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

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 13 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 13

 Making majority party appointments to Senate committees for the 106th 
                               Congress.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 7, 1999

 Mr. Lott submitted the following resolution; which was considered and 
                               agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Making majority party appointments to Senate committees for the 106th 
                               Congress.

    Resolved, That notwithstanding the provisions of S. Res. 400 of the 
95th Congress, or the provisions of rule XXV, the following shall 
constitute the majority party's membership on those Senate committees 
listed below for the 106th Congress, or until their successors are 
appointed:
    Committee on the Budget: Mr. Domenici (Chairman), Mr. Grassley, Mr. 
Nickles, Mr. Gramm, Mr. Bond, Mr. Gorton, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Abraham, Mr. 
Frist, Mr. Grams, and Mr. Smith of Oregon.
    Committee on Rules and Administration: Mr. McConnell (Chairman), 
Mr. Helms, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Warner, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Santorum, Mr. 
Nickles, Mr. Lott, and Mrs. Hutchison.
    Committee on Small Business: Mr. Bond (Chairman), Mr. Burns, Mr. 
Coverdell, Mr. Bennett, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Crapo, 
Mr. Voinovich, and Mr. Abraham.
    Committee on Veterans' Affairs: Mr. Specter, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. 
Thurmond, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Craig, and Mr. Hutchinson.
    Select Committee on Ethics: Mr. Smith of New Hampshire (Chairman), 
Mr. Roberts, and Mr. Voinovich.
    Special Committee on Aging: Mr. Grassley (Chairman), Mr. Jeffords, 
Mr. Craig, Mr. Burns, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Santorum, Mr. Hagel, Ms. Collins, 
Mr. Enzi, and Mr. Bunning.
    Select Committee on Indian Affairs: Mr. Campbell (Chairman), Mr. 
Murkowski, Mr. McCain, Mr. Gorton, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Hatch, 
and Mr. Inhofe.
    Committee on Intelligence: Mr. Shelby (Chairman), Mr. Chafee, Mr. 
Lugar, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Roberts, and Mr. 
Allard.
    Joint Economic Committee: Mr. Mack, Mr. Roth, Mr. Bennett, Mr. 
Grams, Mr. Brownback, and Mr. Sessions.
                                 <all>
```
NE W YORK , N Y

TYSON S CORNER . V A CHICAGO , I L STAMFORD,C T PARSIPPANY , N J BRUSSELS , BELGIU M AFFILIAT E OFFICE S MUMBAI , INDI A KELLE YDRY E S WARRE N LL P ALIMITE D LIABILIT YPARTNERSHI P 305 0 K STREET , N.W . SUIT E 40 0 WASHINGTON , D.C . 2000 7

(202 ) 342-840 0 

# ORIGINA L

DIREC TLIN E (202 ) 342-852 8 EMAIL : dfisher@kelleydrye.co m Apri l 12 , 201 0 c:: > B y Han dDeliver y Ms . Doroth y Y . Bear d Director , Offic e o f

Informatio n Service s Departmen t

o f Transportatio n 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E . M-30,RoomW12-14 0 Washington , D.C . 2059 0 Re : Applicatio n o f

UP S Europ e S A an dUP S International , Inc . for Exemptio n an dAmendment , Docke t OST-2010-008 5 Dea r Ms . Beard : c 5

O n Apri l 5 , 2010 , UP S Europ e S A an dUP S International , Inc . (th e "Applicants" ) fileda nApplicatio n for

a nexemptio n fromth e provision s o f th e Department' s Orde r

No . 98-2- 5 ("Sudan Order" ) s o a s t o permi t th e Applicant s t o operat e sixtee n(16 ) one-wa y ai r freight forwardin g movement s t o Sudan t o transport medicin e t o treat

tuberculosis . Inaddition , th e Applicant s requeste dtha t th e DO T amen dth e Suda nOrde r s o a s t o gran t

blanke t permissio n fo

r shipment s o n behal f

o f th e Unite dNation s o r

U.S . Government , an dfor shipment s t o Southern Sudan . Th e Applicant s polle dal l person s serve dwithth e Applicatio nan dhereb y infor m th e Departmen t

that n o part y ha s an y objectio nt o th e Application . Accordingly , th e Applicant s reques t tha t th e Departmen t

gran t th e Applicatio na s soo na s possible .

DCOl/FlSHD/412455. 1KELLE YDRY E & WARRE N LL P

Ms . Doroth y Y . Bear d Apri l 12 , 201 0 Pag e Tw o Than k

yo u ver y muc hfo

r you r assistanc e Sincerely ,

cc : Al l partie s (vi ae-mail ) Brett Kruge r (vi ae-mail ) 

# f/^ U fr

Y Daniell e K . Fishe r Attorne y for

Unite dParce l Servic e

DCOl/FlSHD/412455. 1
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 6234

CHAVIS ODELL PULLEN , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. AARON S. JOYNER, Warden , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Greenville

. Henry M. Herlong, Jr. , Senior District Judge. ( 6:18

- cv
- 03426

- HMH )

Submitted : May 23, 2019 Decided: May 29, 2019

Before KING and RICHARDSON , Circuit Judges , and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Chavis Odell Pullen, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Chavis Odell Pullen appeals the distri ct court’s order dismissing Pullen’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition without prejudice for failure to comply with a court order and failure to prosecute, and the district court’s order denying Pullen’s postjudgment
motion

. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court

. ∗ Pullen v. Joyner , No. 6:18

- cv
- 03426

- HMH (D.S.C. Jan. 17 & Feb. 11, 2019). We dispense with oral argument becaus e the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED

∗ Although a certificate of appealability generally is required to appeal “the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding,” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)( A ) (2012), we conclude that none is required here because the district court’s dismiss al for failure to comply with a court order and fail ure to prosecute is unrelated to the merits of the § 2254 petition. See Harbison v. Bell , 556 U.S. 180, 182

- 83 (2009 )

.
#### The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Beverly Sue NISTED, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 80CA0326.

Colorado Court of Appeals, Division II.

Dec. 5, 1980.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 31, 1980.

Certiorari Granted March 2, 1981.

J.D. MacFarlane, Atty. Gen., Richard F. Hennessey, Deputy Atty. Gen., Mary J. Mullarkey, Sol. Gen., Gerard C. Boyle, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for plaintiff-appellee.

J. Gregory Walta, Colorado State Public Defender, Ruth Brammer Johnson, Sp. Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, for defendant-appellant.

VAN CISE, Judge.

Defendant is appealing the trial court’s March 26, 1980, judgment revoking her deferred judgment and sentence. The People have moved to dismiss this appeal on the grounds that (1) appellate review of the revocation of a deferred sentence is precluded absent compliance with the provisions of Crim.P. 33(a), *People v. Hallman,*44 Colo.App. 530, 624 P.2d 347 (1980), and (2) that defendant’s September 26 motion for new trial (denied October 28) was untimely and a nullity (because the motion was filed at a time when the trial court had no jurisdiction to entertain or rule upon such a motion). In response, defendant argues (1) that *Hallman*is not applicable to this case because a new trial motion was filed here, (2) that *Hallman*should not be applied retroactively, and (3) that the People’s failure to object to the late filing when the new trial motion was filed in the trial court waived the claim of untimeliness.

We hold that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the new trial motion when it was filed and when it was denied, and that, therefore, for all practical *61purposes there was no such motion. Further, absent a properly filed and acted on motion for new trial, appellate review is precluded. *People v. Hallman, supra.*We see nothing in *Hallman*limiting it to prospective application, and the People’s action or non-action with regard to the new trial motion is of no consequence when the trial court had no jurisdiction.

We agree, as in *People v. Hallman, supra,*“that Crim.P. 52(b) provides an exception to the motion for new trial requirements of Crim.P. 33(a) when plain error or defects affecting substantial rights have occurred.” However, from an examination of defendant’s opening brief we see no plain error.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the People’s motion is granted and the appeal is dismissed.

Judge Kelly states that she would deny the motion to dismiss on the basis that *People v. Hallman, supra,*is wrong, and that in her opinion, a motion for new trial is not a prerequisite for appellate review of a revocation of a deferred judgment and sentence.

PIERCE and KELLY, JJ., concur.
---

Exhibit 32

Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States
Code)

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States
Code), each of the undersigned officers of Newport Gold, Inc., a Nevada
corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify, [to such officer's knowledge],
that:

The Form 10-QSB for the three-month period ended March 31,
2007(the "Form 10-QSB") of the Company fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and the information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.



|Dated: May 15, 2007 | /s/ Derek Bartlett                     
|------------------- | ---------------------------------------
|                    | Derek Bartlett, Chief Executive Officer
|                    |                                        
|Dated: May 15, 2007 | /s/ John Arnold                        
|                    | John Arnold, Chief Financial Officer   



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.



---
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 61 (Thursday, March 29, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 19056]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7523]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

March 26, 2012.
    The Department of the Treasury will submit the following 
information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, on or after the date of 
publication of this notice.

DATES: Comments should be received on or before April 30, 2012 to be 
assured of consideration.

ADDRESSES: Send comments regarding the burden estimate, or any other 
aspect of the information collection, including suggestion for reducing 
the burden, to (1) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office 
of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for Treasury, New 
Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, or email 
at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c28d8b90839d91b7a0afabb1b1abadac828d8f80ec878d92ec858d94"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="357a7c67746a664057585c46465c5a5b757a78771b707a651b727a63">[email protected]</span></a> and (2) Treasury PRA Clearance Officer, 
1750 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Suite 11020, Washington, DC 20220, or on-
line at www.PRAComment.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Copies of the submission(s) may be 
obtained by calling (202) 927-5331, email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7323213233070116120006010a5d141c05"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="92c2c0d3d2e6e0f7f3e1e7e0ebbcf5fde4">[email protected]</span></a>, or the 
entire information collection request maybe found at www.reginfo.gov.

Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP)

    OMB Number: 1520-0001.
    Type of Review: Extension without change of currently approved 
collection.
    Title: Owner's Affidavit of Partial Destruction of Mutilated 
Currency.
    Form: BEP 5283.
    Abstract: The Office of Currency Standards, Bureau of Engraving & 
Printing, requests owners of partially destroyed U.S. currency to 
complete a notarized affidavit (BEP 5283) for each claim submitted when 
substantial portions of notes are missing.
    Affected Public: Individuals or Households.
    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 90.

Dawn D. Wolfgang,
Treasury PRA Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 2012-7523 Filed 3-28-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4840-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
# 67-05045 Source ID Sol;Uce 

### Name Fuel/Mateqal ·. ' 

## . .. . · ' ' 

### ..

**~** - 

## .. . .. •'

**1** :"-iO . 1 TCN;o..iEL KILN 15.00 Tons/H R BRICKS 20 . 00 JvfCF /HR

**~atural** Gas

**~02** N O. 2 TI.ll\:NEL KlLN 15.00 Tons i HR B RICKS 4

5.00 :V1CF/ HR Natural Gas 

### 103 CRCSHER 50 . 00 Ton s/HR i i05 DEGREASER I

07 BRICK FORNHNG UNE NO . 1 26.00 Tons/HR BRICKS & SAND 08 BRICK FORJvliNG LINE NO . 2 50.00 Tonsi HR BRICK& S AND 09 SHALE GRJND ER 70.00 Tons/HR SHALE I 10 lvfA :"\C AL BRICK

**FOR \·H~**  **G** LI :'-iE 25 .00 Tons/HR BRIC KS 

### 111 SHAPESSHUTil E KIL:"\ ; 1.00 Tons /HR 4 . 00 MCF/HR Natu r al Gas 12 (4) HA:-\D:VIADE BRICK DRYERS 2.00 MCF/H R :"\ a tur a l Gas 

### r 20.00 Tons /HR BRICKS 13 SH.-<\PES DRYE R 1.50 \KF /HR Natura l Gas 1.00 T ons/.HR BRI CKS 14 LORRANE DRYER I 2.00 rv1CF/HR Natural Gas 11.00 Tons/HR BRICKS i1 15 #1

**TC~NEL** KIL N DRYER 7.80 Tons / HR BRICKS 1 116 #2 TIJNI'\EL KILN DRYER 13.40 To nsjHR BRICKS

**~0 A**  SETrl.I .L\G OiA . \-1BER 

# .

**~07** PAJ\:GBOR."-: FABRIC FILTER

**~0 8**  P ANGBOR. '\i FAB RIC FIL T ER C09 PANGB OR.'\l F A..BRIC FILTER ' 

# . ClOA DOJ\:ALD50:"\ TORITSDF-4 

### F!'>'f0 01 NATURAL GAS PIPELINE

\H)(J2 ( 2) PROPA!\'E TA. '\KS SOl #1 KIL:--1 STACK 502A SETI UN G CHAI\.·t B ER ST A CK ! 507 #1 FORM Ll:"\E 5T ACK

**~08** #2 FORM u;-.;E S TACK ' S09 GRNDER STACK S10A DONALDSON TORIT STACK 

### pll SHL TILE KILN STACK :,12 H.AND 

### M A DE DRYER S TACKS :.13 (2) SHAPES DRYER STACKS :-14

**LORRAI~E** DRYER S TA CK 

### 515 DRYER STACK 51 6 D R YER STACK Z03 CRUSH ER E\-1 1SS IO N POII\T 

### Z05 DE GREASER E\ HSSION POII\. 'T 

### PERMIT MAPS
Page 4

## (67-0 **5045**


# fPRc5Cl I C:'ITL 

## I STAC



# ~

**I** COlA



# ~ 

# -+ : SOlA 

### FMl 

# _j

**~** j FlvfL 

# _j

· F:

\-1002

' I PROC . ......._ ' STAC 

# I 103 

### ! ....,. 203 

# : I

**PROCI -~~,.** 

**!** STAC 

# I I

**~5** 

# ...., I Z05



# ~cl **-+**
**1 c~**  

# • -+ 1

**s~~c**

**!** 1 PRO C 

# -+ 1 CNTL 

# 1 ....... 1 STAC · , 

### lOS COS .....,.. SOB 

### ! PROC .......... ! C\TL 1 ....... 1 STAC I

109 ....,. C09 .....,.. 509 

# ! PR<Xl ......._ G'\TL 

# I ...... STAC

**~** ....,. ClOA .....,.. , S 10A 

# [PROCl ......._ • S'fACl

**....,.**

**!** Sll 

# I n ·

tL 

### 1 

# +

**F~'1001 !-l**  n·tL 

# +

**F~vl002 -l**  . GLEN GERY CORP/YORK



# DIVJSION **~** -

Pa ge 5

### ~ ( 6 7 -{)5045



### \. 

# I PROCl 

# --t.. : STAC 

# I

**.....,** 512 . 

# F\·

t

LliJ fMOOl



### n · t l



# ~I **J** , FM002 

# L[] -+ L[] 513 

# I

ft.;lL 

# J F\1 001 

# I

Fl\'ll 

# J

**F~ 1002**  

# IT[ -. Ll[ 514 I



# I] **FML~i J**  FMOOI



# ~FM **~I J**  Hv1002 PROC 

# I 

# I SfAC 

# I

115 ! ..., 515



# ~ ...



# ~ I 516 G LEN G E RY CORP/YORK DIVISION) . - 

## I I

Page 6
#### In re STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS CIVIL CASES.

No. 71117.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Oct. 29, 1987.

Robert P. Smith, Jr., Chairman, Committee on Standard Jury Instructions (Civil), Tallahassee, for petitioner.

PER CURIAM.

The Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions (Civil) recommends several amendments to SJI 2.1, INTRODUCTORY INSTRUCTION. The proposed amendments are “designed to focus jurors on only those issues submitted to them, to provide a new definition of the evidence that jurors should consider in reaching their verdicts and to explain what inferences and deductions may be made from the evidence.”

We approve for publication the proposed amendments which follow this opinion.

It is so ordered.

MCDONALD, C.J., and OVERTON, EHRLICH, SHAW, BARKETT, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur.

2.1

INTRODUCTORY INSTRUCTION

Members of the jury, I shall now instruct you on the law that you must follow in reaching your verdict[s]. It is your duty as jurors *to decide the issues, and only those issues, that Isubmit for determination by your verdict. In reaching your verdict, you should*to consider and weigh the evidence, to decide the disputed issues of fact, and to apply the law *on which I shall instruct you,*to the facts as you find them from the evidence.

*The evidence in this case consists of the sworn testimony of the witnesses, all exhibits received in evidence, [and] all facts that may be admitted or agreed to by the parties [, and any fact of which the court has taken judicial notice (explain as necessary) ].*

*In determining the facts, you may draw reasonable inferences from the evidence. You may make deductions and reach conclusions which reason and common sense lead you to draw from the facts shown by the evidence in this case. But you should not speculate on any matters outside the evidence.*
#### Delbert KRESSER and Edward Kresser, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. Vaughn PETERSON and Glade Arthur Peterson, Defendants and Respondents.

No. 19285.

Supreme Court of Utah.

Jan. 9, 1984.

Del B. Rowe, Salt Lake City, for plaintiffs and appellants.

Lester Perry, Salt Lake City, for defendants and respondents.

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiffs asserted a one-half interest in a home under the terms of a will. The suit was dismissed upon a showing that a subsequent warranty deed executed by the testatrix took the property out of her estate. The only issue urged on appeal is that there was no valid delivery of the deed.

Facts were stipulated showing that Edward Kresser, Sr. had two sons, the plaintiffs, when he married Della Pyper, who also had two sons, the defendants. The couple owned a home jointly, with right of survivorship. When Edward Sr. died, Della executed a will which devised the property *1194to the four boys. Seven years later, she executed a warranty deed naming herself and *her*two sons as grantees, with right of survivorship. She recorded the deed and placed it in a safety deposit box with a local bank under a lease agreement. The agreement was signed by her and her two sons as joint tenants. “Exclusive access” to the box was reserved to the joint tenants, without specifying any single one as the only one having such access.

Defendants did not know that their mother had put the deed in the safety deposit box. Nor did they ever have a key to the box, even though the lease permitted their having access. It is conceded by the plaintiffs that no fraud or undue influence was evident, or that Della was incompetent. The only issue involved is whether an effective delivery of the deed was maintained under the authorities.

An effective deed requires delivery,1 actual or constructive,2 without exclusive control or recall.3 Recording generally presumes delivery.4 Delivery to one co-tenant or reservation of an estate connotes delivery to all cotenants, where the grantor is also the grantee.5

Withal the recognized indicia of an effective delivery in this case, perhaps the most significant is the statement of Della at the time she signed the deed. Before a notary public, Della’s sister and a daughter-in-law, she made it a point to state that she intended her sons to have the property. She emphasized such intention by adding that she did not intend the stepsons to have any interest in the property. Delivery was reflected by recordation of the deed and deposit by Della in the safety deposit box with written authority that any of the grantees, who also were tenants under the box rental agreement, had exclusive right of access to the box. We are satisfied there was no error in the lower court finding a valid delivery of the deed.

Affirmed. Costs to defendants.

1

. *Wiggill v. Cheney,*Utah, 597 P.2d 1351 (1979).

2

. *Allen v. Allen,*115 Utah 303, 204 P.2d 458 (1949).

3

. 23 Am.Jur.2d, Deeds § 89.

4

. *Northcrest, Inc. v. Walker Bank,*122 Utah 268, 248 P.2d 692 (1952).

5

. *Controlled Receivables, Inc. v. Harman,*17 Utah 2d 420, 413 P.2d 807 (1966).
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

KELVIN MANN,

Petitioner

v.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF 

PHILADELPHIA COUNTY,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 108 EM 2017

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 21st day of November, 2017, the Application for Leave to File 

Original Process is GRANTED, and the Petition for Writ of Mandamus and/or 

Extraordinary Relief is DENIED.