alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### ANGUS T. HURT, Specialist Five, U. S. Army, Petitioner v UNITED STATES; HOWARD H. COOKSEY, Brigadier General, Commanding General, U. S. Army Training Center, Infantry and Fort Dix, Fort Dix, New Jersey; Honorable STANLEY R. RESOR, The Secretary of the Army; and Honorable MELVIN R. LAIRD, The Secretary of Defense, Respondents

19 USCMA 584, 42 CMR 186

Miscellaneous Docket No. 70-53

July 27, 1970

*Captain John W. Hart,*counsel for Petitioner.

Memorandum Opinion of the Court

On December 4, 1968, a general court-martial convicted petitioner of unpremeditated murder and imposed a sentence which was approved and affirmed below. Upon petition for grant of review, we reversed this conviction and ordered a rehearing. United States v Hurt, 19 USCMA 206, 41 CMR 206 (1970). Thereafter, petitioner received his full pay and allowances becoming due between the date of action by the convening authority and February 24, 1969, the date his enlistment expired. Efforts made by his civilian counsel to obtain pay and allowances for the period following the latter date have proved fruitless.

Petitioner now submits two separate petitions. The first seeks a Writ of Habeas Corpus predicated on his contention :

> “That since petitioner is past his term of enlistment and since the application of the policy set forth in the applicable Army pay regulation deprives petitioner of receiving a fair trial and does not give him equal protection of the law, the United States Army is without jurisdiction to try petitioner.”

The second petition seeks the alternative relief of a Writ of Mandamus directing respondents to deliver to petitioner full pay and allowances from February 24, 1969, until the further order of this Court.

The decision of piilitary authorities *585to deny petitioner pay and allowances for the period stated is predicated upon provisions of the Department of Defense Military Pay and Allowances Entitlements Manual, and decisions of the Comptroller General. That decision is an administrative determination, not an integral part of proceedings of a court-martial. As such it is not a proper subject for review by this Court under its extraordinary powers granted by 28 USC § 1651(a). Marshall v Laird, 18 USCMA 652 (1969); In re Taylor, 12 USCMA 427, 31 CMR 13 (1961). Cf. United States v Koleff, 16 USCMA 268, 36 CMR 424 (1966).

Accordingly, the petitions are dismissed.
NO. 07-03-0482-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL B

FEBRUARY 19, 2004

______________________________

LARRY JOHNSON, TDCJ NO. 687364, APPELLANT

V.

SHERIFF OF FRANKLIN COUNTY, TEXAS;

SHERIFF OF HOPKINS COUNTY, TEXAS;

DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF HOPKINS COUNTY, TEXAS;

JUDGE OF THE 8TH DISTRICT COURT OF HOPKINS COUNTY, TEXAS;

AND TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS, APPELLEES

_________________________________

FROM THE 251ST DISTRICT COURT OF RANDALL COUNTY;

NO. 52,609-C; HONORABLE PARTICK A. PIRTLE, JUDGE

_______________________________

Before JOHNSON, C.J., and QUINN and CAMPBELL, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Larry Johnson, proceeding pro se, filed a notice of appeal, received by this

court on November 13, 2003. Appellant did not pay the filing fees of $125 or submit an

affidavit of indigence pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
-2-

On December 1, 2003, this Court received a Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma

Pauperis and an Affidavit of Poverty from appellant. The motion was denied. 

By letter dated January 22, 2004, the clerk of this court notified appellant that the

filing fee had not been paid, and that failure to pay it could result in dismissal. Tex. R. App.

P. 42.3(c). 

The filing fee has not been paid. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. TEX.R.APP.

P. 42.3.

Per Curiam
ACCEPTED 06-16-00123-CR SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS TEXARKANA, TEXAS 7/6/2016 3:16:05 PM DEBBIE AUTREY

CLERK
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1265 

To amend the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 to provide 

consistent and reliable authority for, and for the funding of, the land 

and water conservation fund to maximize the effectiveness of the fund 

for future generations, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 23, 2011 

Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Mr. BAUCUS, Mr. WYDEN, Mr. UDALL of Colorado, and Mr. TESTER) introduced the following bill; which was read 

twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 

1965 to provide consistent and reliable authority for, 

and for the funding of, the land and water conservation 

fund to maximize the effectiveness of the fund for future 

generations, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Land and Water Con5 servation Authorization and Funding Act of 2011’’. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1265 IS

1 SEC. 2. PERMANENT AUTHORIZATION; FULL FUNDING. 

2 (a) PURPOSES.—The purposes of the amendments 

3 made by subsection (b) are— 

4 (1) to provide consistent and reliable authority 

5 for, and for the funding of, the land and water con6 servation fund established under section 2 of the 

7 Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 

8 (16 U.S.C. 460l–5); and 

9 (2) to maximize the effectiveness of the fund 

10 for future generations. 

11 (b) AMENDMENTS.— 

12 (1) PERMANENT AUTHORIZATION.—Section 2 

13 of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 

14 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l–5) is amended— 

15 (A) in the matter preceding subsection (a), 

16 by striking ‘‘During the period ending Sep17 tember 30, 2015, there’’ and inserting ‘‘There’’; 

18 and 

19 (B) in subsection (c)(1), by striking 

20 ‘‘through September 30, 2015’’. 

21 (2) FULL FUNDING.—Section 3 of the Land 

22 and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 

23 U.S.C. 460l–6) is amended to read as follows: 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1265 IS

1 ‘‘SEC. 3. AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS. 

2 ‘‘Monies covered into the fund under section 2 shall 

3 be available for expenditure to carry out the purposes of 

4 this Act, without further appropriation.’’. 

5 (c) PUBLIC ACCESS.—Section 7 of the Land and 

6 Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l– 

7 9) is amended by adding at the end the following: 

8 ‘‘(d) PUBLIC ACCESS.—Not less than 1.5 percent of 

9 the annual authorized funding amount shall be made 

10 available each year for projects that secure recreational 

11 public access to existing Federal public land for hunting, 

12 fishing, and other recreational purposes.’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 398 Received in Senate (RDS)]

  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 398

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 30, 2008

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Providing for a conditional adjournment of the House of Representatives 
         and a conditional recess or adjournment of the Senate

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That when the House adjourns on the legislative day of Thursday, July 
31, 2008, Friday, August 1, 2008, or Saturday, August 2, 2008, on a 
motion offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its Majority 
Leader or his designee, it stand adjourned until 2 p.m. on Monday, 
September 8, 2008, or until the time of

              

 any reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, 
whichever occurs first; and that when the Senate recesses or adjourns 
on any day from Friday, August 1, 2008, through Friday, September 5, 
2008, on a motion offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its 
Majority Leader or his designee, it stand recessed or adjourned until 
noon on Monday, September 8, 2008, or such other time on that day as 
may be specified in the motion to recess or adjourn, or until the time 
of any reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, 
whichever occurs first.
    Sec. 2.  The Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader of the 
Senate, or their respective designees, acting jointly after 
consultation with the Minority Leader of the House and the Minority 
Leader of the Senate, shall notify the Members of the House and the 
Senate, respectively, to reassemble at such place and time as they may 
designate if, in their opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 30, 2008.

            Attest:

                                            LORRAINE C. MILLER,

                                                                 Clerk.

                               By Deborah M. Spriggs,

                                                          Deputy Clerk.
```
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1216 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1216

   To waive the requirement that existing traffic signs meet minimum 
     retroreflectivity standards on or before the compliance dates 
           established by the Federal Highway Administration.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 16, 2011

  Mr. Corker introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
   referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To waive the requirement that existing traffic signs meet minimum 
     retroreflectivity standards on or before the compliance dates 
           established by the Federal Highway Administration.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. MINIMUM RETROREFLECTIVITY STANDARDS FOR TRAFFIC SIGNS.

    (a) Waiver.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, existing 
traffic control devices shall not be required to comply with the 
minimum retroreflectivity level standards set forth in section 2A.08 of 
the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways, 
2009 Edition (incorporated by reference in part 655 of title 23, Code 
of Federal Regulations), on or before the compliance dates set forth in 
table I-2 of such Manual.
    (b) Exception.--Any traffic control device installed on or after 
the date of the enactment of this Act shall meet the standards referred 
to in subsection (a).
                                 <all>
```
<SEQUENCE>3
<FILENAME>robinsoncert 093002.txt
                                                                Exhibit 99.2



                          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 Uptowner Inns, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2002
as filed with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation on the date hereof
(the "Report"), the undersigned, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)	The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)	The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.




/s/ David Robinson
Chief Financial Officer
November 15, 2002
BOUTIQUE AIR

548 Market St.

San Francisco, CA

t. 415.449.0505

f. 415.738.7671

Mr. DeVany,

Please accept this as Boutique Air's comments in response to the letter from Carlsbad's Mayor,

the Honorable Dale Janway.

We would like to go on record as questioning the Mayor's decision to write the DOT a letter that

appears to reflect a completely different position than his previous two letters supporting

Boutique Air. We question both the timing of the letter (immediately following a tort claim notice

against the City of Carlsbad and one of its councilmen by New Mexico Airlines and one of its

co­founders), as well as the fact that the letter appeared to be sent without the knowledge of

either the City Council or the Air Service Committee.

Furthermore, unlike 49 U.S.C. §41732(b)(3), which allowed communities to waive their right to

larger aircraft, it is our understanding that there is no provision in the EAS regulations that allows

for the Mayor (or anyone, for that matter) to permit a reduction of frequencies below the

community's original determination or waive the community's right to service with pressurized

aircraft. Since this waiver option was included in another part of the EAS regulations, it seems

clear that this was intentionally left out when discussing both minimum frequencies and

pressurization. Therefore, we believe both the letter and the spirit of the law prevent the Mayor

from waiving these rights.

If, for any reason, the Department determines that the community is able to waive either their

legal guarantee of pressurization or their guaranteed minimum number of seats, we believe the

Mayor does not hold the authority, at least when acting unilaterally, to act on behalf of the City of

Carlsbad. According to the Carlsbad City Code, “The city council, consisting of the mayor and

two councilmembers from each of the four wards, shall be the legislative body, and in it shall

vest all the corporate authority of the city.” (Emphasis added.)

While the DOT is required to consider the remarks of elected officials, we believe, for the

reasons stated above, that the Mayor may not actually waive the community’s right to

pressurization or their minimum seat guarantee.

As such, we respectfully request that the DOT continue to give our Petition for Reconsideration

their full attention and issue a ruling in a timely matter. As with the points in our petition, should

the DOT findings differ from above, we request that the order contain a detailed explanation of
BOUTIQUE AIR

548 Market St.

San Francisco, CA

t. 415.449.0505

f. 415.738.7671

these findings.

Sincerely,

Shawn Simpson

CEO
EXHIBIT
32.2





TWL
CORPORATION





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 Trinity Learning Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended December 31, 2007 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Patrick R Quinn, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:





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.








Date:           February
14, 2008





/s/
      Patrick R. QuinnPatrick
      R QuinnChief
      Financial Officer








A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
TWL Corporation and will be retained by it and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit

Nos. 18-1165, 18-1166

IN RE: THE FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT AND MANAGEMENT BOARD FOR PUERTO RICO, AS REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO; THE FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT AND MANAGEMENT BOARD FOR PUERTO RICO, AS REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE PUERTO RICO HIGHWAYS & TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY,

Debtors.

**_____________________**

ASSURED GUARANTY CORPORATION; ASSURED GUARANTY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION; FINANCIAL GUARANTY INSURANCE COMPANY; NATIONAL PUBLIC FINANCE GUARANTEE CORPORATION,
Plaintiffs, Appellants,

v.

THE FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT AND MANAGEMENT BOARD FOR PUERTO RICO, AS REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO; FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT AND MANAGEMENT BOARD FOR PUERTO RICO; PUERTO RICO FISCAL AGENCY AND FINANCIAL ADVISORY AURTHORITY; THE FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT AND MANAGEMENT BOARD FOR PUERTO RICO, AS REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE PUERTO RICO HIGHWAYS & TRANSPORTATIONAUTHORITY; RICARDO ROSSELLÓ-NEVARES; GERARDO JOSÉ PORTELAFRANCO; CARLOS CONTRERAS-APONTE; JOSÉ IVÁN MARRERO-ROSADO; RAÚL MALDONADO-GAUTIER; NATALIE A. JARESKO,

Defendants, Appellees,
JOSÉ B. CARRIÓN III; ANDREW G. BRIGGS; CARLOS M. GARCÍA; ARTHUR J. GONZÁLEZ; JOSÉ R. GONZÁLEZ; ANA J. MATOSANTOS; DAVID A. SKEEL, JR.; CHRISTIAN SOBRINO,

Defendants.-2- **ERRATA SHEET**

The opinion of this Court, issued on March 26, 2019, is amended as follows:
Replace the paragraph starting at page 21, line 1, and ending at page 22, line 7, with the following:
Furthermore, contrary to the Insurers' contention, our construction does not render Section 922(d) superfluous. Before Congress adopted the 1988 Amendments there was ample reason to believe that Section 362(a) stayed a creditor from accepting voluntary payments from a debtor or stayed a creditor from applying debtor funds already in the creditor's possession (as security) to the debt. See, e.g., 6 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 362.03 ("[I]nnocent conduct such as the cashing of checks received from account debtors of accounts assigned as security may be a technical violation [of Section 362(a)(6)]."). Thus, Section 922(d) made clear that a creditor holding pledged special revenues as security may apply those revenues to outstanding debt, notwithstanding the automatic stay.
March 2, 1971

No. 71-4

#### Ronnie L. Lail, LCPL, U. S. Marine Corps v United States.

ORDERED:

That said Petition be, and the same is, hereby dismissed as moot. This action is without prejudice to the right of petitioner to raise the issue therein presented should the same be considered necessary or advisable during the course of appellate review below and in a Petition for Grant of Review to this Court.
EXHIBIT 32.2
                            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 China BAK Battery,  Inc.
(f.k.a.  Medina  Coffee,  Inc.) (the  "Company") on Form 10-QSB/A for the period
ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report).  I, Han Yongbin,  Chief  Financial  Officer of the Company,
certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         (1)      The Report fully  complies  with the  requirements  of Section
                  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         (2)      The information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in
                  all material respects,  the financial  condition and result of
                  operations of the Company.


By: /s/ Han Yongbin
-----------------------
Han Yongbin
Chief Financial Officer
June 22, 2005
(Reap. Dec. 8417)

Entry No. DE 16643, etc.

#### W. A. Ballinger & Co. Guy B. Barham Company et al*. v. United States*

(Decided April 21, 1955)

*Lawrence & Tuttle*for the plaintiffs.

*Warren E. Burger,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> It is hereby stipulated as follows concerning the merchandise referred to below:

> 1) The merchandise covered by these appeals consists of sheathing felt imported from England, which is such or similar to the sheathing felt involved in *US v. Morse et al.,*decided in ARD 38 and ARD 45, and therein held to be subject to appraisement upon the basis of export value. The record in said case is hereby incorporated herein.

> 2) Sheathing felt such as or similar to the sheathing felt covered by these appeals was freely offered for sale for exportation to the United States in usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade at. the prices stated during the respective periods, viz:

> Period of exportation Per crate of 10 rolls of sheathing felt 25 yds. long by 32 inches wide

> April 2, 1945 to June 2, 1946 £7- 3-6

> June 3, 1946 to March 10, 1947 £7- 3-6

> March 11, 1947 to October 19, 1947 £7-16-9

> October 20, 1947 to February 8, 1948 £8- 4-0

> February 9, 1948 to November 12, 1950 £8-15-0

> November 13, 1950 to January 31, 1951 £9- 3-9

> February 1, 1951 to April 1, 1951 £10-17-9

> April 2, 1951 to January 20, 1952 £11- 8-6

> January 21, 1952 to August 31, 1952 £12-11-6

> September 1, 1952 to January 25, 1953 £12- 6-0

> January 26, 1953 to date £11-15-0

> All less nondutiable charges as invoiced

> *4843) There was no higher foreign value during the respective periods, and upon this stipulation the appeals enumerated in attached schedule may be deemed submitted, they being limited to sheathing felt.

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the sheathing felt here involved, and that such values, for the sheathing felt exported during the respective periods, were as follows:

> Period of exportation English currency per crate of 10 rolls of sheathing felt 25 yds. long by 32" wide

> April 2, 1945, to June 2, 1946 £ 7. 3.6

> June 3, 1946, to March 10, 1947 £ 7. 3.6

> March 11, 1947, to October 19, 1947 £ 7.16.9

> October 20, 1947, to February 8, 1948 £ 8. 4.0

> February 9, 1948, to November 12, 1950 £ 8.16.0

> November 13, 1950, to January 31, 1951 £ 9. 3.9

> February 1, 1951, to April 1, 1951 £10.17.9

> April 2, 1951, to January 20, 1952 £11. 8.6

> January 21, 1952, to August 31, 1952 £12.11.6

> September 1, 1952, to January 25, 1953 £12. 6.0

> January 26, 1953, to date £11.15.0

> All less nondutiable charges as invoiced

Insofar as the appeals relate to all other merchandise, they are hereby dismissed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION

Cause Number: 01-18-00650-CV

Trial Court Cause 

Number: 681719-0101Z

Style: In re Commitment of Bradley James Manuel

Date motion filed*: July 25, 2019

Type of motion: Motion for En Banc Reconsideration

Party filing motion:

Document to be filed:

Is appeal accelerated? YES NO

Ordered that motion is:

Granted

If document is to be filed, document due: 

Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Court will not grant additional motions to extend time

Denied

Dismissed (e.g., want of jurisdiction, moot)

Other: _____________________________________ 

Judge's signature: /s/ Sherry Radack

 Acting individually Acting for the Court

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Keyes, Lloyd, Kelly, Goodman, Landau, Hightower, and 

Countiss.

Goodman, J., dissenting from the denial of en banc reconsideration

Date: February 13, 2020