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

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 23

Providing for a conditional adjournment or recess of the Senate and the

House of Representatives.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 25, 1999

Mr. LOTT submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was considered

and agreed to

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Providing for a conditional adjournment or recess of the

Senate and the House of Representatives.

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives

2 concurring), That when the Senate recesses or adjourns

3 at the close of business on Thursday, March 25, 1999,

4 Friday, March 26, 1999, Saturday, March 27, 1999, or

5 Sunday, March 28, 1999, on a motion offered pursuant

6 to this concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader or his

7 designee, it stand recessed or adjourned until noon on

8 Monday, April 12, 1999, or until such time on that day

9 as may be specified by its Majority Leader or his designee

10 in the motion to recess or adjourn, or until noon on the
2

SCON 23 ATS

1 second day after Members are notified to reassemble pur2 suant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever

3 occurs first; and that when the House adjourns on the

4 legislative day of Thursday, March 25, 1999, or Friday,

5 March 26, 1999, on a motion offered pursuant to this con6 current resolution by its Majority Leader or his designee,

7 it stand adjourned until 12:30 p.m. on Monday, April 12,

8 1999, for morning-hour debate, or until noon on the sec9 ond day after Members are notified to reassemble pursu10 ant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever

11 occurs first.

12 SEC. 2. The Majority Leader of the Senate and the

13 Speaker of the House, acting jointly after consultation

14 with the Minority Leader of the Senate and the Minority

15 Leader of the House, shall notify the Members of the Sen16 ate and House, respectively, to reassemble whenever, in

17 their opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.

Æ
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 8, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-50111

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

FRANCISCO JAVIER RENDON-LOPEZ

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:06-CR-1573-ALL

Before DENNIS, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Francisco Javier RendonLopez raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United

States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a

penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. The Government's motion

for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2427 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2427

 To suspend temporarily the duty on certain women's non-work footwear.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 2009

 Mr. Brownback introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To suspend temporarily the duty on certain women's non-work footwear.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN WOMEN'S NON-WORK FOOTWEAR.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00      Other footwear      Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                        with outer soles                                                   31/2011.......
                        and uppers of
                        rubber or
                        plastics, the
                        foregoing for
                        women, other than
                        house slippers,
                        work footwear,
                        tennis shoes,
                        basketball shoes,
                        gym shoes,
                        training shoes,
                        and the like
                        (provided for in
                        subheading
                        6402.99.31)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
**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 Quarterly Report of Magnum Hunter Resources Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q filed on May 3, 2012 for the quarter ended March 31, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Gary C. Evans, chairman of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

 

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

 

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

 

May 3, 2012

 

 
| /s/   Gary C. Evans                        |   |
|--------------------------------------------|--------|
| **Gary C. Evans,**                         |   |
| **Chairman and Chief   Executive Officer** |   |

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Magnum Hunter Resources Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q filed on May 3, 2012 for the quarter ended March 31, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Ronald D. Ormand, chief financial officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

 

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

 

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

 

May 3, 2012

 
| /s/ Ronald D. Ormand        |   |
|-----------------------------|--------|
| **Ronald D. Ormand,**       |
| **Chief Financial Officer** |

 

----
#### Joseph William PURCELLE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 86-861.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 4, 1988.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Elliott H. Scherker, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen. and Yvette Rhodes Prescott, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, BASKIN and FERGUSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *Bundy v. State,*471 So.2d 9 (Fla.1985).
T.C. Summary Opinion 2010-175

UNITED STATES TAX COURT

AFI ABDI, Petitioner v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

Docket No. 18526-09S. Filed December 22, 2010. 

Afi Abdi, pro se.

Derek W. Kaczmarek, for respondent.

GERBER, Judge: This case was heard pursuant to the

provisions of section 74631 of the Internal Revenue Code in

effect when the petition was filed. Pursuant to section 7463(b),

the decision to be entered is not reviewable by any other court,

1Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to

the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year at issue, and

all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and

Procedure.
- 2 -

and this opinion shall not be treated as precedent for any other

case.

Respondent determined a $4,132 deficiency in petitioner’s

2008 Federal income tax and a $826.40 penalty under

section 6662(a) and (b)(1). At trial respondent conceded the

penalty, leaving the following issues for the Court’s

consideration: (1) Whether petitioner is entitled to head of

household filing status; and (2) whether petitioner is entitled

to the earned income tax credit.

Background

Petitioner resided in Arizona when his petition was filed. 

Petitioner, his wife, and their five children resided in the same

dwelling for the entire 2008 taxable year. Petitioner and his

wife were married before 2008 and were married throughout the

2008 tax year. 

On his 2008 Federal income tax return, petitioner reported

his filing status as “head of household” and claimed two

dependent children. He also sought an earned income tax credit

of $4,132. Respondent determined that petitioner’s filing status

was “married filing separately” and that he was not entitled to

an earned income tax credit.

Discussion

Generally the Commissioner’s notice of deficiency

determinations are presumed correct, and taxpayers bear the
- 3 -

burden of proving otherwise. Rule 142(a); Welch v. Helvering,

290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933). There is no question in this case

concerning the burden of proof. 

In the circumstances of this case, the fact that petitioner

was married and resided with his wife throughout the entire 2008

taxable year causes him to be disqualified from claiming head of

household filing status under section 2(b). Although there are

some exceptions to that general rule, petitioner has not shown

that any exception applies. 

Petitioner also claimed an earned income tax credit. Under

section 32, that credit is available to individuals who meet

certain requirements. Under section 32(d), a married individual

is eligible for the credit only if he files a joint return for

the taxable year. Petitioner did not file a joint return for the

2008 taxable year, and, accordingly, he is not entitled to an

earned income tax credit.

To reflect the foregoing,

Decision will be entered

for respondent as to the

income tax deficiency and for

petitioner as to the accuracyrelated penalty.
#### STATE ex rel. Clyde GIDDENS v. Hilton BUTLER, Warden.

No. 87-KH-0910.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 8, 1988.

In re Giddens, Clyde; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; Parish of Natchitoches, 20th Judicial District Court, Div. “A”, No. 20801.

Denied.

DIXON, C.J., and COLE, J., would grant an evidentiary hearing.
50665.

#### ARNOLD v. THE STATE.

Bell, Chief Judge.

In its initial appearance (133 Ga. App. 451 (211 SE2d 404)), we affirmed the conviction, but directed a new sentence hearing because evidence of a previous conviction failed to show that the defendant had counsel or had waived the assistance of counsel, which rendered the prior conviction inadmissible. A new sentence hearing was held and the case is again before us. *Held:*

1. Defendant enumerates that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a resentencing by a jury as provided by Code Ann. § 27-2534, the law applicable at the time of the offense. At the time of resentencing here, Code Ann. § 27-2503 was in effect which required sentencing by the trial judge. The issue is controlled adversely to the defendant by *Jones v. State,*233 Ga. 662 (212 SE2d 832).

2. Defendant complains that since this court had determined in the prior appeal that admission in evidence *854of a previous conviction was improper, the conviction cannot be used on resentencing; and to do so would violate the law of the case doctrine. Our initial opinion rejected consideration of the previous conviction because of a failure to show either the assistance or waiver of counsel. It did not hold that the prior conviction *ipso facto*was inadmissible. Nor did it bar curative efforts by the state at the resentencing hearing. The new evidence as to conviction reflects that the defendant had the assistance of counsel, which fact defendant admitted on cross examination. The evidence at the sentence rehearing not being the same as when this case was initially before us, the "law of the case” is not applicable. *See Herrington v. State,*130 Ga. 307 (60 SE 572).

Submitted May 6, 1975

Decided May 15, 1975.

*Morgan & Sunderland, Thomas S. Sunderland,*for appellant.

*Bryant Huff, District Attorney,*for appellee.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Webb and Marshall, JJ., concur.*
#### John William BOYD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 86-1656.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Jan. 15, 1988.

*463James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Stephen Krosschell, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Kim W. Munch, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

FRANK, Judge.

The appellant, John William Boyd, appeals from his conviction for robbery and grand theft and the resultant sentence. Our review of the record discloses no error in the trial court’s orders denying Boyd’s motions for severance from the trial of his codefendant, Hart, and acquittal.

The final points raised by Boyd, the imposition of restitution, fines, and costs, are meritorious. The disposition of the restitution and supplemental fine issues is governed by this court’s opinion in *Hart v. State,*516 So.2d 58 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). The trial court was without jurisdiction to determine the amount of restitution and the magnitude of the supplemental fine after the filing of Boyd’s notice of appeal. *Hart.*Finally, without prior notice or an opportunity to be heard, contrary to *Jenkins v. State,*444 So.2d 947 (Fla.1984), the trial court imposed costs in the amount of $12 upon Boyd in the written judgment. The costs are stricken without prejudice to the state to seek reassessment. *Sescon v. State,*506 So.2d 45 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987).

This matter is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and HALL, J., concur.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

CHRISTIAN ALVARADO,

APPELLANT,

V.

MARGAUX GOMEZ,

APPELLEE.

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-14-00297-CV

Appeal from the

65th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 2014DCM2033)

§

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This appeal is before the Court to determine whether it should be dismissed for want of 

prosecution. Finding that the Appellant’s brief has not been filed, we dismiss the appeal for want

of prosecution.

On June 16, 2015, the Clerk notified Appellant that his brief was past due and no motion 

for extension of time had been filed. The letter advised Appellant that the Court intended to 

dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless Appellant responded within ten days and 

showed grounds for continuing the appeal. See TEX.R.APP.P. 38.8(a)(1); TEX.R.APP.P. 42.3. 

Neither the brief nor a motion for extension of time in which to file the brief has been filed. 

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution.
- 2 -

July 8, 2015

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
Exhibit 31.2**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**I, Cara D. Obert, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of United Development Funding III, L.P.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;  (b) Intentionally omitted;  (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and  (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of our annual report)that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.Dated this 14th day of August, 2006.       /s/ Cara D. Obert         Cara D. Obert    Chief Financial Officer of UMT Holdings,L.P.,
#### Cecelia SIDNEY, Allan H. Sidney, Jr., and Mary I. Sidney, Appellants, v. James DUTCHER and Lloyd Dutcher as Co-Personal Representatives of the Estate of Elaine Sullivan, Deceased, Appellees.

No. 87-1389.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Feb. 26, 1988.

James W. O’Neill, Gulfport, for appellants.

Geneva Forrester and Mark P. Bryan of Geneva Forrester, P.A., St. Petersburg, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the final judgment with one exception. The trial court erred in calculat*320ing prejudgment interest at the rate of twelve percent per annum from April 19, 1982. That rate became effective July 1, 1982. *See Trend Coin Co. v. Honeywell, Inc.,*487 So.2d 1029, 1030 (Fla.1986). Upon remand the prejudgment interest should be recalculated to eliminate that error.

Affirmed and remanded for correction of the final judgment in the foregoing respect.

RYDER, A.C.J., and LEHAN and ■ FRANK, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENTOF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We hereby consent to theincorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8(Nos. 333-116691, 333-14373, 333-25973, 333-62631, 333-34200,333-61688, 333-64892, 333-102444 and 333-106197) ofNorth American Scientific, Inc. of our report dated February 25, 2005relating to the financial statements and financial statement schedule, whichappears in this Form 10-K.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopersLLP

LosAngeles, California

March 11, 2005

1

----
106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 148

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives

2 concurring),

3 SECTION 1. RECORDS OF EACH JOINT CONGRESSIONAL

4 COMMITTEE ON INAUGURAL CEREMONIES.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Upon the conclusion of the busi6 ness of a joint congressional committee on Presidential in7 augural ceremonies and the closing out of its affairs, all

8 records, files, documents, and other materials in the pos9 session, custody, or control of the joint committee shall

10 be transferred subject to—

11 (1) such terms and conditions relating to access

12 and use of such materials as the Committee on

13 Rules and Administration of the Senate shall pre14 scribe; and

15 (2) the provisions of Senate Resolution 474

16 (96th Congress, 2d Session).

17 (b) PRIOR RECORDS.—The records, files, documents,

18 and other materials of any joint congressional committee

19 on Presidential inaugural ceremonies in the custody of the
2

SCON 148 ES

1 Senate on the date of adoption of this resolution shall be

2 shall be transferred subject to—

3 (1) such terms and conditions relating to access

4 and use of such materials as the Committee on

5 Rules and Administration of the Senate shall pre6 scribe; and

7 (2) the provisions of Senate Resolution 474

8 (96th Congress, 2d Session).

Passed the Senate October 11 (legislative day, September 22), 2000.

Attest:

Secretary.
106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 148

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

To provide for the disposition and archiving of the

records, files, documents, and other materials ofjoint congressional committees on inaugural ceremonies.
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2446 

To extend the temporary reduction of duty on rubber basketballs. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

Mr. KERRY (for himself, Mr. KIRK, Mr. BUNNING, and Mr. ENSIGN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary reduction of duty on rubber 

basketballs. 

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

3 SECTION 1. RUBBER BASKETBALLS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.13.09 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 rubber basketballs) is amended by striking ‘‘12/31/2009’’ 

7 and inserting ‘‘12/31/2011’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2446 IS

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2284 

To extend temporarily the suspension of duty on 4 Chloro Aniline. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

Mr. BROWN (for himself and Mr. VOINOVICH) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend temporarily the suspension of duty on 4 Chloro 

Aniline. 

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

3 SECTION 1. 4 CHLORO ANILINE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.25.14 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 4 Chloro Aniline) is amended by striking the date in the 

7 effective column period and inserting ‘‘12/31/2011’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2284 IS

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS