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

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 4 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. J. RES. 4

  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
 restore the rights of the American people that were taken away by the 
   Supreme Court's decision in the Citizens United case and related 
decisions, to protect the integrity of our elections, and to limit the 
        corrosive influence of money in our democratic process.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 21, 2015

 Mr. Sanders 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 to 
 restore the rights of the American people that were taken away by the 
   Supreme Court's decision in the Citizens United case and related 
decisions, to protect the integrity of our elections, and to limit the 
        corrosive influence of money in our democratic process.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

                              ``Article--

    ``Section 1. Whereas the right to vote in public elections belongs 
only to natural persons as citizens of the United States, so shall the 
ability to make contributions and expenditures to influence the outcome 
of public elections belong only to natural persons in accordance with 
this Article.
    ``Section 2. Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to 
restrict the power of Congress and the States to protect the integrity 
and fairness of the electoral process, limit the corrupting influence 
of private wealth in public elections, and guarantee the dependence of 
elected officials on the people alone by taking actions which may 
include the establishment of systems of public financing for elections, 
the imposition of requirements to ensure the disclosure of 
contributions and expenditures made to influence the outcome of a 
public election by candidates, individuals, and associations of 
individuals, and the imposition of content neutral limitations on all 
such contributions and expenditures.
    ``Section 3. Nothing in this Article shall be construed to alter 
the freedom of the press.
    ``Section 4. Congress and the States shall have the power to 
enforce this Article through appropriate legislation.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### James Allen MORRIS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. J. FRANSIC, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 07-7219.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 17, 2008.

Decided: Jan. 24, 2008.

*543James Allen Morris, Appellant Pro Se. Betsy S. Jividen, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

James Allen Morris, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant Morris’ motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Morris v. Fransic,*No. 3:06-cv-00026-JPB, 2007 WL 2327111 (N.D.W.Va. Aug. 10, 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.*
EXHIBIT 32.1




CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 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 March 31, 2011 (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: April 29, 2011




/s/ DAVID L. GREENWOOD David L. Greenwood President, Interim Chief Executive Officer 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.




---
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 287 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 287

 Condemning the senseless murder and wounding of 18 individuals (sons, 
  daughters, fathers, mothers, uncles, aunts, cousins, students, and 
           teachers) in Roseburg, Oregon, on October 1, 2015.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 8, 2015

    Mr. Wyden (for himself and Mr. Merkley) submitted the following 
    resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Condemning the senseless murder and wounding of 18 individuals (sons, 
  daughters, fathers, mothers, uncles, aunts, cousins, students, and 
           teachers) in Roseburg, Oregon, on October 1, 2015.

Whereas, on October 1, 2015, an armed gunman opened fire on the Umpqua Community 
        College campus in Roseburg, Oregon, killing 9 individuals and wounding 9 
        other individuals;
Whereas deceased and surviving victims demonstrated acts of heroism and 
        sacrifice for the safety and sake of others;
Whereas the first responders were swift and professional in their response to 
        the initial call, which avoided even more bloodshed; and
Whereas local, State, and Federal law enforcement, firefighter, and medical 
        service professionals performed their duties with utmost skill and 
        coordination: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) offers condolences to the families and friends of 
        individuals who were murdered by an armed gunman on the Umpqua 
        Community College campus in Roseburg, Oregon, on October 1, 
        2015;
            (2) expresses hope for the swift and complete recovery of 
        individuals who were wounded by the gunman;
            (3) applauds the swift response and professional conduct 
        of--
                    (A) the first responders to the scene; and
                    (B) the investigating officers following the 
                neutralization of the gunman, including local, State, 
                and Federal officials and others who offered their 
                support and assistance; and
            (4) remains committed to reducing the likelihood of this 
        kind of event happening again.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5                   
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 3-MOS               
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                     DEC-31-1999         
<PERIOD-START>                                        JAN-01-1999         
<PERIOD-END>                                          MAR-31-1999         
<CASH>                                                    832,812         
<SECURITIES>                                                    0         
<RECEIVABLES>                                           2,598,902         
<ALLOWANCES>                                              559,166         
<INVENTORY>                                                     0         
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                        3,610,009         
<PP&E>                                                  3,758,165         
<DEPRECIATION>                                            884,115        
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                         39,288,129         
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                   6,567,140         
<BONDS>                                                 7,750,229         
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                           0         
<PREFERRED>                                                    10         
<COMMON>                                                   12,203         
<OTHER-SE>                                              7,912,673         
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                           39,288,129         
<SALES>                                                 1,195,178         
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                        4,329,889         
<CGS>                                                   1,198,319         
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                           1,731,552         
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                        1,536,032         
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          133,850         
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                        255,696         
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                          (752,838)        
<INCOME-TAX>                                                    0         
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      (752,838)        
<DISCONTINUED>                                                  0         
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                 0         
<CHANGES>                                                       0         
<NET-INCOME>                                             (752,838)        
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                               (0.13)        
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                   0      
        

</TABLE>
The HONORABLE DAVID S. DOTY, United States District Judge for the

1

District of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 97-1380

___________

United States of America, *

 *

Appellee, *

 * Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

 * District of Minnesota.

Reginald Daval Johnson, *

 * [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: August 19, 1997

 Filed: August 25, 1997

___________

Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

In 1991, the district court sentenced Reginald Daval Johnson to 51 months

1

imprisonment and 3 years supervised release following his guilty plea to robbing a

credit union, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). In 1995, the court revoked Johnson&s

supervised release after he violated his supervised-release conditions, and imposed

9 months imprisonment and additional supervised release. In 1997, while Johnson was

serving the supervised-release portion of his revocation sentence, the district court 
-2-

again found that he had violated his supervised release. The court once again revoked

supervised release, this time sentencing Johnson to 12 months and 7 days

imprisonment. On appeal, Johnson challenges the length of his revocation sentence.

We reject his challenge and affirm.

The district court found that Johnson had violated the conditions of his

supervised release both by testing positive for cocaine use and by failing to report for

his daily outpatient drug treatment. Although the court determined the sentencing range

according to the revocation table was 3 to 9 months imprisonment, see U.S. Sentencing

Guidelines Manual § 7B1.4(a), p.s. (1995), the court concluded a higher sentence was

appropriate to give Johnson a meaningful opportunity to receive drug treatment in

prison for his longstanding cocaine addiction. 

Johnson&s sentence does not exceed the maximum authorized under the

revocation statute, see 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3); United States v. St. John, 92 F.3d 761,

766 (8th Cir. 1996), and the district court was otherwise free to depart from the

recommended Guidelines range in section 7B1.4, see United States v. Carr, 66 F.3d

981, 983 (8th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (Chapter 7 Guidelines are advisory and nonbinding; district court can depart from revocation imprisonment range when, in its

considered discretion, such departure is warranted). Given the court&s desire to afford

Johnson a serious opportunity for drug treatment, we cannot say the court abused its

discretion in imposing the revocation sentence it did. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)

(requiring consideration of factors set forth in, inter alia, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(D));

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(D) (need to provide defendant with necessary medical care or

other correctional treatment in most effective manner is factor for consideration);

United States v. Grimes, 54 F.3d 489, 492 (8th Cir. 1995) (standard of review).

Accordingly, we affirm.
-3-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-29-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1999
<CASH>                                           11504
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    10052
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     244270
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                276999
<PP&E>                                          114531
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  472407
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           299191
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           102
<OTHER-SE>                                       34995
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    472407
<SALES>                                         682972
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                689616
<CGS>                                           476298
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   476298
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                219572
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               14003
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (20257)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (20257)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (20257)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (1.98)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.98)


</TABLE>
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2


                CERTIFICATION REQUIRED BY 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
     (AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)


I, William S. Creekmuir, as Chief Financial Officer of Simmons Bedding Company
(the "Company"), 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter
      ended March 27, 2004 (the "Report"), being filed with the U.S. Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, 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 Company.

Date:  November 8, 2004             /s/ William S. Creekmuir
                                    --------------------------------
                                    Name: William S. Creekmuir
                                    Title:   Chief Financial Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Simmons Bedding Company and will be retained by Simmons Bedding
Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
#### Lawrence Eugene MARTIN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Superior Court Judge FOSTER, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 07-55439.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 20, 2007.*

Jan. 2, 2008.

Lawrence Eugene Martin, Yucca Valley, CA, pro se.

Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

To the extent a certificate of appealability is necessary for this appeal, the request for a certificate of appealability is denied. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2258(c)(2).

To the extent a certificate of appealability is not necessary for this appeal, we sua sponte grant appellant in forma pauperis status for this appeal. The Clerk shall change the docket to reflect appellant’s in forma pauperis status.

A review of the record indicates that the questions raised in this appeal are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. *See United States v. Hooton,*693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (stating standard). Accordingly, we summarily affirm the district court’s judgment.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### United States *v.*Wynn.*

*(Circuit Court, E. D. Missouri.*

March 29, 1882.)

Appellate Procedure— Judgment — Sentence—Act oe March 3, 1879, § .3, (Sup. Rev. St. *c.*176, p. 452.)

In a criminal case, brought before it on a writ of error, a circuit court may alter the sentence where it affirms the judgment.

The defendant in this case having been tried and found guilty in the district court, under an information charging him with having stolen a letter from the mail, moved in arrest of judgment on the ground that the crime charged was infamous, and could only be prosecuted by indictment. The motion having been overruled, (see 9 Fed. Rep. 886,) the case was brought before this court by a writ of error.

*Drummond <& Smith,*for the United States.

*Paul Bahewell*and *G. M. Stewa/rt,*for defendant.

*

Reported by B. F. Rex, Esq., of the St. Louis bar.

McCrary, C. J.,

*(orally.)*The case of Louis D. Wynn is before me on an error from the district court.† I do not propose to express any final opinion upon the important question that is involved in this case at this time. It is the question as to what is meant by the phrase “infamous crimes” in the constitution of the United States. Various views have been expressed by different courts upon it. It is a question of very grave importance — one which ought to be determined finally by the supreme court of the United States, and I trust soon will be. It is probable, I think, that, upon a full consideration of it, I should conclude the views expressed by the district judge in his very learned and able opinion are most satisfactory of any that have been expressed by any of the judges; but I do not find it necessary to go into a determination of that question in this ease for reasons which I will state. The statute provides that in cases brought before the circuit court on a writ of error, in case of an affirmance of the judgment of the district court, the circuit court shall proceed to pronounce final sentence, and to award execution thereon; and it has been, held by the circuit judge, in a northern district of Illinois, that that authorizes the circuit court to render its own judgment in case of an affirmance, which need not necessarily be the judgment of the district court. In the present case the sentence was imprisonment *58for one year from the sentence; but the prisoner had been in jail since the third of September, 1881, now nearly eight months since his imprisonment, and I think, under all the circumstances, and in view of the possible doubt of the constitutionality of the question that is involved, that imprisonment for eight months is a sufficient sentence; and, as that will result in a discharge of the prisoner in a few days, I have determined to enter that as the judgment of the circuit court: that the sentence be imprisonment at hard labor in the city jail for eight months, beginning with the third of September, 1881.

See *Ex parte Virginia,*100 U. S. 342.

†

See 9 Fed. Rep. 886.
ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE



Reference is hereby
made to that certain Trust and Servicing Agreement dated as of May 6, 2013, by and among CITIGROUP COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE
SECURITIES INC., as Depositor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Servicer, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
as Special Servicer, CITIBANK, N.A., as Certificate Administrator and U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee, with
respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2013-375P (the "Agreement").
Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.



Pursuant to Section 12.7
of this Agreement, I, Lea Land, Director of Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that:



| | 1. | A review of the activities of the Special Servicer during the period from January 1, 2013 through
December 31, 2013 (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 Special Servicer, has fulfilled all of its
obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------









IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the
undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 13th day of March 2014.







Lea Land, Director

Wells Fargo Bank















Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.