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

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 532 

To amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to require States to provide 

for same day registration. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 12, 2013 

Ms. KLOBUCHAR (for herself and Mr. TESTER) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration 

A BILL 

To amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to require 

States to provide for same day registration. 

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 ‘‘Same Day Registration 

5 Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. SAME DAY REGISTRATION. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Title III of the Help America 

8 Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15481 et seq.) is amended— 

9 (1) by redesignating sections 304 and 305 as 

10 sections 305 and 306, respectively; and 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 532 IS

1 (2) by inserting after section 303 the following 

2 new section: 

3 ‘‘SEC. 304. SAME DAY REGISTRATION. 

4 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.— 

5 ‘‘(1) REGISTRATION.—Notwithstanding section 

6 8(a)(1)(D) of the National Voter Registration Act of 

7 1993 (42 U.S.C. 1973gg–6), each State shall permit 

8 any eligible individual on the day of a Federal elec9 tion and on any day when voting, including early 

10 voting, is permitted for a Federal election— 

11 ‘‘(A) to register to vote in such election at 

12 the polling place using a form that meets the 

13 requirements under section 9(b) of the National 

14 Voter Registration Act of 1993; and 

15 ‘‘(B) to cast a vote in such election. 

16 ‘‘(2) EXCEPTION.—The requirements under 

17 paragraph (1) shall not apply to a State in which, 

18 under a State law in effect continuously on and after 

19 the date of the enactment of this section, there is no 

20 voter registration requirement for individuals in the 

21 State with respect to elections for Federal office. 

22 ‘‘(b) ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUAL.—For purposes of this 

23 section, the term ‘eligible individual’ means, with respect 

24 to any election for Federal office, an individual who is oth25 erwise qualified to vote in that election. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 532 IS

1 ‘‘(c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—Each State shall be re2 quired to comply with the requirements of subsection (a) 

3 for the regularly scheduled general election for Federal of4 fice occurring in November 2014 and for any subsequent 

5 election for Federal office.’’. 

6 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.— 

7 (1) Section 401 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 15511) 

8 is amended by striking ‘‘and 303’’ and inserting 

9 ‘‘303, and 304’’. 

10 (2) The table of contents of such Act is amend11 ed— 

12 (A) by redesignating the items relating to 

13 sections 304 and 305 as relating to sections 

14 305 and 306, respectively; and 

15 (B) by inserting after the item relating to 

16 section 303 the following new item: 

‘‘Sec. 304. Same day registration.’’. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit
32.2  SECTION
1350 CERTIFICATION  In
connection with the quarterly report of GlobeStar Therapeutics Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2022 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Robert Chicoski, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SS. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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; and2.
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents,
        in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.  Date: August 22, 2022
    By: /s/ Robert ChicoskiRobert ChicoskiChief 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 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.
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo 

 

No. 07-22-00278-CR 

No. 07-22-00279-CR 

 

STEVEN VAUGHN GEOPFERT, APPELLANT 

V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE 

On Appeal from the 181st District Court 

 Potter County, Texas 

Trial Court Nos. 080625-B-CR & 081258-B-CR, Honorable Dan L. Schaap, Presiding 

November 2, 2022 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and DOSS, JJ. 

Appellant, Steven Vaughn Geopfert, proceeding pro se, appeals his convictions 

for manufacture or delivery of a controlled substance1 and aggravated assault with a 

deadly weapon.2 We dismiss the untimely appeals for want of jurisdiction and because 

Appellant has no right of appeal.

1 See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.112(d).

2 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.02(a)(2).
2

The timely filing of a written notice of appeal is a jurisdictional prerequisite to 

hearing an appeal. Castillo v. State, 369 S.W.3d 196, 198 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012). In a 

criminal case, the notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days after sentence is 

imposed or suspended or within ninety days if the defendant timely files a motion for new 

trial. TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a). If a notice of appeal is not timely filed, an appellate court 

has no option but to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Castillo, 369 S.W.3d at 

198.

The trial court sentenced Appellant on April 21, 2022. Because no motion for new 

trial was filed, a notice of appeal was due within thirty days after sentencing, by May 23,

2022. See TEX. R. APP. P. 4.1(a), 26.2(a). Appellant filed a notice of appeal on October 

6, 2022. Thus, Appellant’s untimely notice of appeal prevents this Court from acquiring 

jurisdiction over the appeals.

Further, under Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(d), we are required to dismiss an 

appeal “if a certification that shows the defendant has the right of appeal has not been 

made part of the record.” Here, the trial court’s certifications of Appellant’s right of appeal 

indicate that these are plea-bargain cases with no right of appeal and that Appellant has 

waived the right of appeal. The certifications comport with the record before the Court, 

including the plea papers and waivers signed by Appellant. 

By letter of October 11, 2022, we notified Appellant of the consequences of his late 

notice of appeal and the trial court’s certifications and directed him to show how the Court 

has jurisdiction over the appeals. Appellant has filed a response but has not shown 

grounds for continuing the appeals.
3

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeals for want of jurisdiction and based on the trial 

court’s certifications.

Per Curiam

Do not publish.
----

----

III Notices

European Medicines Agency

----

RECRUITMENT FOR THE EUROPEAN MEDICINES AGENCY (LONDON)

(2005/C 76 A/01)

The Agency is responsible for coordinating the evaluation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use in the European Union (see European Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of 31 March 2004, Official Journal of the European Union No L 136 of 30 April 2004). The EMEA was established in January 1995. It has many close contacts with the European Commission, 25 EU Member States, EEA-EFTA countries and many other groups in government and the private sector.

Further information on the EMEA and its activities is readily accessible through the Internet; our web address is http://www.emea.eu.int

Selected candidates will be included on a reserve list and, depending on the budgetary situation, may be offered a five-year renewable contract in accordance with the Conditions of employment of other servants of the European Communities (Official Journal of the European Communities No L  56 of 4 March 1968) (1).

The place of employment shall be London.

Candidates must be nationals of a Member State of the European Communities, or of Iceland, Norway or Liechtenstein, on condition that they have full rights as a citizen.

The complete conditions, the job descriptions and the necessary application form should be downloaded from the EMEA website http://www.emea.eu.int. The application form must be duly signed and dated and, together with all documentary evidence, must be returned no later than 11 May 2005 (date of postmark) to the following address:EMEA — Head of Personnel, 7 Westferry Circus, Canary Wharf, London E14 4HB, United Kingdom (Tel: 44-207 418 84 00; fax: 44-207 418 84 16).

In future the Official Journal will no longer be sent by mail to the mailing list. If you wish to continue to receive notification of publications please register online at http://www.emea.eu.int/under ‘Online Mailing Service’

----

(1)  The Council has adopted new Staff Regulations which entered into force on 1 May 2004. These Regulations include a new career structure. Successful candidates would therefore be recruited on the basis of the new Staff Regulations, in accordance with the arrangements set out, in particular, in Article 12 of Section 2 of Annex XIII (see the IntraComm website: http://www.europa.eu.int).

----
----

ORDER OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 14 October 2004

in Case C-288/03 P: Bernard Zaoui and Others v Commission of the European Communities (1)

(Non-contractual liability of the Community - Appeal in part manifestly unfounded and in part manifestly inadmissible)

(2005/C 19/18)

Language of the case: French

In Case C-288/03 P: appeal under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, brought on 3 July 2003, Bernard Zaoui, residing at Combs-la-Ville (France), Lucien Zaoui, residing at Netanya (Israel), Déborah Stain, née Zaoui, residing at Ramat Gan (Israel) the other party to the proceedings being: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: P. Kuijper, F. Dintilhac and C. Tufvesson) – the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur) President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, R. Schintgen, J. Makarczyk and J. Klučka, Judges; M. Poiares Maduro, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 14 October 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

----

(1)OJ C 171 of 19.7.2003.

----
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 558 Placed on Calendar Senate (PCS)]

                                                        Calendar No. 26
113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 558

 To prohibit the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency 
  from awarding any grant, contract, cooperative agreement, or other 
  financial assistance under section 103 of the Clean Air Act for any 
        program, project, or activity outside the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 13, 2013

 Mr. Paul introduced the following bill; which was read the first time

                             March 14, 2013

            Read the second time and placed on the calendar

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To prohibit the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency 
  from awarding any grant, contract, cooperative agreement, or other 
  financial assistance under section 103 of the Clean Air Act for any 
        program, project, or activity outside the United States.

    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 ``Accountability in Grants Act of 
2013''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION AGAINST FUNDING CERTAIN FOREIGN PROGRAMS, PROJECTS, 
              AND ACTIVITIES.

    Section 103 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7403) is amended by 
adding at the end the following:
    ``(l) Prohibition Against Funding Foreign Programs, Projects, and 
Activities.--The Administrator shall not award any grant, contract, 
cooperative agreement, or other financial assistance under this section 
for any program, project, or activity that will be carried out outside 
the United States or the territories and possessions of the United 
States.''.
                                                        Calendar No. 26

113th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                 S. 558

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 To prohibit the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency 
  from awarding any grant, contract, cooperative agreement, or other 
  financial assistance under section 103 of the Clean Air Act for any 
        program, project, or activity outside the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             March 14, 2013

            Read the second time and placed on the calendar
```
#### G. Gibson HALL, Appellant, v. FIRE & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY OF CONNECTICUT, Appellee.

No. 46616.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

April 3, 1972.

Perry, Phillips, Crockett, Peters & Morrison, Thomas E. Royals, Thomas I. Starling, Jr., Jackson, for appellant.

Satterfield, Shell, Williams & Buford, E. P. Lobrano, Jr., Jackson, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
PROMISSORY NOTE


 


	$3,000	November 18, 2013


 


FOR GOOD AND VALUEABLE CONSIDERATION, the receipt
and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Queensridge Mining Resources, Inc., a Nevada corporation, (“Maker”)
hereby promises to pay to the order of The Stromer Family, PKS Trust (“Holder”) the sum of THREE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($3,000).
This Note shall bear interest at the rate of five percent (5%) per annum. All principal and interest due hereunder shall be paid
on or before November 18, 2015.


 


Maker hereby waives presentment, dishonor,
notice of dishonor and protest. All parties hereto consent to, and Holder is expressly authorized to make, without notice, any
and all renewals, extensions, modifications, or waivers of the time for or the terms of payment of any sum or sums due hereunder,
or under any documents or instruments relating to or securing this Note, or of the performance of any covenants, conditions or
agreements hereof or thereof or the taking or release of collateral securing this Note. Any such action by Holder shall not discharge
the liability of any party to this Note.


 


This Notes shall be governed by and construed
in accordance with the laws of the State of Nevada without regard to conflict of law principles. Maker shall also pay Holder any
and all costs of collection incurred in connection with this Note, including court costs and reasonable attorney’s fees.


 


Queensridge Mining Resources, Inc.


 


 


 


By: /s/ Philip Stromer


Philip Stromer, President and CEO
**EXHIBIT 99.4**

**Management Report on InternalControl over**

**the Servicing of Securitized Credit Card Receivables**

----

Management of Fleet Bank (RI), NationalAssociation ("Fleet") is responsible for establishing and maintaining effectiveinternal control over the servicing of securitized credit card receivables,which is designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the properservicing of securitized credit card receivables. The internal control system contains self-monitoring mechanisms,and actions are taken to correct deficiencies as they are identified.

There are inherent limitations in any internalcontrol, including the possibility of human error and the circumvention oroverriding of controls. Accordingly,even effective internal control can provide only reasonable assurance withrespect to the servicing of securitized credit card receivables. Further, because of changes in conditions,the effectiveness of internal control may vary over time.

Management of Fleet assessed its internalcontrol over the servicing of securitized credit card receivables as of December31, 2003 in relation to the criteria for effective internal control establishedin "Internal Control-Integrated Framework" issued by the Committee ofSponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. Based on this assessment, management believes that, as of December31, 2003, Fleet maintained effective internal control over the servicing ofsecuritized credit card receivables.

January 26,2004

/s/ PATRICK J. COLL

Patrick J.CollChairman andChief Executive OfficerFleet Bank (RI), National Association

/s/ PAUL V. STAHLIN

Paul V.StahlinExecutive VicePresident and Chief Financial OfficerFleet Bank(RI), National Association

/s/ JEFFREY A. LIPSON

Jeffrey A.LipsonVice PresidentFleet Bank (RI), National Association
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

OSCAR DOUGLAS HERNANDEZROSAS, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 19-72408 

Agency No. A070-158-485 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 17, 2022**

Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. 

Oscar Douglas Hernandez-Rosas, a native and citizen of El Salvador, 

petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying 

his motion to reopen for termination of proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed 

by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a 

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

MAY 27 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 19-72408 

motion to reopen, Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010), and the 

denial of a motion to terminate, Dominguez v. Barr, 975 F.3d 725, 734 (9th Cir. 

2020). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. 

 Hernandez-Rosas’s contention that the agency lacked jurisdiction under 

Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), fails. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b) (1988) 

(deferring to regulations to establish requirements to provide notice of the 

deportation proceedings); 8 C.F.R. § 242.1(b) (1993) (not requiring the time or 

place at which proceedings will be held to be included in the order to show cause); 

see also Karingithi v. Whitaker, 913 F.3d 1158, 1160-62 (9th Cir. 2019) (rejecting 

contention that lack of hearing information in notice to appear deprived 

immigration court of jurisdiction).

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of sua sponte reopening 

because Hernandez-Rosas does not otherwise raise a legal or constitutional error 

that would invoke our jurisdiction. See Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 588 (9th 

Cir. 2016) (the court retains jurisdiction to review BIA decisions denying sua 

sponte reopening for the limited purpose of reviewing the reasoning behind the 

decision for legal or constitutional error).

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the 

mandate. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
| 1.     | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                                |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                                                                                                 |
| 2.     | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |

|            | Yellow7, Inc. |                                  |
|-----------------|---------------|---------------------------------------|
|            | (Registrant)  |                                  |
|            |          |                                  |   |
| August 30, 2012 | By:           | /s/ Jason Burgess                     |   |
|            |          | Jason Burgess                         |   |
|            |          | President and Chief Executive Officer |   |
|            |          |                                  |   |
**EXHIBIT 32**

 

August 10, 2018

 

Via EDGAR

 

Securities and Exchange Commission

Judiciary Plaza

450 Fifth Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20549

 

Re: Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

Ladies and Gentlemen:

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of VOC Energy Trust (the “Trust”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, not in its individual capacity but solely as the trustee of the Trust, certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to its knowledge:

 

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

 

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Trust.

 

The above certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.

 
|     | The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company,   N.A. |
|----------|---------------------------------------------------|
|     | Trustee for VOC Energy Trust                      |
|     |                                              |
|     | By:                                               | /s/ MICHAEL J. ULRICH |
|     |                                              | Michael J. Ulrich |
| * * | * *                                          | *Vice President and Trust   Officer* |

 

----
#### Victor AZAR, Appellant, v. Guy S. AZAR, senior, and Denise Azar, co-executors, Appellees.

No. 67-488.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

Jan. 16, 1968.

Appeal dismissed.