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

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 42 Referred in House (RFH)]

  2d Session
S. CON. RES. 42

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 27, 2000

             Referred to the Committee on Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Expressing the sense of the Congress that a commemorative postage stamp 
   should be issued by the United States Postal Service honoring the 
  members of the Armed Forces who have been awarded the Purple Heart.

Whereas the Order of the Purple Heart for Military Merit, commonly known as the 
        Purple Heart, is the oldest military decoration in the world in present 
        use;
Whereas the Purple Heart is awarded in the name of the President of the United 
        States to members of the Armed Forces who are wounded in conflict with 
        an enemy force or while held by an enemy force as a prisoner of war, and 
        posthumously to the next of kin of members of the Armed Forces who are 
        killed in conflict with an enemy force or who die of a wound received in 
        conflict with an enemy force;
Whereas the Purple Heart was established on August 7, 1782, during the 
        Revolutionary War, when General George Washington issued an order 
        establishing the Honorary Badge of Distinction, otherwise known as the 
        Badge of Military Merit or the Decoration of the Purple Heart;
Whereas the award of the Purple Heart ceased with the end of the War of the 
        Revolution, but was revived out of respect for the memory and military 
        achievements of George Washington in 1932, the year marking the 200th 
        anniversary of his birth; and
Whereas 1999 is the year marking the 200th anniversary of the death of George 
        Washington: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That it is the sense of the Congress that--
            (1) a commemorative postage stamp should be issued by the 
        United States Postal Service honoring the members of the Armed 
        Forces who have been awarded the Purple Heart; and
            (2) the Citizens' Stamp Advisory Committee should recommend 
        to the Postmaster General that such a stamp be issued in 1999, 
        the year marking the 200th anniversary of the death of George 
        Washington.

            Passed the Senate November 19, 1999.

            Attest:

                                                    GARY SISCO,

                                                             Secretary.
```
#### Robert E. GRISCOM, Personal Representative of the Estate of Margaret Griscom Wedemeyer, deceased, Appellant, v. Hans WEDEMEYER, Appellee.

No. 86-3142.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 6, 1987.

Cohen, Cohen & Cohen, for appellant.

Beckmeyer, Mulick & Wolkowsky, Taver-nier, for appellee.

Before HUBBART, NESBITT and PEARSON, DANIEL S., JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *Helman v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R.,*349 So.2d 1187, 1189 (Fla.1977).
III

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 119

Expressing the sense of the Senate with respect to United Nations General

Assembly Resolution ES–10/6.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 14, 1999

Mr. SMITH of Oregon (for himself, Mr. SCHUMER, and Mr. BROWNBACK) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on

Foreign Relations

RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Senate with respect to United

Nations General Assembly Resolution ES–10/6.

Whereas in an Emergency Special Session, the United Nations General Assembly voted on February 9, 1999, to

pass Resolution ES–10/6, ‘‘Illegal Israeli Actions In Occupied East Jerusalem And The Rest Of The Occupied

Palestinian Territory’’, to convene for the first time in 50

years the parties of the Fourth Geneva Conference for

the Protection of Civilians in Time of War;

Whereas such resolution unfairly places full blame for the deterioration of the Middle East Peace Process on Israel

and dangerously politicizes the Geneva Convention, which

was established to deal with critical humanitarian crises;

and
2

SRES 119 IS

Whereas such vote is intended to prejudge direct negotiations, put additional and undue pressure on Israel to influence the results of those negotiations, and single out

Israel for unprecedented enforcement proceedings which

have never been invoked against governments with

records of massive violations of the Geneva Convention:

Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the Senate—

2 (1) commends the Department of State for the

3 vote of the United States against United Nations

4 General Assembly Resolution ES–10/6 affirming

5 that the text of such resolution politicizes the

6 Fourth Geneva Convention which was primarily hu7 manitarian in nature;

8 (2) urges the Department of State to continue

9 its efforts against convening the conference; and

10 (3) urges the Swiss government, as the deposi11 tary of the Geneva Convention, not to convene a

12 meeting of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Æ
EXHIBIT 31.2

              CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
                      SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

I, Humberto Bravo, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Placer del Mar,
     Ltd.;

2.   Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
     statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to
     make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
     statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by
     this quarterly report;

3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
     information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all
     material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash
     flows of the registrant as of, and for, the period presented in this
     quarterly report;

4.   I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
     procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the
     registrant and have:

     a.   designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
          material information relating to the registrant, including its
          consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
          entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly
          report is being prepared;
     b.   evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
          and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of
          this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and
     c.   presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
          effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
          evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5.   I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the registrant's
     auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or
     persons performing the equivalent functions):

     a.   all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
          controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to
          record, process, summarize and report financial data and have
          identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in
          internal controls; and
     b.   any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
          employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
          controls; and

6.   I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were
     significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could
     significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most
     recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to
     significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
1st day of November, 2007.


/s/ Humberto Bravo
---------------------------
Chief Financial Officer
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED February 18, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-50950 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus PEDRO HERNANDEZ-SOSA, also known as Roberto Rodriguez-Hernandez, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. EP-03-CR-600-ALL-DB

-------------------- Before HIGGINBOTHAM, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Pedro Hernandez-Sosa appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Hernandez-Sosa contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) define separate offenses. He argues that the prior conviction that resulted in his increased sentence is an element of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should haveNo. 03-50950 -2- been alleged in his indictment. Hernandez-Sosa maintains that he pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged only simple reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence exceeds the two-year maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for that offense.
In Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. Hernandez-Sosa acknowledges that his arguments are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres , but asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). He seeks to preserve his arguments for further review. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres
. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit , 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED. The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 19
- 0 428 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellant , v. TYLER EDWARD GIFFIN,

Defendant and Appellee .

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee is granted an extension of time to and including January 8, 2021 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellee’s response brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

December 2 2020

12/02/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0428
IIA

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 28

Disapproving the extension of the waiver authority contained in section 402(c)

of the Trade Act of 1974 with respect to Vietnam.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 7, 1999

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire introduced the following joint resolution; which

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

JOINT RESOLUTION

Disapproving the extension of the waiver authority contained

in section 402(c) of the Trade Act of 1974 with respect

to Vietnam.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That Congress does not approve the extension of the au4 thority contained in section 402(c) of the Trade Act of

5 1974 recommended by the President to Congress on June

6 3, 1999 with respect to Vietnam.

Æ
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, *v.*Dominick Caldrella, Appellant.

(Submitted January 4, 1916;

decided February 1, 1916.)

Motion for re-argument denied. (See 216 N. Y. 730.)
EXHIBIT 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                                   PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     I, Thomas P. Russo, Executive Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial
Officer of MetaMorphix, Inc. (the "Registrant"), certify that to the best of my
knowledge, based upon a review of the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB for the
period ended September 30, 2006 of the Registrant (the "Report"):

          (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
     Registrant.

           By:                         /S/ THOMAS P. RUSSO


                                        Thomas P. Russo
              EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, TREASURER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF
                                       METAMORPHIX, INC.

Date:  November 14, 2006
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 24, 2014

No. 04-14-00394-CV

Desmond D. LEE,

Appellant

v.

BRECKENRIDGE GROUP SAN ANTONIO, II L.P.,

Appellee

From the County Court At Law No. 10, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 388765

Honorable Tina Torres, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

This appeal arises from a forcible detainer action. On June 10, 2014, appellant filed a 

notice of appeal stating his intent to appeal from the trial court’s “final orders.” However, it does 

not appear from the clerk’s record that a final order has been signed by the trial court in this 

cause. The trial court’s order of May 22, 2014 specifically “reserved for the time of trial” 

appellee’s “application for costs, damages and attorney’s fees.” A judgment or order is final for 

purposes of appeal if it actually disposes of all pending parties and claims before the court. 

Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). Here, the trial court’s order of 

May 22, 2014 is interlocutory because it does not dispose of all parties and causes of action. We 

have jurisdiction only to hear appeals from final orders. Interlocutory orders may be appealed 

only if a specific statute authorizes such an interlocutory appeal. Therefore, it appears from the 

clerk’s record that we do not have jurisdiction over this appeal. 

We, therefore, ORDER appellant to show cause in writing by August 8, 2014 why this 

appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. We suspend all appellate deadlines 

pending our determination of whether we have jurisdiction over this appeal.

_________________________________

Karen Angelini, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 24th day of July, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
#### In re A.A., a child. Pearl ANTHONY, Appellant, v. Phillip WASSERMAN and Diane Wasserman, Appellees.

No. 88-1114.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Oct. 7, 1988.

William D. Slicker of William D. Slicker, P.A., St. Petersburg, for appellant.

Edward D. Foreman of Law Office of Edward D. Foreman, P.A., St. Petersburg, for appellees.

ON MOTION TO DISMISS

FRANK, Judge.

The appellees have moved to dismiss this appeal on the ground that Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.820 requires an appeal from a final order in a custody proceeding to be filed within thirty days following the rendition of the order and that the appeal time is not tolled by a motion for rehearing. *See In the Interest of E.P.,*507 So.2d 705 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987).

The appellant contends that the notice of appeal was timely because the civil, not the juvenile rules apply, and consistent with rule 9.020(g) of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, the notice of appeal was timely within the enlarged period. We disagree. The appellant erroneously attaches a determinative significance to the fact that an administrative order transferred this proceeding from the circuit court’s juvenile division to the civil division. The transfer to the civil division did not change the litigation’s character — it began as and retained the status of a juvenile dependency proceeding governed by the Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure.

Accordingly, we grant the motion to dismiss. We certify, however, as occurred in *In the Interest ofE.P.,*the following question to the Florida Supreme Court:

> DOES FLORIDA RULE OF JUVENILE PROCEDURE 8.820(b)(3) RESCIND FLORIDA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.020(g) THEREBY LIMITING THE TIME FOR TAKING AN APPEAL TO THIRTY DAYS AFTER RENDITION OF THE FINAL JUDGMENT INSTEAD OF THIRTY DAYS AFTER RENDITION OF A FINAL OR*1051DER ON THE MOTION FOR REHEARING?

CAMPBELL, C.J., and PARKER, J., concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 2 2 - 0 6 63 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v. JOSEPH EUGENE GARCIA ,

Defendant and Appellant,

ORDER
Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including March 5, 2024, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

February 8 2024

02/08/2024

Case Number: DA 22-0663
**MEMORANDUM**

DATE: November 20 , 2014 TO: Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket ID: OAR
- 2013 - 0602 FROM: Rob Lawrence

EPA/Region 6/PD SUBJECT: August 21 , 2014 Presentation to the Oklahoma Corporation Commission

R egarding the Proposed Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants
**SUMMARY** A presentation was made by EPA to the Oklahoma Corporation Commission on August 21 , 2014, to discuss the proposed Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants , which was proposed on June 2, 2014. Other presentations were made by the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality and the Southwest Power Pool. The meeting was in Oklahoma City, OK.
**ATTENDEES** Participants: Large general audience EPA Participant : Rob Lawrence (Region 6 Energy Policy Advisor)
Exhibit 32.1

STATEMENT FURNISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

The undersigned, Stephen W. Ensign, is the President and Chief Executive Officer of New Hampshire Thrift Bancshares, Inc. (the
Company). This statement is being furnished in connection with the filing by the Company of the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006 (the Report).

By execution of this statement, I certify that:



| | A) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | B) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the
periods covered by the Report.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This statement is authorized to be attached as an exhibit to the Report so that this
statement will accompany the Report at such time as the Report is filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not intended that this
statement be deemed to be filed for purposes of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 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.



|                     |  |  |  |                                      
|-------------------- |  |  |  | -------------------------------------
|                     |  | 
|Date: March 16, 2007 |  |  |  | /s/ Stephen W. Ensign                
|                     |  |  |  | Stephen W. Ensign                    
|                     |  |  |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
**THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

**Post Office Box 12248**

**Austin, Texas 78711**

**(512) 463-1312**

August 28, 2009

Mr. Mike A. Hatchell

Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell, LLP

100 Congress Avenue, Suite 300

Austin, TX 78701-4042

Mr. Roger Townsend

Alexander Dubose & Townsend LLP

1844 Harvard Street

Houston, TX 77008-4342

RE:Case Number:  07-0043

Court of Appeals Number:  14-05-00010-CV

Trial Court Number:  2002-25821

Style:DYNEGY MIDSTREAM SERVICES, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP AND VERSADO GAS PROCESSORS, LLC

v.

APACHE CORPORATION

Dear Counsel:

Today the Supreme Court of Texas issued an opinion the above-referenced cause.  You may obtain a copy of the opinion at: http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/recent.asp.  If you would like the opinion by email, please contact Claudia Jenks at claudia.jenks@courts.state.tx.us or call (512)463-1312 ext. 41367.

Sincerely,

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

by Jessica Hamby, Deputy Clerk

Enclosure

**Case No. 07-0043Page 1**
DIMISS and Opinion Filed March 14, 2022 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-21-00147-CV 

SLD, LLP, Appellant 

V. 

DALLAS COUNTY, PARKLAND HOSPITAL DISTRICT, 

DALLAS COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, 

DALLAS COUNTY SCHOOL EQUALIZATION FUND, 

DALLAS INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, AND CITY OF DALLAS, 

Appellees 

On Appeal from the 134th Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. TX-19-01904 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Reichek, and Goldstein 

Opinion by Justice Partida-Kipness 

Before the Court is the parties’ notice of settlement and agreed motion to 

dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(2)(A). We grant the motion and 

dismiss the appeal. See id.

210147F.P05 

 

/Robbie Partida-Kipness/

ROBBIE PARTIDA-KIPNESS 

JUSTICE 
 –2– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

SLD, LLP, Appellant 

No. 05-21-00147-CV V. 

DALLAS COUNTY, PARKLAND 

HOSPITAL DISTRICT, DALLAS 

COUNTY COMMUNITY 

COLLEGE DISTRICT, DALLAS 

COUNTY SCHOOL 

EQUALIZATION FUND, DALLAS 

INDEPENDENT SCHOOL 

DISTRICT, AND CITY OF 

DALLAS, Appellees 

 On Appeal from the 134th Judicial 

District Court, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. TX-19-01904. 

Opinion delivered by Justice PartidaKipness, Justices Reichek and 

Goldstein participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal. 

 As agreed by the parties, we ORDER that each party bear its own costs of 

this appeal. 

Judgment entered March 14, 2022.
<PAGE>   1




                         Consent of Independent Auditors



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 333-60983) pertaining to the Amended and Restated 1989 Incentive Stock
Option Plan, Amended and Restated 1990 Nonqualified Stock Option Plan, Directors
Fee Stock Option Plan and Employment Agreement with Bruce D. Benson of United
States Exploration, Inc. of our report dated April 9, 1999, with respect to the
1998 consolidated financial statements of United States Exploration, Inc.
included in the Annual Report (Form 10-KSB) for the year ended December 31,
1998.

                                        /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Denver, Colorado
April 14, 1999