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

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 162 

Supporting the goals and ideals of Alcohol Responsibility Month. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 30, 2015 

Ms. HEITKAMP (for herself and Mr. HELLER) submitted the following 

resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Supporting the goals and ideals of Alcohol Responsibility 

Month. 

Whereas, in 2013, an estimated 10,076 people were killed in 

the United States in drunk driving crashes involving a 

driver with a blood alcohol content of .08 or greater, impacting countless family members, friends, and communities; 

Whereas, in 2013, 1 person died in a drunk driving crash 

every 52 minutes, on average; 

Whereas, in 2013, approximately 8,700,000 people of the 

United States between the ages of 12 and 20, or nearly 

23 percent of the age group for whom alcohol consumption is illegal, reported consuming alcohol during the preceding 30 days; 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 162 ATS 

Whereas research shows that a lifetime of conversations between parents and their children about alcohol, beginning 

at an early age, can help prevent underage drinking and 

alcohol abuse; 

Whereas the potential danger for young people to be involved 

in alcohol-related crashes escalates during prom and 

graduation season; 

Whereas many State attorneys general are launching underage drinking prevention messages and programs in their 

States and communities; and 

Whereas April has been dedicated to alcohol awareness for 

the last 28 years, and more than awareness is needed to 

further reduce drunk driving and underage drinking: 

Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) declares April to be Alcohol Responsibility 

3 Month and supports the goal of encouraging respon4 sible decision-making regarding beverage alcohol; 

5 (2) encourages parents to be responsible role 

6 models and to have ongoing conversations with their 

7 children throughout their childhood, adolescence, 

8 and early adulthood about the dangers of alcohol 

9 abuse; 

10 (3) condemns the pervasiveness of alcohol-im11 paired driving and resulting tragedies; and 

12 (4) promotes the responsible consumption of al13 cohol by adults in the United States. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs F eb ru ar y 5, 200 8 STATE OF TENNESS EE v . SUNNI ADKI NS Appeal f rom the Cr im inal Cou rt for Lewis Coun ty Nos. 6708 & 6730 Jeffrey S. Bivi ns, Ju dge

No. M2007- 01355-CCA -R3-C D - F iled Jul y 3, 2008

J OS EP H M. T I PTON , P

. J

. , co n cu rr i n g. Iconcur in the resu l t s re ac hed in the majority opinion. However , Iwould aff irm the trial court be cause of the de fenda nt’s failure to include the g uilty plea he aring transcr ipt in the recor d and the attenda

nt presumption that the trial court’ s determinations we re c orre ct. See State v. Oody , 823 S.W .2d 554 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991) (holding trial court’ s ruling presumed corr ect in the absenc e of an a dequate rec ord on appe al). The 1989 S entenc ing A ct, as amended, r equire s a sentenc ing c ourt to consider e vidence rec eived at the trial. T.C.A. § 40-35-210( b)(1)

. Wit h a g uilty plea involving a felony , the evidenc e supporting the plea a

nd finding of g uilt is usually su b m itted by

stipulation. This court ha s considere d the g uilty plea hear ing transcr ipt to be vital to a de novo revie w and p o t en t ial rese ntencing by

this court as require d by law. See T.C.A. § 40-35-401. No matter how de veloped a re cord may

appea r, we will never knowthe full extent unless the guilty plea tra nscript is included. Ido not believe this court is re quired to ana ly ze an incom p l et e record to deter mine the merit of a se nte nc ingc omp la int

. As a matter

of leg al an al y s i s, though, I must ex press my

disag ree ment with this court’s a f f i r m i n g a p p l i c a t i o n o f

e n h a n c e m e n tf

a c t o r ( 4 ) , t h a tt h e c h i l dr e n w e r e p a rt i c u l a r l y v u l n e r a b l e . In State v. Adams, 864 S.W.2d 31, 35 (Tenn. 1993), in over turning the fa ctor’s a p p l i ca tion to rape victims, ag es 4, 5, and 12, our supreme c ourt stressed that the fac tor “rel at es m o re to the natural phy sical and me ntal limit ations of t he victim than m ere ly to the vi ctim’s ag e.” T he cour t cast being particula rly vulnera ble in terms of “ incapa

ble of re sisting, summoning he lp, or t estifying ag ainst the perpe trator.” I d. Photogra phs of the victims in t h e re co rd in the prese nt case indicate nothing reg ardingparticula

r vulnera bility

. The trial court made and the majority opinion make s assumptions about what the vic tims would not or could not do unless t h ey we re o l d er and strong er, but the evidenc e is not in the rec ord to find they wer e par ticularly vulnera ble.

____________________________________ J OSEPH M. TI PTON, PRES I DI NG JUDGE
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

June 8, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 133999 & (12) Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, BARBARA DROOMERS, as Personal Justices 

Representative of the Estate of WARREN

DROOMERS, Deceased,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 133999 

 COA: 278162 

Oakland CC: 2000-024779-CK 

JOHN R. PARNELL, JOHN R. PARNELL &

ASSOCIATES, and MUSILLI, BAUMGARDNER, 

WAGNER & PARNELL, P.C., 

Defendants, 

and 

RALPH MUSILLI and WALTER 

BAUMGARDNER,

Defendants-Appellants. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED. 

The application for leave to appeal the May 24, 2007 order of the Court of Appeals is 

considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented 

should be reviewed by this Court. 

d0605 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

June 8, 2007 

 Clerk
**
**Exhibit 32.1**

**Certification of Chief Executive Officer**

**Pursuant to**

**Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)**

In connection with the annual report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended** September******** 30,2020** (the “Report”) of****** Oaktree Strategic Income Corporation** (the “Registrant”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I,****** Armen Panossian**, theChief Executive Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that: 

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

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

 

/s/ Armen Panossian
Name: Armen PanossianDate: December 18, 2020**
Exhibit 31.2 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14 OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Gregory M. Pinkus, certify that: 1.

          I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Terra Income Fund 6, Inc.; 2.

          Based on my knowledge, this 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 report; 3.

          Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4.

          The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: (a)

          Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; (b)

          Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and (c)

          Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and 5.

          The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): (a)

          All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and (b)

          Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting. Date: December 24, 2015 /s/ Gregory M. PinkusGregory M. Pinkus Chief Financial Officer, Chief Operating Officer, Treasurer and Secretary (Principal Financial and Principal Accounting Officer) Terra Income Fund 6, Inc.
#### THE BENEFICIAL SOCIETY OF THE CITY OF BURLINGTON v. TYLEE W. WHITE.

A slate of demand against a beneficial society claiming a balance alleged to be due during the plaintiff’s sickness, at the rate of three dollars per week, “ the sum paid by said society to the sick of said society,” *held*not to contain a legal cause of action.

This was a *certiorari to*the Common Pleas of the county of Burlington, in a ease of appeal from the judgment of a justice; argued by *F. Kingman,*for plaintiff, and *A. Browning,*for defendants, before Haines and Elmer, Justices.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Elmer, J.

Ko principle is better settled, than that a state of demand which does not state facts enough to establish the liability of the party sued, without the necessity of supplying other facts by proof, is radically defective, and will not support a judgment. Unfortunately for the plaintiff in the court below, who we must presume has a meritorious claim against; the defendants, ho has failed to show it to be legal. His demand is for the balance alleged to be due him from a beneficial society during his sickness, thirty-five weeks and one day, at the rate of three dollars per week, *“*the sum paid by said society to the sick of said societybut he does not state how the obligation to pay this money arises, what the rules and regulations in regard to beneficiaries are, or that he has complied with such *rules;*all of which was necessary to render them liable to an action.

The judgment must be reversed.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 Appellant,

v.

ERLINDA LUJAN,

 Appellee. 

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-17-00036-CR

Appeal from

243rd District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC # 20160D04874)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was error in the part 

of the judgment suppressing the third statement (Exhibit 3 and 3a). We therefore reverse that part 

of the judgment of the court below and remand the cause for further proceedings, in accordance 

with the opinion of this Court.

The order suppressing the second recording (Exhibit 2 and 2a) is affirmed. This decision 

shall be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 28TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2018.

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.
114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 7 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring), 

3 SECTION 1. USE OF EMANCIPATION HALL FOR CEREMONY 

4 TO PRESENT CONGRESSIONAL GOLD MEDAL 

5 TO WORLD WAR II MEMBERS OF DOOLITTLE 

6 TOKYO RAIDERS. 

7 (a) AUTHORIZATION.—Emancipation Hall in the 

8 Capitol Visitor Center is authorized to be used on April 

9 15, 2015, for a ceremony to present the Congressional 

10 Gold Medal to the World War II members of the Doolittle 

11 Tokyo Raiders, collectively, in recognition of the military 

12 service and exemplary record of the Doolittle Tokyo Raid13 ers during World War II. 

14 (b) PREPARATIONS.—Physical preparations for the 

15 conduct of the ceremony described in subsection (a) shall 
2 

†SCON 7 ES 

1 be carried out in accordance with such conditions as may 

2 be prescribed by the Architect of the Capitol. 

Passed the Senate March 12, 2015. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 7 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Authorizing the use of Emancipation Hall in the 

II members of the Doolittle Tokyo Raiders. the Congressional Gold Medal to the World War Capitol Visitor Center for a ceremony to award
2013 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

5-1-2013

Lindsworth Brown-Sessay v. Attorney General

United States

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 12-3598

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2013

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2013 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Lindsworth Brown-Sessay v. Attorney General United States" (2013). 2013 Decisions. Paper 886.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2013/886
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 12-3598

___________

LINDSWORTH SESSAY,

 Petitioner

v.

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,

 Respondent

_________________________________

On Petition for Review of an Order of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals

(Agency No. A076-576-183)

Immigration Judge: Honorable Leo A. Finston

________________

SUR PETITION FOR PANEL REHEARING

________________

Present: SCIRICA, JORDAN and GREENBERG Circuit Judges

The petitions for panel rehearing in the above-entitled case having been submitted 

to the judges who participated in the decision of this Court, and the members of the panel 

having voted for rehearing, the petitions for rehearing are GRANTED. The opinion and 

judgment entered March 27, 2013 are hereby vacated. A subsequent opinion will be 

issued.
BY THE COURT,

/s/ Anthony J. Scirica

Circuit Judge

DATED: May 1, 2013

SLC/cc: Lindsworth Brown-Sessay

Lindsay M. Murphy

Nicole Prairie
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 173 (Friday, September 8, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 42555]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-19024]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry


Statement of Organization, Functions, and Delegations of 
Authority

    Part J (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry) of the 
Statement of Organization, Functions, and Delegations of Authority of 
the Department of Health and Human Services (50 FR 25129-25130, dated 
June 17, 1985, as amended most recently at 80 FR 61424, dated October 
13, 2015) is amended to reflect the Order of Succession for the Agency 
for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.
    Section J-C, Order of Succession:
    Delete in its entirety the Section C-C, Order of Succession, and 
insert the following:
    During the absence or disability of the Administrator, Agency for 
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), or in the event of a 
vacancy in that office, the first official listed below who is 
available shall act as Administrator, except during a planned period of 
absence, the Administrator may specify a different order of succession:

1. Principal Deputy Administrator, ATSDR
2. Assistant Administrator, ATSDR
3. Deputy Director for Noncommunicable Diseases, Injury and 
Environmental Health
4. Director, Office of Public Health Preparedness and Response
5. Director, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

 Sherri A. Berger,
Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2017-19024 Filed 9-7-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4160-18-P
Exhibit 32.1


Certification of Chief Executive Officer


Pursuant to


Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)


In connection with the annual report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended September 30, 2016 (the “Report”) of Fifth Street Senior Floating Rate Corp . (the “Registrant”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Ivelin M. Dimitrov , the Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:


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


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





/s/    Ivelin M. DimitrovName:    Ivelin M. DimitrovDate: December 23, 2016
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF NORFOLK

#### Sherrie L. Villalobos v. City of Norfolk

June 13, 2003

Case No. (Chancery) 03-1163

By Judge Joseph A. Leafe

This matter comes before the Court on Petitioner Officer Sherrie L. Villalobos’s motion for a temporary injunction. Petitioner has alleged the following. She became a sworn member of the Norfolk Police Department in or about June 1989. Petition ¶ 1. On August 19, 2002, the Chief of Police, Melvin C. High, served Petitioner with a Certificate of Indefinite Suspension, thereby terminating her employment as of that date. *Id.*at ¶ 2. Pursuant to the City of Norfolk Employee Grievance Procedure, Petitioner timely filed a grievance of the Chiefs actions, seeking reinstatement as a sworn member of the Norfolk Police Department. *Id.*at ¶ 3. There was a hearing conducted by a grievance panel as to the merits of Petitioner’s grievance. *Id.*at ¶ 5. By a written decision dated May 19, 2003, the panel modified the indefinite suspension to a suspension without pay or benefits from August 19, 2002, until May 26, 2003, with a reinstatement to the Norfolk Police Department effective May 26, 2003. *Id.*at ¶ 8. The City of Norfolk has refused, and continues to refuse, to comply with the panel’s decision. *Id.*at ¶ 14. Petitioner brought this action seeking reinstatement and also requests temporary injunctive relief directing the immediate implementation of the panel decision pending the disposition of her Petition on its merits. *Id.*at ¶ 30.

A court weighs the following factors in determining whether a temporary injunction is appropriate: (1) the likelihood that the plaintiff will suffer *159irreparable harm without a preliminary injunction; (2) the likelihood of harm to the defendant with an injunction; (3) the likelihood that the plaintiff will prevail on the merits of the claim; and (4) the impact of an injunction on the public interest. *See Hughes Network Systems*v. *Interdigital Com. Corp.,*17 F.3d 691 (4th Cir. 1994); *see also Blackwelder Furniture Co.*v. *Seilig Mfg. Co.,*550 F.2d 189 (4th Cir. 1977); *MFS Network Technologies, Inc.*v. *Commonwealth,*33 Va. Cir. 406 (1994). In this case, Petitioner has not shown that she will suffer irreparable harm without a preliminary injunction. Any potential injury that she may suffer could be compensated by monetary damages. Therefore, Petitioner’s motion for a temporary injunction is denied.
phyh_ex102.htm


EXHIBIT 10.2





































 


FLORIDA CERTIFICATE


OF GOOD STANDING OF


PHYSICIANS HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC.


 


 


 


 


 







 


 


 




  





1











  











State of Florida


Department of State












I certify from the records of this office that PHYSICIANS HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC. is a corporation organized under the laws of Nevada, authorized to transact business in the State of Florida, qualified on December 8, 2006.







The document number of this corporation is F06000007576.







I further certify that said corporation has paid all fees due this office through December 31, 2009, that its most recent annual report was filed on March 30, 2009, and its status is active.







I further certify that said corporation has not filed a Certificate of Withdrawal.












 


[State Seal]







 






  





2
Court of Appeals, State of Michigan 

ORDER 

Gary Steven Garrett v Darita Camille Washington 

Docket No. 323705 

LC No. 14-005222-NI 

Michael J. Talbot, C.J. 

Presiding Judge 

All Court of Appeals 

Judges 

The Court orders that a special panel shall not be convened pursuant to MCR 7.215(1) to 

resolve a conflict between this case and Cynthia Adam v Susan Letrice Bell, _ Mich App _ (Docket 

No. 319778, issued August 11, 2015). 

A true copy entered and certified by Jerome W. Zimmer Jr., Chief Clerk, on 

MAR 1 ·4· 2016 

Date