alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order entered April 22, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-01664-CR

LEMUEL MOSLEY, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 2

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F11-57352-I

ORDER

The Court has before it appellant’s April 2, 2014 second motion to extend time to file his 

brief. In the motion, counsel states that the court reporter has not filed a copy of the reporter’s 

record with the District Clerk, so counsel has not been able to prepare the brief. We GRANT

appellant’s motion as follows.

We ORDER Kendra Thibodeaux, deputy official court reporter, to file a complete copy 

of the reporter’s record, including all exhibits, with the Dallas County District Clerk by APRIL 

28, 2014. We further ORDER that Ms. Thibodeaux file in this Court, by 5:00 p.m. on April 

28,2 014, written verification that she has complied with this order.

We ORDER appellant to file his brief by MAY 30, 2014.
We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to Kendra 

Thibodeaux, deputy official court reporter, and to counsel for all parties.

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT

CHIEF JUSTICE
**EXHIBIT 32.2**





**CERTIFICATION
      OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**





Pursuant
      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002




I,
      Andrew
      R. Skobe, Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer) of Icahn
      Enterprises GP Inc., the General Partner of Icahn
      Enterprises L.P. (the “Registrant”), certify that to the best of my
      knowledge, based upon a review of the American Real Estate Partners, L.P.
      quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2007 of
      the Registrant (the “Report”):




(1) The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and




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




/s/
              Andrew
              R. SkobeAndrew
                R. SkobeChief
                Financial Officer of Icahn Enterprises G.P. Inc., the General
                Partner of Icahn Enterprises L.P.


Date:
      November 8, 2007
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7385 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7385

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 29 Franklin Street in Petersburg, Virginia, as the ``John Mercer 
                    Langston Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 15, 2024

  Ms. McClellan (for herself, Mr. Beyer, Mr. Cline, Mr. Connolly, Mr. 
Good of Virginia, Mr. Griffith, Mrs. Kiggans of Virginia, Mr. Scott of 
 Virginia, Ms. Spanberger, Ms. Wexton, and Mr. Wittman) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and 
                             Accountability

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 29 Franklin Street in Petersburg, Virginia, as the ``John Mercer 
                    Langston Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. JOHN MERCER LANGSTON POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 29 Franklin Street in Petersburg, Virginia, shall be known 
and designated as the ``John Mercer Langston Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``John 
Mercer Langston Post Office Building''.
                                 <all>
```
§ 582.3890 Tocopherols. ( a ) *Product.* Tocopherols.
( b ) *Conditions of use.* This substance is generally recognized as safe when used in accordance with good manufacturing or feeding practice.
86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11

Year

0

10

20

30

40

50

p

p

b

Baton Rouge Mean Morning NOx Concentrations

 June-August, 5-8 AM LST

Capitol

Port Allen
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7279 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to reduce the administrative 

burden on physicians and physical and occupational therapists, with 

respect to plan of care certification and recertification requirements. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 7, 2024 

Mr. DAVIS of North Carolina (for himself and Mr. SMUCKER) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, 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 

A BILL 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to reduce 

the administrative burden on physicians and physical 

and occupational therapists, with respect to plan of care 

certification and recertification requirements. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Remove Duplicative 

5 Unnecessary Clerical Exchanges Act’’ or the ‘‘REDUCE 

6 Act’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7279 IH

1 SEC. 2. REDUCING THE ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN ON PHY2 SICIANS AND PHYSICAL THERAPISTS WITH 

3 RESPECT TO PLAN OF CARE CERTIFICATION 

4 AND RECERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS. 

5 Section 1835(a) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 

6 1395n(a)) is amended by adding at the end of the flush 

7 left text the following: ‘‘With respect to the certification 

8 and recertification requirements under paragraph (2), in 

9 the case of outpatient physical therapy services or out10 patient occupational therapy services (as described in sub11 paragraph (C) of such paragraph) furnished to an indi12 vidual on or after the date of enactment of this sentence 

13 under an order from a physician, such requirements shall 

14 be deemed satisfied if the qualified physical therapist or 

15 occupational therapist submits a plan of care to the order16 ing physician within 30 days of such qualified physical 

17 therapist or occupational therapist completing an initial 

18 evaluation of such individual or documenting the need for 

19 additional intervals of service. Such ordering physician 

20 may amend such plan of care within 10 business days of 

21 the receipt of such plan of care. No references to an order 

22 in this subsection shall be construed to require an order 

23 for outpatient physical therapy or occupational therapy.’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
MOJAQMD RULE 1303 REQUIREMENTS

LAST REVISED 03/25/96



## RULE 1303

REQUIREMENTS (Adopted: 07/21/80; Rescinded: 10/27/93; Adopted: 03/25/96) (A) Best Available Control Technology 1. Any new Permit Unit which emits, or has the Potential to Emit, 25 pounds per day or more of any Nonattainment Air Pollutant shall be equipped with BACT. 2. Any modified Permit Unit which emits, or has the Potential to Emit, 25 pounds per day or more of any Nonattainment Air Pollutant shall be equipped with BACT. 3. Any new or modified Facility which emits, or has the Potential to Emit, 25 tons per yea r or more of any Nonattainment Air Pollutant shall be equipped with BACT for each new Permi t Unit.

(B) Offsets Required 1. Any new or modified Facility which emits or has the Potential to Emit a Regulated Ai r Pollutant in an amount greater than or equal to the following offset threshold amounts of Nonattainment Air Pollutants and their Precursors, as calculated pursuant to District Rule 1304, shal l obtain Offsets.
OFFSET THRESHOLD AMOUNTS

2. Any Facility which is not a Major Facility but where the Modification is in itse lf a Major Modification shall obtain Offsets. 3. Any Facility which becomes a Major Facility due to a relaxation of a Federally E nforceable requirement shall obtain Offsets. 4. The amount, type, and eligibility of such offsets shall be determined pursuant to the provisions of District Rules 1304(C), 1305 and District Regulation XIV.

POLLUTANT OFFSET THRESHOLD Carbon Monoxide (CO) 100 tpy Hydrogen Sulfide (H 2 S) 10 tpy Lead (Pb) 0.6 tpy PM 10 15 tpy Oxides of Nitrogen (NO x ) 25 tpy Oxides of Sulfur (SO x ) 25 tpy Reactive Organic Compounds (ROC) 25 tpy Page 1 of 2 MOJAQMD 1303 REQUIREMENTS

6/ 6/2016 https://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/r9sips.nsf/AgencyProvision/D1EFAAB879593750882569CE00

...(C) De Minimis Modifications at Major Facilities

1. Notwithstanding the provisions of section (B) above, the modification of an existing Maj or Facility shall not require offsets when: (a) The increase in net emissions of any precursor to ozone does not exceed 25 tons when aggregated with all other increases in emissions from the Facility over any period of five (5) consecutive calendar years including the calendar year in which such increase occurs.

[SIP: Submited as amended 03/25/96 on _________; Su bmitted recision of 10/27/93 on 03/29/94; Condition al Approval 47 FR 25013, 06/09/82] Page 2 of 2 MOJAQMD 1303 REQUIREMENTS

6/ 6/2016 https://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/r9sips.nsf/AgencyProvision/D1EFAAB879593750882569CE00

...
Exhibit 32.1
Certification Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
     In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q (the “Report”) ofYoubet.com, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended September 30, 2004, asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission as of the date hereof (the“Report”), I, Charles F. Champion, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, andI, Charles R. Bearchell, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, herebycertify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
     (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
     (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.        November 15, 2004 By:  /s/ Charles F. Champion    Charles F. Champion    President and Chief Executive Officer           November 15, 2004 By:  /s/ Charles R.Bearchell    Charles R. Bearchell    Chief Financial Officer   
A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or otherdocumentation authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting thesignature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of thiswritten statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Youbet.com,Inc. and will be retained by Youbet.com, Inc. and furnished to the Securitiesand Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
This certification “accompanies” the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q to which itrelates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, andis not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under theSecurities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended (whether made before or after the date of the Quarterly Report on Form10-Q, irrespective of an general incorporation language contained in suchfiling).
§ 520.1044a Gentamicin sulfate oral solution. ( a ) *Specifications.* Each milliliter of aqueous solution contains gentamicin sulfate equivalent to 50 milligrams of gentamicin.
( b ) *Sponsor.* See No. 000061 in § 510.600(c) of this chapter.
( c ) *Related tolerances.* See § 556.300 of this chapter.
( d ) *Conditions of use* — ( 1 ) *Amount.* Colibacillosis: 1 milliliter per 2 gallons of drinking water for 3 consecutive days, to provide 0.5 milligram/pound/day; swine dysentery: 1 milliliter per 1 gallon of drinking water for 3 consecutive days, to provide 1.0 milligram/pound/day.
( 2 ) *Indications for use.* In weanling swine for control and treatment of colibacillosis caused by strains of *E. coli* sensitive to gentamicin, and in swine for control and treatment of swine dysentery associated with *Treponema hyodysenteriae.*
( 3 ) *Limitations.* Do not slaughter treated swine for food for at least 3 days following treatment. Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian.
[48 FR 10302, Mar. 11, 1983. Redesignated at 49 FR 572, Jan. 5, 1984, and amended at 49 FR 14332, Apr. 11, 1984; 52 FR 7832, Mar. 13, 1987; 62 FR 34169, June 25, 1997; 71 FR 13542, Mar. 16, 2006; 81 FR 94989, Dec. 27, 2016; 88 FR 84700, Dec. 6, 2023]
§ 507.10 Applicability of subparts C and E of this part to a facility solely engaged in the storage of unexposed packaged animal food. ( a ) Subparts C and E of this part do not apply to a facility solely engaged in the storage of unexposed packaged animal food that does not require time/temperature control to significantly minimize or prevent the growth of, or toxin production by, pathogens.
( b ) A facility solely engaged in the storage of unexposed packaged animal food, including unexposed packaged animal food that requires time/temperature control to significantly minimize or prevent the growth of, or toxin production by, pathogens is subject to the modified requirements in § 507.51 for any unexposed packaged animal food that requires time/temperature control to significantly minimize or prevent the growth of, or toxin production by, pathogens.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-1937

DEBORAH E. MAPP,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF BEHAVIORAL HEALTH & DEVELOPMENTAL 

SERVICES,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District 

Judge. (2:12-cv-00252-MSD-TEM)

Submitted: October 11, 2012 Decided: November 5, 2012

Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Deborah E. Mapp, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Deborah E. Mapp seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order dismissing her complaint for failure to comply with a 

court order directing her to pay a $350 filing fee. We dismiss 

the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal 

was not timely filed. 

Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of 

the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, 

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends 

the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the 

appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely 

filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional 

requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). 

The district court’s order was entered on the docket 

on June 15, 2012. Accordingly, the latest day for filing a 

timely notice of appeal was Monday, July 16, 2012. Mapp’s 

notice of appeal, however, was not received for filing until 

Tuesday, July 17, 2012. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(d). Because Mapp 

failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an 

extension or reopening of the appeal period, we are constrained 

to dismiss the appeal as untimely. We also deny leave to 

proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 
3

presented in the materials before the court and argument would

not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
<PAGE>   1
                                  EXHIBIT 23.2

               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

     We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (No. 33-97556 and No. 333-43685) of Data Dimensions, Inc.
of our report dated February 17, 1998, appearing on page F-2 of Data Dimensions,
Inc. Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1998.

BDO SEIDMAN, LLP

Seattle, Washington
March 5, 1999
EXHIBIT 23. CONSENT OF EXPERTS AND COUNSEL

                          Independent Auditors' Consent

The Board of Directors
Long Island Financial Corp.:

We consent to  incorporation  by reference in the  Registration  Statement  (No.
333-63971)  on Form S-8 of Long  Island  Financial  Corp.  of our  report  dated
January 18, 2001,  relating to the  consolidated  balance  sheets of Long Island
Financial  Corp.  and  subsidiaries  as of December  31, 2000 and 1999,  and the
related consolidated statements of earnings, changes in stockholders' equity and
cash flows for each of the years in the  three-year  period  ended  December 31,
2000,  which report is incorporated by reference in the December 31, 2000 Annual
Report on Form 10-K of Long Island Financial Corp.

/s/ KPMG LLP

KPMG, LLP
Melville, New York
March 29, 2001
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas** MEMORANDUM OPINION
N o. 04

- 22

- 00353

- CR
EX PARTE Andrez ZUNIGA
- GUTIERREZ From the County Court , Kinney County, Texas Trial Court No. 12108CR Honorable Roland Andrade , Judge Presiding Opinion by: Lori I. Valenzuela , Justice Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice Delivered and Filed : February 22, 2023
AFFIRMED Appellant Andrez Zuniga

- Gutierrez appeals the denial of his application for pretrial writ of habeas corpus. We affirm.
B ACKGROUND On January 9, 2022 , appellant Andrez Zuniga

- Gutierrez was arrested in Kinney County and charg ed with criminal trespas s
. He was appointed counsel and, on January 25, 2022 , was released on bond . On April 14, 2022, the trial court issued a notice of setting for a pretrial hearing on April 2 2 , 2022, and for a jury trial on May 9, 2022. The notice states: “Failure to appear may result in Bond Forfeiture and a Warrant of Arrest.” Zuniga

- Gutierrez alleges that after he was released on bond, the United States government removed him from this country.04

- 22

- 00353

- CR

- 2

- Through counsel, Zuniga

- Gutierrez filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus, seeking dismissal of the charges against him for purported violations of th e Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Articles I, sections 10 and 19, and V, section 1, of the Texas Constitution, alleging deprivations of due process and of his right to counsel

. 1 He argued the State coordinated his removal with the federal government, leaving him unable to return to the United States for his trial setting. The trial c ourt denied habeas relief, and Zuniga

- Gutierrez appealed.
D ISCUSSION In Ex parte Dominguez Ortiz , we considered and rejected the argument that a noncitizen habeas applicant, arrested on criminal trespass charges under Operation Lone Star, was entitled to dismissal of the charges against him after being released on bond and removed from the country. ___ S.W.3d ___, No. 04

- 22

- 00260

- CR, 2023 WL 1424651 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio Feb. 1, 2023, no pet. h.) (en banc) (op. on reh’g). We concluded that the Fifth and S ixth Amendment claims the appellant asserted in that appeal were not cognizable by pretrial writ of habeas corpus. Id . at *7

– 8. The claims Zuniga

- Gutierrez asserts in this case are similar to those we addressed in Dominguez
Ortiz . For the reasons described in that opinion, we affirm the trial court’s order denying habeas relief. Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice
DO NOT PUBLISH

1 Because Zuniga

- Gutierrez did not separately argue his state and federal constitutional claims or argue that the Texas Constitution provides different or broader protections than the United States Constitution, we address appellant’s claims solely on federal constitutional grounds. See Bohannan v. State , 546 S.W.3d 166, 179 n.7 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017) ; Jackson v. State , 992 S.W.2d 469, 475 n.8 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999)

.
[No. 39459-2-I.

Division One.

December 1, 1997.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Stephen Thomas Johnson, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 96-1-02544-1, Stephen G. Scott, J., entered September 3, 1997. *Reversed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
# C_2015138EN.01002403.xml

| 27.4.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 138/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.4.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 138/24

---

Appeal brought on 14 November 2014 by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) against the judgment delivered on 3 September 2014 in Case T-686/13, Unibail v OHIM

(Case C-512/14 P)

(2015/C 138/34)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Unibail Management

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | Set aside the judgment under appeal, |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the judgment under appeal,

| — | Rule on the dispute pursuant to the second sentence of the first paragraph of Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, and |
| --- | --- |

—

Rule on the dispute pursuant to the second sentence of the first paragraph of Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, and

| — | Order the applicant before the General Court to pay the costs incurred by OHIM. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the applicant before the General Court to pay the costs incurred by OHIM.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant raises a single ground of appeal in support of its appeal. OHIM submits that the General Court infringed the first sentence of Article 75 of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1) of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark, read in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) of the same regulation. The General Court misconstrued not only the scope of the concept of general reasoning, but also its own case-law. Finally, the appellant criticises the General Court for having reversed the burden of proof.

1

---

(1)  OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1.

1

---
H. R. 7177 

One Hundred Eighteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and twenty-four 

An Act 

To amend title 28, United States Code, to consolidate certain divisions in the 

Northern District of Alabama. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. CONSOLIDATION OF CERTAIN DIVISIONS IN THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA. 

Section 81(a) of title 28, United States Code, is amended— 

(1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking 

‘‘seven’’ and inserting ‘‘five’’; 

(2) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘and Lauderdale’’ and 

inserting ‘‘Lauderdale, and Lawrence’’; 

(3) in paragraph (2)— 

(A) by striking ‘‘Lawrence,’’; 

(B) by inserting after ‘‘Madison,’’ the following: ‘‘Marshall,’’; and 

(C) by striking ‘‘and Decatur’’; 

(4) in paragraph (4), by striking ‘‘Clay, Cleburne,’’ and 

inserting ‘‘Cherokee, Clay, Cleburne, DeKalb, Etowah, Saint 

Clair,’’; 

(5) in paragraph (5), by striking ‘‘Greene, Pickens, Sumter, 

and Tuscaloosa’’ and inserting ‘‘Fayette, Greene, Lamar, 

Marion, Pickens, Sumter, Tuscaloosa, Walker, and Winston’’; 

(6) by striking paragraph (6); and 

(7) by striking paragraph (7). 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.