alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-91,991-01
EX P ARTE ES SEABAS I SAMUEL WILL IAMS, Appli cant
ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. 1455285-A IN THE 263RD DISTRICT COURT

F ROM HARRIS COUNTY
Per curiam . O R D E R Applicant was convicted of eng ag ing in or g anized criminal activity and sentenc ed to thirty y ear s’ i mprisonment. The First Court of Appeals aff irmed hi s conviction
. W

i l liams v. Stat e , 499 S.W .3d 498 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2016). Applicant f i l ed this application for a writ of habea s corpus in the county of conviction, and the district cler k forwa rded it to this Court. See T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 11.07. On April 8, 2020, the trial court enter ed an order desig nating issues
. The district cler k proper ly forwa

rded this application to this Court u n d er T ex as Rule of Appellate Procedur e 73.4(b)( 5). Howeve r, the application was forwa rded befor e the trial court made finding s of fac t and
co n cl u s i ons of law. We rema nd this application to the trial court to complete its evident i ar yinvestiga tion and make f indings of f

act a nd conclusions of law
. T h e t rial court shall make findings of fac t and conclusions of l aw within ninety day s from the date of this order
. The district cler k shall then immediately forwa rd to this Court the trial court’s finding s and conclusions and the rec ord develope d on rema nd, including, among other things, aff idavits, motions, objections , proposed finding s and conclusions, order s, and transcr ipts from hear ings and depositions. See T E X . R. A P P . P. 73.4(b)( 4). Any extensions of time must be reque sted by the trial cour

t and obtained f

rom this Court.
Filed: January

27, 2021 Do not publish
### §3310. Disposal of records constituting menace to health, life, or property

When the Archivist and the head of the agency that has custody of them jointly determine that records in the custody of an agency of the United States Government are a continuing menace to human health or life or to property, the Archivist shall eliminate the menace immediately by any method he considers necessary. When records in the custody of the Archivist are disposed of under this section, the Archivist shall report their disposal to the agency from which they were transferred.

(Pub. L. 90–620, Oct. 22, 1968, 82 Stat. 1301; Pub. L. 98–497, title I, §107(b)(24), Oct. 19, 1984, 98 Stat. 2290.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Based on 44 U.S. Code, 1964 ed., §375 (July 7, 1943, ch. 192, §10, 57 Stat. 382; June 30, 1949, ch. 288, title I, §104(a), 63 Stat. 381).

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1984—Pub. L. 98–497 substituted "Archivist" for "Administrator of General Services" and "Archivist" for "Administrator" wherever appearing.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 1984 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 98–497 effective Apr. 1, 1985, see section 301 of Pub. L. 98–497, set out as a note under section 2102 of this title.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3181

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude from gross income 

qualified attorney fees. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 30, 2005

Mr. PAUL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Ways and Means 

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude 

from gross income qualified attorney fees.

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

3 SECTION 1. EXCLUSION OF ATTORNEY FEES. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Part III of subchapter B of chap5 ter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to 

6 items specifically excluded from gross income) is amended 

7 by inserting after section 139A the following new section: 
2

•HR 3181 IH 

1 ‘‘SEC. 139B. QUALIFIED ATTORNEY FEES. 

2 ‘‘(a) GENERAL RULE.—In the case of an individual, 

3 gross income does not include qualified attorney fees paid 

4 by the individual. 

5 ‘‘(b) QUALIFIED ATTORNEY FEES.—For purposes of 

6 this section, the term ‘qualified attorney fees’ means attor7 ney fees and court costs paid by, or on behalf of, the tax8 payer in connection with any judgment or settlement 

9 (whether by suit or agreement and whether as lump sum 

10 or periodic payments) resulting from a civil action brought 

11 by the taxpayer in a court of law.’’. 

12 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

13 for such part is amended by inserting after the item relat14 ing to section 139A the following new item:

‘‘Sec. 139B. Qualified attorney fees.’’.

15 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

16 this section shall apply to attorney fees paid on or after 

17 January 1, 2005, with respect to any judgment or settle18 ment occurring on or after January 1, 2005.

Æ
#### § 40.7 Availability of Accessibility Standards.

Copies of the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards are available from the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Room 5230, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 755-5404 (this is not a toll-free number). Hearing or speech-impaired individuals may call HUD's TDD number (202) 708-0113 or 1-800-877-8399 (Federal Information Relay Service TDD). (Other than the “800” number, these are not toll-free numbers.)

[61 FR 5204, Feb. 9, 1996]
Exhibit 4.98


 


Summary of the Instrument of Commitment
to Purchase and Sale of Real Properties, entered into on September 15, 2021, in connection with Fazenda Panamby.


 


Parties:
Kng Administração e Participações Ltda., Tritt Administração e Participações Ltda.,
Terra-Azul Organização Administrativa Ltda. e SBR Administração e Participações Ltda., as sellers; Imobiliária
Mogno Ltda., as buyer.


 


Purpose: The
commitment to buy the Panamby Farm with a total area of 10,792 hectares, of which 5,379 hectares are arable. The acquisition value
is R$285.6 million (302 soybean bags per arable hectare), to be paid in two installments, comprised of a down-payment in the amount of
R$140.0 million, which was paid in September 2022, and an additional installment to be paid in 2023.
#### Jennie Cook Gosweiler, appellant, v. Herbert Vanhoff Gosweiler, appellee.

Gen. No. 28,387.

Complaint for divorce by wife for extreme and repeated cruelty. *621Judgment for complainant. Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Timothy D. Hurley, Judge, presiding. Heard in the first division of this court for the first district at the March term, 1923.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed December 10, 1923.

J. Lester Williams, for appellant. Samuel J. Andalman, for appellee.

Mr. Presiding Justice Matehett

delivered the opinion of the court.
#### Cora Williams, appellee, v. Louis Manning, appellant.

' Suit for ‘damages for injuries sustained by being struck with automobile. Judgment for plaintiff. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Shelby county; the Hon. Thomas M. Jett, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1921.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed January 17, 1923.

Chew & Baker, R. L. Jarnagin and Bryan H. Tivnen, for appellant. Whitaker, Ward & Pugh, for appellee.

Mr. Justice Shurtleff

delivered the opinion of the court.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHANEL INC., et al.,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

TONY BOSINI, et al.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C09-1972 BZ

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO STRIKE

Before the Court is defendant’s motion to strike

plaintiff’s request for the transfer of certain domain names

from the complaint. 

"[A] motion to strike may be used to strike any part of

the prayer for relief when the damages sought are not

recoverable as a matter of law." Bureerong v. Uvawas, 922

F.Supp. 1450, 1479, n. 34 (C.D.Cal.1996). Motions to strike

are generally viewed with disfavor and are not frequently

granted. See Clement v. American Greetings Corp., 636 F.Supp.

1326, 1329 (S.D.Cal.,1986). Courts must view the pleading

under attack in the light most favorable to the pleader. 

Bureerong, 922 F.Supp. at 1462. 

Case 3:09-cv-01972-BZ Document 44 Filed 01/19/10 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1 Section 1125(d) prohibits cybersquatting and

authorizes the transfer of domain names as a remedy.

2 “Once a right and a violation have been shown, the

scope of a district court’s equitable powers to remedy past

wrongs is broad[.]” Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. Of

Educ., 402 U.S. 1, 15 (1971).

2

Defendant’s sole argument in support of his motion is

that plaintiff did not allege a violation of 15 U.S.C. 

§ 1125(d).1

 However, defendant did not argue or persuade me

that Section 1125(d) is the exclusive means by which a court

can transfer domain names in the exercise of its inherent

equitable powers. For example, defendant has not responded to

plaintiff’s argument that it may seek the requested relief

under 15 U.S.C. § 1116. 

The balance of defendant’s motion discounts the

applicability of Philip Morris USA, Inc. V. Otamedia Limited,

331 F.Supp. 2d 228 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). While it may be true that

plaintiff’s proof will not rise to the level found in Philip

Morris, that case undermines defendant’s position that such

relief is unavailable as a matter of law.2 

Defendant has not established that plaintiff is not

entitled to the relief it seeks “as a matter of law.” 

Bureerong, 922 F.Supp. at 1479, n. 34. Defendant’s motion to

strike is therefore DENIED. Defendant is ORDERED to file an

answer by FEBRUARY 5, 2010.

Dated: January 19, 2010 

 

 Bernard Zimmerman

 United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-BZCASES\CHANEL V. BOSINI\ORDER DENYING MOT TO STRIKE.FINAL.wpd

Case 3:09-cv-01972-BZ Document 44 Filed 01/19/10 Page 2 of 2
### §390h–21. Inland Empire regional water recycling project

#### (a) In general

The Secretary, in cooperation with the Inland Empire Utilities Agency, may participate in the design, planning, and construction of the Inland Empire regional water recycling project described in the report submitted under section 390h–4(c) of this title.

#### (b) Cost sharing

The Federal share of the cost of the project described in subsection (a) shall not exceed 25 percent of the total cost of the project.

#### (c) Limitation

Funds provided by the Secretary shall not be used for operation and maintenance of the project described in subsection (a).

#### (d) Authorization of appropriations

There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section, $20,000,000.

(Pub. L. 102–575, title XVI, §16——, as added Pub. L. 110–161, div. C, title II, §210, Dec. 26, 2007, 121 Stat. 1954.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section is based on section "16——" of Pub. L. 102–575. Two other sections "16——" of Pub. L. 102–575 have been enacted and are classified to sections 390h–22 and 390h–23 of this title.
#### City of Chicago, appellee, v. Walton H. Callner, appellant.

Gen. No. 28,681.

Suit against City of Chicago. Judgment for city. Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. W. E. Helander, Judge, presiding. Heard in the first division of this court for the first district.

Affirmed for failure of appellant to file record.

See City v. Salmitsky, 210 Ill. App. 159.

Opinion filed June 25, 1923.

No appearance for appellant. No appearance for appellee.

Per Curiam.
#### § 180.605 Conduct of hearings.

The hearing shall be conducted in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551-559).
#### Ray Benson, Inc., Respondent, v Fred Girard Chevrolet, Inc., Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs, for the reasons stated in the decision at Special Term, Aronson J. (Appeal from judgment of Oneida Supreme Court—summary judgment.) Present—Marsh, P. J., Dillon, Hancock, Jr., Denman and Witmer, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3201 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3201

To amend title 5, United States Code, to require executive agencies to 
 pay the premiums for health care coverage provided under the Federal 
 Employees Health Benefits program for reservists in the Armed Forces 
        called or ordered to active duty for more than 30 days.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 11, 2005

 Mr. Andrews introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 5, United States Code, to require executive agencies to 
 pay the premiums for health care coverage provided under the Federal 
 Employees Health Benefits program for reservists in the Armed Forces 
        called or ordered to active duty for more than 30 days.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Health Care Relief for Military 
Families Act''.

SEC. 2. PAYMENT OF FEHBP PREMIUMS FOR CERTAIN RESERVISTS CALLED OR 
              ORDERED TO ACTIVE DUTY.

    (a) In General.--(1) Chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code, is 
amended by inserting after section 8905a the following new section:
``Sec. 8905b. Payment of premiums for certain reservists called or 
              ordered to active duty
    ``An employing agency shall be responsible for paying, for any 
employee who is a member of a reserve component of the armed forces who 
is called or ordered to active duty for a period of more than 30 days, 
the employee's share of the premium for health care coverage provided 
to such member under this chapter during such period.''.
    (2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter is 
amended by inserting after the item relating to section 8905a the 
following new item:

``8905b. Payment of premiums for certain reservists called or ordered 
                            to active duty.''.
    (b) Applicability.--Section 8905b of title 5, United States Code 
(as added by subsection (a)), shall apply with respect to health care 
coverage provided to a member of a reserve component of the Armed 
Forces on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Opinion filed June 6 , 202 4



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

_____ _

_____ 

### No. 11

- 2 4

- 00150

- C R

_____ _

_____


### IN RE RANDALL LEE NIX

O riginal Mandamus Proceeding

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Relator, Randall Lee Nix , has filed in this court a motion to dismiss his
petition for writ of mandamus

. In the motion, Relator states that he “moves this

Court to withdraw ” the petition. The motion is signed by both Relator and his

counsel.
We grant Relator’s m otion and dismiss this proceeding. In doing so, we also

withdraw our order dated May 30, 2024

, staying the proceedings in the trial court.

W. STACY TROTTER

JUSTICE

June 6 , 2024
Do not publish. See T EX

. R. A PP . P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Trotter , J., and W illiams, J.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-1205

CHRISTOPHER OSE-AFIANA,

 Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

COVENANT SECURITY SERVICES, LTD.,

 Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District 

Judge. (8:12-cv-01840-AW)

Submitted: May 23, 2013 Decided: May 28, 2013

Before MOTZ and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher Ose-Afiana, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Christopher Ose-Afiana appeals the district court’s 

order dismissing his Title VII retaliation action without 

prejudice. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the 

district court. Ose-Afiana v. Covenant Sec. Servs. Ltd., No. 

8:12-cv-01840-AW (D. Md. Jan. 22, 2013). We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-2035

KEN E. HOUSTON; CHARLES M. SIGMON; DEBRA H.

HEFNER; HARRY WALLACE,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

versus

SIECOR CORPORATION; DON SIGMON; DOUGLAS

MILLER,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Graham C. Mullen,

District Judge. (CA-94-64-5-MU)

Submitted: January 18, 1996 Decided: January 31, 1996

Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ken E. Houston, Charles M. Sigmon, Debra H. Hefner, Harry Wallace,

Appellants Pro Se. J. David Abernethy, SIECOR CORPORATION, Hickory, North Carolina; George North Boylan, Special Deputy Attorney

General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the

record and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate

judge's recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Houston v. Siecor

Corp., No. CA-94-64-5-MU (W.D.N.C. Apr. 20, 1995). 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
MCNAB CREEK GOLD CORP.A Nevada Corporation 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

The undersigned, Kenneth G. Townsend, President, Chief Executive Officer andChief Financial Officer, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

| 1.     | The amended annual report on    Form 10-KSB of McNab Creek Gold Corp. for the period ended March 31, 2006    (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 McNab Creek Gold Corp.                                                                                |

|                           |                                                                    |
|--------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Dated:  November 27, 2006 | ***/s/ Kenneth G. Townsend***                                           |
|                           |
|                           | Kenneth G. Townsend,                                                    |
|                           | President and Chief Executive    Officer    And Chief Financial Officer |
EXHIBIT 31.1


SECTION
302 CERTIFICATION





I,
Michael S. Wasik, certify that:





1. I have
reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10−QSB of RoomLinX, Inc.;





2. Based
on my knowledge, this Quarterly 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 annual
report;





3. Based
on my knowledge, the consolidated financial statements, and other financial
information included in this Quarterly Report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
small business as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual
report.





4. The
small business issuer'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 small business issuer 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 small


business
issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, 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 small business issuer'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 small business issuer's


internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the


small
business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business


issuer's
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that


has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,


the small
business issuer's internal control over financial reporting;


and





5. The
small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small
business issuer'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 small business issuer'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 small business


issuer's
internal control over financial reporting.





Date:
9/10/08





By:
            /s/ Michael S.
      WasikMichael
      S. WasikChief
      Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer
ane resin [eile

Pe ee fe

5Eis-} ane

ory

oe aur Contin snip WE

os dene

Tr sat crib ales

Sosy GoMphre ae
Be A prper ren San He =
Sea ae

ic Pia ca

| Wr") eene | eee

:

3

tf

»

ne muy stwmmae sce army mh cmd fy ened Cena Suerte
IDG. Resymeny inp’ tom NOS tydagnahe meaty tons baw extn] whas remot

tee ed te tem a omer The hema a Seed te etn

ore
Uncen Towner Adeoater Ge Tome 1S ADE Ate Ft |} pt ren mae
ae

etme pene eet wee seen oe Bee Lee Mie

{asa

}
}

/Ffeeenient) af

Ay

[3

Peieed ot Wethageen OC
US. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
(NATIONAL OCEANIC AMD AIMOLPHE®C ADMINSMATION:
978

“RATHerVaPTNC CONTOUR OATIRVAL. (0 METERS SUMLEMENTED BT 2 METER
TMPEEW AGS 9D MAMAN DEFT

ATI Gus COAL) LOW ATER

artnet maRCAOR HOMETION

Seo 12000
Yone camera * i fe eas
[ eer i e Acme ——t —
: : = ——

BOUMA BANK
NOS NH 15-11