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

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 159

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

conditional adjournment of the House of Representatives.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

NOVEMBER 1 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 22), 2000

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 a conditional adjournment of 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 Wednesday, November 1, 2000,

4 or Thursday, November 2, 2000, on a motion offered pur5 suant to this concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader

6 or his designee, it stand recessed or adjourned until noon

7 on Tuesday, November 14, 2000, or until such time on

8 that day as may be specified by its Majority Leader or

9 his designee in the motion to recess or adjourn, or until

10 noon on the second day after Members are notified to reas-
2

SCON 159 ATS

1 semble pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution,

2 whichever occurs first; and that when the House adjourns

3 on the legislative day of Wednesday, November 1, 2000,

4 or Thursday, November 2, 2000, on a motion offered pur5 suant to this concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader

6 or his designee, it stand adjourned until noon on Monday,

7 November 13, 2000, at 2 p.m., or until noon on the second

8 day after Members are notified to reassemble pursuant to

9 section 2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs

10 first.

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

12 Speaker of the House, acting jointly after consultation

13 with the Minority Leader of the Senate and the Minority

14 Leader of the House, shall notify the Members of the Sen15 ate and House, respectively, to reassemble whenever, in

16 their opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.

Æ
**Exhibit      32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONS      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

|   | (1) | The                Report fully complies, in all material respects, 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                for the period certified. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|         |                                                                         |                           |
|--------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------|
|    |                                                                    |                      |
|         | By:                                                                | /s/              Ramesh Akella |
|         | Ramesh              Akella                                                   |
|         | President,                Chief Strategy Officer                and Director |

----
#### Robert L. RANKINS, a/k/a Robert L. Rankin v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 91-KP-0624.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Dec. 23, 1993.

Robert L. Rankins, pro se.

*616Michael C. Moore, Atty. Gen., Ellen Y. Dale, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for ap-pellee.

Before DAN M. LEE, P.J.,-and BANKS and JAMES L. ROBERTS, Jr., JJ.

PITTMAN, J., not participating.
NO. 07-08-00185-CV

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL A

	JULY 24, 2008

	______________________________

	SUZANNE MCDONALD, APPELLANT

	V.

	TEXAN NURSING & REHAB OF AMARILLO, LLC, APPELLEE

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 251ST DISTRICT COURT OF RANDALL COUNTY;

	NO. 58469-C; HONORABLE ANA ESTEVEZ, JUDGE

	_______________________________

Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

	MEMORANDUM OPINION

	Larry McDonald filed a notice of appeal on April 23, 2008.  He did not pay the filing fee required under the Rules of Appellate Procedure or file an affidavit of indigence in conformity with Rule of Appellate Procedure 20.1.  Nor did he file a docketing statement as required by Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1.  By letter from this Court dated April 29, 2008, we advised McDonald “the filing fee in the amount of $175.00 has not been paid.  Failure to pay the filing fee within ten (10) days from the date of this notice may result in dismissal.  Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c).”  The letter also directed McDonald to file a docketing statement within ten days.  McDonald has not filed a docketing statement, paid the filing fee as directed, or filed an affidavit of indigence.  Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.  Tex. R. App. P. 5, 42.3(c).   

   							James T. Campbell

							         Justice
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 09**  **- 8116** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. JERMAINE ANTONIO ARMSTRONG , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Florence
. Terry L. Wooten , District Judge. ( 4:04

- cr - 00634

- TLW

- 1; 4:09

- cv - 70066

- TLW )

Submitted : February 10, 2010 Decided: February 22 , 2010

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DAVIS , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un publish ed per curiam opinion
. Jermaine Antonio Armstrong, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CUR IAM: Jermaine Antonio Armstrong seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 ( West Supp. 2009 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (200 6 ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (200 6 ). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would fi nd that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000);
Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683

- 84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude Armstrong has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                       3,397,803
<SECURITIES>                                   196,328
<RECEIVABLES>                                  780,576
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,374,707
<PP&E>                                         681,290
<DEPRECIATION>                               (681,290)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,374,707
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          390,930
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,983,777
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,374,707
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,924,875
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               354,434
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,570,441
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,570,441
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,570,441
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
##### 



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 PeopleSupport, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q/A for
the quarter ended September 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), I, Lance Rosenzweig, Chairman of the Board, President and Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to § 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 and 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. /s/ Lance Rosenzweig  
 44
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

CHESAPEAKE ENERGY 

CORPORATION; CHESAPEAKE 

APPALACHIA, L.L.C.; CHESAPEAKE 

OPERATING, L.L.C.; CHESAPEAKE 

ENERGY MARKETING, L.L.C.; 

ANADARKO PETROLEUM 

CORPORATION; AND ANADARKO E&P 

ONSHORE, L.L.C.

PETITION OF: ANADARKO 

PETROLEUM CORPORATION; AND 

ANADARKO E&P ONSHORE, L.L.C.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 225 MAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Commonwealth Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

CHESAPEAKE ENERGY 

CORPORATION; CHESAPEAKE 

APPALACHIA, L.L.C.; CHESAPEAKE 

OPERATING, L.L.C.; CHESAPEAKE 

ENERGY MARKETING, L.L.C.; 

ANADARKO PETROLEUM 

CORPORATION; AND ANADARKO E&P 

ONSHORE, L.L.C.

PETITION OF: CHESAPEAKE ENERGY 

CORPORATION; CHESAPEAKE 

APPALACHIA, L.L.C.; CHESAPEAKE 

OPERATING, L.L.C.; CHESAPEAKE 

ENERGY MARKETING, L.L.C.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 226 MAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Commonwealth Court
[225 MAL 2019 and 226 MAL 2019] - 2

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 30th day of October, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

GRANTED. The issues, rephrased for clarity, are:

(1) Are claims by the Commonwealth, brought on behalf of private landowners 

against natural gas extractors alleging that the extractors used deceptive, 

misleading, and unfair tactics in securing natural gas leases from 

landowners, cognizable under the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer 

Protection Law?

(2) May the Commonwealth pursue antitrust remedies under the Unfair Trade 

Practices and Consumer Protection Law?

Petitioners’ Applications to Supplement Petition for Allowance of Appeal are DENIED as 

moot.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, 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.

October 28, 2013

h1021 

# Order

Clerk October 28, 2013

147448

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 147448

COA: 309536

Gogebic CC: 2011

- 000279

- FH

JAMIE RAY JETT,

Defendant

- Appellant.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 21, 2013

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, an d it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 139 Referred in House (RFH)]

  2d Session
S. CON. RES. 139

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 29, 2000

     Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring),

SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS.

    In this Resolution:
            (1) Event.--The term ``event'' means the dedication of the 
        National Japanese-American Memorial to Patriotism .
            (2) Sponsor.--The term ``sponsor'' means the National 
        Japanese-American Memorial Foundation.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF EVENT TO CELEBRATE THE DEDICATION OF THE 
              NATIONAL JAPANESE-AMERICAN MEMORIAL.

    The National Japanese-American Memorial Foundation may sponsor the 
dedication of the National Japanese-American Memorial to Patriotism on 
the Capitol grounds on November 9, 2000, or on such other date as the 
Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Rules and 
Administration of the Senate may jointly designate.

SEC. 3. TERMS AND CONDITIONS.

    (a) In General.--The event shall be open to the public, free of 
admission charge, and arranged so as not to interfere with the needs of 
Congress, under conditions to be prescribed by the Architect of the 
Capitol and the Capitol Police Board.
    (b) Expenses and Liabilities.--The sponsor shall assume full 
responsibility for all expenses and liabilities incident to all 
activities associated with the event.

SEC. 4. STRUCTURES AND EQUIPMENT.

    (a) Structures and Equipment.--
            (1) In general.--Subject to the approval of the Architect 
        of the Capitol, beginning on November 8, 2000, the sponsor may 
        erect or place and keep on the Capitol grounds, until not later 
        than 8:00 p.m. on Saturday, November 11, 2000, such stage, 
        sound amplification devices, and other related structures and 
        equipment as are required for the event.
    (b) Additional Arrangements.--The Architect of the Capitol and the 
Capitol Police Board may make any such additional arrangements as are 
appropriate to carry out the event.

SEC. 5. ENFORCEMENT OF RESTRICTIONS.

    The Capitol Police Board shall provide for enforcement of the 
restrictions contained in section 4 of the Act of July 31, 1946 (40 
U.S.C. 193d; 60 Stat. 718), concerning sales, advertisements, displays, 
and solicitations on the Capitol grounds, as well as other restrictions 
applicable to the Capitol grounds, with respect to the event.

            Passed the Senate September 28 (legislative day, September 
      22), 2000.

            Attest:

                                                    GARY SISCO,

                                                             Secretary.
```
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DOMINGO ALBERTO HUINACVICENTE,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 10-70265

Agency No. A070-201-354

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 12, 2011** 

Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.

Domingo Alberto Huinac-Vicente, a native and citizen of Guatemala,

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

dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his motion to

reopen deportation proceedings conducted in absentia. Our jurisdiction is

FILED

JUL 13 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-70265

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

motion to reopen. Hamazaspyan v. Holder, 590 F.3d 744, 747 (9th Cir. 2009). 

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

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Huinac-Vicente’s motion

to reopen where the record demonstrates that he was personally served with an

Order to Show Cause and Notice of Hearing, written in both English and Spanish.

See 8 U.S.C. 1252b(a)(3) (1996); Khan v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d 825, 828-29 (9th Cir.

2004) (notice proper where INS adhered to statutorily imposed procedural

requirements). In addition, Huinac-Vicente failed to submit any evidence to

support a claim that he is eligible for relief from removal. See 8 C.F.R. §

1003.23(b)(3).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Huinac-Vicente’s remaining contentions

because he failed to exhaust them before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358

F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
IIA

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 6

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating

to contributions and expenditures intended to affect elections.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 19, 1999

Mr. HOLLINGS (for himself, Mr. SPECTER, Mr. MCCAIN, and Mr. BRYAN) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United

States relating to contributions and expenditures intended to affect elections.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two3 thirds of each House concurring therein), That the follow4 ing article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitu5 tion of the United States, to be valid only if ratified by

6 the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States with7 in 7 years after the date of final passage of this joint reso8 lution:
2

•SJ 6 IS

1 ‘‘ARTICLE—

2 ‘‘SECTION 1. Congress shall have power to set reason3 able limits on the amount of contributions that may be

4 accepted by, and the amount of expenditures that may be

5 made by, in support of, or in opposition to, a candidate

6 for nomination for election to, or for election to, Federal

7 office.

8 ‘‘SECTION 2. A State shall have power to set reason9 able limits on the amount of contributions that may be

10 accepted by, and the amount of expenditures that may be

11 made by, in support of, or in opposition to, a candidate

12 for nomination for election to, or for election to, State or

13 local office.

14 ‘‘SECTION 3. Congress shall have power to implement

15 and enforce this article by appropriate legislation.’’.

Æ
Exhibit 23.01

               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 33-98880)  pertaining to the 1995 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, the 1995
Directors  Stock Option Plan,  the 1995 Equity  Incentive  Plan, the 1994 Equity
Incentive Plan and the 1983 Stock Option Plan of Elantec Semiconductor, Inc., of
our report dated October 22, 1996,  with respect to the  consolidated  financial
statements and schedule of Elantec  Semiconductor,  Inc.  included in the Annual
Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended September 30, 1996.


                                ERNST & YOUNG LLP


San Jose, California
December 16 , 1996



                                       63
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-89,555-01

EX PARTE CHARLES JAMES GARRETT, JR., Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. C372-W011439-1410502-A IN THE 372 DISTRICT COURT ND

FROM TARRANT COUNTY 

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of the offenses of

engaging in organized criminal activity and murder and sentenced to imprisonment for fifty years

in each count. 

On February 20, 2019, an order designating issues was signed by the trial court ordering trial

counsel to submit an affidavit in response to the claims in this habeas application. It appears that

the trial court has not completed its fact-finding. We remand this application to the 372 District nd

Court of Tarrant County to allow the trial judge to complete an evidentiary investigation and enter
findings of fact and conclusions of law.

This application will be held in abeyance until the trial court has resolved the fact issues. The

issues shall be resolved within 90 days of this order. A supplemental transcript containing all

affidavits and interrogatories or the transcription of the court reporter’s notes from any hearing or

deposition, along with the trial court’s supplemental findings of fact and conclusions of law, shall

be forwarded to this Court within 120 days of the date of this order. Any extensions of time must

be requested by the trial court and shall be obtained from this Court. 

Filed: March 20, 2019

Do not publish
February 12 , 201 6
U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration Document Management System 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE Washington, D.C. 20590
RE: Request for Amendment to Exemption 14084 issued pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Reform Act and Part 11 of the Federal Aviation Regulations in Regulatory Docket No. FAA– 2015–4584 .
Dear Sir or Madam: On December 29, 2015, the Federal Aviation Administration granted TAC Insight, LLC an exemption pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (the "Exemption") to allow TAC Insight, LLC to operate sm all unmanned aircraft systems ( UAS) under controlled conditions for inspections and photography of construction jobsites, bulk material production facilities and stockpiles, landfills, and debris volume assessments in disaster areas. TAC Insight, LLC requests an amendment to add the SenseFly eBee and Trimble UX5 aircraft to exemption 14084 for commercial use under same terms and conditions contained in the Exemption
. Sent under separate cover is the Flight Operations and Procedures Manual s (FOPM) for the additional UAS. All operations of the additional UAS will be in full compliance with the terms of the Exemption. As this is an a mendment to an existing exemption asking only for the addition of two other types of unmanned aerial vehicles , TAC Insight, LLC respectfully submits that good cause exists so that notice does not need to be published in the Federal Regist er for the request ed amendment. Please contact the undersigned should you have any question concerning this request for an amendment to the Exemption. Sincerely,

Mike Mendiola TAC Insight, LLC 865

- 219

- 2980 mmendiola@tacinsight.com