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

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 219 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 219

 Designating July 25, 2015, as ``National Day of the American Cowboy''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              July 9, 2015

    Mr. Enzi (for himself, Mr. Barrasso, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Risch, Ms. 
Heitkamp, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Tester, Mr. Rounds, Mr. Lankford, Mr. Thune, 
     and Mr. Hoeven) submitted the following resolution; which was 
                        considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Designating July 25, 2015, as ``National Day of the American Cowboy''.

Whereas pioneering men and women, recognized as ``cowboys'', helped to establish 
        the American West;
Whereas the cowboy embodies honesty, integrity, courage, compassion, respect, a 
        strong work ethic, and patriotism;
Whereas the cowboy spirit exemplifies strength of character, sound family 
        values, and good common sense;
Whereas the cowboy archetype transcends ethnicity, gender, geographic 
        boundaries, and political affiliations;
Whereas the cowboy, who lives off the land and works to protect and enhance the 
        environment, is an excellent steward of the land and its creatures;
Whereas cowboy traditions have been a part of American culture for generations;
Whereas the cowboy continues to be an important part of the economy through the 
        work of many thousands of ranchers across the United States who 
        contribute to the economic well-being of every State;
Whereas millions of fans watch professional and working ranch rodeo events 
        annually, making rodeo one of the most-watched sports in the United 
        States;
Whereas membership and participation in rodeo and other organizations that 
        promote and encompass the livelihood of cowboys span every generation 
        and transcend race and gender;
Whereas the cowboy is a central figure in literature, film, and music and 
        occupies a central place in the public imagination;
Whereas the cowboy is an American icon; and
Whereas the ongoing contributions made by cowboys and cowgirls to their 
        communities should be recognized and encouraged: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) designates July 25, 2015, as ``National Day of the 
        American Cowboy''; and
            (2) encourages the people of the United States to observe 
        the day with appropriate ceremonies and activities.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 7 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. CON. RES. 7

Authorizing the use of Emancipation Hall in the Capitol Visitor Center 
 for a ceremony to award the Congressional Gold Medal to the World War 
               II members of the Doolittle Tokyo Raiders.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 3, 2015

   Mr. Brown (for himself, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Boozman, Mr. Tester, Mr. 
     Nelson, Ms. Cantwell, and Mr. Schatz) submitted the following 
     resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Rules and 
                             Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Authorizing the use of Emancipation Hall in the Capitol Visitor Center 
 for a ceremony to award the Congressional Gold Medal to the World War 
               II members of the Doolittle Tokyo Raiders.

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring),

SECTION 1. USE OF EMANCIPATION HALL FOR CEREMONY TO PRESENT 
              CONGRESSIONAL GOLD MEDAL TO WORLD WAR II MEMBERS OF 
              DOOLITTLE TOKYO RAIDERS.

    (a) Authorization.--Emancipation Hall in the Capitol Visitor Center 
is authorized to be used on April 15, 2015, for a ceremony to present 
the Congressional Gold Medal to the World War II members of the 
Doolittle Tokyo Raiders, collectively, in recognition of the military 
service and exemplary record of the Doolittle Tokyo Raiders during 
World War II.
    (b) Preparations.--Physical preparations for the conduct of the 
ceremony described in subsection (a) shall be carried out in accordance 
with such conditions as may be prescribed by the Architect of the 
Capitol.
                                 <all>
```
Amendment dated December 29, 2011


 Exhibit 10.1 
 AMENDMENT TO AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
 This Amendment to
Amended and Restated Employment Agreement (this “Amendment”) is entered into as of December 29, 2011, by and among Amedisys, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), Amedisys Holding, L.L.C., a Louisiana
limited liability company (“Holding”), and William F. Borne, a person of the age of majority (“Executive”). 
 WHEREAS, the Company, Holding and Executive are parties to that certain Amended and Restated Employment Agreement dated as of January 3, 2011 (the “Original Agreement”); and

 WHEREAS, the Company, Holding and Executive specifically desire to amend the Original Agreement as specifically set forth
herein. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, as well as other mutual promises and covenants contained in this
Amendment, the parties hereto agree as follows: 
  

	 	1.	Incorporation by Reference. The above recitations are incorporated herein by reference. 


 

	 	2.	Amendment to Section 8(e) of the Original Agreement. The first sentence of Section 8(e) of the Original Agreement is hereby amended and restated in its
entirety, as follows: 

 (e) Termination by the Company Without Cause or Termination by
Executive With Good Reason Following a Change in Control. If Executive’s employment with the Company is terminated by the Company without Cause (which termination shall be effective as of the date specified by the Company in a written
notice to Executive), other than due to death or Disability, or in the event Executive terminates his employment with Good Reason (as defined above), in either case within one year following a Change in Control (as defined above), Executive shall be
entitled to: 
 The remaining provisions of Section 8 of the Original Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

  

	 	3.	Effect of this Amendment. Except as specifically stated herein, the execution and delivery of this Amendment shall in no way affect the respective obligations of
the parties under the Original Agreement, all of which shall continue in full force and effect. 

  

	 	4.	Successors and Assigns. This Amendment shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns.


  

	 	5.	Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in two or more counterparts. 


  
 1 








	 	6.	Captions. The captions contained in this Amendment are for convenience only and shall not be deemed to control or affect the meaning or construction of any
provision of this Amendment. 

 * * * * 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have signed and executed this Amendment as of the day and year first written hereinabove.

  

			
	AMEDISYS, INC.
		
	By:	 	/S/ Ronald A. LaBorde
		 	 Ronald A. LaBorde

President



  

			
	AMEDISYS HOLDING, L.L.C.
		
	By:	 	/S/ Dale E. Redman
		 	 Dale E. Redman

Vice-President



  

			
	EXECUTIVE
		
		 	/S/ William F. Borne
		 	William F. Borne


  
  

  
 2
Filed 5/30/24 P. v. Mustin CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JOSEPH SAMUEL MUSTIN,

Defendant and Appellant. 2d Crim. No. B332404

(Super. Ct. No. 2021025620)

(Ventura County)

Joseph Samuel Mustin appeals from the judgment

sentencing him to state prison after the trial court found him in

violation of probation.

In 2021, Mustin ent ered a Walmart store, concealed

merchandise in his backpack, and ran out the door without

paying. When confronted by a store employee, he swung a

baseball bat in the air and yelled for employees to not stop him.

Mustin pleaded guilty to second degree r obbery (Pen. Code,

§§ 211, 212.5, subd. (c)). The court placed him on two years’

probation with terms including 285 days in county jail.2 In 2023, the court found Mustin in violation of probation.

The court terminated probation and sentenced him to pris on for

the low term of two years. The court awarded credit for time

served of 324 days actual time plus conduct credit of 15 percent

(49 days) (Pen. Code, § 2933.1, subd. (c)).

We appointed counsel to represent Mustin in this appeal.

After counsel exam ined the record, she filed an opening brief that

raises no arguable issues. On March 22, 2024, appointed counsel

advised Mustin by mail that he had 30 days within which to file a

supplemental brief to raise any issues he wished us to consider.

We have no t received a response.

We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that

Mustin’s attorney has fully complied with her responsibilities and

that no arguable issue exists. ( People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d

436, 441

- 443.)

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

BALTODANO, J.

We concur:

GILBERT, P. J. YEGAN, J.Paul W. Baelly, Judge

Superior Court County of Ventura

______________________________

Gl oria C

. Cohen, under appointment by the Court of

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 16

- 00241

- CR

Richard Henderson
v. The State Of Texas

On a ppeal from the 94th District Court of Nueces County , Texas Trial Cause No. 15CR1692

- C

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION in accordance with its opinion

. We further order this decision certified below for observance.
June 2, 2016.
#### Poage *v.*McGowan and others.*

*(Circuit Court, S. D. Ohio, W. D.*

March 5, 1883.)

1. Reissue Invalid by Reason of Defective Affidavit—“Inoperative and Invalid ” Construed.

Where the affidavit, upon an application for the reissue of a patent, alleged simply that the patent sought to be reissued was not “fully valid and available,” *held,*that that language is not the equivalent of the statutory requirement that the original must be “ inoperative or invalid by reason of a defective or insufficient specification,” and that a reissue predicated on such an affidavit is invalid.

2 Reissue No. 5,544, for improvement in water tanks for railways, *held*invalid.

*399In Equity. Suit on reissued letters patent No. 5,544, granted to the McGowan Pump Company. ' The original patent was No. 63,418, issued to John Morton for an improvement in water-tanks for railways.

*L. M.*Hosea, for complainant.

*Stem d Peek,*for respondents.

*

 Reported by J. 0. Harper, Esq., of the Cincinnati bar

Baxter, J.

Complainant complains of an infringement by defendants of a patent which he claims to own. His prayer is for an injunction and an account. The original, of which complainant’s patent is a second reissue, was issued on the second of April, 1867. It was reissued September 5, 1871, and again on August 1, 1873. The defendants, among other defenses, deny the validity of the reissue sued on. A reissue may be had when the original “is inoperative or invalid by reason of a defective or insufficient specification, when the same arises from inadvertence, accident, or mistake, without any fraudulent or deceptive intention.” They are obtained, as originals, upon petition and affidavit of the applicants. These set forth the grounds upon which the applicant demands either the original or reissued patent.

A petition and affidavit were filed upon which the reissued patent sued on herein was predicated. But the affidavit does not affirm that the original or the first reissue was either inoperative or invalid, but in lieu of this statutory requirement the affidavit alleges that the same was not “fully valid and available.” The language thus employed is not the equivalent of that prescribed by the statute; it is an evasion, declared by this court in *Whitely*v. *Swayne,*4 Fisher, 117, to be insufficient to support a reissued patent. *For*a full discussion of the question reference maybe had to Judge Leavitt’s opinion in that case. Bee, also, the following: *Giant Powder Co.*v. *Cal. Vigoret Powder Co.*18 O. G. 1339; *Twain v. Ladd,*19 O. G.; *Miller*v. *Bridgeport Brass Co.*21 O. G. 201; and *James*v. *Campbell,*21 O. G. 341.

The complainant’s reissued patent, tested by these adjudications, was issued without authority of law, and is invalid. His bill will, therefore, be dismissed, with costs.
EX-31 Rule13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certifications.

 

 

I, Leah Nivison,certify that:

 

1. I have reviewedthis report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed inrespect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of the GS MortgageSecurities Trust 2013-GCJ12 (the "Exchange Act periodic reports");

 

2. Based on myknowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3. Based on myknowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required tobe provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is includedin the Exchange Act periodic reports;

 

4. Based on myknowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in this report underItem 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Actperiodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under theservicing agreements in all material respects; and

 

5. All of the reportson assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securitiesand their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance withservicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in thisreport in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except asotherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliancedescribed in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

 

In giving thecertifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me bythe following unaffiliated parties:

 

Wells Fargo Bank,National Association, as Master Servicer, Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, asSpecial Servicer, Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as Trustee, Wells FargoBank, National Association, as Certificate Administrator, Wells Fargo Bank,National Association, as Custodian, Situs Holdings, LLC, as Operating Advisor,CoreLogic Commercial Real Estate Services, Inc., as Servicing FunctionParticipant, and National Tax Search, LLC, as Servicing Function Participant.

 

 

 

Dated: March 20, 2019

 

 

/s/ Leah Nivison

 

 

Chief ExecutiveOfficer

(seniorofficer in charge of securitization of the depositor)
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-6914

VINCENT LEE FOREMAN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia

Department of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District

Judge. (CA-02-213)

Submitted: February 10, 2006 Decided: February 28, 2006

Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Vincent Lee Foreman, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson, III,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Vincent Lee Foreman seeks to appeal the district court's

order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion and his motion to

amend his original petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000).

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)

(2000); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 368-69, 374 n.7 (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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his

constitutional claims are debatable 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

(4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and

conclude that Foreman has not made the requisite showing. We

therefore deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal.

Additionally, we construe Foreman's notice of appeal and

informal brief on appeal as an application to file a second or

successive habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See United

States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). Under 28

U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1) (2000), a motion for a second or successive
- 3 -

habeas corpus petition may not be granted for any claim that was

presented in a prior application under § 2254. Because the claim

Foreman raises has already been rejected by the district court in

its ruling on his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 motion, and by this court on

appeal, Foreman v. Johnson, 107 Fed. App’x 333 (4th Cir. 2004), he

fails to establish grounds for this court to authorize a successive

§ 2254 petition. Therefore, we decline to authorize 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
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 99.1


       CERTIFICATE OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


         This Certificate is being delivered pursuant to the requirements of
Section 1350 of Chapter 63 (Mail Fraud) of Title 18 (Crimes and Criminal
Procedures) of the United States Code and shall not be relied on by any person
for any other purpose.

         The undersigned, who are the Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer, respectively, of Simmons Company (the "Company"), hereby each
certify as follows:

         The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company (the "Report"), which
accompanies this Certificate, fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and all information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.


         Dated this 5th day of November.

                                 /s/ Charles R. Eitel
                                 ----------------------------------------------
                                 Charles R. Eitel, Chief Executive Officer

                                 /s/ William S. Creekmuir
                                 ----------------------------------------------
                                 William S. Creekmuir, Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 4.5







	
 

	
 

	
 

	
 

	
 


	
 

	
 

	
 

	
*000* CERTIFICATES


	
 

	
   NRI GOLD CERTIFICATE NO. X

	
 

	
NIREK RESOURCES INC. 

NRI Gold Certificate

10 grams Gold

	
 CUSIP:


	
 


	
 


	
 

	
 

	
 

	
 


	
 

	
 

	
*ZERO ZERO ZERO*

	
 ISIN:








	
 

	
 


	
16.

	
     For value received by the
undersigned, Nirek Resources Inc. (‘NRI’), or any of its successors, the holder
of this gold certificate (this “Gold Certificate”), ______________________
(the “Holder”), is entitled to ten (10) grams of gold. This Gold Certificate
is to be redeemed by the Holder on March 31, 2016 at Heritage Transfer Agency
Inc. (“Depository”) at 4 King Street West Suite 1320, Toronto, ON M5H 1B6.


	
 

	
 


	
17.

	
The Holder is entitled to ten
(10) grams of gold.


	
18.

	
Nothing contained in this Gold
Certificate shall be construed as conferring upon the Holder any right or
interest whatsoever in NRI or any other right or interest except as herein
expressly provided.


	
19.

	
The Holders will be notified by
NRI, via mail, prior to March 31, 2016 of his or her approaching ability to
redeem this Gold Certificate.


	
20.

	
This Gold Certificate shall be
governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the Province of
Ontario, Canada.


	
21.

	
This Gold Certificate may be
assigned or transferred by the Holder or its nominee. 





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, NRI has
caused this Gold Certificate to be executed by a duly authorized officer.


	
 

	
 

	
 

	
 


	
December 21, 2011

	
NIREK RESOURCES INC.


	
 

	
 


	
Countersigned and Registered

	
               Per:


	
 

	
 


	
Heritage Transfer Agency Inc.

	
 


	
 

	
 


	
Transfer Agent and Registrar

	
 


	
 

	
 

	
 


	
By:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Nicholas CHAPMAN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-30580

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Jan. 16, 2008.

John L. Walker, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Louisiana, LaFayette, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

George Frazier, New Orleans, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Nicholas Chapman has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Chapman has filed a motion for an extension of time to take an appeal and appointment of new counsel. Our independent review of the record, counsel’s brief, and Chapman’s motion discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, Chapman’s motion is DENIED, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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 SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

LAN TU TRINH,

Petitioner

v.

KATHLEEN LIEN TRINH, MICHAEL 

TRINH AND LT INTERNATIONAL 

BEAUTY SCHOOL, INC.,

Respondents

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 78 EM 2018

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 4th day of September, 2018, the Petition for Review is DENIED.
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to

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

In connection with this Annual Report on Form 10-K (the Report) of Investcorp
Credit Management BDC, Inc. (the Registrant), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Rocco DelGuercio, the Chief Financial 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/    Rocco
DelGuercioName:

Rocco DelGuercioDate:

September 13, 2019