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

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3542 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 19, 2010 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Rules and 

Administration 

AN ACT 

To direct the Architect of the Capitol to fly the flag of 

a State over the Capitol each year on the anniversary 

of the date of the State’s admission to the Union. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 3542 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘State Admission Day 

3 Recognition Act of 2010’’. 

4 SEC. 2. FLYING STATE FLAG OVER CAPITOL ON ANNIVER5 SARY OF STATE’S ADMISSION TO UNION. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—To honor the anniversary of each 

7 State’s admission to the Union, the Architect of the Cap8 itol shall fly the flag of the State over the Capitol each 

9 year on the anniversary of the date of the State’s admis10 sion to the Union. 

11 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The Architect of the Capitol 

12 shall fly the first flag of a State over the Capitol under 

13 this section on the first December 7 which occurs after 

14 the date of the enactment of this Act, in honor of the anni15 versary of the admission of Delaware, the first State ad16 mitted to the Union. 

17 SEC. 3. REGULATIONS. 

18 The Committee on House Administration of the 

19 House of Representatives and the Committee on Rules 

20 and Administration of the Senate may promulgate jointly 

21 such regulations as may be appropriate to carry out this 

22 Act, including regulations permitting the Architect of the 

23 Capitol to honor the District of Columbia, the Common24 wealth of Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the 

25 United States Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana 

26 Islands by flying the flag of each such jurisdiction over 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
3 

HR 3542 RFS 

1 the Capitol each year on an appropriate date for that ju2 risdiction. 

Passed the House of Representatives March 18, 

2010. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Nicholas Scott HUTCHENS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12-50637

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Nov. 25, 2013.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Judy Fulmer Madewell, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, San Antonio, TX, Donna F. Coltharp, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Del Rio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before KING, DeMOSS, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Nicholas Scott Hutchens appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of failure to register under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act. He argues that the 25-year, within-guidelines term of supervised release imposed by the district court is unreasonable because the sentence overstates the seriousness of the instant offense and fails to *615take into account the nature and age of his original sex offenses, his personal characteristics, and his reasons for failing to register.1

A presumption of reasonableness applies to a within-guidelines term of supervised release. *United States v. Cancino-Trinidad,*710 F.3d 601, 607 (5th Cir.2013). “The presumption is rebutted only upon a showing that the sentence does not account for a factor that should receive significant weight, it gives significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or it represents a clear error of judgment in balancing sentencing factors.” *United States v. Cooks,*589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir.2009).

Hutchens’s general disagreement with the propriety of the sentence and the district court’s weighing of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors is insufficient to rebut the presumption of reasonableness that attaches to his within-guidelines sentence. *See United States v. Camero-Renobato,*670 F.3d 633, 636 (5th Cir.2012). Accordingly, the judgment is AFFIRMED.

*

 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.

1

. Hutchens also argues that the written judgment does not conform to the oral pronouncement of the sentence. However, this issue is now moot as the district court has conformed the written judgment to the oral pronouncement of the sentence following a limited remand for that purpose.
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 Baynon International
Corporation on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending June 30, 2006, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Daniel
Generelli, Treasurer of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted 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 Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


Date: July 28, 2006


/s/ DANIEL GENERELLI
------------------------------------------
Daniel Generelli
Treasurer
(Principal Financial Officer)


                                       12
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

May 30, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

130492 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

VICTORIA EASTERDAY,

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 130492 

 COA: 262650 

Eaton CC: 04-001622-NM 

SECREST WARDLE LYNCH HAMPTON 

TRUEX & MORLEY, P.C., and

FRANK A. FLEISCHMANN, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 29, 2005 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

t0522 

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. 

May 30, 2006 

Clerk
#### Dave MORGAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF YOLO, a political subdivision of the State of California; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 06-16487.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted April 15, 2008.

Filed May 8, 2008.

Jon Webster, Esq., The Law Offices of Jon Webster, Concord, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Laurence L. Angelo, Esq., J. Scott Smith, Esq., Angelo Kilday *&*Kilduff, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: SCHROEDER, CLIFTON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Dave Morgan appeals the district court’s judgment on the pleadings in favor of the County of Yolo in his action alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We affirm.

*735Morgan seeks damages and attorney’s fees under the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), asserting that a reimbursement provision in his employment contract rendered his last work week’s wages “unpaid.” None of Morgan’s wages have been deducted or returned to the County, and Morgan has presented no evidence that he actually “banked” any of his wages in anticipation of reimbursing the County. The reimbursement provision can no longer have any effect on Morgan’s wages because the County’s claims under the provision have been dismissed with prejudice. Because he no longer has any live claims to “unpaid” wages, Morgan’s FLSA claims are moot. *See Powell v. McCormack,*395 U.S. 486, 496, 89 S.Ct. 1944, 23 L.Ed.2d 491 (1969).

Morgan also seeks to maintain a claim under section 216(b) on behalf of other “similarly situated” employees. Without any live claims of his own, however, he lacks standing to represent a class of employees, as there has been no class certification. *See Kremens v. Bartley,*431 U.S. 119, 132-33, 97 S.Ct. 1709, 52 L.Ed.2d 184 (1977) (“[I]t is only a ‘properly certified’ class that may succeed to the adversary position of a named representative whose claim becomes moot.”); *U.S. Parole Comm’n v. Geraghty,*445 U.S. 388, 398, 100 S.Ct. 1202, 63 L.Ed.2d 479 (1980) (“When ... there is no chance that the named plaintiffs expired claim will reoccur, mootness can still be avoided through certification of a class prior to expiration of the named plaintiffs personal claim.”).

Morgan seeks relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the reimbursement provision deprived him of a property interest in “free and clear” wages and a liberty interest in being “free from restraint.” Morgan has not established that he has actually been deprived of any of these interests, however. He was not terminated or prevented from working elsewhere, and he was not actually deprived of any wages. Morgan’s section 1983 claims are therefore moot, as well.

AFFIRMED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
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 Volcano Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, John T. Dahldorf, Chief Financial Officer of
the Company, certify, pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted 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 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: March 5, 2010 |  |  |  | /s/    JOHN T.
DAHLDORF                                               
|                    |  |  |  | John T. Dahldorf Chief Financial Officer (principal financial
officer)
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Daniel LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-41221

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 19, 2011.

Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Margaret Christina Ling, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Daniel Lopez raises arguments that he concedes are foreclosed by *United States v. Betancourt,*586 F.3d 303, 308-09 (5th Cir.2009), *cert. denied,*— U.S.-, 130 S.Ct. 1920, 176 L.Ed.2d 390 (2010), which reaffirmed the holding in *United States v. Gamez-Gonzalez,*319 F.3d 695, 700 (5th Cir.2003), that knowledge of drug type and quantity is not an element of the offense under 21 U.S.C. § 841. Lopez’s unopposed motion for summary disposition is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cm. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under die limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cm. R. 47.5.4.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED

PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Alarion Financial Services, Inc. (the
Company), on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Matthew Ivers, Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as added by 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 Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | To my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as
of and for the period covered by the Report.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |  |  |     |  |                                           
|-------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | ------------------------------------------
|Date: March 29, 2011 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Matthew Ivers                         
|                     |  |  |  |     |  | Matthew Ivers, Principal Financial Officer
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"Catie-Megan Moran","author_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/author\/cmoranfmc-gov\/","title":"Management’s Discussion and Analysis Reports","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"W8JAvuvI7u\"><a href=\"\/about-the-fmc\/managements-discussion-and-analysis-reports\/\">Management’s Discussion and Analysis Reports<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/about-the-fmc\/managements-discussion-and-analysis-reports\/embed\/#?secret=W8JAvuvI7u\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Management’s Discussion and Analysis Reports” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"W8JAvuvI7u\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(c,l){\"use strict\";var e=!1,o=!1;if(l.querySelector)if(c.addEventListener)e=!0;if(c.wp=c.wp||{},c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage);else if(c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if(!t);else if(!(t.secret||t.message||t.value));else if(\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret));else{for(var r,s,a,i=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),n=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=0;o<n.length;o++)n[o].style.display=\"none\";for(o=0;o<i.length;o++)if(r=i[o],e.source!==r.contentWindow);else{if(r.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message){if(1e3<(s=parseInt(t.value,10)))s=1e3;else if(~~s<200)s=200;r.height=s}if(\"link\"===t.message)if(s=l.createElement(\"a\"),a=l.createElement(\"a\"),s.href=r.getAttribute(\"src\"),a.href=t.value,a.host===s.host)if(l.activeElement===r)c.top.location.href=t.value}}},e)c.addEventListener(\"message\",c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",t,!1),c.addEventListener(\"load\",t,!1);function t(){if(o);else{o=!0;for(var e,t,r,s=-1!==navigator.appVersion.indexOf(\"MSIE 10\"),a=!!navigator.userAgent.match(\/Trident.*rv:11\\.\/),i=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),n=0;n<i.length;n++){if(!(r=(t=i[n]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\")))r=Math.random().toString(36).substr(2,10),t.src+=\"#?secret=\"+r,t.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",r);if(s||a)(e=t.cloneNode(!0)).removeAttribute(\"security\"),t.parentNode.replaceChild(e,t);t.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:r},\"*\")}}}}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"Catie-Megan Moran","author_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/author\/cmoranfmc-gov\/","title":"February 2024 Activity Report\u00a0","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"dmOOAmDY38\"><a href=\"\/february-2024-activity-report\/\">February 2024 Activity Report\u00a0<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/february-2024-activity-report\/embed\/#?secret=dmOOAmDY38\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“February 2024 Activity Report\u00a0” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"dmOOAmDY38\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(c,l){\"use strict\";var e=!1,o=!1;if(l.querySelector)if(c.addEventListener)e=!0;if(c.wp=c.wp||{},c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage);else if(c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if(!t);else if(!(t.secret||t.message||t.value));else if(\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret));else{for(var r,s,a,i=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),n=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=0;o<n.length;o++)n[o].style.display=\"none\";for(o=0;o<i.length;o++)if(r=i[o],e.source!==r.contentWindow);else{if(r.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message){if(1e3<(s=parseInt(t.value,10)))s=1e3;else if(~~s<200)s=200;r.height=s}if(\"link\"===t.message)if(s=l.createElement(\"a\"),a=l.createElement(\"a\"),s.href=r.getAttribute(\"src\"),a.href=t.value,a.host===s.host)if(l.activeElement===r)c.top.location.href=t.value}}},e)c.addEventListener(\"message\",c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",t,!1),c.addEventListener(\"load\",t,!1);function t(){if(o);else{o=!0;for(var e,t,r,s=-1!==navigator.appVersion.indexOf(\"MSIE 10\"),a=!!navigator.userAgent.match(\/Trident.*rv:11\\.\/),i=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),n=0;n<i.length;n++){if(!(r=(t=i[n]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\")))r=Math.random().toString(36).substr(2,10),t.src+=\"#?secret=\"+r,t.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",r);if(s||a)(e=t.cloneNode(!0)).removeAttribute(\"security\"),t.parentNode.replaceChild(e,t);t.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:r},\"*\")}}}}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
#### Pedio Antonio SOTO-GONZALEZ, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-74358.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 22, 2008.*

Filed May 5, 2008.

Murray D. Hilts, Esq., Law Offices of Murray Hilts, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.

David E. Dauenheimer, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, District Director, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Diego, CA, Gordon P. Giampietro, Esq., Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Eastern District of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: GRABER, FISHER, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Pedro Antonio Soto-Gonzalez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“U”) decision denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. *Fenandez-Ruiz v. Gonzales,*468 F.3d 1159, 1163 (9th Cir.2006). Reviewing for abuse of discretion, *Socop-Gonzalez v. INS,*272 F.3d 1176,1187 (9th Cir.2001) (en banc), we deny the petition for review.

The IJ acted within his discretion in denying Soto-Gonzalez’s motion to reopen. 8 C.F.R. § 292.4(a) does not support Soto-Gonzalez’s contention that his counsel was required to enter a new notice of appearance after the BIA remanded his proceed*707ings. As counsel did not withdraw from representing Soto-Gonzalez before or during his October 8, 2002 hearing, the notice provided to counsel of that hearing was adequate to notify Soto-Gonzalez, and satisfied due process. *See Garcia v. INS,*222 F.3d 1208, 1209 (9th Cir.2000) (per curiam).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**DIGIMARC CORPORATIONCERTIFICATION**

In connection withthe periodic report of Digimarc Corporation (the "Company") onForm 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Michael McConnell, ChiefFinancial Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solelyfor purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United StatesCode, that to the best of my knowledge: 

1.                The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable,of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and 

2.                The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company at the dates andfor the periods indicated. 

This Certification has not been, and shall not bedeemed, "filed" with the Securities and Exchange Commission. 

Date:August 9, 2004  
| By:    | /s/   Michael McConnell          |
|--------|--------------------------------------------|
|   | Michael McConnell*Chief Financial Officer* |

 

----