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

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4348 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4348

 To amend the Rules of the House of Representatives to prohibit proxy 
 voting and to amend title 18, United States Code, to criminalize the 
       practice commonly called ``ghost voting'' in the House of 
                            Representatives.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 4, 1994

Mr. Walker introduced the following bill; which was referred jointly to 
               the Committees on Rules and the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Rules of the House of Representatives to prohibit proxy 
 voting and to amend title 18, United States Code, to criminalize the 
       practice commonly called ``ghost voting'' in the House of 
                            Representatives.

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

SECTION 1. PROXY VOTING.

    Clause 2(f) of rule VII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives is amended to read as follows:
    ``(f) No vote by any member of any committee or subcommittee with 
respect to any measure or matter may be cast by proxy.''.

SEC. 2. CRIMINAL PENALTY.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 29 of title 18, United States Code, is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 611. Voting for another representative
    ``(a) Whoever, being a Member of the House of Representatives--
            ``(1) authorizes another Member of the House of 
        Representatives to cast the vote, or to record the presence, of 
        the authorizing Member in the House of Representatives; or
            ``(2) casts the vote, or records the presence, of another 
        Member of the House of Representatives in the House of 
        Representatives;
        shall be fined an amount that equals the annual salary that 
        Member of the House of Representatives is receiving for service 
        in the House at the time of the offense.
    ``(b) As used in this section, the term `Member of the House of 
Representatives' means a Representative in, or a Delegate or Resident 
Commissioner to, the Congress.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of 
chapter 29 of title 18, 
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new 
item:

``611. Voting for another representative.''.

                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.1

Section 1350

CERTIFICATION

The undersigned officer hereby certifies that, to his knowledge, (1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of COMFORCE Corporation for the quarter ended June 25, 2006 as to which this Certification is an exhibit
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and (2) the information contained in such Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of COMFORCE Corporation.

Signed August 7, 2006.



|                                    
|------------------------------------
|/s/ John C. Fanning                 
|John C. Fanning,                    
|Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
§ 10.240 Notification to new subscribers of non-participation in WEA. ( a ) A CMS provider that elects not to transmit WEA Alert Messages, in part or in whole, shall provide clear and conspicuous notice, which takes into account the needs of persons with disabilities, to new subscribers of its non-election or partial election to provide Alert messages at the point-of-sale.
( b ) The point-of-sale includes stores, kiosks, third party reseller locations, web sites (proprietary or third party), and any other venue through which the CMS provider's devices and services are marketed or sold.
( c ) CMS Providers electing to transmit alerts “in part” shall use the following notification: NOTICE REGARDING TRANSMISSION OF WIRELESS EMERGENCY ALERTS (Commercial Mobile Alert Service) [[CMS provider]] has chosen to offer wireless emergency alerts, including enhanced geo-targeting, within portions of its service area, as defined by the terms and conditions of its service agreement, on wireless emergency alert capable devices. There is no additional charge for these wireless emergency alerts. Wireless emergency alerts, including enhanced geo-targeting, may not be available on all devices or in the entire service area, or if a subscriber is outside of the [[CMS provider]] service area. For details on the availability of this service and wireless emergency alert capable devices, including the availability and benefits of enhanced geo-targeting, please ask a sales representative, or go to [[CMS provider's URL]]. Notice required by FCC Rule 47 CFR 10.240 (Commercial Mobile Alert Service)
( d ) CMS providers electing in whole not to transmit alerts shall use the following notification language:
NOTICE TO NEW AND EXISTING SUBSCRIBERS REGARDING TRANSMISSION OF WIRELESS EMERGENCY ALERTS (Commercial Mobile Alert Service) [[CMS provider]] presently does not transmit wireless emergency alerts. Notice required by FCC Rule 47 CFR 10.240 (Commercial Mobile Alert Service).
[73 FR 54525, Sept. 22, 2008, as amended at 78 FR 16807, Mar. 19, 2013; 83 FR 8623, Feb. 28, 2018]
232A95-5

#### State v. Timothy Richardson (DEATH)

1. Def’s Petition for *Writ of Certiorari*to Review Order of Superior Court of Nash County

1. Denied

2. State’s Motion to Amend Response to Petition for *Writ of Certiorari*

2. Allowed

3. Def’s Motion for Leave to File Reply to Response to Petition for *Writ of Certiorari*

3. Allowed
104P16

#### State v. William Gerald Price

Def’s *Pro Se*Motion for Notice of Appeal

Dismissed
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-7150

RONALD MCCLARY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

NURSE DESANIS,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Raleigh. James C. Dever III, Chief District Judge. (5:15-ct-03230-D)

Submitted: January 24, 2018 Decided: January 29, 2018

Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronald McClary, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Houston Foppiano, Gary Adam Moyers, 

BATTEN LEE, PLLC, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Ronald McClary appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. McClary v. DeSanis, 

No. 5:15-ct-03230-D (E.D.N.C. Aug. 21, 2017). 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
Second Amendment
                                to the
     AMP Incorporated Deferred Stock Accumulation Plan for Outside
                               Directors

     Pursuant to an action taken by the Board of Directors of AMP Incorporated
on July 22, 1997, the AMP Incorporated Deferred Stock Accumulation Plan for
Outside Directors, as amended effective as of October 23, 1996 by the First
Amendment to the AMP Incorporated Deferred Stock Accumulation Plan for Outside
Directors (the "Plan"), is further amended effective as of July 22, 1997 in the
following respect:

     1.   Section 7(b)(iii) of the Plan is amended to delete the term "50%" in
          subpart (A) thereof and to substitute the term "66 2/3%" in lieu
          thereof.

     Except as provided above, all terms, conditions and provisions of the Plan
shall remain in full force and effect and without any further change or
modification whatsoever.

Executed this 25th day of September, 1997.

                                        AMP Incorporated
                                        
   Attest:___________________      By:  _________________________
          Corporate Secretary              J. E. Marley
                                           Chairman
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO. 09-18-00257-CV

____________________

IN THE INTEREST OF M.D.B.

_______________________________________________________ ______________

On Appeal from the 317th District Court

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause No. C-227,217-A 

________________________________________________________ _____________

ORDER

On July 2, 2018, appellant, Michael David Bellow Jr., filed a notice of appeal 

from the trial court’s judgment signed on April 3, 2018. On August 2, 2018, the trial 

court clerk notified the Court that no payment arrangements had been made for 

preparation of the clerk’s record. On August 3, 2018, appellant filed a statement of 

inability to afford payment of court costs. We abate this appeal and remand the cause 

to the trial court for a determination of the appellant’s ability to afford payment of 

court costs under Rule 145 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. See Tex. R. Civ. 

P. 145.

Any motion to require appellant to pay costs or to require appellant to prove
2

his inability to afford costs must be filed in the trial court by the appropriate party in 

accordance with Rule 145. See id. R. 145(f)(1)-(4). If necessary, the trial court shall 

conduct a hearing and make appropriate orders. See id. R. 145(f)(5)-(7). Any

documents filed and orders signed pursuant to Rule 145 shall be forwarded to this

Court for filing as a supplemental record no later than August 28, 2018. 

Alternatively, a party, the trial court clerk, or the court reporter may file a status 

report informing this Court that additional time is needed for a determination under 

Rule 145. In the absence of a request for additional time, this appeal will 

automatically reinstate on August 28, 2018. Upon reinstatement, if an order 

requiring appellant to pay costs has not been signed, appellant will be entitled to 

proceed without payment of costs associated with this appeal. See id. R. 145(a).

ORDER ENTERED August 8, 2018.

 PER CURIAM

 

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
No. 11-9014.

#### Bolgar *v.*Glen Donald Apartments, Inc.

Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. ■ Certiorari denied.
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

#### § 1.1502 When the EAJA applies.

The EAJA applies to any adversary adjudication pending or commenced before the Commission on or after August 5, 1985. The provisions of § 1.1505(b) apply to any adversary adjudications commenced on or after March 29, 1996.

[61 FR 39898, July 31, 1996]
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Small Business Administration [Declaration of Disaster #3265]
 Tarrant County and the contiguous counties of Dallas, Denton, Ellis, Johnson, Parker, and Wise in the State of Texas constitute a disaster area as a result of damages caused by severe thunderstorms and flooding that occurred on June 3-4, 2000. Applications for loans for physical damage as a result of this disaster may be filed until the close of business on August 18, 2000 and for economic injury until the close of business on March 19, 2001 at the address listed below or other locally announced locations: U.S. Small Business Administration, Disaster Area 3 Office, 4400 Amon Carter Blvd., Suite 102, Ft. Worth, TX 76155. The interest rates are: PercentFor Physical Damage:Homeowners With Credit Available Elsewhere
7.375Homeowners Without Credit Available Elsewhere
3.687Businesses With Credit Available Elsewhere
8.000Businesses and Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere
4.000Others (Including Non-Profit Organizations) With Credit Available Elsewhere
6.750For Economic Injury Businesses and Small Agricultural Cooperatives Without Credit Available Elsewhere
4.000
 The numbers assigned to this disaster are 326511 for physical damage and 9H5500 for economic injury. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 59002 and 59008). Dated: June 19, 2000. Kris Swedin, Acting Administrator.


[FR Doc. 00-16109 Filed 6-23-00; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1999
<CASH>                                           1,123
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,959
<ALLOWANCES>                                       977
<INVENTORY>                                     55,426
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          15,720
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,251
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 131,797
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        24,018
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   131,797
<SALES>                                         16,818
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               147,450
<CGS>                                            9,966
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  134,470
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,410
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,591
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,437
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,154
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,154
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.10
        

</TABLE>
No. 11-5035.

#### Poole *v.*United States.

C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit

__________________________ 

GRETA D. CRAWFORD,

Petitioner,

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, 

Respondent.

__________________________ 

2012-3206

__________________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. DE315H110384-I-1.

__________________________ 

ON MOTION

__________________________ 

O R D E R

Greta D. Crawford moves, inter alia, for her petition for 

review to be transferred to the district court in light of 

Kloeckner v. Solis, 133 S.Ct. 596 (2012). 

Case: 12-3206 Document: 24 Page: 1 Filed: 08/16/2013
GRETA CRAWFORD V. MSPB 2

Upon consideration thereof, 

IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

The Merit Systems Protection Board is directed to respond no later than 14 days from the date of the filing of 

this order.

 FOR THE COURT

 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole

 Daniel E. O’Toole

 Clerk

s25 

Case: 12-3206 Document: 24 Page: 2 Filed: 08/16/2013
199PA15

#### State v. Brent Tyler Miller

Def’s Motion to Vacate Bill of Costs

Special Order
S89A0618.

#### LEBBAGE v. THE STATE.

(388 SE2d 521)

Weltner, Justice.

Conan Lebbage shot and killed Augustus Ross and Tommy Lee Curtis with a handgun. He was convicted of burglary, murder, and aggravated assault, and was sentenced to two terms of life imprisonment and a term of years.1

Lebbage testified that he had used the drug known as “crack” cocaine since 1987, and had obtained it regularly from Ross and Curtis, among others. He went to Ross’s home to purchase drugs, carrying with him a handgun that he intended to trade for cocaine. When Ross and Curtis refused to trade, Lebbage killed them. He testified at trial that “crack cocaine pulled the trigger.”

1. The evidence is sufficient to permit a rational trier of fact to *825find Lebbage guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt. *Jackson v. Virginia,*443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979).

Decided February 16, 1990.

*L. Clark Landrum,*for appellant.

*David E. Perry, District Attorney, A. Douglas Newsome, Assistant District Attorney, Michael J. Bowers, Attorney General, Leonora Grant,*for appellee.

2. (a) The trial court rejected Lebbage’s request for a charge on voluntary manslaughter. The only evidence relating to provocation on the night of the homicide was Lebbage’s assertion that Ross and Curtis refused to sell drugs to him.2

(b) “Since this charge [of voluntary manslaughter], was not warranted by the evidence, we hold that the court did not err in refusing to give it.” *Jolley v. State,*254 Ga. 624, 627-8 (331 SE2d 516) (1985).

3. (a) Lebbage contends that the trial court erred in instructing the jury as to a permissible sentence. During its deliberations, the jury inquired whether the state was seeking to impose the death penalty. The trial court stated:

> Normally, I charge the jury that you are not to concern yourself with punishment in a case, you are only concerned with the guilt or innocence. However, I will instruct you at this time that the state is not seeking the death penalty in this case, and any other punishment would not be a concern of yours.

(b) There was no error.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*

1

 The homicides occurred July 17, 1988, and Lebbage was indicted on September 6, 1988. He was found guilty of burglary, two counts of murder, and two counts of aggravated assault on March 30, 1989 and was sentenced the same date. His motion for new trial was filed on April 21, 1989, and denied on June 26, 1989. A notice of appeal was filed on July 21, 1989. The appeal was docketed on September 28, 1989, and submitted without argument on November 10, 1989.

2

 After receiving *Miranda*warnings, Lebbage told the authorities: “Well they needed to die. I just wanted a crumb of cocaine. I’ve been doing my business there, they been getting all my money. I just wanted a crumb of cocaine and they would not let me have it and I flipped out.”
No. 11-1072.

#### Cohen *v.*Alfred & Adele Davis Academy, Inc.

Ct. App. Ga. Certiorari denied.
No. 11-9035.

#### Nixon *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT**

I, Robert Vrij, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Openwave Systems Inc.; 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

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

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) forthe registrant and have: 

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in whichthis report is being prepared; 

b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internalcontrol over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generallyaccepted accounting principles; 

c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures 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 

d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’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 whichare reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’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 registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

Date: May 10, 2007
From: Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US

To: Heidi King <hking@omb.eop.gov>

Cc: Deirdre Murphy/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Karen Martin/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Nealson

Watkins/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Lewis Weinstock/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 01/26/2011 04:54 PM Subject: Answers to your cost questions on the CO NAAQS monitoring network

Heidi,

Please find b elow a redline version of the EO section of the CO NAAQS package which addresses the cost of the monitoring network. Deirdre thoughtfully created both a pdf and Word version, as we weren't sure which you would like. In addition, Nealson provided the follo wing information to answer your question, which apparently would not otherwise be answered in the ICR:



### The ICR requires creating an estimate for operation of the entire network. This estimate as an annual average reporting burden for the collection under 40 CFR part 58 (averaged over the first 3 years of this ICR) for a network of 311 CO monitors is $7,235,483. The portion of this cost specifically attributable to installing/relocating existing CO monitors at an estimated

75 new near

- road NO2 sites, is es timated to be $8728 per year. For purposes of calculating

the annual cost of the network, the relocation cost for these 75 monitors was amortized over 7 years. Thus the total cost for installing/relocating is $61,098.

Please let me know if you have any o ther questions about the CO network costs. If not, could you let me know when you might clear the package? Thanks very much. I hope you are not having travel difficulties

because of the snow.

Lydia