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

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 135

To express the sense of the House of Representatives that the Chairman

of the Federal Communications Commission take certain action.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 18, 1993

Mr. GEPHARDT (for himself, Mr. DINGELL, Mr. FORD of Michigan, Mr. MARKEY, Mr. BONIOR, and Mr. WILLIAMS) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

RESOLUTION

To express the sense of the House of Representatives that

the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission take certain action.

Whereas the United States Government is in the process of

establishing a terrestrial broadcast standard for high definition television;

Whereas superior digitalized systems at laboratories in the

United States have given our country the clear and unconditional lead in worldwide technology for high definition television;

Whereas it is necessary for the United States to remain competitive in the development and commercial application of

cutting edge technologies, such as high definition television, video display terminals, and computers if the
2

•HRES 135 IH

country is to elevate its standard of living and compete

successfully in the global economy; and

Whereas the United States must attempt to build a strong

domestic manufacturing economy featuring high technology products, such as high definition television transmission systems: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep2 resentatives that the Federal Communications Commis3 sion should consider domestic employment as a factor in

4 its selection of a standard for high definition television,

5 particularly in the event competing systems are techno6 logically equivalent.

Æ
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7373

DEREK HALE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

EARL BESHEARS; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE

OF MARYLAND,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA96-2952-DKC)

Submitted: December 11, 1997 Decided: December 31, 1997

Before HALL and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Derek Hale, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney

General, David Jonathan Taube, Assistant Attorney General, Ann

Norman Bosse, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997).

We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no

reversible error.

The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and

advised Appellant that the failure to file timely objections to the

recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court

order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Appellant failed to object to the magistrate judge's finding and recommendations and instead simply asserted that the Antiterrorism and

Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"), Pub. L. No. 104-132,

110 Stat. 1214, was inapplicable and that the requirement that

Appellant assert the same claim in his petition that he presented

in state court is too burdensome on him. Accordingly, the district

court was not required to conduct a de novo review of the record.

See Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982).

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate

judge's findings and recommendations is necessary to preserve

appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the

parties have been warned that failure to object will waive appellate review. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); see also

Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); United

States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 (4th Cir. 1984). Appellant has

waived appellate review by failing to file specific objections
3

after receiving proper notice. We accordingly deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid

the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### J. P. HAMMER, by his father and next friend GEORGE HAMMER *vs.*ELIAS PIERCE.

Trespass assault and battery is a transitory action.

The venue though laid, need not be proved.

Where the action was by a minor, through his father as next friend, the father’s declations were excluded from the evidence.

Action of trespass vi et armis, and assault and battery. The venue was laid in New Castle county.

After the plaintiff closed, *Mr. Rogers*for defendant, moved a nonsuit, on the ground that there was no proof of the *place*where the trespass was committed. The only proof was, that it was in Fourth street, or Fourth and Poplar, without any mention of what place.

*Mr. Bradford*

said it would be for the jury to say whether it was not proved that the injury took place in Wilmington, But he denied that the action of trespass assault and battery was a local action. It is a transitory action; and the venue may be laid any where. He cited 1 *Wheat. Selw.,*29 ; 1 *Leigh N. P.;*1 *Saund. Pl. Ev.*

*305
      *Bradford*and *Bayard,*for plaintiff.

*Rogers,*for defendant.

*Mr.*Rogers.

Though it be a transitory action, the venue must be proved as laid.

*Mr.*Bayard.

Not so. If the action be transitory, the venue is of no consequence. There need be no proof about it. An assault and battery in Pennsylvania may be the subject of an action here, and the venue may be laid in any county.

*The Court*

refused the nonsuit, on the ground that the action of trespass assault and battery is a transitory action, and the venue, need not be proved.

The defence offered to prove the declarations of the plaintiff’s father. Objected to. '

*Mr.*Bayard.—George Hammer is merely a nominal party, as the next friend of the plaintiff.

*Mr.*Rogers.—He is entitled to the fruits of the verdict.

*Mr.*Bayard.—Damages for an injury to the child are as mtich his as a legacy left him.

The evidence was ruled out.

Verdict for plaintiff $203 00.
#### Willie A. WEBB, Appellant, v. DADE COUNTY, etc., et al., Appellees.

No. 73-796.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 26, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 999

To require the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space

Administration to terminate the Advanced Solid Rocket Motor program.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 18, 1993

Mr. RAMSTAD introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Science, Space, and Technology

A BILL

To require the Administrator of the National Aeronautics

and Space Administration to terminate the Advanced

Solid Rocket Motor program.

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

3 SECTION. 1. TERMINATION.

4 The Administrator of the National Aeronautics and

5 Space Administration may not enter into any contract in

6 furtherance of the Advanced Solid Rocket Motor program.

7 The Administrator shall take such other actions as are

8 necessary to terminate the Advanced Solid Rocket Motor

9 program.

Æ
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 217 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 217

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                         July 21, 1993.
    Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker 
may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule XXIII, declare the House resolved into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for further consideration 
of the bill (H.R. 2010) to amend the National and Community Service Act of 1990 
to establish a Corporation for National Service, enhance opportunities for 
national service, and provide national service educational awards to persons 
participating in such service, and for other purposes. No further general debate 
shall be in order. The bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-
minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the 
purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute recommended by the Committee on Education and Labor now printed in 
the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be 
considered as read. Points of order against the committee amendment in the 
nature of a substitute for failure to comply with section 302(f) of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 or clause 5(a) of rule XXI are waived. Other 
than pro forma amendments for the purpose of debate, no amendment to the 
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order unless 
printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that purpose 
in clause 6 of rule XXIII prior to Tuesday, July 20, 1993. The amendments en 
bloc caused to be printed by Representative Ford of Michigan shall be considered 
as read and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the 
House or in the Committee of the Whole. At the conclusion of consideration of 
the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House 
with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate 
vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous 
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
without instructions.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-13-00722-CR

Victor DIAZ,

Appellant

v.

The State of 

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 290th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013CR1116

Honorable Melisa Skinner, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE MARION, JUSTICE BARNARD, AND JUSTICE MARTINEZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED.

SIGNED December 18, 2013.

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
Proposed Operations

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 4

Latitude Engineering Experience and Background

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 4

UAS Des cription

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 5

Operational Limitations and Equivalent Level of Safety

................................ ................................ ................................ 5

REGULATORY STATEMENT AND AUTHORITY FOR EXEMPTION

................................ ................................ ..................... 8

Petitioner’s Contact Information (14 C.F.R. § 11.81(a))

................................ ................................ ................................ 8

Exemptions Requested and Extent of Relief Sought

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 9

Statement of Public Interest (14 C.F.R. § 11. 81(d))

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 10

Reasons why this exemption will not affect public safety (14 C.F.R. § 11.81(e))

................................ ........................ 11

Summary for Federal Register

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 12

Additional Supporting Documentation (14 C.F.R. § 11.81(g))

................................ ................................ ..................... 12

Conclusion

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 13




MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-11-00256-CR

IN RE Willie Louis JACKSON

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Delivered and Filed: April 20, 2011

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On April 4, 2011, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus, complaining of the trial 

court’s failure to rule on various pro se motions. However, counsel has been appointed to 

represent relator in the criminal proceeding pending in the trial court for which he is currently 

confined. A criminal defendant is not entitled to hybrid representation. See Robinson v. State, 

240 S.W.3d 919, 922 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007); Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 498 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 1995). A trial court has no legal duty to rule on pro se motions or petitions filed with 

regard to a criminal proceeding in which the defendant is represented by counsel. See Robinson, 

240 S.W.3d at 922. Consequently, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by declining to rule 

 1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. NM100620, in the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the 

Honorable Angus McGinty presiding. 
04-11-00256-CR

- 2 -

on relator’s pro se motions filed in the criminal proceeding pending in the trial court. 

Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

Additionally, relator filed an Application for Leave to File Petition for Writ of 

Mandamus. No leave is required to file a petition for writ of mandamus in this court. TEX. R.

APP. P. 52. Therefore, relator’s motion for leave to file is DENIED as moot. 

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH
# CA2014425EN.01000401.xml

| 27.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CA 425/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CA 425/4

---

REVIEW OF COMPETITION C A OFFICIAL JOURNALS

2014/C 425 A/02

Please find below the list of C A Official Journals published during the present year.

Unless otherwise indicated, the Official Journals are published in all language versions.

| 5 | |
| --- | --- |
| 6 | |
| 11 | |
| 19 | |
| 21 | |
| 26 | |
| 27 | |
| 30 | (PL) |
| 35 | |
| 41 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 42 | |
| 43 | |
| 46 | |
| 47 | |
| 48 | |
| 55 | |
| 56 | |
| 60 | |
| 62 | |
| 65 | |
| 73 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 74 | |
| 81 | |
| 88 | |
| 92 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 97 | |
| 98 | |
| 99 | |
| 108 | |
| 109 | |
| 116 | |
| 119 | |
| 133 | |
| 134 | |
| 136 | |
| 137 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 140 | |
| 145 | |
| 152 | |
| 160 | |
| 163 | |
| 164 | |
| 176 | |
| 178 | |
| 180 | |
| 182 | |
| 185 | |
| 186 | |
| 188 | |
| 195 | |
| 207 | |
| 209 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 211 | |
| 217 | |
| 219 | |
| 242 | |
| 254 | |
| 255 | |
| 256 | (LV) |
| 258 | (RO) |
| 262 | (EN) |
| 267 | (SL) |
| 270 | (FR) |
| 272 | (DA) |
| 274 | (IT) |
| 277 | |
| 283 | |
| 289 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 293 | (NL) |
| 295 | (MT) |
| 297 | |
| 299 | |
| 304 | |
| 321 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 325 | (SL) |
| 332 | |
| 334 | |
| 340 | |
| 342 | (EN) |
| 352 | |
| 354 | |
| 358 | |
| 366 | |
| 376 | |
| 378 | (SV) |
| 381 | |
| 384 | |
| 385 | (PT) |
| 390 | (HR) |
| 391 | |
| 410 | |
| 412 | |
| 425 | (EN/IT/LT) |

5

6

11

19

21

26

27

30

(PL)

35

41

(DE/EN/FR)

42

43

46

47

48

55

56

60

62

65

73

(DE/EN/FR)

74

81

88

92

(DE/EN/FR)

97

98

99

108

109

116

119

133

134

136

137

(DE/EN/FR)

140

145

152

160

163

164

176

178

180

182

185

186

188

195

207

209

(DE/EN/FR)

211

217

219

242

254

255

256

(LV)

258

(RO)

262

(EN)

267

(SL)

270

(FR)

272

(DA)

274

(IT)

277

283

289

(DE/EN/FR)

293

(NL)

295

(MT)

297

299

304

321

(DE/EN/FR)

325

(SL)

332

334

340

342

(EN)

352

354

358

366

376

378

(SV)

381

384

385

(PT)

390

(HR)

391

410

412

425

(EN/IT/LT)

---
#### CURTIS COLTER CONTRACTOR and American Universal Insurance Company, Petitioners, v. Roy CLEMENTS and Florida Industrial Commission, Respondents.

No. 36461.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 26, 1967.

Edward A. Hurt, Orlando, for petitioners.

Irvin A. Meyers, Meyers, Mooney & Langston, Orlando, Patrick H. Mears, Tallahassee, and J. Franklin Garner, Lake-land, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

By petition for a writ of certiorari we have for review an order of the Florida Industrial Commission bearing date April 20, 1967.

We find that oral argument would serve no useful purpose and it is therefore dispensed with pursuant to Florida Appellate Rule 3.10, subd. e, 31 F.S.A.

Our consideration of the petition, the record and briefs leads us to conclude that there has been no deviation from the essential requirements of law.

The petition is therefore denied.

The petition for attorney’s fees is granted in the sum of $250.00.

It is so ordered.

O’CONNELL, C. J., and ROBERTS, DREW, THORNAL and ERVIN, JJ., concur.
#### MEREDITH *vs.*SANBORN.

Where the prothonotary entered a reference of a cause, in terms larger than the written submission of the parties, the court set aside the award and corrected the entry of reference.

They also set aside another award for want of due notice df hearing, and required the parties to agree to the substitution of another reference.

Rule to show cansé why an award should not be set aside.

*250The parties in this case by consent and rule of court, referred this case to arbitrators of their own choosing. The reference was in writing, at the November term, 1848, of all matters in controversy in the cause between the parties, and was entered as a reference of all matters in controversy between the parties in the cause. The parties met. and the referees awarded for the plaintiff.

At the May term, 1848, the defendant moved to set aside the award *and the reference,*on the ground that the rule of reference was larger than the submission, and the court set the award aside, but refused to set aside the reference.

The referees met again at the instance of a creditor of the plaintiff, who gave the defendant six days’ notice of the hearing. He did not appear, and the referees again awarded for the plaintiff.

At the November term, 1849, the defendant again moved to set the award aside, for want of notice, as the submission did not specify a shorter notice of trial than the practice of the court; which is ten days, allows. 2. That the notice of trial was given and time fixed, not by either party, but by a creditor of the plaintiff, who was a brother of one of the referees; and 3. Because the original submission being at the November term, 1848, one of its conditions was, that the award should be made to the *next*term, and not after; and though the court might impose terms in reference to mere matters of irregularity of proceeding, by approving the award, unless the party consented to such terms, yet this could not be done in any matter involving the power of action which this does, the power of th°e referees being necessarily limited by the submission to the return term of the reference.

*The Court*

set aside the award for want of notice of the exporte rule, and required the parties to agree to the substitution of another referee in place of James N. Sutton. If plaintiff will not consent, the reference to be struck out; if the defendant refuse to agree, the reference to stand.
#### Exavier LEMAIRE, Tutor and Steven Vincent, Administrator v. CONTINENTAL CASUALTY CO.

No. 54207.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 4, 1974.

In re: Exavier Lemaire, tutor of the mi-' nor heirs of Joseph Percy Lemaire, deceased, applying for certiorari, or Writ of Review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Lafayette. 284 So.2d 102.

Writ denied. There is no error of law in the judgment complained of.

DIXON, J., is of the opinion that the judgment of the Court of Appeal was incorrect and the writ should be granted.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION of CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT to SECTION 1350 of CHAPTER 63 of TITLE 18 of the UNITED
STATES CODE,

as ADOPTED PURSUANT to

SECTION 906 of THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Quarterly Report
of Frischs Restaurants, Inc. (the Registrant) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 11, 2005 (the Report), the undersigned officer of the Registrant certifies, pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of
Title 18 of the United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his 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 Registrant.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                |  |     |  |                        
|--------------- |  | --- |  | -----------------------
|April 10 , 2006 |  | By: |  | /s/ Craig F. Maier     
|                |  |     |  | Craig F. Maier         
|                |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer

This certification is being furnished as required by Rule 13a  14(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (Exchange Act) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, and shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act or otherwise subject to the liability of that
Section. This certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act, except as other otherwise stated in such filing.
#### MOSES JANNEY *vs.*JAMES R. WIER.

On attachment for rent, on affidavit that the tenant is about to remove, so as to defeat a distress, the court will not quash the attachment fcr want of sufficient grounds, but will refuse costs.

Attachment for rent, under *'Code,*428, on affidavit of a landlord, (Janney) that he had rented his farm to Wier for $275 per year, and from the tenant reducing his stock and other acts, the landlord believed he meant to remove his property, so as to defeat a distress for rent.

On motion of *Mr. Patterson,*and affidavit filed denying plaintiff’s affidavit, rule on the landlord to show cause why the writ of attachment should not be quashed.

*Mr. Wolfe*

objected to the proceeding to quash the attachment, as the *Code*provided a remedy, where the tenant denies the demand of rent, as well as in respect to costs, where there was not sufficient ground for the complaint. *(Code,*428.) He agreed, however, to examine witnesses, subject, &c.

*Mr. Wolfe*referred to 3 *Harr. Rep.,*493, Grubb vs. *Pyle;*4 *Ib.,*382, *Wright*vs. *Hobson; Code,*428; § 52, 56, 58, p. 371, § 14.

*The Court*

said there was no provision in the law authorizing a setting aside of the attachment, because the grounds of taking it were not followed up by proof satisfactory to the court, that the tenant was about to remove his goods. But in regard to costs, they had equitable powers; and, as they considered in this case that theie was not sufficient ground for the attachment, they directed the landlord to pay the costs.

*423
      *Patterson,*for plaintiff.

*Wolfe,*for defendant.

*Mr. Wolfe*suggested that the bond taken in this case was not to the landlord, for the payment of rent, but to the sheriff for the forthcoming of the goods; and he wanted better security; which the court ordered.