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

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 266 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 266

  Honoring veterans by requesting that television and radio stations 
    provide a moment of silence or a public service announcement on 
                   November 11 at 11 a.m. each year.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            November 8, 2001

  Mr. Pascrell (for himself, Mrs. Roukema, Mr. Saxton, and Mr. Holt) 
 submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to 
                   the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
  Honoring veterans by requesting that television and radio stations 
    provide a moment of silence or a public service announcement on 
                   November 11 at 11 a.m. each year.

Whereas millions of veterans have served our Nation with pride and distinction;
Whereas more than 700,000 brave American men and women have sacrificed their 
        lives while serving in the Nation's Armed Forces so that all of our 
        people may continue to live in a country that is based on the principles 
        of democracy and liberty;
Whereas there are more than 25,000,000 United States veterans in our Nation 
        today;
Whereas each year on November 11, our Nation pays tribute to its war dead and 
        veterans in a national observance; and
Whereas children throughout our Nation would benefit from increased recognition 
        of and familiarity with the contributions and accomplishments of the 
        millions of men and women who have served in our Armed Forces and shaped 
        the history of the United States: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That it is the sense of the Congress that--
            (1) the Nation dedicate November 11 to give special 
        recognition to the contributions to its veterans in defending 
        freedom and democracy;
            (2) the Nation should use that occasion to make a greater 
        effort to educate children on the contributions of veterans in 
        defending the freedoms our Nation enjoys; and
            (3) television and radio stations should recognize veterans 
        through a public service announcement or moment of silence on 
        November 11 at 11 a.m. each year.
                                 <all>
```
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON FURTHER MOTION FOR REHEARING

Appellate case name: Zsolt Petko and Zsuzsanna Adam v. Carelton Courtyard

Appellate case number: 01-17-00918-CV

Trial court case number: CV-0077741

Trial court: County Court at Law No. 2 of Galveston County

The panel has voted to deny appellants’ pro se Request for Explanation, filed on 

July 9, 2018, and Complaint, filed on July 12, 2018, construed together as a further

motion for rehearing of this Court’s July 3, 2018 Order denying appellants’ Motion for 

Rehearing.

1

It is ordered that the further motion for rehearing is denied.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Laura C. Higley

 Acting for the Panel

Panel consists of: Justices Jennings, Keyes, and Higley.

Date: July 24, 2018

 

1 Although this Court did not modify or vacate its judgment or issue a different opinion, 

because the appellants are proceeding pro se, this Court uses Rule 2 to suspend the 

normal operation of Rule 49.5 and construes their filings together as a further motion for 

rehearing. See TEX. R. APP. P. 2, 49.5. While the Rules of Appellate Procedure only 

require this Court to give reasons for resolving an appeal in its opinion, which it already 

did in its April 3, 2018 memorandum opinion, the rules do not require this Court to give 

any reasons for denying a motion for rehearing. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4, 49.3. In any 

event, while there was no letter filed by the appellants with the Clerk of this Court on 

March 12, 2018, according to the Galveston County Clerk’s Office website, there was a 

complaint filed by appellants there on March 9, 2018, which was addressed to the district 

clerk. The Clerk of this Court generally marks every appeal as “Submitted” at least one 

day before issuing the Court’s opinion and judgment. See TEX. R. APP. P. 39.8, 43.1.
III

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 32

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

FEBRUARY 14, 2001

Received

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Providing for a conditional adjournment of the House of

Representatives and a conditional recess or adjournment

of the Senate.

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That when the House adjourns on the legisla3 tive day of Wednesday, February 14, 2001, it stand ad4 journed until 2 p.m. on Monday, February 26, 2001, and

5 that when the House adjourns on Monday, February 26,
2

HCON 32 RDS

1 2001, it stand adjourned until 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday,

2 February 27, 2001, for morning-hour debate, or until

3 noon on the second day after Members are notified to reas4 semble pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution,

5 whichever occurs first; and that when the Senate recesses

6 or adjourns at the close of business on Thursday, Feb7 ruary 15, 2001, or Friday, February 16, 2001, on a mo8 tion offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its

9 Majority Leader or his designee, it stand recessed or ad10 journed until noon on Monday, February 26, 2001, or

11 until such time on that day as may be specified by its

12 Majority Leader or his designee in the motion to recess

13 or adjourn, or until noon on the second day after Members

14 are notified to reassemble pursuant to section 2 of this

15 concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first.

16 SEC. 2. The Speaker of the House and the Majority

17 Leader of the Senate, acting jointly after consultation with

18 the Minority Leader of the House and the Minority Lead19 er of the Senate, shall notify the Members of the House

20 and the Senate, respectively, to reassemble whenever, in

21 their opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.

Passed the House of Representatives February 14,

2001.

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL,

Clerk.
Exhibit 4.1



 Exhibit 4.1 
  



 







 E-FUTURE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY INC. 
  
 The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this certificate, shall be construed as though they were written
out in full according to applicable laws or regulations: 
  

													
	 TEN COM
	 	 -
	 	as tenants in common	 	UNIF GIFT MIN ACT-	 	 	 	Custodian ________
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	(Cust)	 	    (Minor)
	 TEN ENT
	 	 -
	 	as tenants by the entireties	 	under Uniform Gifts to Minors Act _______
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	    (State)
	 JT TEN
	 	 -
	 	as joint tenants with right of survivorship	 	UNIF TRF MIN ACT	 	 	 	Custodian (until age)	 	 
	 	 	 	 	and not as tenants in common	 	 	 	(Cust)	 	 	 	(Minor)
	 	 	 	 	 	 	under Uniform Transfers to Minors Act _______
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	    (State)
	 	 	 	 	Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list.

  
  
 For value received, ____________________________hereby sell, assign and transfer unto 
  

					
	 PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY
 OR OTHER IDENTIFYING NUMBER
 OF ASSIGNEE
	 	 	 	 

  
                                       
                                        
                                        
                                        
                                        
                    
 (PLEASE PRINT OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND
ADDRESS, INCLUDING POSTAL ZIP CODE, OF ASSIGNEE) 
                                       
                                        
                                        
                                        
                                        
                    
  
                                       
                                        
                                        
                                        
                                        
                    
  
 ____________________________________________________________________________________ Shares of the ordinary shares represented by the within Certificate, and do hereby
irrevocably constitute and appoint 
  
 __________________________________________________________________________________ Attorney to transfer the said shares on the books of the within-named Corporation with full power of substitution in the 
  

											
	Dated: __________________20    	 	 	 	Signature:	 	 
				
	Signature(s) Guaranteed:	 	 	 	Signature:	 	 
						
	BY:	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	Notice:	 	THE SIGNATURE TO THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE NAME AS WRITTEN UPON THE FACE OF THE CERTIFICATE, IN EVERY PARTICULAR, WITHOUT ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT, OR ANY CHANGE
WHATEVER.
	THE SIGNATURE(S) SHOULD BE GUARANTEED BY AN ELIGIBLE GUARANTOR INSTITUTION (Banks, Stockbrokers, Savings and Loan Associations and Credit Unions) WITH MEMBERSHIP IN AN APPROVED
SIGNATURE GUARANTEE MEDALLION PROGRAM, PURSUANT TO S.E.C. RULE 17Ad-15.
**EXHIBIT 31.1****SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION**I, R. Michael Andrews, Jr., certify that: 1. I have reviewed this Form 10-Q for the period ended December 14, 2005 of BuffetsHoldings, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter(the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming equivalent functions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.       Date: January 25, 2006         /s/ R. Michael Andrews, Jr. R. Michael Andrews, Jr.    Chief Executive Officer    (Principal Executive, Financial and Accounting Officer)
EPA DR# 3960 1/08/2010EPA DR# 3960 1/08/2010EPA DR# 3960 1/08/2010
* 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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-20394 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus RAFAEL RENTERIA-MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-97-CR-284-ALL

- - - - - - - - - - December 10, 1998 Before DAVIS, DeMOSS and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Rafael Renteria-Martinez appeals his sentence after pleading guilty to reentry by a deported alien. He argues that the district court violated Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(c) because it did not make written findings on a disputed factual issue. Because there was no disputed factual issue, Rule 32 does not apply, and Renteria’s appeal lacks a factual or legal basis. Accordingly, the sentence of the district court is AFFIRMED, and the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 244 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.Con.Res.244
                                      Agreed to December 7, 2001        

                      One Hundred Seventh Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

         Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
             the third day of January, two thousand and one

                          Concurrent Resolution

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

SECTION 1. PRINTING OF REVISED EDITION OF ``OUR FLAG''.

    A revised edition of the publication entitled ``Our Flag'', revised 
under the direction of the Joint Committee on Printing, shall be 
printed as a House document.

SEC. 2. NUMBER OF COPIES.

    (a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), there shall 
be printed a number of copies of the publication described in section 1 
as follows:
        (1) 250,000 for the use of the House of Representatives, 
    distributed in equal numbers to each Member of the House and each 
    Delegate and Resident Commissioner to the Congress.
        (2) 51,500 for the use of the Senate, distributed in equal 
    numbers to each Senator.
        (3) 2,000 for the use of the Joint Committee on Printing.
        (4) 1,400 for distribution to the depository libraries.
    (b) Alternative Number.--If the total printing and production costs 
of the number of copies provided under subsection (a) exceed $150,000, 
there shall be printed the maximum number of copies of the publication 
described in section 1 for which such total costs do not exceed 
$150,000, with distribution allocated in the same proportion as in 
subsection (a).
  Attest:

                                 Clerk of the House of Representatives.

  Attest:

                                               Secretary of the Senate.
```
#### Commonwealth ex rel. Fisher, Appellant, *v.*Russell.

Submitted March 21, 1962.

Before Rhodes, P. J., Ekvin, Wright, Woodside, Watkins, Montgomery, and Flood, JJ.

*584
      *Fred Fisher,*appellant, in propria persona.

*Warren R. Yocum, Jr.,*District Attorney, for appellee.

April 12, 1962:

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The order of the court below dismissing petition for writ of habeas corpus is affirmed on the opinion of President Judge Himes of the Court of Common Pleas of Huntingdon County, as reported in 26 Pa. D. & C. 2d 504.
Dear EPA, 

I am a resident of Avenal and feel that Avenal and the Central Valley is not the right location for this 

natural gas power plant. The emissions that it will be released will be hurtful to the population and 

ecology of the region. The EPA and government of the United States must ensure that businesses help 

the environment rather than hurt it. I am appalled that the EPA would allow the power plant to not abide 

the new law for emission. Shouldn't new and existing companies be required to meet the standards 

especially if they are new and more considerate of our environment. Please do the right thing and ensure 

that the present and future of our Valley communities can be healthy and not worry about another 

polluter in our backyard. 

Thank you, 

Leticia Lopez 

Avenal Power Plant 

Leticia Lopez 

to: 

R9AirPermits 

04/12/2011 11:18 PM 

Hide Details 

From: Leticia Lopez 

To: R9AirPermits@EPA 

History: This message has been forwarded. 

Page 1 of 1

4/14/2011
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12

- 51241 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v. JESUS ANTONIO JAIME

- JUAREZ, also known as El Memil , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:12

- CR

- 1911

- 1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Jesus Antonio Jaime

- Juarez appeals from his conviction of illegal reentry following removal. He contends that his sentence of 87 months of imprisonment, which was within the applicable guideline sentencing range,

was substantively unreasonable. Jaime

- Juarez did not object to the reasonableness of his sentence in the district court and therefore o ur review is

* 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 November 22, 2013 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 12-51241 Document: 00512450538 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/22/2013No. 12

- 51241 for plain error

. S ee United States v. Peltier , 505 F.3d 389, 391

- 92 (5th Cir. 2007). Jaime

- Juarez’s contention that sentences calculated under the illegal reentry guideline are not entitled to a presumption of reasonableness , is foreclosed

. S ee United States v. Duarte , 569 F.3d 528, 529

- 31 (5th Cir. 2009) ( a ffirming a within

- guideline sentence following conviction of illegal reentry and rejecting Appellant’s argument that this Court must examine the empirical basis for the relevant Sentencing G uideline s provision before affording a presumption of rea sonableness to the within

- guideline sentence ). Jaime

- Juarez’s argument that his sentence is unreasonable because his offense

was a mere international trespass is likewise foreclosed by this Circuit’s precedent. See United States v. Juarez

- Duarte , 513 F.3d 204, 212 (5th Cir. 2008) ( rejecting argument that the Appellant’s 87 month prison sentence for illegal reentry was unreasonable because the offense was “no more than simple trespass.”). Finally, the district court rejected the argument that Jamie

- Juarez was unable to comprehend that reentry into the United States could have serious consequences, as Jaime

- Juarez had been convicted of illegal reentry once before and had been admonished to this effect. Jaime

- Ju arez ha s not shown that the district court’ s fi nding in this regard amounts to plain error

. Jaime

- Juarez has failed to rebut the presumption of reasonableness given to his within

- range sentence. See United States v. Alonzo , 435 F.3d 551, 553

- 54 (5th Cir. 2006). He has failed to show error, plain or otherwise. AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 12-51241 Document: 00512450538 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/22/2013
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 Annual Report of LifeCell Corporation (the “Company”) on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission  (the “Report”), Paul G. Thomas, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company and Steven T. Sobieski, Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, each hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





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





(2)
            The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the consolidated financial condition of the Company as of the
      dates presented and the consolidated result of operations of the Company
      for the periods presented.





Dated:
March 1, 2007








/s/ Paul G.
      ThomasPaul
      G. ThomasChief
      Executive Officer/s/ Steven T.
      SobieskiSteven
      T. SobieskiVice
      President, FinanceChief
      Financial Officer and Secretary








The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely 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) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-K
or as a separate disclosure document.





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
LifeCell Corporation and will be retained by LifeCell Corporation and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
REGULATORY EVALUATION

Directorate Identifier: __2010________-NM-____216_____-AD

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific 

requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of 

transportation?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)