alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
`[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 71 Referred in House (RFH)]







110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. CON. RES. 71


_______________________________________________________________________


                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 14, 2008

            Referred to the Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION


 
Authorizing the use of the rotunda of the Capitol for the presentation 
     of the Congressional Gold Medal to Michael Ellis DeBakey, M.D.

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring),

SECTION 1. USE OF THE ROTUNDA OF THE CAPITOL FOR THE PRESENTATION OF 
              THE CONGRESSIONAL GOLD MEDAL.

    The rotunda of the United States Capitol is authorized to be used 
on April 23, 2008, for the presentation of the Congressional Gold Medal 
to Michael Ellis DeBakey, M.D.. Physical preparations for the conduct 
of the ceremony shall be carried out in accordance with such conditions 
as may be prescribed by the Architect of the Capitol.

            Passed the Senate March 14 (legislative day, March 13), 
      2008.

            Attest:

                                                NANCY ERICKSON,

                                                             Secretary.`
§ 38.69 Complaint filing. ( a ) Any person or the person's representative who believes that any of the following circumstances exist may file a written complaint: ( 1 ) A person, or any specific class of individuals, has been or is being discriminated against on the basis of race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions, transgender status, and gender identity), national origin (including limited English proficiency), age, disability, political affiliation or belief, citizenship status, or participation in any WIOA Title I-financially assisted program or activity as prohibited by WIOA or this part.
( 2 ) Either the person, or any specific class of individuals, has been or is being retaliated against as described in § 38.19.
( b ) A person or the person's representative may file a complaint with either the recipient's EO Officer (or the person the recipient has designated for this purpose) or the Director. Complaints filed with the Director should be sent to the address listed in the notice or filed electronically as described in the notice in § 38.35.
( c ) Generally, a complaint must be filed within 180 days of the alleged discrimination or retaliation. However, for good cause shown, the Director may extend the filing time. The time period for filing is for the administrative convenience of CRC, and does not create a defense for the respondent.
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-16-00212-CV

Vanessa Tijerina

v.

Diana Conde

On appeal from the

197th District Court of Willacy County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 2016-CV-0061-A

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The Court 

orders the appeal DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION in accordance with its 

opinion. Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appellant.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

May 19, 2016
§ 2700.82 Ex parte communications. ( a ) For purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply: ( 1 ) *Ex parte communication* means an oral or written communication not on the public record concerning any matter or proceeding with respect to which reasonable prior notice to all parties has not been given. A status or informational request does not constitute an ex parte communication.
( 2 ) *Status or informational request* means a request for a status report on any matter or proceeding or a request concerning filing requirements or other docket information.
( 3 ) *Merits of a case,* which shall be broadly construed by the Commission, includes discussion of the factual or legal issues in a case or resolution of those issues.
( b ) *Prohibited ex parte communication.* There shall be no ex parte communication with respect to the merits of a case not concluded, between the Commission, including any member, Judge, officer, or agent of the Commission who is employed in the decisional process, and any of the parties, intervenors, representatives, amici, or other interested persons.
( c ) *Procedure in case of violation.* ( 1 ) In the event a prohibited ex parte communication occurs, the Commission or the Judge may make such orders or take such action to remedy the effect of the ex parte communication as circumstances require. Upon notice and hearing, the Commission may take disciplinary action against any person who knowingly and willfully makes or causes to be made a prohibited ex parte communication.
( 2 ) A memorandum setting forth all ex parte communications, whether prohibited or not, shall be placed on the public record of the proceeding.
( d ) *Inquiries.* Any inquiries concerning filing requirements, the status of cases before the Commission, or docket information shall be directed to the Office of General Counsel or the Docket Office of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite 520N, Washington, DC 20004-1710.
[58 FR 12164, Mar. 3, 1993, as amended at 67 FR 60862, Sept. 27, 2002; 77 FR 48430, Aug. 14, 2012]
###### Editorial Note on Part 4

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 4 appear at 61 FR 19984, May 3, 1996.

#### § 4.159 General minimum wage.

The Act, in section 2(b)(1), provides generally that no contractor or subcontractor under any Federal contract subject to the Act shall pay any employee engaged in performing work on such a contract less than the minimum wage specified under section 6(a)(1) of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Section 2(a)(1) provides that the minimum monetary wage specified in any such contract exceeding $2,500 shall in no case be lower than this Fair Labor Standards Act minimum wage. Section 2(b)(1) is a statutory provision which applies to the contractor or subcontractor without regard to whether it is incorporated in the contract; however, §§ 4.6 and 4.7 provide for inclusion of its requirements in covered contracts and subcontracts. Because this statutory requirement specifies no fixed monetary wage rate and refers only to the minimum wage specified under section 6(a)(1) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and because its application does not depend on provisions of the contract, any increase in such Fair Labor Standards Act minimum wage during the life of the contract is, on its effective date, also effective to increase the minimum wage payable under section 2(b)(1) to employees engaged in performing work on the contract.

[48 FR 49762, Oct. 27, 1983, as amended at 76 FR 18854, Apr. 5, 2011]
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002   In connection with the Annual Report of Little Squaw Gold Mining Company, (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard R. Walters, President and Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  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 Little Squaw Gold Mining Company.    /s/ Richard R. Walters DATE:  April 8, 2008 Richard R. Walters, President   A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Little Squaw Gold Mining Company and will be retained by Little Squaw Gold Mining Company to be furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
_________________________________________ 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 10, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

132025-6 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. PRISCILLA SCHWARZE, as Conservator of CARL Stephen J. Markman, SCHWARZE and PRISCILLA SCHWARZE, Justices Individually, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

and SC: 132025-6 

 COA: 257467, 257511 

Wayne CC: 01-134972-CK

THOMAS SCHWARZE, as Personal Representative 

of the ESTATE OF THOMAS SCHWARZE, 

Intervening Plaintiff, 

v 

MARY DILWORTH and AUTO-OWNERS 

INSURANCE COMPANY, 

Defendants-Appellants, 

and 

DAVID MICHAEL FOWLER and HUGH 

EDWARD DILWORTH,

Defendants. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 27, 2006 

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. 

t0830 

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. 

September 10, 2007 

 Clerk
§ 2570.66 Scope of discovery. For 502(c)(2) civil penalty proceedings, this section shall apply in lieu of § 18.14 of this title. ( a ) A party may file a motion to conduct discovery with the administrative law judge. The motion for discovery shall be granted by the administrative law judge only upon a showing of good cause. In order to establish “good cause” for the purposes of this section, a party must show that the discovery requested relates to a genuine issue as to a material fact that is relevant to the proceeding. The order of the administrative law judge shall expressly limit the scope and terms of discovery to that for which “good cause” has been shown, as provided in this paragraph.
( b ) A party may obtain discovery of documents and tangible things otherwise discoverable under paragraph (a) of this section and prepared in anticipation of or for the hearing by or for another party's representative (including his or her attorney, consultant, surety, indemnitor, insurer, or agent) only upon showing that the party seeking discovery has substantial need of the materials or information in the preparation of his or her case and that he or she is unable without undue hardship to obtain the substantial equivalent of the materials or information by other means. In ordering discovery of such materials when the required showing has been made, the administrative law judge shall protect against disclosure of the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of an attorney or other representatives of a party concerning the proceeding.
(75 South. 624)

(3 Div. 286.)

#### COOPER v. STATE.

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

May 29, 1917.)

Criminal Law <&wkey;200(2) — Former Jeopardy.

A conviction for assault with intent to murder is not precluded by a previous conviction for carrying a pistol concealed about accused’s person or on premises not his own, on theory that defendant had previously been placed in, jeopardy.

[Ed. Noto. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 347, 388-393.]

Appeal from. City Court of Montgomery; Gaston Gunter, Judge.

Allen Cooper was convicted of assault with intent to murder, and appeals.

Affirmed.

Brassell & Brassell, of Montgomery, for appellant. W. L. Martin, Atty. Gen., for the State.

BRICKEN, J.

The defendant was indicted, tried, and convicted for the offense of assault with intent to murder. Before pleading to the indictment, the defendant interposed a plea of former jeopardy, setting up that he had already been convicted of the offense 'of carrying a pistol concealed about his person or on premises not his own or under his control. Demurrers to this1 plea were interposed and sustained *by*the court, and it is here insisted that the court erred in sustaining the demurrers.

It needs1 no citation of authorities in holding that the court committed no error in sustaining the demurrers to the plea of former jeopardy, as said plea was no answer- to the indictment in this case. This being the. only question presented for review, and there being no error in the record, an affirmance must follow.

Affirmed.
#### § 4003.53 Where to file.

An appeal or a request for an extension of time to appeal must be submitted to the Appeals Board. See § 4000.4 of this chapter for additional information on where to file.

[61 FR 34012, July 1, 1996, as amended at 68 FR 61352, Oct. 28, 2003; 73 FR 38120, July 3, 2008; 85 FR 10284, Feb. 24, 2020]
<PAGE>   1


                                   Exhibit 11

                  COMPUTATION OF NET EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE

<TABLE>
                                                 Year Ended December 31,
                                      ----------------------------------------
                                           1996          1995         1994
                                      ------------   -----------   -----------
<S>                                   <C>            <C>           <C>
EARNINGS
Net Earnings                           $ 5,016,392   $ 5,634,516   $ 4,374,374
                                       ===========   ===========   ===========

SHARES
Weighted Average Number of
Common Shares Outstanding                4,756,789     4,724,489     4,710,966
(See Note)

Additional Shares Assuming
Conversion of Stock Options                112,913        39,002        47,122
                                       -----------   -----------   -----------
Weighted Average Common Shares
Outstanding and Equivalents              4,869,702     4,763,491     4,757,867
                                       ===========   ===========   ===========
 
PRIMARY EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE

Net Earnings                           $      1.03   $      1.18   $       .92
                                       ===========   ===========   ===========

</TABLE>

Note:  All activity during the year has been adjusted for the
       number of days in the year that the shares were outstanding.
## 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

N O
. W R

- 8 3 , 6 1 0

- 0 1

E X P A R T E L E O N A R D W A F E R , A p p l i c a n t

O N A P P L I C A T I O N F O R A W R I T O F H A B E A S C O R P U S C A U S E N O
. 3 1 , 3 2 8

- C R I N T H E 1 3 D I S T R I C T C O U R T T H F R O M N A V A R R O C O U N T Y

Y E A R Y , J
. , f

i l e d a c o n c u r r i n g o p i n i o n i n w h i c h K E A S L E R , a n d H E R V E Y , J J
. , j o i n e d
.
C O N C U R R I N G O P I N I O N

A d h e r i n g t o t h e v i e w s e x p r e s s e d i n m y c o n c u r r i n g o p i n i o n i n E x p a r t e P o i n t e r ,

_ _ _ S

. W

. 3 d

_ _ _ , N o s
. W R

- 8 4 , 7 8 6

- 0 1 & W R

- 8 4 , 7 8 6

- 0 2 ( T e x
. C r i m
. A p p
. d e l

. J u n e 8 , 2 0 1 6 ) , I j o i n i n t h e C o u r t ’ s d i s p o s i t i o n o f t h i s c a s e
.

F I L E D : J u n e 2 9 , 2 0 1 6 D O N O T P U B L I S H
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED April 11, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-40868 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JOEL RODRIGUEZ-MOCTEZUMA, aka Carlos Lopez-Moctezuma, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:04-CR-851-1

-------------------- Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Joel Rodriguez-Moctezuma pleaded guilty to being found unlawfully in the United States after deportation and was sentenced to 72 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. As a condition of supervised release, Rodriguez-Moctezuma was ordered to cooperate in the collection of a DNA sample as directed by his probation officer. Rodriguez-Moctezuma argues that the district court erred in ordering him to cooperate in the collection of a DNA sample as aNo. 05-40868 -2- condition of supervised release. This claim is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because it is not ripe for review. See United States v. Riascos-Cuenu , 428 F.3d 1100, 1101-02 (5th Cir. 2005), petition for cert. filed (Jan. 9, 2006) (No. 05-8662). Rodriguez-Moctezuma’s constitutional challenge to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). Although Rodriguez-Moctezuma contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule Almendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000), we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that Almendarez-Torres remains binding. See United States v. Garza-Lopez , 410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 298 (2005). Rodriguez-Moctezuma properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of Almendarez-Torres and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further review. JUDGMENT AFFIRMED; APPEAL DISMISSED IN PART.
#### Joseph Lewis, Appellant, *v.*Board of Education of the City of New York, et al., Respondents.

Argued June 4, 1937;

decided July 13, 1937.

*481
      *Joseph Wheless*for appellant.

*Paul Windels, Corporation Counsel (William C. Chanler*and *Thomas W. A. Crowe*of counsel), for respondents,

f Appeal dismissed, with costs, on the ground that the constitutional question is not the sole question involved in the appeal. No opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, Hhbbs, Lohghran, Finch and Rippey, JJ. Taking no part: O’Brien, J.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-26-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1996
<CASH>                                           1,076
<SECURITIES>                                         7
<RECEIVABLES>                                      335
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      6,022
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 8,553
<PP&E>                                          10,116
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,751
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  15,033
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,995
<BONDS>                                          3,922
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           486
<OTHER-SE>                                       4,794
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    15,033
<SALES>                                         31,713
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                31,713
<CGS>                                           24,675
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   24,675
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 434
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (313)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (83)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (230)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   (290)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   (51)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (571)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.25)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.25)
        

</TABLE>
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 Quarterly Report of Lite King Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended December 31, 2006 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

      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 operation of the
Company.


Date: February 13, 2007                 By:    /s/ John T. Ruddy
                                               ---------------------------------
                                        Name:  John T. Ruddy
                                        Title: Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authentications, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature
that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written
statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Lite King Corporation
and will be retained by Lite King Co`rporation and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


                                  EXHIBIT 32.2
§ 452.107 Observers. ( a ) Under the provisions of section 401(c), each candidate must be permitted to have an observer ( 1 ) at the polls and
( 2 ) at the counting of the ballots. This right encompasses every phase and level of the counting and tallying process, including the counting and tallying of the ballots and the totaling, recording, and reporting of tally sheets. If there is more than one polling place, the candidate may have an observer at each location. If ballots are being counted at more than one location or at more than one table at a single location, a candidate is entitled to as many observers as necessary to observe the actual counting of ballots. The observer may note the names of those voting so that the candidates may be able to ascertain whether unauthorized persons voted in the election. The observers should be placed so that they do not compromise, or give the appearance of compromising, the secrecy of the ballot. The observer is not required to be a member of the labor organization unless the union's constitution and bylaws require him to be a member. There is no prohibition on the use of alternate observers, when necessary, or on a candidate serving as his own observer. Observers do not have the right to count the ballots.
( b ) The right to have an observer at the polls and at the counting of the ballots extends to all candidates for office in an election subject to title IV, i.e., this includes elections in intermediate bodies as well as elections in locals and national and international labor organizations.
( c ) In any secret ballot election which is conducted by mail, regardless of whether the ballots are returned by members to the labor organization office, to a mail box, or to an independent agency such as a firm of certified public accountants, candidates must be permitted to have an observer present at the preparation and mailing of the ballots, their receipt by the counting agency and at the opening and counting of the ballots.
( d ) Paying election observers is the responsibility of the candidate they represent unless the union has a rule providing for the payment of observers. If the union does have such a rule, it must be uniformly applied to all candidates.