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

Calendar No. 234 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1871 

To repeal the increased micropurchase threshold. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 17, 2005 

Ms. COLLINS, from the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 

Affairs, reported the following original bill; which was read twice and 

placed on the calendar 

A BILL 

To repeal the increased micropurchase threshold. 

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

3 SECTION 1. REPEAL OF INCREASE IN MICRO-PURCHASE 

4 THRESHOLD. 

5 Section 101 of the Second Emergency Supplemental 

6 Appropriations Act to Meet Immediate Needs Arising 

7 From the Consequences of Hurricane Katrina, 2005 (Pub8 lic Law 109–62; 119 Stat. 1992) is repealed. 
Calendar No. 234 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1871 

A BILL 

To repeal the increased micropurchase threshold. 

OCTOBER 17, 2005 

Read twice and placed on the calendar
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-2000
<CASH>                                         137,918
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               137,918
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,757,390
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          738,361
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,344,358
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,757,390
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                63,498
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (63,498)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (63,498)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (63,498)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (0.005)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.005)


</TABLE>
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Randy MARIONEAUX.

No. 62317.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 2, 1978.

In re: Randy Marioneaux, applying for writ of certiorari. Parish of East Baton Rouge.

Writ denied.
EXHIBIT 32.1


                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 Annual Report of LeCroy Corporation (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Thomas H. Reslewic,
Chief Executive 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.


Date: September 13, 2006

                                                         /s/ Thomas H. Reslewic
                                                         -----------------------
                                                         Thomas H. Reslewic
                                                         Chief Executive Officer


     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Frank GLESSNER, Appellant, v. METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, etc., Appellee.

No. 77-2165.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 18, 1978.

Eugene P. Spellman and Denis Dean, Miami, for appellant.

Stuart Simon, County Atty. and R. A. Cuevas, Jr., Asst. County Atty., for appel-lee.

*486Before HAVERFIELD, C. J., and HUB-BART and KEHOE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *Kennett v. Barber,*159 Fla. 81, 31 So.2d 44 (1947); *Jones v. City of Hialeah,*294 So.2d 686 (Fla.3d DCA 1974); *Taylor v. Simmons,*406 F.Supp. 1019 (S.D.Fla.1975).
# DLA director thanks employees for their hard work during relief efforts

/ Published Sept. 15, 2017
MAXWELL AIR FORCE BASE, Ala., Almost a week after Hurricane Irma hit the Florida coast, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Defense Logistics Agency and Maxwell personnel are continuing to distribute relief supplies to those affected by the storm.Yesterday, DLA Director U.S. Army Lt. Gen. Darrell Williams traveled from DLA headquarters in Fort Belvoir, Virginia, to personally thank the DLA employees here for all their hard work during this crisis.The DLA is responsible for providing logistics, acquisitions and technical services to all of the U.S. military branches, as well as supporting humanitarian efforts here in the country and abroad.Williams said he thinks relief efforts are going extraordinarily well.“I have been very impressed from the very top to the very bottom about the level organization and the commitment from everyone involved in supporting our Americans in the affected areas, so from where I sit it has been going extremely well,” he said.Approximately 720 of the total 1,270 FEMA trucks that arrived at Maxwell have sent relief supplies to cities in Florida, Georgia and Alabama.The main destinations for the FEMA trucks have been Orlando, Tallahassee and Groveland, Florida. A few additional trucks have also been sent to Atlanta and Macon, Georgia, and Selma, Alabama.He said he is heartened by what he sees in times of crises from people who themselves don’t see their efforts as anything great, but just something they would like their fellow Americans to do for them if their lives where ever at peril.“It’s good to see the spirit of America is still very much alive.”*Editor's note: The original story can be viewed on the Maxwell Air Force Base website.*
Exhibit 32.1



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 TREATY ENERGY CORPORATION (the "Company") on Form 10-Q as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report'), I, Randall Newton, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 USC section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief:

(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: August 14, 2009 |  |                                        
|                      |  | /s/ RANDALL NEWTON                     
|                      |  | Randall Newton, Chief Executive Officer
Donald R. Pozzi 

Count)' Judge 

Kenny Spann 

Commissioner, Pet. 1 

Kevin M. Janak 

Commissioner, Pet 2 

Gary Burns 

Commissioner~ Pet. 3 

· Clint C. lves 

COUNTY OF VICTORIA 

May 14,2012 

Michael Martin 

United States Department of Transportation 

Office of Aviation Analysis 

cr 

U1 

u.J 

Commissioner,Pet.4 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

W86-472 

Washington, DC 20590 

Dear Mr. Martin, 

At this time, Victoria Regional Airport would like to reject the Essential Air 

Service Proposal from Seaport Airlines based upon the fact that the single 

engine aircraft does nQt meet the requirements of the program. Although we 

are well aware Qf the risks associated with rebidding, we feel that we must 

request to run another cycle. However, due to those risks, we. are requesti~g 

that the bidding be open for only fifteen ( 15) days as opposed to the typical 

thirty. 

Please do not hesitate to contact my office at 361-575-4558 should you 

have any questions and/or need any further information. We sincerely 

appreciate your cooperation and assistance. 

Sincerely, 

~4//,/e. ~,y-· 

Donald R. Pozzi 

County Judge 

Victoria County 

County Courthouse •101 N. Bridge, Room 102 • Victoria, TX 77901 • (361) 575-4558 •FAX (361) 573-7585
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

ORVILLE MORRISON, AKA Orville

David Morrison, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 18-35931 

D.C. Nos. 1:16-cv-00099-SPW 

1:04-cr-00126-SPW-1 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Montana

Susan P. Watters, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted December 6, 2022

Submission Withdrawn December 12, 2022

Resubmitted February 1, 2024

Seattle, Washington

Before: McKEOWN, CHRISTEN, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

Orville Morrison appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion 

under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we 

affirm. 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

FILED

FEB 1 2024

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

In 2004, Morrison shot and killed William Wick. Following a jury trial,

Morrison was convicted of voluntary manslaughter, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 1112(a), and of using a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). In 2016, Morrison filed a section 2255 motion 

seeking relief on the theory that voluntary manslaughter does not constitute a crime 

of violence under section 924(c). The district court denied relief, concluding that 

the motion was untimely. “We review de novo the district court’s denial of a 

§ 2255 motion.” United States v. Fultz, 923 F.3d 1192, 1194 (9th Cir. 2019).

On appeal, the United States expressly waived any argument that Morrison’s 

motion was untimely, instead arguing that his claim fails on the merits. After 

hearing oral argument, we withdrew submission pending the issuance of the

mandate in United States v. Draper, 84 F.4th 797 (9th Cir. 2023). The mandate has 

now issued. In Draper, the court held that voluntary manslaughter under section

1112(a) is a crime of violence under section 924(c). Id. at 807. That holding

resolves this case. Because voluntary manslaughter is a crime of violence, the 

district court did not err in denying Morrison’s section 2255 motion. 

AFFIRMED.
Searched for **https://www.pclob.gov/**

 

19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024

*Note:* This calendar view maps the number of captures of **https://www.pclob.gov/**, *not* how many times the site was actually updated.

Look Up URL in general Internet Archive web collection.
#### Jean S. McArthur CONKLIN, Petitioner, v. FLORIDA STATE BOARD OF NURSING, Respondent.

No. 76-2089.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Feb. 21, 1978.

Rehearing Denied April 4, 1978.

*336David S. Wieder and Edward A. Sirkin, Miami, for petitioner.

Julius Finegold, Jacksonville, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari DENIED.

ALDERMAN, C. J., and ANSTEAD and MOORE, JJ., concur.
# DLA Chief of Staff visits Distribution Headquarters, tours the installation and EDC

/ Published Oct. 18, 2018
NEW CUMBERLAND, Pa., 
Defense Logistics Agency Chief of Staff, Kristin K. French, visited DLA Distribution headquarters October 9 where she met and spoke with Distribution leadership, installation personnel, and toured the installation and Eastern Distribution Center. 

The day-long visit included an office call with the Distribution Deputy Commander, a Command Overview brief, discussion with Distribution Senior Staff, and a driving windshield tour of the installation.  

During the visit French focused on and reiterated the key areas that DLA Director, Army Lt. Gen. Darrell Williams, is currently looking at:  Reform, Audit Readiness and Restructuring the J-Lock to an ASOC – Agency Synchronization and Optimization Cell.  French mentioned the Director put together a review of how DLA is going to be able to keep the momentum of the past year continuing on a forward path. 

U.S. Army Col. James M. Callis, commander, DLA Distribution Susquehanna, Pennsylvania, guided French on a tour through the EDC, the largest warehouse in the Department of Defense.  

“We addressed progress made on suspended stock and discussed and demonstrated new processes associated with our Supply Discrepancy Report. We also discussed the key advantages of modernization and provided a demonstration of the Visually Guided Vehicle,” said Callis.  

French was very interested in the Distribution modernization piece, specifically the Container Off-The-Shelf Warehouse Management System project at Corpus Christi and when it will be implemented agency-wide. 

“The modernization piece is huge,” she stated, adding, “I spent two years with the old and new leadership at the Pentagon. They said all the time that they have until December 2020 to make changes. They want reform and they want savings.” 
 French continued, “You’re all a part of that—the three areas of focus are more in your wheelhouse than any other Major Subordinate Command ... I’m literally amazed at what you all do ... day in and day out.”
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to the requirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
Exchange Act) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. §1350), Harry Stylli, Chief Executive Officer of Sequenom, Inc. (the Company) hereby certifies that, to the best of his
knowledge:



| | 1. | The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the Quarterly Report)
fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or section 15(d), of the Exchange Act, and
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not
deemed filed with the SEC and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the
Quarterly Report), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.

IN WITNESS
WHEREOF, the undersigned has set their hands hereto as of the 31st day of July, 2008.



/s/ Harry StylliHarry StylliChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
## In **T he**  **Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo** 
No. 07 - 24 - 00042 - CR JEFFREY DEAN STRANGE , A PPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , APPELLEE On Appeal from the 100th District Court Carson County, Texas Trial Court No . 7016 , Honorable Dale A. Rabe , Presiding 

### August 30 , 2024 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN , C . J . , and DOSS and YARBROUGH , JJ . Jeffrey Dean Strange appeal ed from the trial court’s order revoking his deferred adjudication community supervision, adjudicating him guilty of evading arrest , and sentencing him to 70 years imprisonment . Three issues pend for review. The State concedes their accuracy, which will require modification of the judgment. **Background** The order deferring adjudication included a fine of $2 , 000 and restitution of $180. However, the trial court did not orally pronounce either after adjudicating guilt and2 sentencing appellant. Nevertheless, both appeared in the judgment
. Moreover, the bill of costs require d appellant to pay $35 for a precept. **Issues One and Two —**  **Imposition of Restitution and Fine** Through his first two issues, appellant argues the $2 , 000 fine and $180 in restitution should be deleted from the judgment and bill of costs because neither w ere pronounced in open court at the time of sentencing
. The State concedes error ; thus, we s ustain the issues and will modify the judgment and bill of costs accordingly
. **Issue Three —**  **Precept Fee** Via his last issue, appellant argues the $35 fee for a precept should be deleted from the bill of costs because statute allows only an $8 charge. The State again agrees with appellant. We sustain the issue and will modify the bill of costs accordingly
. T he judgment of the trial court is modified to eliminate both the $2 , 000 fine and $180 assessment for restitution. As modified, the judgment is affirmed. We also modify the bill of costs to redact from it reference , if any, to the $2 , 000 fine and assessment of $180 in restitution. The bill of costs is further modified to reduce the precept fee from $35 to $8. Per Curi a m Do not publish.
_______________________________________ __ 

### Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



## September 22, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice 

## 136624 & (18) Michael F. Cavanag h Elizabeth A. Weave r Marilyn Kell y Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. 

## PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Stephen J. Markman, 

## Plaintiff-Appellee, J ustices



## v SC: 136624 COA: 284416 Oakland CC: 2007-216394-FC KEVIN DARNELL RAGLAND, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appe al the April 18, 2008 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be review ed by this Court. The motion to remand is also DENIED.

p0915 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 22, 2008

Clerk
HeinOnline -- 50 Fed. Reg. 9386 1985HeinOnline -- 50 Fed. Reg. 9387 1985HeinOnline -- 50 Fed. Reg. 9388 1985HeinOnline -- 50 Fed. Reg. 9389 1985HeinOnline -- 50 Fed. Reg. 9390 1985HeinOnline -- 50 Fed. Reg. 9391 1985HeinOnline -- 50 Fed. Reg. 9392 1985HeinOnline -- 50 Fed. Reg. 9393 1985HeinOnline -- 50 Fed. Reg. 9394 1985HeinOnline -- 50 Fed. Reg. 9395 1985HeinOnline -- 50 Fed. Reg. 9396 1985HeinOnline -- 50 Fed. Reg. 9397 1985HeinOnline -- 50 Fed. Reg. 9398 1985HeinOnline -- 50 Fed. Reg. 9399 1985HeinOnline -- 50 Fed. Reg. 9400 1985HeinOnline -- 50 Fed. Reg. 9401 1985HeinOnline -- 50 Fed. Reg. 9402 1985HeinOnline -- 50 Fed. Reg. 9403 1985HeinOnline -- 50 Fed. Reg. 9404 1985HeinOnline -- 50 Fed. Reg. 9405 1985HeinOnline -- 50 Fed. Reg. 9406 1985HeinOnline -- 50 Fed. Reg. 9407 1985HeinOnline -- 50 Fed. Reg. 9408 1985HeinOnline -- 50 Fed. Reg. 9409 1985
#### Mary F. THOMAS v. John L. KERR et al.

No. 50246.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

May 3, 1978.

Mansour & Kilpatrick, Martin A. Kilpa-trick, Stephen L. Thomas, Greenville, for appellant.

Lake, Tindall, Hunger & Thackston, E. Spivey Gault, Greenville, for appellees.

Before ROBERTSON, P. J., and LEE and BOWLING, JJ.

AFFIRMED.
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1426 

To amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to reauthorize and extend provisions 

relating to contaminant prevention, detection, and response. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 19, 2005 

Mr. OBAMA introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

A BILL 

To amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to reauthorize and 

extend provisions relating to contaminant prevention, detection, and response. 

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 ‘‘Drinking Water Secu5 rity Act of 2005’’. 

6 SEC. 2. CONTAMINANT PREVENTION, DETECTION, AND RE7 SPONSE. 

8 Section 1434 of the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 

9 U.S.C. 300i–3) is amended by striking subsection (b) and 

10 inserting the following: 
2 

•S 1426 IS

1 ‘‘(b) REPORT.—Not later than 180 days after the 

2 date of enactment of the Drinking Water Security Act of 

3 2005, the Administrator shall submit to Congress a report 

4 that includes— 

5 ‘‘(1) a description of the progress made as of 

6 that date in implementing this section; 

7 ‘‘(2) a description of any impediments to that 

8 implementation identified by the Administrator, in9 cluding— 

10 ‘‘(A) difficulty in coordinating the imple11 mentation with other Federal, State, or local 

12 agencies or organizations; 

13 ‘‘(B) insufficient funding for effective im14 plementation; 

15 ‘‘(C) a lack of authorization to take certain 

16 actions (including the authority to hire nec17 essary personnel) required to carry out the im18 plementation; and 

19 ‘‘(D) technological impediments to devel20 oping the methods, means, and equipment spec21 ified in subsection (a)(1). 

22 ‘‘(c) IMPLEMENTATION PLAN.—The Administrator 

23 shall develop, and carry out during the period of fiscal 

24 years 2006 through 2010, an implementation plan with 

25 respect to actions described in subsection (a) that— 
3 

•S 1426 IS

1 ‘‘(1) is consistent with actions taken under that 

2 subsection as of the date on which the implementa3 tion plan is finalized; and 

4 ‘‘(2) reflects the findings of the report sub5 mitted under subsection (b). 

6 ‘‘(d) FUNDING.—There is authorized to be appro7 priated to carry out this section $7,500,000 for each of 

8 fiscal years 2006 through 2010.’’. 

Æ