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

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 89 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. J. RES. 89

   Withdrawing the approval of the United States from the Agreement 
               establishing the World Trade Organization.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 1, 2000

   Mr. Paul (for himself, Mr. Duncan, Mr. Rohrabacher, Mr. Taylor of 
  Mississippi, Mr. Metcalf, and Mr. Hunter) introduced the following 
joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
   Withdrawing the approval of the United States from the Agreement 
               establishing the World Trade Organization.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Congress withdraws 
its approval, provided under section 101(a) of the Uruguay Round 
Agreements Act, of the WTO Agreement as defined in section 2(9) of that 
Act.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 212 (Friday, November 3, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 75577]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-24274]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


Change In Date for the December Commission Open Meeting

    Take notice that the Commission has changed the date for its 
December 2023 open meeting. The meeting will now take place on Tuesday, 
December 19, 2023. The open meeting had been initially scheduled for 
Thursday, December 21, 2023.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The start time of the meeting remains 10:00 a.m. Eastern 
Time.

    Dated: October 26, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-24274 Filed 11-2-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

MEMORANDUM OPINION

N o. 04

- 13

- 00726

- CR

Janie ALTAMIRANO

, Appellant

v

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011CR3595A

The Honorable Angus K. McGinty, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Delivered and Filed: November 13, 2013

DISMISSED; MOTI ON TO DISMISS GRANTED

Appellant filed a motion to dis miss this appeal

. The motion is granted, and this appeal is

dismissed. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.2(a).

PER CURIAM

Do not publish
A89A2121.

#### BOGGS v. THE STATE.

(390 SE2d 423)

Carley, Chief Judge.

After appellant was indicted for trafficking in cocaine, he filed a pre-trial motion to suppress the contraband. When the motion to suppress was denied, a bench trial was held and appellant was found guilty. He appeals from the judgment of conviction and sentence entered by the trial court on its finding of his guilt.

Appellant’s sole enumeration of error addresses the denial of his motion to suppress. The trial court was authorized to find the following: A routine traffic stop was made by an officer who observed that appellant was following another vehicle too closely. After giving appellant a safety warning, the officer requested permission to search the vehicle. Appellant gave his consent. This search resulted only in the officer’s discovery of a locked strongbox, the key to which appellant denied having. The officer then asked if appellant would permit his automobile to be checked by a drug dog. Although he was told that he was not obligated to consent, appellant agreed to the procedure. The drug dog alerted to the presence of contraband in appellant’s automobile. The strongbox was then removed and opened by a locksmith. When cocaine was discovered inside, appellant was arrested.

The officer had no probable cause to believe that appellant’s vehicle contained contraband before the drug dog alerted. However, the officer’s actions prior to that time were undertaken only with appellant’s consent. “Once a voluntary consent is legally obtained, it continues until it either is revoked or withdrawn. [Cits.]” *Mallarino v. State,*190 Ga. App. 398, 403 (2) (379 SE2d 210) (1989). “ ‘A valid consent eliminates the need for either probable cause or a search warrant. (Cit.)’ ” *Wright v. State,*189 Ga. App. 441, 444 (1) (375 SE2d 895) (1988). When the drug dog did alert to the presence of contraband in the vehicle, the officer then had probable cause to believe that contraband was contained somewhere therein. “A sniffing dog may provide probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant, [cits.] or when exigent circumstances are present, justify a search without a warrant. [Cits.]” *State v. Morrow,*625 P2d 898, 901 (1) *265(Ariz. 1981). Once the officer had probable cause to believe that contraband was contained somewhere in appellant’s automobile, he was authorized to conduct a search of its contents, including the locked strongbox. *Love v. State,*254 Ga. 697 (334 SE2d 173) (1985). The trial court did not err in denying the motion to suppress.

Decided January 18, 1990.

*Bates, Kelehear & Starr, Harlan M. Starr,*for appellant.

*Jack O. Partain III, District Attorney, Kermit N. McManus, Assistant District Attorney,*for appellee.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*McMurray, P. J.,*and *Beasley, J., concur.*
No. 58380.

protest 209444-K (New York).

#### Steelmasters, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain items of the merchandise consist of figures or figurines similar in all material respects to those passed upon in *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.*v. *United States*(39 C. C. P. A. 15, C. A. D. 458), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1
 Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United
States Code
  (i)
    
    The Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(ii)
    
    The information contained in the Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
Technology Solutions Company.
 Date:
    
    May 15, 2007
    
    By:
    
    /s/ MILTON G. SILVA-CRAIGMilton G. Silva-Craig.Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 99.1
                                 ------------



                      COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING LP


                             OFFICERS' CERTIFICATE
                    ANNUAL STATEMENT OF THE MASTER SERVICER


                                  CWALT, INC.
                        ALTERNATIVE LOAN TRUST 2005-J9
              MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2005-J9


      The undersigned do hereby certify that they are each an officer of
Countrywide GP, Inc., general partner of Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP
(a "Master Servicer"), and do hereby further certify pursuant to Section 3.16
of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement for the above-captioned Series (the
"Agreement") that:

(i) A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the preceding
calendar year and of the performance of the Master Servicer under the
Agreement has been made under our supervision; and

(ii) To the best of our knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer
has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement throughout such year.




/s/ Craig Baingo                                      Dated: March 27, 2006
----------------

CRAIG BAINGO
EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT



/s/ Kevin Meyers                                      Dated: March 27, 2006
----------------

KEVIN MEYERS
MANAGING DIRECTOR, CHIEF FINANCIAL
OFFICER, LOAN ADMINISTRATION
<PAGE>   1

                                  EXHIBIT 23.1

               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


     We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Experts" and to
the use of our report dated February 5, 1999, except for Note 13 as to which the
date is July 7, 1999, with respect to the financial statements of Rockford
Corporation included in Amendment Number 1 to the Registration Statement (Form
S-1) and in the related Prospectus of Rockford Corporation for the registration
of shares of its common stock.


     Our audit also included the financial statement schedule of Rockford
Corporation listed in Item 16. This schedule is the responsibility of the
Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on our
audits. In our opinion, the financial statement schedule referred to above, when
considered in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole,
presents fairly in all material respects the information set forth therein.

                                          ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Phoenix, Arizona

July   , 1999

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


     The foregoing consent is in the form that will be signed upon the
completion of the restatement of the capital accounts described in Note 13 to
the financial statements.


                                          /s/ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Phoenix, Arizona

July 7, 1999
<PAGE>   1
                                                                  Exhibit 3.7(b)


                            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT

                                       OF

                            ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION


      MID-FLORIDA STEEL CORPORATION, A Florida Corporation under the hands of
its President, E. C. ADDISON and its Secretary, D. ARTHUR YERGEY, hereby
certifies that
                                       I.

      That the Board of Directors of said corporation, at a meeting called and
held May 19, 1960, adopted the following resolution amending Article III of the
Articles of Incorporation to read as follows:

      The capital stock of this corporation shall be $20,000.00 which shall be
      divided into 4,000 shares of common stock of the par value of $5.00 per
      share all of which is to be fully paid and non-assessable. Said capital
      stock or any portion thereof may be paid for in property, labor, or
      services at a just valuation fixed by the incorporators or by the
      directors at a meeting called for that purpose.

                                       II.

      A meeting of the stockholders of the corporation called by the Board of
Directors, was held May 19, 1960 and at said special meeting of stockholders
said amendment of the Certificate of Incorporation was duly adopted by the
unanimous vote of all of the stockholders.

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF said corporation has caused this certificate to be
signed in its name by its President and its Secretary, this 26th day of May,
1960.
<PAGE>   2
                                    MID-FLORIDA STEEL CORPORATION

                                       By /s/ E. C. Addison
                                         -----------------------------
                                          E. C. Addison, President

Attest:

/s/ D. Arthur Yergey
-----------------------------
D. Arthur Yergey, Secretary

Signed, Sealed and Delivered in
the presence of:


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

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


                                       2
<PAGE>   3
STATE OF FLORIDA      )
                      ) ss
COUNTY OF ORANGE      )

      I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this day, before me, an officer duly authorized
in the State aforesaid and in the County aforesaid to take acknowledgments,
personally appeared E. C. ADDISON and D. ARTHUR YERGEY, to me known to be the
persons described in and who executed the foregoing Certificate of Amendment of
Articles of Incorporation, and they severally acknowledged before me that they
executed the above and foregoing instrument for the uses and purposes therein
expressed.

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunto set my hand and official seal at
Orlando, Florida, the day and year aforesaid.


                                          -----------------------------
                                          Notary Public


                                       3
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

No. 83378 

# FILE
JAN 1 2 2022 HYUKEEM TYRESE WELDON, Petitioner,
vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK, Respondent, and THE STATE OF NEVADA, Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS

SOMME COURT OF NEVADA This is an original pro se petition for a writ of mandamus

seeking to compel action on petitioner's postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the district court.

On September 10, 2021, this court entered an order directing real party in interest, on behalf of respondents, to file and serve an answer, including authorities, against issuance of the requested writ. Real party in interest filed an answer on October 4. 2021, wherein it asserted that the district court had taken action on petitioner's postconviction proceedings based on an order issued September 24, 2021, and that therefore the purpose of this petition was moot. This court entered an order directing Judge Erika D. Ballou to file and serve an answer informing this court whether the September 24, 2021, order had an effect on the propriety of writ relief and to explain the delay in the proceedings. Judge Ballou filed an answer on December 28, 2021, where she informed this court that the postconviction proceedings had been delayed because the Departmentinadvertently overlooked the filing when it was transferred and was

unaware of the petition and motion until this writ petition was filed. She informed this court that a hearing had been set for January 4, 2021 and asserted that therefore this writ petition was now moot.

It appears that this court is no longer able to grant the relief petitioner requested, as it has been effectuated by the district court, and we thus dismiss the instant petition as moot. See Personhood Nev. v. Bristol, 126 Nev 599, 602, 245 P.3d 572, 574 (2010) (holding that a case that initially presents a live controversy may be rendered moot by subsequent events).

It is so ORDERED.

.J.

P rraguirre

, J 

## 41,JAC:44-.0 , J.

Stiglich Hardesty

cc: Hon. Erika D. Ballou, District Judge Hyukeem Tyrese Weldon Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA
(0) I947A 44100 9. -.1t•VP;1' : • • 1-14X"
Before the First Division,

March 18, 1960

No. 63976.

protests 58/23916, etc. (New York).

#### D. N. & E. Walter Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of valances similar in all material respects to those the subject of *D. N. & E. Walter*& *Co. et al.*v. *United States*(43 Cust. Ct. 26, C.D. 2098), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
April 4, 2003

ChampionLyte Products, Inc.
2999 Northeast 191st Street, Penthouse Two
Aventura, Florida, 33180

Re: lssuance & Exchange Agreement

To Whom it may concern:

This letter shall memorialize our oral understandings regarding the issuance and
subsequent registration of shares by ChampionLyte Products, Inc. (the "Company")
to and on behalf of ChampionLyte Asset Acquisition Corp. ("CLAA").

WHEREAS  the  Company  engaged a number of  corporate  communication  firms (the
"Firms")  to  disseminate  the  Company's  news  and  information  to  potential
investors and;

WHEREAS  the   compensation  to  these  Firms  require  the  Company  to  tender
unrestricted shares of common stock and;

WHEREAS thc Company does not have any capacity to issue  unrestricted  shares in
the absence of an effective registration statement and;

WHEREAS CLAA and its investors own  convertible  preferred  stock in the Company
that converts into unrestricted shares of the Company's common stock and;

WHEREAS  CLAA and its  investors  will agree to use its  shares to  fulfill  the
Company's  obligations under the Agreements with the Firms and the Company shall
exchange  such shares for newly  issued  shares of the  Company's  common  stock
subject to the terms and conditions contained herein;

THEREFORE the Company and CLAA have agreed as follows:

     1.   CLAA will convert  such  preferred  shares as  necessary  into 500,000
          shares of  unrestricted  common stock of the Company for its Agreement
          with Liberty Consulting International, Inc., and Josh Ader.

     2.   CLAA will convert  such  preferred  shares as  necessary  into 600.000
          shares o f unrestrictcd  common stock of the Company for its Agreement
          with Momentum Traders Network, Inc., and Mark Malone.

     3.   In  consideration  for  this  the  Company  agrees  to  issue  to CLAA
          1,30O,OOO  shares of restricted  common stock which the Company agrees
          shall be  registered  on an SB-2  Registration  Statement  to bc filed
          within 90 days of the date of this Agreement.

<PAGE>

This Letter  Agreement  constitutes  the entire  Agreement  between CLAA and the
Company and shall not be modified unless such modification occurs in writing and
is acccptcd by both CLAA and the Company.

Agreed and Accepted this ____ day of April, 2003

By:

CHAMPIONLYTE PRODUCTS, INC


/s/ David Getty
--------------------------
Its:


CHAMPIONLYTE ASSET ACQUISITION CORP.

/s/ Raleit Presi
---------------------------
Its: Vice President
A89A1897.

#### HOWARD v. THE STATE.

(390 SE2d 662)

Cooper, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of selling cocaine. The sole enumeration of error is that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of a prior similar transaction because the State failed to comply with Uniform Superior Court Rule (“USCR”) 31.3 (B) by failing to attach a copy of the guilty verdict to the notice of intent to present evidence of a similar transaction.

USCR 31.3 (B) provides as follows: “The notice shall be in writing, served upon the defendant’s counsel, and shall state the transaction, date, county, and the name(s) of the victim(s) for each similar transaction or occurrence sought to be introduced. Copies of accusations or indictments, if any, and guilty pleas or verdicts, if any, shall be attached to the notice.” Although the State did not attach a copy of the guilty verdict to the notice, all other procedural requirements *444were met. The trial court found that the State gave sufficient notice to meet the requirements of the rule, noting that since appellants’ counsel was given a copy of the indictment with the case number, he could have perused the entire file at any time. In *Sweatman v. State,*181 Ga. App. 474 (1) (352 SE2d 796) (1987), we approved the trial court’s determination that the purpose of the rule is to provide a criminal defendant with fair and adequate notice of the State’s intention to introduce evidence of a prior similar transaction. We find *Sweatman*controlling in this case, and hold that the State substantially complied with the requirements of USCR 31.3 (B). Further, since appellant failed to show that any prejudice resulted from the admission of the evidence, any error was harmless. *Sweatman u. State,*supra.

Decided February 8, 1990.

*Short & Fowler, Thomas S. Bishop,*for appellant.

*H. Lamar Cole, District Attorney, Charles M. Stines, Assistant District Attorney,*for appellee.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Deen, P. J., and Birdsong, J., concur.*
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 121 Received in Senate (RDS)]

  2d Session
H. J. RES. 121

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

            October 31 (legislative day, September 22), 2000

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2001, and 
                          for other purposes.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Public Law 106-275, is 
further amended by striking

the date specified in section 106(c) and inserting ``November 1, 
2000''.

            Passed the House of Representatives October 31, 2000.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
(Reap. Dec. 10627)

#### Dynamic Imports, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 759767-1/2, etc.

(Decided November 27, 1963)

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn*for the plaintiff.

*John W. Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement enumerated in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision on a written stipulation, reading as follows:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the parties hereto, subject to the approval of the court, as follows:

> 1. That this stipulation is limited to those items marked “A” and initialed JGT (Examiner’s Initials) by Examiner John G. Thompson (Examiner’s Name) on the invoices covered by the appeals for reappraisement enumerated on Schedule “A” annexed.

> 2. That the involved merchandise was imported after the effective date of the Customs Simplification Act of 1956 (Public Law 927, 84th Congress, T.D. 54165), and is not identified on the Pinal List published by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant thereto (T.D. 54521).

> 3. That on or about the dates of exportation, the prices at which such or similar merchandise was freely sold in the principal markets of the country of exportation, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States, such prices including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other expenses incidental to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States, were equal to the invoice unit values less the proportionate share of the item of ocean freight as invoiced.

> 4. That the appeals enumerated on Schedule “A” annexed, may be submitted on this stipulation, the same being limited to the merchandise and the issues described hereinabove and abandoned in all other respects.

On the agreed facts, I find that tlie proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise in question, as hereinabove identified, is export value, as defined in section 402 (b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956 (T.D. 54165), and hold that such statutory value therefor is equal to the invoice unit values, less the proportionate share of the item of ocean freight, as invoiced.

As to all other merchandise included on the invoices covered by the entries involved herein, the appeals for reappraisement are dismissed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.