alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Jim Mullinix v. The State.

*No. 46.*

*Decided May 6.*

1. Recognizance—Disturbance of Religious Worship.—A recognizance on appeal from a judgment of conviction for willfully disturbing a congregation assembled for the purpose of religious worship, which fails or omits to state that the congregation were conducting *themselves*in a lawful manner, is fatally defective.

2. Same.—Disturbance of religious worship not being an offense eo nomine, it is essential that the recognizance must set out the constituent elements of the offense as stated in article 180 of the Penal Code.

Appeal from the County Court of Brown. Tried below before Hon. Charles Rogan, County Judge.

Appellant was prosecuted by information for disturbance of religious worship, and was fined in the sum of $25.

A statement of the facts is not necessary.

*Bell & Bell,*for appellant.

*R. L. Henry,*Assistant Attorney-General, for the State, moved to dismiss the appeal, because the recognizance does not state the essential elements of the offense.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

The information in this case was framed under the provisions of article 180 of the Penal Code, which prohibits the willful disturbance of a congregation assembled for religious worship, when conducting themselves in a lawful manner.

It is one of the essential elements of this offense, that the congregation conduct themselves in a lawful manner. This must be alleged, in order to constitute a valid indictment or information under said statute. The recited offense in the recognizance is ‘‘ willfully disturbing a congrega*117tion assembled for the purpose of public worship.” The necessary allegation, that the congregation were conducting themselves in a lawful manner, was omitted. The offense not being one eo nomine, it is essential that its constituent elements be set out in the recognizance; otherwise the obligation will be fatally defective. Turner v. The State, 41 Texas, 549; Killingsworth v. The State, 7 Texas Cr. App., 28; Koritz v. The State, 27 Texas Cr. App., 53; Edwards v. The State, 29 Texas Cr. App., 452.

The motion of the Assistant Attorney-General to dismiss the appeal is sustained, and the appeal is dismissed.

*Dismissed.*

Judges all present and concurring.
Exhibit 32 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 Oak Ridge Micro-Energy, Inc. (the Registrant) on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Mark Meriwether, CEO, President, Secretary/Treasurer and director of the Registrant, 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 result of operations of the Registrant.  Date:April 17, 2007By:/s/Mark L. MeriwetherMark L. Meriwether, President and Director
From: ccoakbrae@mchsi.com [mailto:ccoakbrae@mchsi.com] 

Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2010 7:06 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 24, 2010 

I am writing to support the interim final rule under the Paul Wellstone 

and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

(RIN 1210-AB30). 

I support the strong rule that would forbid insurance companies from 

charging higher copayments, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket 

expenses for mental health treatment than they would for other physical 

health care. Thank you for ensuring that mental health care and 

physical health care coverage are included in a single deductible. 

Sincerely, 

christine oakbrae 

34590 Sylvan Vue Dr. 

Dagsboro, DE 19939
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1958 Introduced in House (IH)]

  1st Session
                                H. R. 1958

   To modify the jurisdiction of the Federal courts with respect to 
                               abortion.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 29, 1995

  Mr. Dornan introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To modify the jurisdiction of the Federal courts with respect to 
                               abortion.
    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. RESTRICTION ON JURISDICTION OF FEDERAL COURTS.

    (a) Restriction on Jurisdiction.--Notwithstanding any other 
provision of law, the Supreme Court of the United States, and the 
inferior courts established by the Congress under article III of the 
Constitution of the United States, shall not have jurisdiction to hear, 
or to review by appeal or otherwise, any case arising out of any 
statute, ordinance, rule, or regulation of a State which relates to 
abortion, or arising out of any act interpreting, applying, or 
enforcing such a State statute, ordinance, rule, or regulation.
    (b) Definition.--As used in this section, the term ``State'' means 
each of the several States and the District of Columbia.

SEC. 2. APPLICABILITY.

    Section 2 applies to any case pending on or commenced on or after 
the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
From: chayman@austincc.edu [mailto:chayman@austincc.edu] 

Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2010 7:10 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 24, 2010 

I am writing to support the interim final rule under the Paul Wellstone 

and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

(RIN 1210-AB30). 

I support the strong rule that would forbid insurance companies from 

charging higher copayments, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket 

expenses for mental health treatment than they would for other physical 

health care. Thank you for ensuring that mental health care and 

physical health care coverage are included in a single deductible. 

Sincerely, 

Carol Hayman 

1001 Eason St 

Austin, TX 78703
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:
Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 1
Federal Reserve Bank of: Boston

## Filings received during the week ending February 18, 2012

|Filer | Filing Type | Filing Proposal | End of Comment Period
|----- | ----------- | --------------- | ---------------------
|NONE 

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

* Subject to the provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:
Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
#### In the Matter of the Application of Charles Denison and others, Stockholders of the Grocers’ Bank of the City of New York, for the appointment of a Receiver.

Bill allowed at $5,500 and disbursements $348.16.
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:
Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 1
Federal Reserve Bank of: Boston

## Filings received during the week ending April 12, 2008

|Filer                     | Filing Type   | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     | End of Comment Period                                
|------------------------- | ------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -----------------------------------------------------
|GREEN VALLEY BANCORP, MHC | * 3A1* 3A3    | Application by Green Valley Bancorp, MHC, and Green Valley Bancorp, Inc, both of Southbridge, Massachusetts, to become a mutual bank holding company and stock bank holding company, respectively, by acquiring Southbridge Savings Bank, Southbridge, Massachusetts, pursuant to sections 3(a)(1) and 3(a)(3) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended. | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:Not available
|Newspaper:                | Not available
|Federal Register:         | Not available

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

* Subject to the provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:
Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from 
Angeles Partners XI 1998 Third Quarter 10-QSB and is qualified in its 
entirety by reference to such 10-QSB filing.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000702986
<NAME> ANGELES PARTNERS XI
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998   
<CASH>                                           1,114
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      999
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                          29,580
<DEPRECIATION>                                  18,270   
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  14,055   
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                         31,269     
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0     
<PREFERRED>                                          0  
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                    (18,375)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    14,055    
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,034    
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,906    
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,180    
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       183     
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     4.57<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet.
<F2>Multiplier is 1.
</FN>
        



</TABLE>
#### § 386.5 Conformity with signs and posted regulations.

Persons in and on Academy property shall, at all times, comply with official signs and posted regulations of a prohibitional, instructional or directional nature, and shall also comply with the directions of Academy special police and other authorized officials. These regulations shall be enforced by uniformed special police and other designated security personnel.
From: fernikfurra@live.com [mailto:fernikfurra@live.com] 

Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2010 7:08 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 24, 2010 

I am writing to support the interim final rule under the Paul Wellstone 

and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

(RIN 1210-AB30). 

I support the strong rule that would forbid insurance companies from 

charging higher copayments, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket 

expenses for mental health treatment than they would for other physical 

health care. Thank you for ensuring that mental health care and 

physical health care coverage are included in a single deductible. 

Sincerely, 

Meghann Smith 

506 4th St S 

Albert City, IA 50510
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 15-10466

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:12-cv-01502-TWT

ALI NEJAD, 

 Petitioner - Appellee,

versus

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF GEORGIA,

 Respondent,

WARDEN, 

 Respondent - Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

________________________

(September 16, 2015)

Case: 15-10466 Date Filed: 09/16/2015 Page: 1 of 3 
2

Before MARCUS, WILLIAM PRYOR and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

The State of Georgia appeals the district court’s grant of Ali Nejad’s petition 

for a writ of habeas corpus, which he filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The 

district court granted relief on the ground that Mr. Nejad’s trial counsel rendered 

ineffective assistance but did not rule on two other grounds Mr. Nejad raised in his 

petition. 

District judges must resolve all of a habeas petitioner’s claims for relief, 

regardless of whether relief is granted or denied. Clisby v. Jones, 960 F.2d 925, 

935-36 (11th Cir. 1992) (en banc); see also Puiatti v. McNeil, 626 F.3d 1283, 1307

(11th Cir. 2010) (applying Clisby to vacate a district court’s order granting relief 

on one ground and deeming all other grounds moot). When a district judge fails to 

address all of a petitioner’s claims, we “will vacate the . . . judgment without 

prejudice and remand the case for consideration of all remaining claims.” Clisby, 

960 F.2d at 938. 

Mr. Nejad asserted three claims for relief in his petition: (1) the trial court 

erroneously charged the jury that a pellet gun was per se a deadly weapon; (2) a 

juror failed to disclose that she was a rape victim; and (3) trial counsel rendered 

ineffective assistance by denying him the choice of whether to testify. A 

magistrate judge recommended that the district court deny all three claims. The 

Case: 15-10466 Date Filed: 09/16/2015 Page: 2 of 3 
3

district court declined to adopt the magistrate judge’s recommendation, concluding 

that habeas relief (a new trial) was warranted based on Mr. Nejad’s ineffective 

assistance claim. The court did not, however, address the magistrate judge’s 

disposition of his other two claims. 

Because the court did not resolve all three claims, Clisby dictates that we 

vacate without prejudice the judgment of the district court and remand the case for 

consideration of Mr. Nejad’s remaining claims for relief.1

VACATED AND REMANDED.

 1 We accordingly do not address the State’s arguments regarding the district court’s 

disposition of Mr. Nejad’s ineffective assistance claim.

Case: 15-10466 Date Filed: 09/16/2015 Page: 3 of 3
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 9
Federal Reserve Bank of: Minneapolis

## Filings received during the week ending September 17, 2011

|Filer | Filing Type | Filing Proposal | End of Comment Period
|----- | ----------- | --------------- | ---------------------
|NONE 

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

* Subject to the provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted April 6, 2011

Decided April 12, 2011

Before

JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge

DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge

DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge

No. 10‐3578

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff‐Appellee,

v.

SHUMOND M. LONG,

Defendant‐Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Western District of Wisconsin.

No. 10‐CR‐54‐BBC‐01

Barbara B. Crabb,

Judge.

O R D E R

Shumond Long was arrested after he and a coconspirator sold ten grams of crack

cocaine to an undercover federal agent in a Wisconsin Dells bar and grill. Long pleaded

guilty to conspiring to distribute, see 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and was sentenced to 84 months’

imprisonment. Long filed a notice of appeal, but his appointed lawyer moves to withdraw,

having identified no arguable issue to pursue. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744

(1967). Long has not accepted our invitation to respond to counsel’s motion. See CIR. R.

51(b). We limit our review to the potential issues identified in counsel’s facially adequate

brief. See United States v. Schuh, 289 F.3d 968, 973-74 (7th Cir. 2002). 

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
No. 10‐3578 Page 2

Long has given no indication that he wants his guilty plea vacated, so counsel

properly omits any discussion of the adequacy of the plea colloquy or the voluntariness of

the plea. See United States v. Knox, 287 F.3d 667, 670-72 (7th Cir. 2002).

Counsel first evaluates whether Long could challenge the calculation of his

guidelines range, but rightly concludes that any such challenge would be frivolous. As

counsel notes, Long agreed with the probation officer’s determination that he faced a

guidelines range of 168 to 210 months’ imprisonment and the district court properly

adopted that calculation (based on a total offense level of 33 and a criminal history category

of III). 

Counsel next considers whether Long could argue that his 84-month prison sentence

is substantively unreasonable. Here the district court specifically discussed the factors in 18

U.S.C. § 3553(a) and imposed a sentence that was one half the bottom of the guidelines

range to ameliorate the disparity between sentences for crack and powder cocaine. Counsel

can think of no reason why the presumption of reasonableness to below-range sentences

would not stand, see Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 347 (2007); United States v. Pape, 601

F.3d 743, 746 (7th Cir. 2010), nor can we.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the appeal is DISMISSED.
Document Headings

                    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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health 

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting. 

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. 

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel, Host Response to Francisella Tularensis.                     

*Date:*                         August 27, 2007.                     

*Time:*                         1 p.m. to 5 p.m.                     

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                     

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, Rockledge 6700, 6700B Rockledge Drive, Room 4200, Bethesda, MD 20817 (Telephone Conference Call).                     

*Contact Person:*                         Lynn Rust, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, NIAID/NIH/DHHS, Room 3120, 6700B Rockledge Drive, MSC 7616, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 402-3938,                         *lr228v@nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transportation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: July 31, 2007. 

Jennifer Spaeth, 

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 07-3849 Filed 8-6-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M