which more than 1 

3 standing committee of the Senate (except the Committee 

4 on Appropriations) has jurisdiction, to the extent deter5 mined beneficial and appropriate by the Chairmen of the 

6 committees, the committees may hold joint hearings under 

7 subsection (a) or (b). 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
**Exhibit 32.2**SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONIn connection with the Quarterly Report of Croghan Bancshares, Inc. (the “Corporation”) on Form10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Allan E. Mehlow, Treasurer of the Corporation,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchangeAct of 1934; and (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial conditionand results of operations of the Corporation.   Date: July 26, 2005 /s/ Allan E. Mehlow     Allan E. Mehlow, Treasurer  * This certification is being furnished as required by Rule 13a-14(b) under the Securities ExchangeAct of1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, andshallnot be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act or otherwise subject to theliability ofthat section. This certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into anyfiling under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act, except as otherwise stated in suchfiling.
22