alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Willie CHILDRESS, Appellant, v. STATE of Mississippi, Appellee.

No. 46820.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

April 25, 1972.

Rehearing Denied May 15, 1972.

Dennis M. Baker, William J. Clayton, Batesville, for appellant.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen. by Karen Gilfoy, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
## In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 18

- 00085

- CR

JARED SCHUREN, Appellant
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 427th District Court Travis County, Texas Trial Court No. D

- 1

- DC

- 17

- 900004

Before Morriss, C.J., Burgess and Stevens, JJ.2 

### O RDER
Ou r review of the court reporter’s record in this case indicates that it contains “sensitive data” as that phrase is defined in Rule 9.10 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 9.10(a). Sensitive data includes “a driver’s license nu mber, passport number, social security number, tax identification number or similar government

- issued personal identification number.” T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 9.10(a)(1). Volumes nine, ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen, and fourteen of the reporter’s record include social security numbers. Rule 9.10(b) states, “Unless a court orders otherwise, an electronic or paper filing with the court, including the contents of any appendices, must not contain sensitive data.” T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 9.10(b). Rule 9.10(g) provides, “A court may also order that a document be filed under seal in paper form or electronic form, without redaction.” T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 9.10(g). Therefore, because volumes nine through fourteen of the reporter’s record contain sensitive data, we order the clerk o f this Court or her appointee, in accordance with Rule 9.10(g), to seal the electronically filed volumes nine through fourteen of the reporter’s record in this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT
Date: March 5, 2019
----

----

|                                       |   |                     |                                                 |
|--------------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------|------------------------------------------------------|
|                                       |   |                     | /s/Daniel R. Herndon                                 |
| Date:     May 12, 2011 |   |  Name:         | Daniel R. Herndon                                    |
|                                       |   |  Title:   | President and Chief Executive Officer                |
|                                       |   |                     |                                                 |
|                                       |   |                     |                                                 |
|                                       |   |                     | /s/Clyde D. Patterson                                |
| Date:     May 12, 2011 |   | Name:                    | Clyde D. Patterson                                   |
|                                       |   | Title:                   | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
|                                       |   |                     | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)         |
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 3602

For the relief of Sara Lou Hendricks.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NOVEMBER 20, 1993

Mr. JACOBS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on the Judiciary

A BILL

For the relief of Sara Lou Hendricks.

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

3 SECTION 1. PAYMENT OF POSTAL SAVINGS ACCOUNT

4 PROCEEDS.

5 The Secretary of the Treasury shall pay, out of any

6 money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the

7 proceeds of the postal savings account of the late Harriet

8 C. McKee (account number 442), and interest calculated

9 under section 4, to Sara Lou Hendricks, the daughter and

10 heir of Harriet C. McKee.
2

•HR 3602 IH

1 SEC. 2. SATISFACTION OF CLAIMS.

2 The payment made pursuant to section 1 shall be in

3 full satisfaction of all claims Sara Lou Hendricks may

4 have against the United States, or any agent or agency

5 of the United States, relating to the postal savings account

6 described in section 1.

7 SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON AGENT AND ATTORNEY FEES.

8 It shall be unlawful for an amount exceeding 10 per9 cent of the payment required by section 1 to be paid to

10 or received by any agent or attorney for any service ren11 dered in connection with the payment required by section

12 1. Any person who violates this section shall be guilty of

13 an infraction and shall be subject to a fine in the amount

14 provided in title 18, United States Code.

15 SEC. 4. CALCULATION OF INTEREST.

16 The interest on the account referred to in section 1

17 shall equal the sum of—

18 (1) the interest that would have been payable

19 on the account for the period beginning on the day

20 that the account was opened and ending on the last

21 day that the proceeds of postal savings accounts

22 could be claimed under the Postal Savings System

23 Statute of Limitations Act (98 Stat. 402), if the ac24 count had been claimed under the Postal Savings

25 System Statute of Limitations Act (98 Stat. 402);

26 and
3

•HR 3602 IH

1 (2) interest calculated according to the formula

2 in section 2516(b) of title 28, United States Code,

3 for the period beginning on the 1st day after the end

4 of the period described in paragraph (1) and ending

5 on the day that the payment required by section 1

6 is made.

Æ
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH 

					NO. 2-03-271-CV

JAMES M. HANNERS 	APPELLANT

	V.

TOMMY J. HERRIN AND 	APPELLEES

PAULA HERRIN

	----------

	FROM THE 17TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

	----------

		MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

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

	This court’s opinion and judgment of December 23, 2003 is withdrawn and the following is substituted in its place. 

	On September 29, 2003 and October 13, 2003 we notified Appellant, in accordance with rule of appellate procedure 42.3(c), that we would dismiss this appeal unless the $125 filing fee was paid.  See Tex. R. App. P. 5, 12.1(b), 42.3(c).  On November 25, 2003, we notified Appellant that the check he had tendered for the $125 filing fee had been returned by his bank due to insufficient funds.  We informed Appellant that if a money order in the amount of $125 was not received by the court by December 5, 2003, this appeal would be dismissed. 

	On December 23, 2003, this appeal was dismissed for non-payment of the $125 filing fee.  On January 8, 2004, Appellant filed a motion to reconsider and reinstate the appeal.2  On January 26, 2004, Appellant tendered a money order for $125, [per RoseMary] and on February 12, 2004, this court granted aAppellant’s motion.  On February 20, 2004, Appellees filed a motion requesting that we vacate our February 12 order. 

	We have carefully considered Appellant’s motion to reconsider and reinstate the appeal and Appellees’ objections to the motion.  Appellant’s notice of appeal was filed on September 12, 2003, on which date the $125 filing fee was due.  This court notified Appellant on September 29, October 13, and November 25, 2003 that the $125 had still not been paid and that the appeal was subject to dismissal.  We conclude that Appellant’s belated tender of a $125 money order on January 26, 2004 was untimely, and the Clerk of this court is ordered to return the tendered $125 to Appellant.     

	Because aAppellant has failed to comply with a requirement of the rules of appellate procedure and the Texas Supreme Court's order of July 21, 1998,3 we dismiss the appeal.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c), 43.2(f).

	Appellant shall pay all costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(d).

								PER CURIAM

PANEL D:	HOLMAN, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ.

DELIVERED:  March 18, 2004
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

May 30, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice 130412 & (22) Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 130412 COA: 262847 Kalkaska CC: 95-001476-FC LLOYD RAYMOND BRUEGGEMAN, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to a ppeal the December 6, 2005 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to re lief under MCR 6.508(D). The motion to remand is DENIED. The motion to hold applicatio n for leave to appeal in abeyance is DENIED as moot.

s0522 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.

May 30, 2006

Clerk
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 166 (Monday, August 27, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 43658]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-18455]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RIN 0648-XG433


New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice; public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is 
scheduling a public meeting of its Herring Advisory Panel to consider 
actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone 
(EEZ). Recommendations from this group will be brought to the full 
Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate.

DATES: This meeting will be held on Tuesday, September 18, 2018 at 10 
a.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Four Points by Sheraton, 1 
Audubon Road, Wakefield, MA 01880; telephone: (781) 245-9300.
    Council address: New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water 
Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, 
New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Agenda

    The Advisory Panel will review results from the 2018 herring 
benchmark assessment (65th Northeast Regional Stock Assessment 
Workshop, SAW 65). They will review public comments on the Draft 
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for Amendment 8 to the Herring 
Fishery Management Plan (FMP), and discuss final preferred alternative 
recommendations. They will also discuss possible measures to include 
for consideration in the 2019-21 fishery specifications action 
including discussion of a potential independent action for fishing year 
2019 that NOAA Fisheries may develop. A separate action may be 
considered to set fishery specifications for 2019 because final 
measures for 2019-21 developed through the Council process are not 
expected to be implemented until mid-year of 2019. Also on the agenda 
is initial discussion of potential 2019 herring work priorities. They 
will discuss other business as necessary.

Special Accommodations

    This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. 
This meeting will be recorded. Consistent with 16 U.S.C. 1852, a copy 
of the recording is available upon request. Requests for sign language 
interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. 
Nies, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to 
the meeting date.

    Authority:  16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: August 22, 2018.
Tracey L. Thompson,
Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National 
Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-18455 Filed 8-24-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
ISAIAH HENRY

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 1 5

- 29 8 8

___________ __________________/

Opinion filed August 9, 2016.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County

. Terry D. Terrell

, J udge

.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Lori A. Willner, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee

, for Appellant

.

Pamela Jo Bo ndi, Attorney General, David Llanes, Assistant Attorney General, and Donna A. Gerace, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

BILBREY and M.K

. THOMAS

, J J

. , and BEVERLY, THOMAS M., ASSOCIATE JUDGE, CONCUR.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

Appellate case name: Michael M. Euler v. Miles Marks and Texas Dow Employees Federal 

Credit Union

Appellate case number: 01-13-00085-CV

Trial court case number: 11-06-06132-CV

Trial court: 9th District Court of Montgomery County

It is ordered that Appellee’s Motion for Rehearing is denied.

Judge’s signature: _/s/ Rebeca Huddle_________________________

Acting for the Court

Panel consists of: Chief Justice Radack and Justices Massengale and Huddle

Date: May 13, 2014
Order filed, February 1, 2013

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 13

- 00041

- CV

____________ IN THE ESTATE OF BAR BARA CHAPMAN, DECEAS ED , Appellant

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No 1

Fort Bend Cou nty, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 11

- CPR

- 023801



### ORDER
The reporter’s record in this case was due December 6, 2012

. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.1. The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the
record. The record has not been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record has not been filed timely, we issue the following order.

We order Stephanie Webb , the official court reporter, to file the record in this appeal within 30 days of the date of this order

. PER CURIAM
*Pursuant to 5TH CIRCUIT RULE 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIRCUIT

RULE 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

____________________

No. 97-30812

Summary Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

JAMES A NORRIS, JR,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

(97-CR-30007-1)

_________________________________________________________________

June 9, 1998

Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Defendant-appellant James A. Norris, Jr. appeals the

district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss his indictment

for perjury pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1623. The indictment alleged

that, on four separate occasions, Norris lied under oath when he

told the bankruptcy court that he burned United States currency

in the amount of $500,000. He argues that this prosecution
2

violates the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution because

he had already been punished for his alleged misrepresentations

by being imprisoned pursuant to a civil contempt order.

The Double Jeopardy Clause protects against only successive

criminal prosecutions for the same offense. See Hudson v. United

States, 118 S. Ct. 488, 493 (1997). Double jeopardy does not bar

Norris’s prosecution for perjury because his imprisonment

pursuant to the civil contempt order did not amount to a criminal

penalty. See id.; cf. Norris v. Johnson (In re Norris), No. 96-

30146, at 24 (5th Cir. Apr. 11, 1997) (unpublished) (rejecting

Norris’s argument on appeal of the bankruptcy court proceeding

that the civil contempt order was really criminal).

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

                            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 Brooklyn Cheesecake & Desserts
Company, Inc. (the "Company") on form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30,
2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date
hereof, I Anthony J. Merante Vice-President and 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,
that

(iii) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and
      Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(iv)  the information contained in the Report fairly present, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company
      at the dates and for the periods indicated.

Date: November 21, 2005

                                      /s/ Anthony J. Merante
                                      -----------------------------------
                                      Anthony J. Merante
                                      Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer

A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906, OR OTHER
DOCUMENT AUTHENTICATING, ACKNOWLEDGING, OR OTHERWISE ADOPTING THE SIGNATURE THAT
APPEARS IN TYPED FORM WITHIN THE ELECTRONIC VERSION OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT
REQUIRED BY SECTION 906, HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO BROOKLYN CHEESECAKE & DESSERTS
COMPANY, INC. AND WILL BE RETAINED BY AND FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES AND
EXCHANGE COMMISSIONS OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.
#### The Cleveland Trust Co., Appellee, *v.*Siegrist et al., Appellants.

(No. 30338

Decided October 10, 1945.)

*Messrs. Todd &*Todd, for appellee.

*Mr. C. F. McConnell*and *Mr. G. C. Hafley,*for appellants.

It is ordered and adjudged that this appeal as of right be, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the reason that no debatable constitutional question is involved.

*Appeal dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Zimmerman, Bell, Williams, Turner, Matthias and Hart, JJ., concur.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

Chief Justice

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

February 24, 2017 

# Order

Clerk February 24, 2017

15 4 527 ( 1 10 )

COALITION PROTECTING AUTO NO

- FAULT,

MARTHA E. LEVANDOWSKI, GERALD E.

CLARK, MARY ELLEN CLARK, A. MICHAEL

DELLER, PAULINA M. DELLER and M. THOMAS

DELLER,

Plaintiff s

- Appell ant s

, and

BRAIN INJURY ASSOCIATION OF

MICHIGAN, ILENE IKENS, RICHARD IKENS,

KENNETH WISSER, SUSAN WISSER,

GREGORY WOLFE and KAREN WOLFE

, Plaintiff s

- Appell ee s

, SC: 15 4 527

v COA: 314310

Ingham C C: 12

- 000068

- CZ

MICHIGAN CATASTROPHIC CLAIMS

ASSOCIATION

, Defendant

- Appell ee

. _________________________________________/

On order of the C hief Justice , the motion of Outside Legal Counsel, PLC, and

attorney Philip L. Ellison to participate as amic i curiae and to file an amicus brief in

support of the application for leave to appeal is GRANTED . The amicus brief submitted

on January 25, 2017 , is accepted for f iling

.
#### John CARAVELLO, Petitioner, v. SORRENTO HOTEL, Corporate Group Service, Inc., Surrey Hotel, Cosmopolitan Mutual Insurance Co., and Florida Industrial Commission, Respondents.

No. 37874.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 19, 1969..

Richard A. Sicking, of Kaplan, Dorsey & Sicking, Miami, for petitioner.

C. E. Miller of Wieland & Miller, Orlando, Patrick H. Mears and J. Franklin Garner, Tallahassee, for respondents.

*38PER CURIAM.

By petition for a writ of certiorari we have for review an order of the Florida Industrial Commission dated August 19, 1968.

We find upon argument of counsel for the respective parties, consideration of the briefs and the record in this cause that the essential requirements of law have not been violated. It is therefore ordered that said petition be and the same is hereby denied.

The petition for attorney’s fees is also denied.

ERVIN, C. J., and ROBERTS, DREW, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>


EXHIBIT  23.1

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the inclusion of our report dated March 10, 2000, except as to
Note 13, which is as of June 21, 2000, with respect to the consolidated balance
sheets of Atmosphere Networks, Inc. and subsidiary as of December 31, 1999 and
1998, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders'
equity and cash flows for each of the years in the two-year period ended
December 31, 1999, which report appears in this Form 8-K/A of Ditech
Communications Corporation dated September 12, 2000.

                                           /s/ KPMG LLP

Mountain View, California
September 12, 2000
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

                    Notice is hereby given of the cancellation of the National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel, November 01, 2018, 11:00 a.m. to November 01, 2018, 2:00 p.m., National Cancer Institute Shady Grove, Shady Grove, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Rockville, MD, 20850 which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on August 7, 2018, 83 FR 38710.                

This meeting has been cancelled. The applications have been assigned to another meeting for review.

Dated: August 20, 2018.

Melanie J. Pantoja,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2018-18400 Filed 8-24-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
#### Earl Eugene BROWN, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 44699.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 5, 1974.

ADKINS, C. J., and ROBERTS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3774

To repeal the Davis-Bacon Act.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 2, 1994

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina introduced the following bill; which was referred

to the Committee on Education and Labor

A BILL

To repeal the Davis-Bacon Act.

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 ‘‘Davis-Bacon Abolition

5 Act’’.

6 SEC. 2. REPEAL.

7 The Act of March 3, 1931 (40 U.S.C. 276a—276a–

8 5) (known as the Davis-Bacon Act) is repealed.

9 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

10 The repeal made by section 2 shall take effect 5 days

11 after the date of the enactment of this Act. Such repeal

12 shall not affect the validity or continued operation of a
2

•HR 3774 IH

1 contract entered into before the date of the enactment of

2 this Act.

Æ