alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### Ju ly10,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT

G A R R Y E N SE Y , al s o know n as G a r r y D e a n E n s e y,

P e tit io n e r-A p p e llan t, v. M I K E M U L L I N S, W ar den,

R es pondent - A ppel l ee. N o. 05- 7104 ( D . C. N o. 02 - CV - 50 1- P) (E .D . O k la .)

OR DER DENYI NG A CERTI FI CATE O F AP PEALABI LI TY B efor e T AC HA , C h ie f J u d g e , O’ BRI EN , and M c CO NNELL , C i rcui tJudg es. G arryE nsey , an O klahom a st at e pri soner proceed i ng pro se, seeks a cert i fi cat e of a ppeal abi l i t y( “C O A ”) t o chal l enge the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deni al and di s m i s s al of hi s 28 U . S. C . § 2254 pet i t i on fora w r i tof habe as corpus , i n w hi ch he as s er t ed thathi s Si xt h A m endmentr i ghtt o a s peedyt r i al and hi s r i ght s undert he I nt er s t at e A gr eementon D et ai ner s , O kl a. St at . t i t . 22, § 1347, w er e vi ol at ed. T o obt ai n a C O A under[28 U . S. C . ] § 2253( c) , a habe as pr i s oner m us tm ake a s ubs t ant i al s how i ng of the deni al of a c ons t i tut i onal rig h t, a d e m o n stra tio n th a t . . . inc lu d e s s h o w in g th a t re a so n a b le j ur i s t s coul d debat e w hether( or , fort hatm at t er , agr ee that ) t he pet i t i on s houl d have be en r es ol ved i n a di ffe r entm annerort hatt he i s s ues pr es ent ed w er e ade quat e t o des erve enc our agementt o pr ocee d f u rt h e r.W e do notcons i derM r . E ns ey ’ s as s er t i on thathi s r i ghtt o a s peedyt r i al 1 w as v iolated u n d er the O k laho m a C o n sti tuti o n an d O k laho m a’s statutory p ro v is io n c o n c e rn in g s p e e d ytr ia ls , O k la . S ta t. tit. 2 2 , § 8 1 2 .1 . See Estel l e v. McG uir e , 502 U . S. 62, 67- 68 ( 1991) ( “[I ] ti s nott he pr ovi nce of a fe der al habea s co u rtto ree x am ine s tat e-c o u rtd eterm ination s o n stat e-law q u esti o n s. ”). M r. E n s e yfile d w ith th is c o u rt a re q u e s t to p ro c e e d in fo rm a p a u p e ri s (i f p ). 2 H e w as gr ant ed perm i s s i on t o pr ocee d i fp i n the di s tr i ctcourt . R . , D oc. 18. Si nce t he di s t r i ctcour tdi d notcert i fyi n w r i t i ng thathi s appea l w as nott aken i n good fai t h, 28 U . S. C . § 1915( a) ( 3) , hi s i fp s t atus cont i nues i n thi s courtw i thoutfur t her o rd e r. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 2 4 (a )(3 ). H is if p re q u e st is th e re fo re d e n ied a s m o o t. -2- Sl ack v . McD ani el , 5 2 9 U . S . 4 7 3 , 4 8 3 -84 (20 0 0 ) (cit ati o n an d q u o tat ion o m itted). 1 H a v in g c a re f

u llyc o n sid e re d M r. E n se y ’s a p p lica tio n fo r a C O A a n d h is openi ng br i ef, t he r ecor d, and the appl i cabl e l aw , w e det erm i ne thathe has not m a d e a s u b s t a n t i a l s h o w i n g o f t h e d e n i a l o f

a c o n s t i tu t i o n a l r i g h t . A c c o r d i n g l y, w e D E N Y h is re q u e st fo r a C O A a n d D IS M IS S th e a p p e a l. 2 E n tered fo r th e C o u rt D eane l l R eec e Tacha C hi ef Ci r cui tJ udge
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-10-00069-CV

IN RE PATRICK LEE MULLINS

Original Proceeding

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator Patrick Lee Mullins has filed a petition for writ of mandamus against 

Robyn Flowers, the District Clerk of Walker County, complaining about her refusal to 

file his civil lawsuit.1

A court of appeals has no jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against a 

district clerk except to protect its jurisdiction. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(b) 

(Vernon 2004); In re Bernard, 993 S.W.2d 453, 454 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, 

orig. proceeding). We do not have jurisdiction to decide Mullins’s petition for writ of 

 

1 Mullins tendered the originals of his petition and exhibits. Because of our disposition, we direct the 

Clerk of the Court to return these originals to Mullins.
In re Mullins Page 2

mandamus against the District Clerk.2 We thus dismiss the petition for want of 

jurisdiction.

REX D. DAVIS

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Reyna, and

Justice Davis

(Chief Justice Gray joins only the judgment, and only to the extent it dismisses 

the Petition for Writ of Mandamus. A separate opinion will not issue, but see the 

dissent to In re Simmonds cited in footnote 2.)

Petition dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed March 10, 2010

[OT06]

 

2 We recently wrote:

When a district clerk refuses to accept a pleading for filing, the party should attempt to 

file the pleading directly with the district judge, explaining in a verified motion that the 

clerk refused to accept the pleading for filing. TEX. R. CIV. P. 74. Should the district judge 

refuse to accept the pleading for filing, this Court would have jurisdiction under our 

mandamus power to direct the district judge to file the pleading.

In re Simmonds, 271 S.W.3d 874, 883 (Tex. App.—Waco 2008, orig. proceeding) (quoting Bernard,

993 S.W.2d at 455 (O’Connor, J., concurring)).
228 So.2d 483

#### William H. PATTERSON and Mrs. Mattie L. H. Patterson, Individually and for the Use and Benefit of Their Minor Daughter, Gwendolyn Elaine Patterson v. RECREATION AND PARK COMMISSION FOR THE PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE.

No. 50153.

Dec. 11, 1969.

In re: William H. Patterson et al., etc. applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Parish of East Baton Rouge. 226 So.2d 211.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal there appears no error of law in its judgment.
###### Editorial Note on Part 51

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 51 appear at 80 FR 74980, Dec. 1, 2015.

#### § 51.11 Relationship to other subparts. [Reserved]
Case 2:06-cr-00179-MHT-CSC Document 1 Filed 07/25/2006 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit
      32.2





CERTIFICATION
      OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
      ACT
      OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350








In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Simclar, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
      10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Marshall W. Griffin,
      Jr., Chief Financial Officer and Secretary of the Company, hereby certify as
      of
      the date hereof, solely for purpose of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of
      the
      United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:





(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 result of operations of the Company.





This
      Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, “filed” with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission.








/s/
      Marshall W. Griffin, Jr.


Marshall
      W. Griffin, Jr., Chief Financial Officer and Secretary


Simclar,
      Inc.


November
      14, 2006
## In the
Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 21

- 00117

- CV

F ADUMO O SMAN

, I NDIVIDUALLY AND AS

P ERSONAL R EPRESENTATIVE OF THE

E STATE OF Y

ASMIN A BDILLAHI

, D ECEASED ; A HMED A BDILLAHI A HMED ;

AND A NAB A HMED

, Appellants

V

.

C ITY OF F ORT W ORTH AND

D ALLAS /F ORT W ORTH I NTERNATIONAL

A IRPORT B OARD , Appellees §

§

§

§ On Appeal from the 342nd District

Court

of Tarrant County ( 342

- 317281

- 20 )

January 20, 2022

Memorandum Opinion by Chief

J ustice Sudderth

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was no error in the trial court’s orders . It is ordered that the orders of the trial court

are affirmed.It is further ordered that Appel lants shall pay all costs of this appeal, for which

let execution issue.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Bonnie Sudderth

Chief Justice Bonnie Sudderth
§ 15.53 Reasons for suspending collection action. The NRC may suspend collection activity when: ( a ) The NRC cannot locate the debtor;
( b ) The debtor's financial condition is not expected to improve; or
( c ) The debtor has requested a review of the debt or has disputed the debt.
( d ) Based on the current financial condition of the debtor, the NRC may suspend collection activity on a debt when the debtor's future prospects justify retention of the debt for periodic review and collection activity and: ( 1 ) The applicable statute of limitations has not expired; or
( 2 ) Future collection can be effected by administrative offset, notwithstanding the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations for litigation of claims, with due regard to the 10-year limitation for administrative offset prescribed by 31 U.S.C. 3716(e)(1); or
( 3 ) The debtor agrees to pay interest on the amount of the debt on which collection will be suspended, and such suspension is likely to enhance the debtor's ability to pay the full amount of the principal of the debt with interest at a later date.
( e ) ( 1 ) The NRC shall suspend collection activity during the time required for consideration of the debtor's request for review or dispute of the debt, if the statute under which the request is sought prohibits the NRC from collecting the debt during that time.
( 2 ) If the statute under which the request is sought does not prohibit collection activity pending consideration of the request, the NRC may use discretion, on a case-by-case basis, to suspend collection. Further, the NRC ordinarily should suspend collection action upon a request for review or dispute of the debt, if the NRC is prohibited by statute or regulation from issuing a refund of amounts collected prior to NRC consideration of the debtor's request. However, the NRC should not suspend collection when the NRC determines that the request for review or dispute of the debt is frivolous or was made primarily to delay collection.
( f ) When the NRC learns that a bankruptcy petition has been filed with respect to a debtor, in most cases, the collection activity on a debt must be suspended, pursuant to the provisions of 11 U.S.C. 362, 1201, and 1301, unless the NRC can clearly establish that the automatic stay has been lifted or is no longer in effect. The NRC should seek legal advice immediately from its Office of the General Counsel and, if legally permitted, take the necessary steps to ensure that no funds or money are paid by the NRC to the debtor until relief from the automatic stay is obtained.
[67 FR 30323, May 6, 2002, as amended at 86 FR 32169, June 16, 2021]
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

November 8, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver 130824 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, ROSEMARY GOODLANDER, Personal Justices Representative for the Estate of Kim Goodlander, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 130824 COA: 265714 Genesee CC: 05-081678-NO CAROL NAIMI, d/b/a WHIGVILLE PARTY STORE, a/k/a GRAN D BLANC MARKET, Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the applicati on for leave to appeal the March 14, 2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

C AVANAGH and K ELLY , JJ., would grant leave to appeal.

d1101 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

November 8, 2006

Clerk
Editorial Note on Part 70
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 70 appear at 81 FR 86910, Dec. 2, 2016.

§ 70.51 Records requirements. ( a ) Before license termination, licensees shall forward the following records to the appropriate NRC Regional Office: ( 1 ) Records of disposal of licensed material made under 10 CFR 20.2002 (including burials authorized before January 28, 1981[1] ), 20.2003, 20.2004, 20.2005;
( 2 ) Records required by 10 CFR 20.2103(b)(4); and
( 3 ) Records required by § 70.25(g).
( b ) If licensed activities are transferred or assigned in accordance with § 70.32(a)(3), the licensee shall transfer the following records to the new licensee and the new licensee will be responsible for maintaining these records until the license is terminated: ( 1 ) Records of disposal of licensed material made under 10 CFR 20.2002 (including burials authorized before January 28, 19811), 20.2003, 20.2004, 20.2005;
( 2 ) Records required by 10 CFR 20.2103(b)(4); and
( 3 ) Records required by § 70.25(g).
( c ) ( 1 ) Records which must be maintained pursuant to this part may be the original or a reproduced copy, or microform if the reproduced copy or microform is duly authenticated by authorized personnel, and the microform is capable of producing a clear and legible copy after storage for the period specified by Commission regulations. The record may also be stored in electronic media with the capability for producing legible, accurate, and complete records during the required retention period. Records such as letters, drawings, and specifications, must include all pertinent information such as stamps, initials, and signatures. The licensee shall maintain adequate safeguards against tampering with and loss of records.
( 2 ) If there is a conflict between the Commission's regulations in this part, license condition, or other written Commission approval or authorization pertaining to the retention period for the same type of record, the retention period specified in the regulations in this part for these records shall apply unless the Commission, under § 70.17 has granted a specific exemption from the record retention requirements specified in the regulations in this part.
[67 FR 78142, Dec. 23, 2002, as amended at 72 FR 35145, June 27, 2007] Footnotes -
70.51
[1] A previous § 20.304 permitted burial of small quantities of licensed materials in soil before January 28, 1981, without specific Commission authorization. *See* § 20.304 contained in the 10 CFR, parts 0 to 199, edition revised as of January 1, 1981.
IV 

★

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 162 

Expressing support for designation of March 21, 2017, as ‘‘National Rosie 

the Riveter Day’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 1, 2017 

Mr. HUFFMAN (for himself, Ms. SPEIER, Mr. FITZPATRICK, Mrs. BEATTY, 

Ms. BROWNLEY of California, Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts, Ms. CLARKE

of New York, Mr. COHEN, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. DELANEY, Mr. 

DESAULNIER, Mrs. DINGELL, Mr. DONOVAN, Mr. ELLISON, Mr. 

ESPAILLAT, Mr. EVANS, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. GUTHRIE, Mr. HIMES, Ms. 

JACKSON LEE, Ms. JAYAPAL, Mr. JENKINS of West Virginia, Ms. JENKINS of Kansas, Mr. JONES, Ms. KAPTUR, Mr. KNIGHT, Ms. KUSTER of 

New Hampshire, Mr. LANGEVIN, Mr. LARSON of Connecticut, Mrs. LAWRENCE, Ms. LEE, Mr. TED LIEU of California, Mr. LOWENTHAL, Ms. 

MENG, Ms. MOORE, Ms. NORTON, Mr. PALLONE, Mr. PANETTA, Mr. 

PETERS, Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD, Mr. RUSH, Mr. RYAN of Ohio, Ms. SHEAPORTER, Ms. SLAUGHTER, Mr. SMITH of Washington, Mr. SWALWELL of 

California, Mr. TAKANO, Ms. TITUS, Mr. THOMPSON of California, Mrs. 

TORRES, Mr. VARGAS, Ms. VELA ́ZQUEZ, Mr. WALZ, Ms. WASSERMAN

SCHULTZ, Mr. YARMUTH, and Mr. FARENTHOLD) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Education and 

the Workforce 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing support for designation of March 21, 2017, as 

‘‘National Rosie the Riveter Day’’. 

Whereas ‘‘National Rosie the Riveter Day’’ is a collective national effort to raise awareness of the 16 million women 

working during World War II; 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

HRES 162 IH1S 

Whereas Americans have chosen to honor female workers who 

contributed on the home front during World War II; 

Whereas these women left their homes to work or volunteer 

full-time in factories, farms, shipyards, airplane factories, 

banks, and other institutions in support of the military 

overseas; 

Whereas these women worked with the USO and Red Cross, 

drove trucks, riveted airplane parts, collected critical materials, rolled bandages, and served on rationing boards; 

Whereas it is fitting and proper to recognize and preserve the 

history and legacy of working women, including volunteer 

women, during World War II to promote cooperation and 

fellowship among such women and their descendants; 

Whereas these women and their descendants wish to further 

the advancement of patriotic ideas, excellence in the 

workplace, and loyalty to the United States of America; 

and 

Whereas March 21, 2017, during Women’s History Month, 

would be an appropriate date to designate as ‘‘National 

Rosie the Riveter Day’’: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) supports the designation of ‘‘National Rosie 

3 the Riveter Day’’; and 

4 (2) acknowledges the important role played by 

5 women in World War II. 

Æ 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v John Gonzalez, Also Known as John Gonzalo, Also Known as Brand Uribe, True Name, John Brand, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, rendered on June 14, 1979, unanimously affirmed. Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted. (See *Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833.) We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no meritorious points which could be raised on this appeal. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ross, Markewich, Yesawich and Carro, JJ.
IV 

House Calendar No. 111 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 532 

[Report No. 109–270] 

Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the 

bill (H.R. 3057) making appropriations for foreign operations, export 

financing, and related programs for the fiscal year ending September 

30, 2006, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 3, 2005 

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered 

to be printed 

RESOLUTION 

Waiving points of order against the conference report to 

accompany the bill (H.R. 3057) making appropriations 

for foreign operations, export financing, and related programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, 

and for other purposes. 

1 Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it 

2 shall be in order to consider the conference report to ac3 company the bill (H.R. 3057) making appropriations for 

4 foreign operations, export financing, and related programs 
2 

HRES 532 RH 

1 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for 

2 other purposes. All points of order against the conference 

3 report and against its consideration are waived. The con4 ference report shall be considered as read. 

House Calendar No. 111 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 532 

[Report No. 109–270] 

RESOLUTION 

Waiving points of order against the conference reposes. ending September 30, 2006, and for other pur- nancing, and related programs for the fiscal year appropriations for foreign operations, export fi- port to accompany the bill (H.R. 3057) making 

NOVEMBER 3, 2005 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 447 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 447

      Permitting the use of the frank for mailings which include 
solicitations for charities responding to a major disaster which is the 
  subject of a Presidential declaration under the Robert T. Stafford 
             Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 15, 2005

    Mr. Brown of Ohio (for himself, Ms. Millender-McDonald, and Ms. 
 Slaughter) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
the Committee on House Administration, and in addition to the Committee 
on Government Reform, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 
  Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall 
           within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
      Permitting the use of the frank for mailings which include 
solicitations for charities responding to a major disaster which is the 
  subject of a Presidential declaration under the Robert T. Stafford 
             Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act.

    Resolved, That in applying the requirements of section 3210(a) of 
title 39, United States Code, to a mailing by a Member of the House of 
Representatives (including a Delegate or Resident Commissioner to the 
Congress), the House Commission on Congressional Mailing Standards may 
not find that the mailing is not frankable solely because it includes a 
solicitation of funds for or on behalf of an entity for the purpose of 
supporting relief efforts and activities in response to a major 
disaster for which the President has made a declaration under title IV 
of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act 
(or, in the case of a mailing sent electronically, includes a link to 
such a solicitation on an Internet site), if the entity is included in 
the list of relief organizations responding to the disaster which is 
maintained or referred to in official notices of the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency.
                                 <all>
```
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**SECTION 1350CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

 

In connection with the accompanyingQuarterly Report of Greene County Bancshares, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the quarter ended September 30, 2003 (the “Report”), I, William F. Richmond,Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifypursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge, that:

 

(1)                                  The Reportfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities 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.

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 hasbeen provided to Greene County Bancshares, Inc. and will be retained by GreeneCounty Bancshares, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commissionor its staff upon request.

 
| Date:  | November 12, 2003                                  |   | /s/ William F.  Richmond |   |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------|--------|
|   | William F. Richmond                                |
|   | Senior Vice President  and Chief Financial Officer |

 

----