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

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 171

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER 5, 1999

Received and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Congratulating the American Public Transit Association for

25 years of commendable service to the transit industry

and the Nation.

Whereas public transportation is a fundamental public service

and an integral component of the Nation’s surface transportation infrastructure;

Whereas public transportation service results in productive

jobs for the Nation’s workers and provides broad support

for business and economic growth;
2

HCON 171 RFS

Whereas public transportation provides safe and efficient mobility for millions of people in the United States each

day;

Whereas the American Public Transit Association was established in 1974 to promote and advance knowledge in all

matters relating to public transportation; and

Whereas, during a period of remarkable resurgence in public

transportation, the American Public Transit Association

has provided a quarter of a century of service to the Nation as the professional association representing the transit industry: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That the Congress congratulates the Amer3 ican Public Transit Association for 25 years of commend4 able service to the transit industry and the Nation.

Passed the House of Representatives October 4,

1999.

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL,

Clerk.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-40158 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus SALVADOR TOBIAS-PEREZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. B-00-CR-384-1

-------------------- December 27, 2001 Before DAVIS, BENAVIDES and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Salvador Tobias-Perez pleaded guilty to count 2 of an indictment charging him for possession with intent to distribute marijuana. Tobias has appealed his conviction and sentence. Tobias contends that his guilty plea should be vacated because he was advised erroneously at the rearraignment that he was subject to a four-year period of supervised release, when in fact he was subject to a four-to-five-year period of supervised release. We review this question for harmless error. See United States v. Johnson , 1 F.3d 296, 302 (5th Cir. 1993) (en banc); see also Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(h). To determine whether flawed adviceNo. 01-40158 -2- regarding supervised release is harmless, this court typically compares the statutory maximum sentence to the "worst case" scenario that a defendant could face if supervised release were revoked on the last day of its term. See United States v. Hekimain , 975 F.2d 1098, 1101-03 (5th Cir. 1992) (citing United States v. Bachynsky , 934 F.2d 1349, 1359-60 (5th Cir. 1991) (en banc)); see also United States v. Cuevas-Andrade , 232 F.3d 440, 444 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied , 121 S. Ct. 1748 (2001). Because Tobias understood that he could have received a maximum term of imprisonment of 40 years, and because that term exceeds both his maximum aggregate period of incarceration and his "worst case" scenario, the district court's noncompliance with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 was harmless error. See Cuevas-Andrade , 232 F.3d at 444. Tobias contends that the district court erred in adjusting his offense level under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.2 for reckless endangerment. Tobias argues that there was no evidence that he endangered other motorists in attempting to flee from Border Patrol agents. The probation officer's finding as to reckless endangerment was based upon an agent's statement that Tobias had attempted to evade arrest by fleeing in his vehicle and that there were other cars which Tobias must have passed at a high rate of speed. Tobias offered no evidence in rebuttal. The probation officer's factual findings bore sufficient indicia of reliability to support their probable accuracy. See United States v. Young , 981 F.2d 180, 185 (5th Cir. 1992). The district court's implicit reliance on these findings in overruling Tobias'No. 01-40158 -3- objection to the U.S.S.G. § 3C1.2 enhancement was not clearly

erroneous. See United States v. Fitzhugh , 984 F.2d 143, 146 (5th Cir. 1993) (standard of review). The judgment is
AFFIRMED.
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 DENYING IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION 

AND DISMISSING CASE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

RONALD L. BASKETT, )

)

Plaintiff, ) CASE NO. C06-914-JLR-JPD

)

v. )

)

KING COUNTY, et al., ) ORDER DENYING IN FORMA PAUPERIS 

) APPLICATION AND DISMISSING CASE

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

The Court, having reviewed the Report and Recommendation of the Honorable James P.

Donohue, United States Magistrate Judge, any objections thereto, and the balance of the record, does

hereby find and ORDER:

(1) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation.

(2) Plaintiff’s application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. No.1) is DENIED. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). This matter is DISMISSED. 

(3) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to plaintiff and to Judge Donohue.

DATED this _____ day of , 2006.

 

JAMES L. ROBART

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-00914-JLR Document 10 Filed 08/01/06 Page 1 of 1
IV

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 251

Commending the Republic of Croatia for the conduct of its parliamentary

and presidential elections.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 15, 2000

Mr. RADANOVICH submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was

referred to the Committee on International Relations

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Commending the Republic of Croatia for the conduct of

its parliamentary and presidential elections.

Whereas the fourth Croatian parliamentary elections, held on

January 3, 2000, marked Croatia’s progress toward

meeting its commitments as a participating state of the

Organization on Security and Cooperation in Europe

(OSCE) and as a member of the Council of Europe;

Whereas Croatia’s third presidential elections were conducted

smoothly and professionally and concluded on February

7, 2000, with the landslide election of Stipe Mesic as the

new President of the Republic of Croatia;

Whereas the free and fair elections in Croatia, and the following peaceful and orderly transfer of power from the

old government to the new, is an example of democracy

to the people of other nations in the region and a major
2

•HCON 251 IH

contribution to the democratic development of southeastern Europe; and

Whereas the people of Croatia have made clear that they

want Croatia to take its rightful place in the family of

European democracies and to develop a closer and more

constructive relationship with the Euro-Atlantic community of democratic nations: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that—

3 (1) the people of the Republic of Croatia are to

4 be congratulated on the successful elections and the

5 outgoing Government of Croatia is to be commended

6 for the democratic standards with which it managed

7 the elections;

8 (2) the United States should support the efforts

9 of the new Government of Croatia to increase its

10 work on refugee return, privatization reform, media

11 reform, and further cooperation with the Inter12 national Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia

13 (ICTY) to set an example to other countries in the

14 region;

15 (3) the Congress strongly supports Croatia’s

16 commitment to western democratic standards and

17 will give its full support to the new Government of

18 Croatia to fully implement democratic reforms;

19 (4) the United States continues to promote

20 Croatian-American economic, political, and military
3

•HCON 251 IH

1 relations and recognizes Croatia as a loyal partner

2 in south central Europe; and

3 (5) taking into consideration Croatia’s contribu4 tions as a committed partner in the region, the Con5 gress recommends establishing strategic partnership

6 with the Republic of Croatia and supports its mem7 bership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s

8 Partnership for Peace program and its accession

9 into the World Trade Organization.

Æ
• 1 . . . 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

TRAVEL GROUP, INC., D/B/A REPUBLIC AIR TRAVEL 

AND SCOT SPENCER 

AIRLIFT GROUP, INC. 

AND RICHARD BERNARD 

Unauthorized Air Transportation, 

Unfair and Deceptive Practices and Unfair Methods of 

Competition, and Violations of Public Charter Rules 

EXPRESS ONE INTERNATIONAL, INC. 

Unfair and Deceptive Practices and Unfair Methods of 

Competition, and Violations of Public Charter Rules 

Enforcement Proceeding 

STATUS REPORT 

DOT -OST -1995-272 

formerly Docket 49233 

The Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and 

Proceedings ("Enforcement Office"), pursuant to Your Honor's March 22, 2006, Order 

staying this proceeding, files this report detailing the current status of this proceeding and 

settlement negotiations. 

The Department has not ruled on the outstanding motions filed by Respondents 

and opposed by the Enforcement Office in Ascend Aviation Group, Docket OST-2004-

17486. 
2 

There have been no further settlement discussions. 

Date: April30, 2015 

Respectfully submitted, 

/~~/}fr/~ Blane Workie 

Assistant General Counsel for 

Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings 

Vinh Q. Nguyen 

Senior Trial Attorney 

United States Department of Transportation 

Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Room 96-429 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

TEL: 202-366-9342 

FAX: 202-366-7152 
3 

Docket No. DOT-OST-1995-272 

I hereby certify that on this Thirtieth day of April, 2015, a true and correct copy of the 

foregoing Status Report was served in the following manner to the following: 

Original 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Operations, M-30 

West Building Ground Floor 

Room W12-140 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

By First Class Mail 

The Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

Office ofHearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

TEL: (202) 366-2142 

FAX: (202) 366-7536 

By First Class Mail 

Scot Spencer 

SBD Aircraft Services 

255 S Leland Norton Way 

Sam Bernardino, CA 92408 

Scot Spencer 

22604 Esplanada Circle 

Boca Raton, Florida 33433 

I
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 196 (Thursday, October 12, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 70660]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-22685]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 10:30 a.m. and its 
continuation at the conclusion of the open meeting on October 19, 2023.

PLACE: 1050 First Street NE, Washington, DC and virtual (this meeting 
will be a hybrid meeting).

STATUS: This meeting will be closed to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Compliance matters pursuant to 52 U.S.C. 
30109.
    Investigatory records compiled for law enforcement purposes and 
production would disclose investigative techniques.
    Information the premature disclosure of which would be likely to 
have a considerable adverse effect on the implementation of a proposed 
Commission action.
    Matters concerning participation in civil actions or proceedings or 
arbitration.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Judith Ingram, Press Officer, 
Telephone: (202) 694-1220.

(Authority: Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b)

Vicktoria J. Allen,
Deputy Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2023-22685 Filed 10-10-23; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6715-01-P
Exhibit 32.2      Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. § 1350 I, Louis J. Brothers, Chief Financial Officer of Valley Forge Composite Technologies, Inc. (the Corporation), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, to my knowledge that: 1.  The Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2010 (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 Corporation.  Date: April  8, 2011 By:  /s/ Louis J. Brothers Louis J. Brothers President, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, and Chairman of the Board   A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Valley Forge Composite Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by Valley Forge Composite Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.  The information contained in this Exhibit 32.2 is being furnished and shall not be deemed filed for the purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise subject to the liabilities of that section.
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 ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

DAVID TARVER,

Petitioner,

v.

MAGGIE MILLER-STOUT

Respondent.

Case No. C05-5802FDB

 ORDER CHANGING CASE 

CAPTION AND FOR SERVICE

AND RETURN, § 2254 PETITION

This habeas corpus petition has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant

to Title 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(A) and 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Magistrates' Rules MJR 3 and MJR

4. Petitioner seeks federal habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Dkt. # 5). 

Petitioner originally named only the State of Washington as a Respondent. An order to amend or

change the caption was entered and petitioner has filed a motion to change the caption to reflect

Maggie Miller-Stout is the respondent. That motion is GRANTED. Further, the court now

ORDERS: 

(1) The clerk shall arrange for service by certified mail upon respondent, a copy of the

petition, of all documents in support thereof, and of this Order. All costs of service shall be

Case 3:05-cv-05802-FDB Document 8 Filed 02/23/06 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 ORDER

advanced by the United States. The Clerk shall assemble the necessary documents to effect service. 

The Clerk shall send petitioner a copy of this Order and the General Order.

(2) Within forty-five (45) days after such service, respondent shall file and serve an

 answer in accordance with Rule 5 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in United States District

Courts. As part of such answer, respondents should state whether petitioner has exhausted available

state remedies, whether an evidentiary hearing is necessary, and whether there is any issue of abuse

of delay under Rule 9. Respondent shall not file a dispositive motion in place of an answer without

first showing cause as to why an answer is inadequate. Respondent shall file the answer with the

Clerk of Court and serve a copy of the answer upon petitioner.

(3) The answer will be treated in accordance with Local Rule CR 7. Accordingly, upon

 receipt of the Answer the Clerk will note the matter for consideration on the fourth Friday after the

answer is filed, petitioner may file and serve a response not later than on the Monday immediately

preceding the Friday appointed for consideration of the matter, and respondent may file and serve a

reply brief not later than on the Thursday immediately preceding the Friday designated for

consideration of the matter.

DATED this 22nd day of February, 2006.

A

Karen L. Strombom

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-05802-FDB Document 8 Filed 02/23/06 Page 2 of 2
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-85,709-05

IN RE JAMES DWAYNE HOISAGER, Relator

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS

CAUSE NO. CR-32305A IN THE 142ND DISTRICT COURT

FROM MIDLAND COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Relator has filed a motion for leave to file a writ of mandamus pursuant to the original

jurisdiction of this Court. In it, he contends that he filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus

in Midland County and that Respondent, the Midland County District Clerk, has not timely

forwarded his application to this Court or complied with Article 11.07, § 7 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure. 

We held this application in abeyance on October 9 and November 27, 2019, and ordered

Respondent to file responses. In his first response, he said that the 181-day deadline in Rule of
2

Appellate Procedure 73.4(b)(5) had not expired. In his second response, he said that the State’s 1

proposed order designating issues and the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law were

mailed to Relator. 

We find that Respondent has complied with Article 11.07, § 7 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure. Respondent is, however, violating his ministerial duty to forward Relator’s application

to this Court. According to the record, the trial court entered findings of fact and conclusions of law

on June 26, 2019. Despite the 181-day deadline in Rule 73.4(b)(5), Respondent had a ministerial

duty to immediately forward Relator’s application to this Court after the trial court entered findings

and conclusions. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07, § 3(d). Although this Court has the authority

to promulgate rules of appellate procedure such as Rule 73.4(b)(5), these rules may not abridge,

enlarge, or modify the substantive rights of a litigant. TEX. GOV’T CODE § 22.108; see also TEX.

CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 44.33(a) (“The Court of Criminal Appeals shall make rules of posttrial and

appellate procedure as to the hearing of criminal actions not inconsistent” with the Code of Criminal

Procedure); Carranza v. State, 980 S.W.2d 653, 658 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (To require a higher

burden than that found in Article 26.13 of the Code of Criminal Procedure “would effectively allow

the Rules of Appellate Procedure, which are promulgated by this Court, to ‘trump’ or override the

Code of Criminal Procedure” and contravene Article 44.33(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.).

We conditionally grant mandamus relief and order Respondent to immediately forward

Relator’s Article 11.07 application to this Court. We will withhold issuing the writ of mandamus 

 Rule 73.4(b)(5) provides: “On the 181st day from the date of receipt of the application 1

by the State of a postconviction application for writ of habeas corpus under Article 11.07, the

district clerk shall forward the writ record to this Court unless the district court has received an

extension of time from the Court of Criminal Appeals pursuant to Rule 73.5.” TEX. R. APP. P.

73.4(b)(5).
3

so Respondent can comply with this opinion.

Filed: January 15, 2020

Do not publish
# Official Journal C 250/9 Oc

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 250 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 479 October 2004 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 250

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 479 October 2004

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Information |
| | Commission |
| 2004/C 250/1 | Euro exchange rates | 1 |
| 2004/C 250/2 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.3586 — Ripplewood/Honsel) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (1) | 2 |
| 2004/C 250/3 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.3563 — CVC/BASF Printing Inks) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (1) | 3 |
| 2004/C 250/4 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.3564 — CVC/ANI Printing Inks) (1) | 4 |
| 2004/C 250/5 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.3275 — SHELL ESPAÑA/CEPSA/SIS) (1) | 5 |
| 2004/C 250/6 | State aid — The Netherlands — Aid C 43/03 — Operating aid in favour of AVR for dealing with hazardous waste — Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty (1) | 6 |
| 2004/C 250/7 | Amended list of experts appointed as members of the Scientific Committees | 8 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Information

Commission

2004/C 250/1

Euro exchange rates

1

2004/C 250/2

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.3586 — Ripplewood/Honsel) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (1)

2

2004/C 250/3

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.3563 — CVC/BASF Printing Inks) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (1)

3

2004/C 250/4

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.3564 — CVC/ANI Printing Inks) (1)

4

2004/C 250/5

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.3275 — SHELL ESPAÑA/CEPSA/SIS) (1)

5

2004/C 250/6

State aid — The Netherlands — Aid C 43/03 — Operating aid in favour of AVR for dealing with hazardous waste — Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty (1)

6

2004/C 250/7

Amended list of experts appointed as members of the Scientific Committees

8

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
No. 58784.

protest 236349-K (New York).

#### Thos. Cook & Son, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

When the case was called for trial, counsel for the Government moved to dismiss the protest on the ground that it was untimely. A representative of the plaintiff stated that the firm did not find out until 7 months after entry that the goods were of American manufacture. It appearing from the official papers that the protest was filed more than 60 days after liquidation, it was dismissed as untimely. (Section 514, Tariff Act of 1930.)