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

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 871

To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to establish a national cemetery

for veterans in Lake County or Porter County, Indiana.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 4, 1993

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

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs

A BILL

To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to establish a

national cemetery for veterans in Lake County or Porter

County, Indiana.

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

3 SECTION 1. ESTABLISHMENT.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Veterans Affairs

5 shall establish, in accordance with chapter 24 of title 38,

6 United States Code, a national cemetery in Lake County

7 or Porter County, Indiana, to serve the needs of veterans

8 and their families.
2

•HR 871 IH

1 (b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is

2 authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be nec3 essary to carry out this section.

Æ
# Official Journal C 364/9 Se

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 364 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 649 September 2021 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 364

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 649 September 2021

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Supervisory Committee of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) |
| 2021/C 364/01 | Activity report of the Supervisory Committee of OLAF – 2020 | 1 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Supervisory Committee of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF)

2021/C 364/01

Activity report of the Supervisory Committee of OLAF – 2020

1

---

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

EN
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Clarence SIMMONS and Debra McCall.

No. 62677.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 1, 1978.

In re: Clarence Simmons and Debra McCall, applying for writ of review.

Denied.

TATE, J.,

concurs. The defendant is entitled to the Brady-type information he seeks on the trial of innocence or guilt, but I am unwilling to hold that any due-process reason has been shown so as to require the state to furnish the information for the trial of the motion to suppress.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 30, 2021

No. 04

- 21

- 00393

- CV

IN RE Christopher RODRIGUEZ

From the 150th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019CI12197

Honorable Angelica Jimenez , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Sitting: Irene Rios, Justice

Beth Watkins, Justice

Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

The real party

- in

- interest’s motion for an extension of time to file a response is

GRANTED. The response is due on or before October 20, 2021

.

It is so ORDERED on September 30, 2021.

PER CURIAM

ATTES TED TO:

_________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, CLERK OF COURT
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-1-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                       1,084,981
<SECURITIES>                                    62,819
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,925,358
<ALLOWANCES>                                   100,369
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,425,733
<PP&E>                                         405,057
<DEPRECIATION>                                  66,964
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,324,853
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,554,376
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,615
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,012,244
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,324,853
<SALES>                                      1,104,592
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,104,592
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               905,328
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                50,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             219,286
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (70,022)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (70,022)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (70,022)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.02)
        

</TABLE>
#### THE FLORIDA BAR, Petitioner, v. Carl MINKUS, Respondent.

No. 43754.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Nov. 7, 1973.

*409Wilson J. Foster, Jr., Tallahassee, for petitioner.

Marvin J. Emory, Jr., Miami, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

By petition of The Florida Bar, it has been made known to this Court that Carl Minkus, of Miami Beach, Florida, a member in good standing of The Florida Bar, was adjudged incompetent to stand trial by order of the Judge of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court, in and for Dade County, dated March 22, 1973. No response to the petition for suspension of The Florida Bar has been submitted in behalf of Mr. Mink-us, and he has not appealed from the order of the Circuit Judge.

Under Article II, Section 5, Integration Rule of The Florida Bar, 32 F.S.A., it is provided that a lawyer who has been adjudged mentally incompetent shall be suspended from the practice of law. We find that it is in the public interest to enter an order of suspension in such cases of incompetency. See In re Gross, 244 So.2d 135 (Fla.1971), and In re Edwards, 227 So.2d 306 (Fla.1969).

It is therefore ordered that the petition for suspension of the Honorable Carl Minkus from the practice of law because he was adjudicated incompetent to stand trial is hereby granted, subject to any right which he might have to apply to the Bar for reinstatement at the proper time and upon proper showing that his mental disability no longer exists.

It is so ordered.

ERVIN, Acting C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
House Calendar No. 56

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 203

[Report No. 103–147]

RESOLUTION

Waiving certain points of order against the bill

September 30, 1994, and for other purposes.and water development for the fiscal year ending(H.R. 2445) making appropriations for energy

JUNE 22, 1993

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed
IV

House Calendar No. 56

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 203

[Report No. 103–147]

Waiving certain points of order against the bill (H.R. 2445) making appropriations for energy and water development for the fiscal year ending

September 30, 1994, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 22, 1993

Mr. FROST, from the Committee on Rules, reported the folloiwng resolution;

which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

RESOLUTION

Waiving certain points of order against the bill (H.R. 2445)

making appropriations for energy and water development

for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1994, and for

other purposes.

1 Resolved, That during consideration in the Committee

2 of the Whole House on the State of the Union of the bill

3 (H.R. 2445) making appropriations for energy and water

4 development for the fiscal year ending September 30,

5 1994, and for other purposes, all points of order against

6 provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2
2

HRES 203 RH

1 or 6 of rule XXI are waived except as follows: beginning

2 on page 35, line 17, through line 25. No amendment af3 fecting the subject of the Superconducting Super Collider

4 (other than as part of general reduction of amounts pro5 vided in the bill) shall be in order except one offered by

6 Representative Slattery of Kansas or a designee. That

7 amendment shall be debatable for one hour equally divided

8 and controlled by its proponent and an opponent and shall

9 not be subject to amendment or to a demand for division

10 of the question in the House or in the Committee of the

11 Whole.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           7,900
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  682,700
<ALLOWANCES>                                    67,600
<INVENTORY>                                     60,400
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               793,900
<PP&E>                                      10,387,500
<DEPRECIATION>                               6,555,300
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,706,800
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,324,600
<BONDS>                                      1,690,700
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     50,000
<COMMON>                                     1,400,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     349,100
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,706,800
<SALES>                                      2,505,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,505,000
<CGS>                                          639,600
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,441,100
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             107,400
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                960,100
<INCOME-TAX>                                   390,500
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            569,600
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   569,600
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: February 21, 2012 No. 12-14 

MEDIA CONTACT: GARY SOMERSET 202.512.1957, 202.355.3997 cell gsomerset@gpo.gov

GPO’S PLANT ATTAINS GLOBAL 

CERTIFICATION FOR EXCELLENCE IN 

GRAPHIC ARTS

WASHINGTON—The U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO) has achieved another milestone in the 

agency’s commitment to excellence in graphic arts and manufacturing. GPO's plant operations business 

unit has attained the IDEAlliance Master Printer certification for demonstrating the ability to comply 

with G7’s proof-to-print process and complying with international standards that are used industry-wide. 

GPO's plant operations also received the certification of Graphic Arts Industry Color Viewing Standard 

ISO 3664:2009. These new certifications complement plant operations’ institutional membership with 

the Library Binding Institute, which focuses on high quality production for bookbinding and adherence 

to library binding standards. 

“These certifications in our printing plant demonstrate GPO’s commitment to Congress, Federal 

agencies, and the White House, and our effort to provide our customers with the best practices available 

in the industry,” said Acting Public Printer Davita Vance-Cooks. “In meeting these global standards of 

excellence, confirms the agency’s position as a leader in the printing industry.” 

GPO is the Federal Government's primary resource for producing, procuring, cataloging, indexing, 

authenticating, disseminating, and preserving the official information products of the U.S. Government 

in both digital and tangible formats. GPO is responsible for the production and distribution of 

information products and services for all three branches of the Federal Government, including U.S. 

passports for the Department of State as well as the official publications of Congress, the White House, 

and other Federal agencies. In addition to publication sales, GPO provides for permanent public access 

to Federal Government information at no charge through GPO’s Federal Digital System 

(www.fdsys.gov) and through partnerships with approximately 1,220 libraries nationwide participating 

in the Federal Depository Library Program. For more information, please visit www.gpo.gov. Follow 

GPO on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/USGPO Twitter http://twitter.com/USGPO and on 

YouTube http://www.youtube.com/user/gpoprinter. 

###
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 148 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 148

     Amending clause 2(n) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of 
                            Representatives.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 1, 1993

Mr. Carr submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 
                           Committee on Rules

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
     Amending clause 2(n) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of 
                            Representatives.

    Resolved, That (a) clause 2(n) of rule XI of the Rules of the House 
of Representatives is amended by adding at the end the following new 
subparagraph:
    ``(6)(A) Committee funds shall not be used for--
            ``(i) foreign travel,
            ``(ii) travel by 3 or more of its members or employees, or
            ``(iii) travel using an aircraft owned or leased by the 
        United States,
unless its official nature is established by resolution approved by 
majority vote of the committee involved. Such vote shall be taken by a 
rollcall vote of the committee in public session. The official travel 
resolution shall set forth (I) the proposed itinerary, in detail; (II) 
the purpose of each destination and each intermediate stopping place; 
(III) the names of all persons who propose to take the trip at 
committee expense; (IV) the names of all persons who propose to take 
the trip at their own or private expense; (V) the provisions to recoup 
committee expenses incurred for those persons who travel at their own 
expense; (VI) the anticipated benefit to the taxpayers; and (VII) the 
estimated total expense. Under emergency, the committee chairman shall 
have the power to approve travel proposals.
    ``(B) A complete travel report shall be filed with the respective 
committee within 60 days of the completion of the travel. In the case 
of domestic travel, the travel report shall be a recapitulation of 
items (I) through (VII) of the travel resolution and shall address all 
variances from the resolution. In the case of foreign travel, the 
report shall be in compliance with subparagraph (2)(B).
    ``(C) Each committee shall keep on file and available for public 
inspection all approved travel resolutions and travel reports.''.
    (b) The amendment made by subsection (a) shall apply to travel 
commencing after the thirtieth day beginning after the date of adoption 
of this resolution.

                                 <all>
```
TITLE: "SHORT-RUN COPYING/DUPLICATING (INCLUDING COLOR COPYING)" /PROGRAM 2860-SP

TERM: FEBRUARY 1, 2015 TO JANUARY 31, 2016 (W/OPTIONS)

 


Basis LITHEXCEL Power Imaging Inc Pioneer Printing

Item No. DESCRIPTION of State 300 Code 52436 State 050 Code 70547 State 050 Code 69333

Award UNIT RATE COST UNIT RATE COST UNIT RATE COST

I. COMPLETE PRODUCT (Except Items II. & III.):

Running Per 100 Copies

Black Image Only:

(a) 81⁄2 x 11" Cover and/or Text..................................per printed side 1800 x 2.00 3,600.00 2.00 3,600.00 2.50 4,500.00

(b) 81⁄2 x 14" Cover and/or Text ..................................per printed side 1220 x 3.00 3,660.00 3.00 3,660.00 2.60 3,172.00

Color Copying:

(c) Color copying 81⁄2 x 11" ......................per leaf copied one side only 1 x 35.00 35.00 18.00 18.00 35.00 35.00

(d) Color copying 81⁄2 x 11" .....................per leaf copied face and back 4 x 60.00 240.00 36.00 144.00 70.00 280.00

(e) Color copying 81⁄2 x 14" ......................per leaf copied one side only 1 x 45.00 45.00 24.00 24.00 45.00 45.00

(f) Color copying 81⁄2 x 14" .....................per leaf copied face and back 1 x 80.00 80.00 48.00 48.00 90.00 90.00

II. PAPER: ........................................................ per 100 leaves

(a) White Offset Book, 50 lb., Bond 20 lb., or Xerographic, 20 lb............ 1625 x 1.20 1,950.00 1.10 1,787.50 1.00 1,625.00

(b) Colored Writing, 20 lb. .......................................................... 145 x 2.00 290.00 2.00 290.00 2.00 290.00

III. ADDITIONAL OPERATIONS:

(a) Stitching with one or two stitches....................................per book 20 x 0.10 2.00 0.02 0.40 0.04 0.80

(b) Comb Binding............................................................per book 20 x 0.68 13.60 1.00 20.00 2.50 50.00

(c) Folding............................................................per 100 sheets 760 x 2.00 1,520.00 1.00 760.00 2.00 1,520.00

(d) Drilling............................................................................per 100 leaves 10 x 0.80 8.00 0.50 5.00 1.00 10.00

(e) Cutting to a smaller trim size (multiple images on one leaf)

1. First cut ..........................................................per 100 leaves 5 x 1.00 5.00 1.00 5.00 0.50 2.50

2. Additional cuts over first .......................... per cut/per 100 leaves 5 x 0.50 2.50 0.50 2.50 0.20 1.00

(f) Padding .................................................................. per pad 50 x 0.30 15.00 0.10 5.00 0.50 25.00

(g) Shrink wrap ....................................................... per package 150 x 0.40 60.00 0.10 15.00 0.20 30.00

CONTRACTOR TOTALS $11,526.10 $10,384.40 $11,676.30

DISCOUNT if any 1.00% 115.26 2% 15 Days 2% - 15 Days

DISCOUNTED TOTALS $11,410.84 $10,384.40 $11,676.30

AWARDED

 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 99.1
                                  ------------


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Scott L. Smith, certify to my knowledge and belief, pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Gold Standard,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending January 31, 2003, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 17, 2003 (the
"Report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Report
fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.

Date     March 17, 2003               By:  /s/Scott L. Smith
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Scott L. Smith
                                          President and Chief Financial Officer
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-18-0000888

24-APR-2019

09:55 AM
Opinion issued August 13, 2024

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NOS. 01-24-00579-CR

01-24-00580-CR

01-24-00581-CR

01-24-00582-CR

01-24-00583-CR

———————————

IN RE JESSER SANDOVAL, RELATOR

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator, Jesser Sandoval, has filed these petitions for writ of mandamus 

complaining that the trial court should appoint him a new defense attorney.1

1 The underlying cases are The State of Texas v. Jesser Sandoval, cause numbers

1696530, 1696531, 1696532, 1741419, and 1825559, pending in the 232nd District 

Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Josh Hill, presiding.
2

We deny the petitions for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). We 

dismiss any pending motions as moot. 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Kelly, Landau, and Rivas-Molloy.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
#### JAMES M. JOHNS, garnishee of HENRY THOMAS *vs.*JOHN ALLEN.

Money of a client cannot be attached in the hands of his attorney in court.

At the instance, and with the consent of James M. Johns, an attorney of this court, a rule was laid on him to show cause why the sum of $52 70 in his hands, as the attorney of Henry Thomas, should not be paid over.

*Mr. Johns*

stated upon affidavit, that the money had been paid to him, as the attorney of Thomas, in a suit which resulted in a reference, award and judgment against Edward Sheppard, administrator of John Miles, deceased. That since the money was so received by *420him, an attachment had been laid in his hands, from a justice of the peace, at the suit of John 'Allen, against Henry Thomas, requiring him to appear and answer as the garnishee of said Thomas.

The question was, whether the said fund was liable to be attached in the hands of the attorney. *(Dougl. Rep.,*269.)

*Mr. T. F. Bayard*

argued—1. An attachment will not lie against a mere trustee. *(Plunkett*vs. *La Huray,*4 *Farr. Rep.,*436.) An attorney is to be regarded as the trustee of his client, and monies collected by him, are to be considered as subject to a resulting trust for the use of the client.

2. Can an officer of the Superior Court be compelled to answer, under oath, to an attachment, for property received by him *under an order of court, and as an officer*thereof ? Money paid into the hands of an officer of the court is subject to its order, which may be made *even after*an attachment taken before a justice of the peace; and the jurisdiction and authority of this court are *paramount and summary.*(3 *Serg. on For. Att.,*98.)

3. By the implication from the text of Judge Sargent, it seems most decidedly to have been his opinion, that it *was necessary*for the money to pass *out of the hands of the attorney, before*it can be attached.

It is competent for this court to make such rules in relation to their own officers, as shall seem to be demanded by public policy and convenience, and in accordance with the general spirit of law and equity. It will lead to great inconvenience, if attorneys of this court, into whose hands monies are every day paid for the use of their clients and other trust purposes, are to be compelled to answer to attachments issued by justices of the peace from all parts of the county, even in conflict with the orders of, and necessary attendance upon this court.

4. Can an attorney, an officer of this court, be compelled to answer under oath, and disclose facts relating to his client’s affairs, without conflict with the rule relating to the exclusion of confidental ■communications between counsel and client.

*The Court,*

after consideration, but without delivering an opinion, ¡made the rule-absolute.