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

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4103 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4103

   To codify regulations restricting the sale and donation of excess 
              firearms owned or held by Federal agencies.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 22, 1994

  Mr. Castle introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                   Committee on Government Operations

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To codify regulations restricting the sale and donation of excess 
              firearms owned or held by Federal agencies.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Excess Federal Firearms Act of 
1994''.

SEC. 2. RESTRICTIONS ON SALE AND DONATION OF EXCESS FIREARMS OWNED OR 
              HELD BY FEDERAL AGENCIES.

    (a) Restrictions on Sale and Donation of Excess Firearms.--A 
Federal agency that owns or holds an excess firearm may dispose of it 
only in accordance with subpart 101-42.1102-10 of title 41, Code of 
Federal Regulations (establishing restrictions on sales and donations 
of excess firearms by Federal agencies), as in effect on the date of 
the enactment of this Act, and other subparts of that title referred to 
in that subpart (as in effect on that date).
    (b) Limitation on Waivers by Administrator or General Services.--
Notwithstanding any other law or regulation, the Administrator of 
General Services may not waive or otherwise authorize any deviation 
from any subpart referred to in subsection (a) with respect to the 
disposal of excess firearms.
    (c) Definitions.--In this section, each of the terms ``excess 
firearm'' and ``firearm'' has the meaning that applies in subpart 101-
42.001 of title 41, Code of Federal Regulations.

                                 <all>
```
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed August 4, 2021.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D21-1508

Lower Tribunal Nos. F93-18139C, F93-18141C

________________

Tramain Smith,

Petitioner,

vs.

The State of Florida,

Respondent.

A Case of Original Jurisdiction – Habeas Corpus.

Tramain Smith, in proper person.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for respondent.

Before EMAS, HENDON and GORDO, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.

Denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6011

GORDON SCOTT STATON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; UVA POLICE DEPARTMENT; DISTRICT 9 

PROBATION AND PAROLE; DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Chief 

District Judge. (7:14-cv-00622-GEC)

Submitted: March 12, 2015 Decided: March 17, 2015

Before GREGORY, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gordon Scott Staton, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Gordon Scott Staton appeals the district court’s order 

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action without prejudice*

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(2) (2012). We have reviewed the 

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny 

Staton’s motion to appoint counsel and affirm for the reasons 

stated by the district court. Staton v. Virginia, No. 7:14-cv00622-GEC (W.D. Va. Nov. 26, 2014). We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

 * Although it is well established that orders dismissing 

complaints without prejudice are ordinarily interlocutory and 

not appealable, see Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local 

Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993), orders 

dismissing actions without prejudice are generally final and 

appealable. See Chao v. Rivendell Woods, Inc., 415 F.3d 342, 

345 (4th Cir. 2005).
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENTCERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

AmericanTechnology CorporationSan Diego, California

We hereby consentto the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Forms S-8(File No. 333-09265, File No. 333-09269, File No. 333-23845, File No. 333-59929,File No 333-54034 and File No. 333-101279) and Forms S-3 (File No. 333-27455,File No. 333-36003, File No. 333-71351, File No. 333-99675, File No. 333-36000,File No. 333-105740 and File No. 333-107635) of our report dated December 5,2003 relating to the financial statements of American Technology Corporationappearing in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year endedSeptember 30, 2003.

 

 

/s/ BDO SEIDMAN, LLP

Costa Mesa, CADecember 26, 2003

|  |  |
|--|--|
MEDICAL SUFFICIENCY MEMORANDUM

Place on Letter Head DATE

MEMORANDUM FOR

FROM: Office Symbol

SUBJECT: Military Medical Sufficiency Statement (MSS) for Applicant’s Name.

1. This memorandum is in support of the request for dependency determination for name,

sponsor’s SSN or DoD Identity Number. After reviewing his/her medical records, it was

determined that his/her medical condition existed prior to his/her 21st/23rd birthday.

2. The following information applies to the members of the Army, Navy, and U.S. Coast Guard

and is submitted in accordance with service regulatory guidance, AR 40-400, Patient

Administration, Navy Regulation NAVMEDCOMINST 6320.3B, Coast Guard, U.S. Coast

Guard Pay Manual, COMDTINST M7220.29 (Series), Chapter 3. Exception: See Attachment

15 for Air Force Medical Sufficiency Statement. Marine Corps, U.S. Public Health Services, and 

the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Medical Sufficiency Statements, 

contact the respective DEERS Service Project Offices directly as listed in Chapter 25 for Service 

unique application form.

a. Diagnosis:

b. Brief summary of patient’s condition.

c. Describe level of incapacitation. State whether the condition is permanent or temporary. If 

the condition is temporary, state the anticipated time period that the condition might be 

resolved.

d. Onset of condition. If not congenital, at what age and date was the condition diagnosed?

e. State Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) that the child requires assistance with or cannot do 

at all.

f. State whether or not patient is capable of self-support.

SIGNATURE BLOCK 

MTF Administrator

Enclosure
Medical Summary 

Medical Summary

(Completed by a Physician)

Note: This medical summary is in support of the request for dependency determination.

a. Patient identification (name, sponsor’s SSN, age, sex, and relationship to sponsor)

b. Diagnosis:

c. Summary of medical condition include the following information:

(1) Whether the condition is a permanent or temporary disability. If condition is 

temporary, state anticipated time period that the condition might be resolved.

(2) Level of incapacitation due to medical condition. Indicate patient’s ability for 

self-support.

(3) State Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) that the child requires assistance with or 

cannot do at all.

(4) Onset of condition. If not congenital, at what age and date was condition 

diagnosed?

Physician’s Signature

Physician's Title

Address

Telephone
### IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 16

- 00096

- CR

EX PARTE KELLY MARIE OLDNER

From the County Court at Law No

. 1 Johnson County, Texas

Trial Court No. M201202002

A B A T E M E N T ORDER

The reporter’s record in this post

- conviction habeas appeal was filed on April 7,

2016. The Clerk of the Court has learned that there may be an inaccuracy pertaining to

the status of the appellate record of the underlying criminal proceeding as an exhibit in

this appeal.

The reporter’s record of the March 16, 2016 hearing reflects that the trial court took

judicial notice of that entire record (a one

- volume clerk’s record and a five

- volume

reporter’s record), that Appellant’s counsel had a copy of that appellate record to

introduce into evidence, and that the trial court “received” it into evidence. It appears,

however, that the appellate record was never marked as an exhibit and tendered to theE x parte Oldner Page 2

court reporter. Therefore, that appellate record has not been made an exhibit in the

reporter’s record in this appeal.

Rule of Appellate Procedure 34.6(e) provides:

(e) Inaccuracies in the Reporter’s Re cord.

(1) Correction of Inaccuracies by Agreement. The parties may agree to correct an inaccuracy in the reporter’s record, including an exhibit, without the court reporter's recertification.

(2) Correction of Inaccuracies by Trial Court. If the part ies cannot agree on whether or how to correct the reporter’s record so that the text accurately discloses what occurred in the trial court and the exhibits are
accurate, the trial court must

-- after notice and hearing

-- settle the dispute.

If the court find s any inaccuracy, it must order the court reporter to conform the reporter’s record (including text and any exhibits) to what occurred in the trial court, and to file certified corrections in the appellate court.

(3) Correction After Filing in Appellate Court. If the dispute arises after the reporter’s record has been filed in the appellate court, that court may submit the dispute to the trial court for resolution. The trial court must then proceed as under subparagraph (e)(2).

T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 34.6(e).

We conclude that this appeal should be abated and that the trial court should hold

a hearing to address this issue and, if so determined, receive the appellate record as an

exhibit to be filed in a supplemental reporter’s record.

The hearing shall be held within 21 days of the date of this order, and a

supplemental reporter’s record, if any, shall be filed no later than 14 days after the date

of the hearing.

PER CURIAME x parte Oldner Page 3

Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins

Order issued and filed April 21 , 2016 Do not publish
Order entered February 28, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-12-01447-CR

DENNIS EDWARD WILLIAMS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 7

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F08-35085-Y

ORDER

The Court ORDERS the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine why appellant’s 

brief has not been filed. In this regard, the trial court shall make appropriate findings and 

recommendations and determine whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal, whether 

appellant is indigent, or if not indigent, whether retained counsel has abandoned the appeal. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b). If the trial court cannot obtain appellant’s presence at the hearing, the 

trial court shall conduct the hearing in appellant’s absence. See Meza v. State, 742 S.W.2d 708 

(Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 1987, no pet.) (per curiam). If appellant is indigent, the trial court is 

ORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure effective representation, which 

may include appointment of new counsel.
We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record of the proceedings, which shall include 

written findings and recommendations, to this Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this 

order.

This appeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with the above order. The 

appeal shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the findings are 

received, whichever is earlier.

/s/ DAVID EVANS 

JUSTICE
|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 report on Form 10-Q of Wireless Attachments, Inc. for the quarterly period ended September
30, 2013, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Steve S. Sinohui, do hereby 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
and belief:



1) This 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 this report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

/s/ Steve S. Sinohui
Steve S. Sinohui, Chief Executive Officer
and Chief Financial Officer





|Date: January 7, 2014
|---------------------















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 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.
EX-10.46



 Exhibit 10.46 
 AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO 
 TO THE 

WEST CORPORATION NONQUALIFIED DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN 
 WHEREAS, West Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), maintains the West Corporation Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Plan, as amended and restated effective as of March
27, 2013 and amended by Amendment Number One dated as of April 24, 2013 (the “Plan”); 
 WHEREAS, pursuant to
Article VIII of the Plan, the Company has the authority to amend the Plan; and 
 WHEREAS, the Board has authorized an
amendment of the Plan to provide participants in the Plan with the right to make more than one redeferral election with respect to a participant’s deferral account for each plan year, in accordance with the terms of the Plan and the Internal
Revenue Code. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Plan hereby is amended, effective as of January 29, 2014, as
follows: 
 1. The final sentence of Section 3.1(f) is hereby amended to delete the words “one-time” prior to the word
“redeferral”. 
 2. The first sentence of Section 6.2 is hereby amended to add the following parenthetical after the
reference to “subsection 6.1(a)”. 
 “(without limitation as to the number of such modifications which may be
made by a Participant with respect to the deferrals for any Plan Year)” 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has
caused this instrument to be executed by its duly authorized agent as of January 29, 2014. 
  

			
	WEST CORPORATION
		
	By:	 	    /s/ Paul M. Mendlik
	Name: Paul M. Mendlik
	Title: Chief Financial Officer
# Four th Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 28, 2022

No. 04

- 22

- 00792

- CV

IN RE THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

CORRECTED ORDER

Sitting: Luz Elena D. Chapa , Justice

Beth Watkins , Justice

Lori I. Valenzuela , Justice

On November 21, 2022

, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus and a motion for

emergency relief

. This court believes a serious question concerning the mandamus relief sought

requires further co nsideration. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.8(b). R espondent and real part y in interest

may file a response to the petition in this court no later than December 6, 2022

. Any such

response must conform to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.4

.

In the emergency motion, a fter a hearing on November 16, 2022, r elator complains the

trial court abused its discretion by rendering several orders from the bench

. After consideration,

r elator’s request for emergency relief i s GRANTED IN PART

. The following orders from the

November 16, 2022 hearing are STAYED pending further order from this court :

(1) t he d eposition of anyone named of interest to real party in interest shall take place at

the real party in interest’ s prerogative following a December 13

, 2022 deposition and

before December 20

, 2022 ; and

(2) relator shall produce t he human resources file, including any request for leave of

Vincent Egidio

, to real party in interest by November 22

, 2022 at 5 :00 PM

.

It is so ORDERED on November 28, 2022

.

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2021

- CI

- 01482 , styled Maria Monsibais v. City of San Antonio , pending

in the 408th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Mary Lou Alvarez presiding.PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: _____________________________

Michael A. Cruz

, Clerk of Court
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 39 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 H. R. 39

          To designate certain lands in Alaska as wilderness.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 5, 1993

 Mr. Lehman (for himself and Mr. Vento) introduced the following bill; 
        which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
          To designate certain lands in Alaska as wilderness.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Morris K. Udall Wilderness Act of 
1993''.

SEC. 2. DESIGNATION OF WILDERNESS AREA.

    In furtherance of the provisions of the Wilderness Act, an area in 
Alaska comprising approximately 1,556,793 acres, as generally depicted 
on a map entitled ``Arctic Coastal Plain Wilderness--Proposed'', dated 
June, 1986, and available for inspection in the offices of the 
Secretary of the Interior, is hereby designated as wilderness and, 
therefore, as a component of the National Wilderness Preservation 
System.

                                 <all>
```
IDA 12.31.13 Ex. 10.37






Exhibit 10.37


IDACORP, Inc. and/or Idaho Power Company Executive Officers 
with Amended and Restated Change in Control Agreements
(as of January 1, 2014) 


	
					
	Name
	 
	Title
	 
	Date of Agreement

	J. LaMont Keen
	 
	President and Chief Executive Officer of IDACORP, Inc.
	 
	12/29/2008

	Darrel T. Anderson
	 
	Executive Vice President - Administrative Services and Chief Financial Officer of IDACORP, Inc. and President and Chief Executive Officer of Idaho Power Company
	 
	12/23/2008

	Daniel B. Minor
	 
	Executive Vice President of IDACORP, Inc. and Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of Idaho Power Company
	 
	12/30/2008

	Rex Blackburn
	 
	Sr. Vice President and General Counsel of IDACORP, Inc. and Idaho Power Company
	 
	4/1/2009

	Lisa A. Grow
	 
	Sr. Vice President of Power Supply of Idaho Power Company
	 
	12/12/2008

	Steve R. Keen
	 
	Vice President - Finance and Treasurer of IDACORP, Inc. and Sr. Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, and Treasurer of Idaho Power Company
	 
	12/30/2008

	Lori D. Smith
	 
	Vice President and Chief Risk Officer of IDACORP, Inc. and Idaho Power Company
	 
	12/31/2008

	Luci K. McDonald
	 
	Vice President of Human Resources and Corporate Services of Idaho Power Company
	 
	12/20/2008

	Warren Kline
	 
	Vice President of Customer Operations of Idaho Power Company
	 
	12/15/2008

	Patrick A. Harrington
	 
	Corporate Secretary of IDACORP, Inc. and Idaho Power Company
	 
	12/9/2008

	N. Vern Porter*
	 
	Vice President of Delivery Engineering and Construction of Idaho Power Company
	 
	3/18/2010

	Kenneth W. Petersen*
	 
	Vice President, Controller and Chief Accounting Officer of IDACORP, Inc. and Idaho Power Company
	 
	5/20/2010

	Gregory W. Said*
	 
	Vice President of Regulatory Affairs of Idaho Power Company
	 
	1/20/2011




*Change in control agreement does not include 13th-month trigger or tax gross-up provisions.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Angel Maisonet, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Allen Alpert, J.), rendered January 12, 1988, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to concurrent indeterminate terms of imprisonment of 4 Vi to 9 years unanimously affirmed. Order of the same court rendered on March 7, 1990, denying defendant’s *pro se*CPL 440.10 motion, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant was arrested on February 17, 1987 after he was observed exchanging a glassine envelope for currency. It was determined that the envelope contained heroin. At the close of the *Mapp*hearing, the Court found that the arresting officer had probable cause to arrest the defendant. At trial, the arresting officer made statements which were inconsistent with statements made at the *Mapp*hearing. Specifically, at the *Mapp*hearing, he stated his car was "25 to 35 feet” away, and it took "8” seconds to reach the defendant, whereas at trial he testified that he was "50 to 60 feet” away, and that it took "30” seconds to reach the defendant after the commission of the crime. Further, a defense witness who videotaped the area said the officer was 124 feet away from the defendant when the crime occurred.

The jury’s attribution of credibility to one witness over another is entitled to great weight. *(People v Doyle,*154 AD2d 614, *lv denied*75 NY2d 769.) Here, any inconsistency in the testimony was squarely placed before the jury, and we discern no basis to disturb its findings.

The defendant also claims improper statements were made by the prosecutor in summation. Arguments and statements that might otherwise be impermissible are proper when made in fair response to statements made by the defense. *(People v Colon,*122 AD2d 150.)

Defendant’s *pro se*CPL 440.10 motion was properly denied. Where such a motion is brought while an appeal is pending and the claims raised in the motion could have been raised in the appeal, the motion should be denied. (CPL 440.10 [2] [b]; *see, People v Gonzalez,*158 AD2d 615, *lv denied*76 NY2d 735.)

We find the defendant’s remaining contention to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Asch and Smith, JJ.
EXHIBIT 32.1

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


         In connection with this amendment to the Annual Report of BMB Munai,
Inc., on Form 10-KSB for the year ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, Boris Cherdabayev, Principal Executive Officer of the Company,
certifies, 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: October 4, 2005                               /s/ Boris Cherdabayev
                                                   -----------------------------
                                                   Boris Cherdabayev,
                                                   Principal Executive Officer
#### People v Yvette Lugo, Defendant.

Motion to extend time to take appeal granted upon condition that a notice of appeal is filed and served on or before May 27, 1991. Memorandum: Defense counsel was guilty of improper conduct in failing to comply with 22 NYCRR 1022.11 (a). Present—Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Boomer, Lawton and Davis, JJ.