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

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. RES. 171

Designating March 25, 1998, as ‘‘Greek Independence Day: A National Day

of Celebration of Greek and American Democracy’’.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

FEBRUARY 2, 1998

Mr. SPECTER submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary

RESOLUTION

Designating March 25, 1998, as ‘‘Greek Independence Day:

A National Day of Celebration of Greek and American

Democracy’’.

Whereas the ancient Greeks developed the concept of democracy, in which the supreme power to govern was invested

in the people;

Whereas the Founding Fathers of the United States of America drew heavily upon the political experience and philosophy of ancient Greece in forming our representative democracy;

Whereas the founders of the modern Greek state modeled

their government after that of the United States in an

effort to best imitate their ancient democracy;
2

•SRES 171 IS

Whereas Greece is one of the only 3 nations in the world, beyond the former British Empire, that has been allied with

the United States in every major international conflict

this century;

Whereas the heroism displayed in the historic World War II

Battle of Crete epitomized Greece’s sacrifice for freedom

and democracy as it presented the Axis land war with its

first major setback and set off a chain of events which

significantly affected the outcome of World War II;

Whereas these and other ideals have forged a close bond between our 2 nations and their peoples;

Whereas March 25, 1998, marks the 177th anniversary of

the beginning of the revolution which freed the Greek

people from the Ottoman Empire; and

Whereas it is proper and desirable to celebrate with the

Greek people and to reaffirm the democratic principles

from which our 2 great nations were born: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the Senate—

2 (1) designates March 25, 1998, as ‘‘Greek

3 Independence Day: A National Day of Celebration of

4 Greek and American Democracy’’; and

5 (2) requests the President to issue a proclama6 tion calling upon the people of the United States to

7 observe the day with appropriate ceremonies and ac8 tivities.

Æ
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 14 (Monday, January 23, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 3224]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-998]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 271 and 272

[EPA-R06-RCRA-2011-0407; FRL-9613-5]

New Mexico: Incorporation by Reference of State Hazardous Waste 
Management Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The EPA proposes to codify in the regulations entitled 
``Approved State Hazardous Waste Management Programs,'' New Mexico's 
authorized hazardous waste program. The EPA will incorporate by 
reference into the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) those provisions 
of the State regulations that are authorized and that the EPA will 
enforce under the Solid Waste Disposal Act, commonly referred to as the 
Resource Conversation and Recovery Act (RCRA). In the ``Rules and 
Regulations'' section of this Federal Register, the EPA is codifying 
and incorporating by reference the State's hazardous waste program as 
an immediate final rule. The EPA did not make a proposal prior to the 
immediate final rule because we believe these actions are not 
controversial and do not expect comments that oppose them. We have 
explained the reasons for this codification and incorporation by 
reference in the preamble to the immediate final rule. Unless we get 
written comments which oppose this incorporation by reference during 
the comment period, the immediate final rule will become effective on 
the date it establishes, and we will not take further action on this 
proposal. If we get comments that oppose these actions, we will 
withdraw the immediate final rule and it will not take effect. We will 
then respond to public comments in a later final rule based on this 
proposal. You may not have another opportunity for comment. If you want 
to comment on this action, you must do so at this time.

DATES: Send written comments by February 22, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Alima Patterson, Region 6 Regional 
Authorization Coordinator, and Julia Banks, Codification Coordinator, 
State/Tribal Oversight Section (6PD-O), Multimedia Planning and 
Permitting Division, EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 
75202-2733, Phone number: (214) 665-8533 or (214) 665-8178. You may 
also submit comments electronically or through hand delivery/courier; 
please follow the detailed instructions in the ADDRESSES section of the 
immediate final rule which is located in the Rules section of this 
Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alima Patterson, (214) 665-8533.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information, please see the 
immediate final rule published in the ``Rules and Regulations'' section 
of this Federal Register.

    Dated: December 14, 2011.
Al Armendariz,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2012-998 Filed 1-20-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. PD-0413-07

SAFETY NATIONAL CASUALTY CORP., AGENT MANUEL LEYVA

D/B/A ROCKY BAIL BONDS, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

ON APPELLANT’S’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

FROM THE EIGHTH COURT OF APPEALS

EL PASO COUNTY

COCHRAN, J., filed a concurring opinion.

O P I N I O N 

The State discusses several valid reasons why Article 22.13, dealing with the

exoneration of a bail bond, may be a counterproductive statute that ties the hands of judges

and thwarts the purpose of having a surety in the first place. Nonetheless, I agree with the

majority that these deficits do not rise to the level of an unconstitutional violation of the

separation-of-powers doctrine. These are matters that are best left to the Legislature and to
Safety National Casualty Corp. Concurring Opinion Page 2

 Majority Op. at 13. 1

local governments that may increase their reliance upon non-profit Pretrial Services

programs. The majority aptly notes, “Bail bonding is a business[.]” Indeed it is. To the 1

extent that the interests of the bail bond business and the needs of the criminal justice system

are not on the same track, local and state governments are free to make appropriate

adjustments. Courts do not decide the wisdom of such laws, they decide only their

constitutionality.

I therefore join the majority opinion.

Filed: May 14, 2008

Publish
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Michael Edward MILLS, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 05-6843.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Aug. 18, 2005.

Decided: Aug. 26, 2005.

Michael Edward Mills, Appellant pro se. N. George Metcalf, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Michael Edward Mills seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b), seeking reconsideration of the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. Because Mills’ motion did not assert a defect in the collateral review process itself, but rather reargued the merits of his § 2255 motion based on new case law, the motion was properly characterized a successive § 2255 motion under our decision in *United States v. Winestock,*340 F.3d 200, 207 (4th Cir.2003). To appeal an order denying a Rule 60(b) motion in a habeas action, Mills must establish entitlement to a certificate of appealability. *See Reid v. Angelone,*369 F.3d 363, 368 (4th Cir.2004).

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931*237(2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Mills has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

To the extent that Mills’ notice of appeal and informal brief could be construed as a motion for authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, we deny such authorization. *See Winestock,*340 F.3d at 208. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
**EXHIBIT
      32 (i)**





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTIONS 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACTS OF 2002**





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 AmeriResource Technologies, Inc. (the
      “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 (the
      "Report"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, on the date
      hereof (the “Report), the undersigned, Delmar Janovec, Chief Executive Officer
      and the person performing functions similar to that of a Principal Financial
      Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C., Section 1350, 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 the Company.




Dated:
                November
                19, 2007
            By:
            /s/ Delmar
              A. JanovecDelmar
              A.
              JanovecChief
              Executive
              Officer and Principal Financial Officer
Case 2:06-cr-00050-JCC Document 38 Filed 10/24/06 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:06-cr-00050-JCC Document 38 Filed 10/24/06 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:06-cr-00050-JCC Document 38 Filed 10/24/06 Page 3 of 3
## IN THE COURT O F CRIMINA L A PPEA LS OF TEXA S NO. WR-84,046-01

EX P ARTE ROBERT P ADG ETT , Appli cant

ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. 2013CR6178 IN THE 175 DISTRICT COURT T H F ROM BEXAR COUNTY

Per curiam . Y E A R Y , J., not part icipating . O R D E R Pursuant to the provisions of Arti cl e 1 1

. 0 7 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 8 2 4 , 8 2 6 (Tex

. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of two counts fo indece ncy with a child by

contac t and sentenc ed to five year s’ imprisonment in each c ase. He did not appea l his conviction. Applicant contends tha

t h is trial c o u

n s e l r e n d e r e d in e f

f e c ti v e assistance beca

use, among other things, she did n o t co n d u ct an independe nt investigation or discovery and wrong ly promised Applicant he would be sentenc ed to defe rre d adjudication. He alleg es that these failure s cause d his2

plea to be involuntar

y . Applicant has alleg ed fac ts that, if true, might entitle him to relief

. Strickland v. W

ashington , 466 U.S. 668 (1984); Ex parte Moody , 991 S.W .2d 856, 857–58 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). In these circ umstances, additional fac ts are neede d. As we held in Ex parte Rodriguez , 334 S.W .2d 294, 294 (Tex. Crim. App. 1960), the trial court is the appropr iate forum for finding s of fac t. The trial court shall order trial counsel to r espond to A pplicant’s claims of ineffe ctive assistance of counsel. The trial court may

use any means set out in T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 11.07, § 3(d)

. I t appea rs that Applicant is repr esente d by counsel. I f the trial court elec ts to hold a hear ing, it shall deter

mine if Applicant is repr esente d by counsel, and if not, whether Applicant is indige nt. I f Applicant i s i ndige nt and wishes to be repr esente d by counsel, the trial court shall appoint an attorney to repre sent Applicant at the hear ing. T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 26.04. T he trial court shall make finding s of fac t and conclusions of law as to wheth er t h e perf ormanc e of Applica n t ’s trial counsel was defic ient and, if so, whether counsel’s defic ient perf ormanc e prejudice d Applicant. The trial court shall also make any other finding s of fac t and conclusions of law that it deems rele vant and appropr iate to the dispositi on of Applicant’s claim for habea s corpus re lief. This application will be held in abeyance until the trial court has resolved the fac t issues. The issues shall be resolved within 90 day s of this order. A s u p p l em ental transcr ipt containing all aff idavits and int err og atories or the t ransc ription of t he court repor ter’s notes from any hearing or deposition, along with the trial court’ s supplemental finding s of fa ct and c onclusions of law, shall be forwar ded to this Court within 120 day s of t he date of this order. A ny extensions of ti me shall be obtained f

rom this Court.3

Filed: Dec ember

16, 2015 Do not publish
Vacate and Dismiss and Opinion Filed December 7, 2015 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-15-01372-CV

CHRISTOPHER PATTERSON AND STEVENS TRANSPORT, INC., Appellants V. GLENDY W. TOLBERT, JR., Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC-14-01126-D



### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Bridges, Lang-Miers, and Schenck Opinion by Justice Bridges Before the Court is the parties’ agreed moti on to vacate judgment and dismiss case. The
parties have informed the Court that they have settled their differences. Accordingly, we grant
the parties’ motion, vacate th e trial court’s August 17, 2015 j udgment without regard to the
merits, and dismiss this case with prejudice. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(2).

151372F.P05 /David L .Bridges/ DAVID L. BRIDGES JUSTICE–2– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT

CHRISTOPHER PATTERSON AND STEVENS TRANSPORT, INC., Appellants

No. 05-15-01372-CV V.

GLENDY W. TOLBERT, JR., Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4, Dallas County, Texas. Trial Court Cause No. CC-14-01126-D. Opinion delivered by Justice Bridges. Justices Lang-Miers and Schenck participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s August 17, 2015 judgment is VACATED without regard to the merits and this case is DISMISSED with prejudice.

It is ORDERED that the parties bear their own costs of this appeal.

Judgment entered December 7, 2015.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Transition Report on Form 10-Q of Medwave, Inc. (the
"Company") for the period ended September 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 14, 2003 (the "Report"), the undersigned, in
the capacities and dates listed below, hereby certifies that:

         (1)      The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
                  13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 the Company.

This Certification is provided solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and
Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K promulgated under the Securities Act of 1933,
as amended, and shall not be deemed part of the Report or "filed" for any
purpose whatsoever, nor shall it be deemed incorporated by reference into any
filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Date:    November 14, 2003


                                      By:  /s/ Timothy J. O'Malley
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Timothy J. O'Malley
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer
                                           (Principal Executive Officer and
                                           Principal Financial Officer)

                                       14
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5220

SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-1271

(206) 553-7970

STIPULATED ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL AND PRETRIAL MOTIONS/Buchanan - 1

CR05-392JCC

Judge Coughenour

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Plaintiff, ) NO. CR05-392JCC

)

v. )

) STIPULATED ORDER

BRYAN DALE BUCHANAN, ) CONTINUING TRIAL AND

) PRETRIAL MOTIONS

Defendant. )

__________________________________________)

By their consent given below approving the entry of this order, and the waiver of speedy

trial executed by defendant, the government and defendant are agreeable to a continuance of trial

from Monday, January 3, 2006, to Monday, April 24, 2006. The defendant has signed and filed a

waiver of speedy trial through April 30, 2006. The parties also stipulate that a continuance is

necessary to ensure effective pretrial and trial preparation, and to ensure continuity of counsel, as

set forth in the attached motion. Finally, the parties stipulate that the interests of the public and

the defendant in an earlier trial are outweighed by the ends of justice, and that the period of time

from January 3, 2006, to April 30, 2006, shall be excludable under Title 18, United States Code,

Section 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv).

Case 2:05-cr-00392-JCC Document 22 Filed 12/20/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5220

SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-1271

(206) 553-7970

STIPULATED ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL AND PRETRIAL MOTIONS/Buchanan - 2

CR05-392JCC

THE COURT FINDS, based on the stipulation of the parties, that the interests of the

public and the defendant in an earlier trial are outweighed by the ends of justice. Accordingly,

trial is continued to April 24, 2006, and the time involved in this continuance is excluded for

purposes of the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161, from January 3, 2006, to April 30, 2006. 

The pretrial motions deadline is continued to March 16, 2006, with reply briefs due two

weeks thereafter on March 30, 2006.

DATED this 20th day of December, 2005.

A

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Approved for entry:

s/Joanne Y. Maida 

JOANNE Y. MAIDA

Assistant United States Attorney

approved by telephone 

TIMOTHY R. LOHRAFF 

Attorney for the Defendant

Case 2:05-cr-00392-JCC Document 22 Filed 12/20/05 Page 2 of 2
Case No. 13,569.

#### STURGES v. STETSON.

[See Case No. 13,568.]
No. 62329.

#### Rietmann Pilcer Co. *v.*United States,

protest 304835-K (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of traveling irons similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Greatrex, Limited,*and *J. J. Gavin & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(33 Cust. Ct. 79, C. D. 1639), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 ORDER - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

KEITH L. NASH,

Plaintiff,

v.

DOUG WADDINGTON, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C06-5127 RJB/KLS

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

AND SECOND MOTION TO

EXCEED WRITTEN

INTERROGATORY LIMIT

This 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge

Karen L. Strombom pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local MJR 3 and 4. Presently

before the Court are Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider the Court’s denial of his request to exceed the

written interrogatory limit (Dkt. # 98) and second motion to exceed the written interrogatory limit

(Dkt. # 99). Having carefully reviewed Plaintiff’s motions and Defendants’ opposition (Dkt. # 100,

101), the Court finds that Plaintiff’s motions should be denied.

DISCUSSION

On February 28, 2007, the Court extended the discovery cut-off date from February 

2, 2007 until May 1, 2007. (Dkt. # 93). However, the extension was solely to allow the parties to

complete deposition discovery. (Id. at 2). The Court denied Plaintiff’s request to exceed the written

Case 3:06-cv-05127-RJB Document 111 Filed 04/18/07 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 ORDER - 2

interrogatory limit of 25. (Id at 3). The Court noted that Plaintiff had not explained what

information he needed from the Defendants that would require interrogatories in excess of those

allowed under the Rules and that he could not obtain through the various depositions of the

Defendants. (Id. at 2-3).

Motions for reconsideration are disfavored and will ordinarily be denied in the “absence of a

showing of manifest error in the prior ruling or a showing of new facts or legal authority which could

not have been brought to the court’s attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” Local Rule CR

7(h)(1). 

Plaintiff has identified no error in the Court’s order, nor presented any new facts or legal

authority that suggest reconsideration is appropriate. Plaintiff complains only that the Court did not

consider his response, which was not timely filed. (Dkt. # 93 n. 1). However, Plaintiff still has not

explained to the Court what information he is seeking from Defendants and why he cannot obtain

that information through the depositions that are being scheduled and for which the Court has given

him an ample extension of time.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt. # 98) and motion to exceed the

written interrogatory limit (Dkt. # 99) are DENIED. 

DATED this 17th day of April, 2007.

A

Karen L. Strombom

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05127-RJB Document 111 Filed 04/18/07 Page 2 of 2