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

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 60 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 60

   To commend students who have participated in the William Randolph 
     Hearst Foundation Senate Youth Program between 1962 and 1997.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 4, 1997

  Ms. Collins (for herself, Mr. Wyden, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Craig, Mr. 
Domenici, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Burns, Mr. Graham, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Helms, 
   Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Warner, and Mr. Hagel) submitted the following 
    resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

                             March 6, 1997

   Reported by Mr. Hatch, without amendment; considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   To commend students who have participated in the William Randolph 
     Hearst Foundation Senate Youth Program between 1962 and 1997.

Whereas the continued success of our Nation's constitutional democracy is 
        dependent upon our Nation's youth striving toward higher goals;
Whereas a student's intelligence, determination, perseverance and continued 
        interest in the workings of our Nation's political processes must be 
        nurtured and encouraged;
Whereas the pursuit of higher education, and participation and interest in the 
        political processes, remain priorities of young citizens around our 
        Nation; and
Whereas the United States Senate and the William Randolph Hearst Foundation 
        Senate Youth Program have provided high school juniors and seniors who 
        are leaders in education and student government, as well as in their 
        communities, with the opportunity to travel to their Nation's capital 
        and witness the political process, supported solely by private funds 
        with no expense to the Federal Government since the program's inception 
        in 1962: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate hereby congratulate, honor, and pay 
tribute to the 3,600 exemplary students who have been selected, on 
their merit, to participate in the William Randolph Hearst Foundation 
Senate Youth Program between 1962 and 1997.
                                 <all>
```
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

Dated this 2nd day of June , 2006

/S/ PETER H. VOELKER 

 Deputy Clerk

MINUTE ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the WESTERN DISTRICT of WASHINGTON

CHIHULY, INC. Et al.,

 Plaintiff,

)

)

)

vs. )

) C05-1801 JPD

ROBERT KAINDL, et al.,

 Defendant.

)

)

) MINUTE ORDER

The following Minute Order is made at the direction of the Court, the Honorable 

James P. Donohue, United States Magistrate Judge:

The Court hereby schedules a Status Conference for

Wednesday, June 7, 2006 at 10:30am

in Courtroom 12A, U.S. Courthouse, Seattle, Washington, to address the issues raised in the Joint

Status Report (dkt #83). 

Case 2:05-cv-01801-JPD Document 84 Filed 06/02/06 Page 1 of 1
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

DETENTION ORDER

PAGE -1-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Plaintiff, ) CASE NO. 06-104M

)

v. )

)

JOSE LUIS SANCHEZ, ) DETENTION ORDER 

)

Defendant. )

______________________________)

Offense charged:

Illegal Reentry After Deportation.

Date of Detention Hearing: March 8, 2006

The Court, having conducted an uncontested detention hearing pursuant to Title

18 U.S.C. § 3142(f), and based upon the factual findings and statement of reasons for

detention hereafter set forth, finds that no condition or combination of conditions which the

defendant can meet will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required and

the safety of any other person and the community. The Government was represented by Don

Reno. The defendant was represented by Jennifer Wellman.

//

//

Case 2:06-cr-00075-JLR Document 9 Filed 03/09/06 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

DETENTION ORDER

PAGE -2-

FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DETENTION

 (1) The defendant represents a risk of nonappearance due to the following:

he is a citizen and national of Mexico who has previously been deported.

He has no ties to this district; his ties to the Western District of

Washington are unknown/unverified; and BICE has filed a detainer.

(2) The defendant does not contest detention.

Thus, there is no condition or combination of conditions that would reasonably assure

future court appearances.

It is therefore ORDERED:

(l) Defendant shall be detained pending trial and committed to the custody

of the Attorney General for confinement in a correctional facility

separate, to the extent practicable, from persons awaiting or serving

sentences, or being held in custody pending appeal;

(2) Defendant shall be afforded reasonable opportunity for private

consultation with counsel;

(3) On order of a court of the United States or on request of an attorney for

the Government, the person in charge of the correctional facility in

which Defendant is confined shall deliver the defendant to a United

States Marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection with a

court proceeding; and

(4) The clerk shall direct copies of this order to counsel for the United

States, to counsel for the defendant, to the United States Marshal, and to

the United States Pretrial Services Officer.

DATED this 9th day of March, 2006. AMONICA J. BENTON

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:06-cr-00075-JLR Document 9 Filed 03/09/06 Page 2 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

DETENTION ORDER -1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 

 AT SEATTLE 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

MAHESH PATEL, 

 Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. CR06-199-RSM 

DETENTION ORDER 

Offense charged: 

 Material witness. 

Date of Detention Hearing: August 22, 2008. 

 The Court, having conducted a detention hearing pursuant to Title 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f), and 

based upon the factual findings and statement of reasons for detention hereafter set forth, finds 

that no condition or combination of conditions which the defendant can meet will reasonably 

assure the appearance of the defendant as required and the safety of any other person and the 

community. 

 FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DETENTION 

 (1) Defendant was arrested on a material witness warrant. 

 (2) Defendant is a citizen of Canada. The Court received no information about his 

personal history, residence, family ties, employment history, or health. 

Case 2:06-cr-00199-RSM Document 116 Filed 08/22/08 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

DETENTION ORDER -2 

 (3) An immigration detainer has been lodged against the defendant. In view of these 

circumstances, defendant through his counsel stipulated to detention. 

 It is therefore ORDERED: 

 (1) Defendant shall be detained pending trial and committed to the custody of the 

Attorney General for confinement in a correctional facility separate, to the extent practicable, 

from persons awaiting or serving sentences, or being held in custody pending appeal; 

 (2) Defendant shall be afforded reasonable opportunity for private consultation with 

counsel; 

 (3) On order of a court of the United States or on request of an attorney for the 

Government, the person in charge of the correctional facility in which Defendant is confined shall 

deliver the defendant to a United States Marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection 

with a court proceeding; and 

 (4) The clerk shall direct copies of this order to counsel for the United States, to counsel 

for the defendant, to the United States Marshal, and to the United States Pretrial Services Officer. 

 DATED this 22nd day of August, 2008. 

A 

BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:06-cr-00199-RSM Document 116 Filed 08/22/08 Page 2 of 2
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

FREDDY L. FLONNORY,

Defendant Below,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF DELAWARE,

Plaintiff Below,

Appellee.

§

§

§ No. 41, 2018

§

§

§ Court Below—Superior Court

§ of the State of Delaware 

§

§ Cr. ID No. 9707012190 (N)

§

§

Submitted: February 5, 2018

Decided: March 26, 2018

Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR, Justices.

 

O R D E R

This 26th day of March 2018, after careful consideration of the opening brief 

and the motion to affirm, it is clear that the judgment below should be affirmed on 

the basis of and for the reasons assigned by the Superior Court in its well-reasoned 

decision dated January 2, 2018. Flonnory argued in his motion that, in 1996, a minor 

witness against him had been interviewed by the FBI without a parent present. The 

Superior Court did not err in concluding that this claim was procedurally barred and 

did not satisfy the pleading requirements of Superior Court Criminal Rule 61(d)(2). 
2

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 

Court is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr.

Chief Justice
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

IN THE INTEREST OF M.I., A MINOR

PETITION OF: KIMBERLY KEENEN, 

ESQUIRE

:

:

:

:

:

No. 54 EM 2023

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 22nd day of August, 2023, in consideration of the Motion for Leave 

to Withdraw as Counsel, the matter is REMANDED to the Court of Common Pleas of 

Philadelphia County for it to determine whether to permit Attorney Kimberly Keenen to 

withdraw. If the court permits Attorney Keenen to withdraw, it is to resolve whether N.L. 

is entitled to appointed counsel for allocatur review, and, if so, to appoint that attorney. 

As this is a Children’s Fast Track matter, the Court of Common Pleas of 

Philadelphia County is DIRECTED to enter its order on remand within 14 days and to 

promptly notify this Court of its determination.
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

DETENTION ORDER 15.13

18 U.S.C. § 3142(i) Rev. 1/91

PAGE 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. 

RONNIE L. CRUICKSHANK,

Defendant. ____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 06-246M

DETENTION ORDER 

Offenses charged:

Count 1: Manufacture of Methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1)

and 841(b)(1)(B).

Date of Detention Hearing: May 25, 2006.

The Court, having conducted a detention hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f), and

based upon the factual findings and statement of reasons for detention hereafter set forth,

finds the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DETENTION

(1) Defendant has an extensive criminal background history, including failures to

appear.

(2) Defendant history reveals violations of prior court orders, indicating an

inability or unwillingness to comply with the terms of his supervision.

(3) At the time of defendant’s arrest, there was the presence of firearms.

Case 2:06-mj-00246-MJB Document 8 Filed 05/25/06 Page 1 of 2
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

DETENTION ORDER 15.13

18 U.S.C. § 3142(i) Rev. 1/91

PAGE 2

(4) Defendant is associated with nine alias names, three social security numbers,

and two dates of birth.

(5) There appear to be no conditions or combination of conditions other than

detention that will reasonably address the risk of flight and danger to other persons or the

community.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

(1) Defendant shall be detained pending trial and committed to the custody of the

Attorney General for confinement in a correction facility separate, to the

extent practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in

custody pending appeal;

(2) Defendant shall be afforded reasonable opportunity for private consultation

with counsel;

(3) On order of a court of the United States or on request of an attorney for the

government, the person in charge of the corrections facility in which

defendant is confined shall deliver the defendant to a United States Marshal

for the purpose of an appearance in connection with a court proceeding; and

(4) The Clerk shall direct copies of this Order to counsel for the United States, to

counsel for the defendant, to the United States Marshal, and to the United

States Pretrial Services Officer.

DATED this 26th day of May, 2006.AJAMES P. DONOHUE

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:06-mj-00246-MJB Document 8 Filed 05/25/06 Page 2 of 2
Case 3:06-cv-05354-BHS Document 13 Filed 07/23/07 Page 1 of 2
Case 3:06-cv-05354-BHS Document 13 Filed 07/23/07 Page 2 of 2
#### In re John A. GALBREATH.

No. 01-1197.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

May 23, 2001.

ON MOTION

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of John A. Gal-breath’s unopposed motion to remand his case to the United States Patent and Trademark Office,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The motion is granted.
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

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

) CR06-5263FDB

Plaintiff, )

) ORDER CONTINUING

v. ) TRIAL DATE

)

TERRY CANTRELL, )

)

)

Defendant. )

____________________________________)

Upon the unopposed motion of the defendant to continue the trial date in the abovecaptioned case, and based upon the facts set forth in that motion and subjoined declaration, which

are hereby incorporated by reference and adopted as findings of fact, the Court makes the following

findings:

The Court finds that failure to grant the continuance would deny counsel the reasonable time

necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence, within the

meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(ii). 

The Court further finds that the ends of justice will be served by ordering a continuance in

this case, that a continuance is necessary to insure effective trial preparation and that these factors

outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a more speedy trial, within the

meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A). 

Case 3:06-cr-05263-FDB Document 18 Filed 06/28/06 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

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the trial date in this matter shall be continued to

September 5, 2006. . 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the period of time from the current trial date of July 3, 2006,

up to and including the new trial date of September 5, 2006, shall be excludable time pursuant to the

Speedy trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161 et seq. 

DONE this 28th day of June, 2006. 

A

FRANKLIN D. BURGESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cr-05263-FDB Document 18 Filed 06/28/06 Page 2 of 2
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 13, 2022

No. 04

- 22

- 00315

- CR

John A. PEREZ

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 187th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2021CR9852 Honorable Step hanie R. Boyd , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Pursuant to a plea

- bargain agreement, John A. Perez pled nolo contendere to repeated violations of court ordered bond conditions and was sentenced to two years in the institutional division of the Texas Departmen t of Criminal Justice in accordance with the terms of his plea

bargain agreement. On May 3, 2022, the trial court signed a certification of defendant’s right to appeal stating that this “is a plea

- bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” Se e T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 25.2(a)(2). After John A. Perez filed a notice of appeal, the trial court clerk sent copies of the certification and notice of appeal to this court. See id. 25.2(e). The clerk’s record, which includes the trial court’s Rule 25.2(a)(2) certification, has been filed. See id. 25.2(d).

“In a plea bargain case . . . a defendant may appeal only: (A) those matters that were raised by written motion filed and ruled on before t rial, (B) after getting the trial court’s permission to appeal; or (C) where the specific appeal is expressly authorized by statute.” Id. 25.2(a)(2). The clerk’s record, which contains a written plea bargain, establishes the punishment assessed by the cour t does not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by John A. Perez. See id. The clerk’s record does not include a written motion filed and ruled upon before trial; nor does it indicate that the trial court gave its permission to appeal. See

id. Thus, the trial court’s certification appears to accurately reflect that this is a plea

- bargain case and that John A. Perez does not have a right to appeal. We must dismiss an appeal “if a certification that shows the defendant has the righ t of appeal has not been made part of the
record.” Id. 25.2(d).This appeal will be dismissed pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(d)

unless an amended trial court certification showing that John A. Perez has the right to appeal is made p art of the appellate record by August 12 , 2022. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 25.2(d), 37.1; Daniels

v. State , 110 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2003, order).

We ORDER all appellate deadlines be suspended until further order of the cour t.

_________________________________ Irene Rios , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand an d affixed the seal of the said

court on this 13th day of July, 2022

.

___________________________________ M ichael A. C ruz
, Clerk of Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997             DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997             DEC-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1                       1
<CASH>                                           9,092                   6,097
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   34,498                  27,235
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,750                     611
<INVENTORY>                                     19,297                  14,990
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                65,488                  51,314
<PP&E>                                          54,784                  42,438
<DEPRECIATION>                                  12,527                   8,141
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 115,699                  93,181
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           40,449                  42,212
<BONDS>                                         23,230                   7,689
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                      86
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                            88                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                      50,819                  40,203
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   115,699                  93,181
<SALES>                                        213,878                 156,836
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               213,878                 156,836
<CGS>                                          175,826                 138,273
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  175,826                 138,273
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                23,472                  52,254
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,102                   1,511
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 12,414                (34,778)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,818                   9,754
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,596                (25,024)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,596                (25,024)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .99                  (2.92)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .97                  (2.92)
        

</TABLE>
Regulatory Evaluation 

Docket No. F AA-20 13-0052 Directorate Identifier: 2013-NE-02-AD 

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If 

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell. 

Estimated Costs: 

Action Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

(e.g., Inspection, propeller, appliance) 

Work-hours Labor Parts Cost Total Costs Number of Total Cost replacement) (include cost (labor + u.s. for U.S. Fleet Do not include oncondition costs here access, testing, (@$85/h parts) Registered 

and close-up) our) Products 

Prorated lost life 0.0 8290 220 

II 

t) 

1 fit ' ... ' I 

()I 'I 

( I)! )I 

I ' ' 

I It 

I It '•I 

( I, 

I 

I 

t' 

I' 

The known number of products in compliance: 

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $1 ,823,800 

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $ 

On-Condition Costs: 

Action Work-hours Labor cost Parts Cost Cost per Product 

(e.g., Inspection, (include access, (@$85/hour) 

replacement) testing, and closeup) 

" $ 

I ' 

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs): N/ A 
Executive Order 12866: 

Could the AD be considered a "significant regulatory action"? ~ 

YES* D NO~ 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures: 

Is the AD significant? ~ 

YES* D NO~ 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act: 

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer. ~ 

YESD NO~ 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska: 

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? ~ 

YES* D NO~ 

*Explanation:
No. 65274.

#### D. P. Harris Hdw. & Mfg. Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 313378-K/14870, etc. (New Orleans).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Schmidt Pritchard*& *Co. et al.*(47 C.C.P.A. 152, C.A.D. 750), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.