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

107TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 103

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States with

respect to the Pledge of Allegiance.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 27, 2002

Mr. GREEN of Texas introduced the following joint resolution; which was

referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United

States with respect to the Pledge of Allegiance.

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 fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when

7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several

8 States within seven years after the date of its submission

9 for ratification:
2

•HJ 103 IH

1 ‘‘ARTICLE —

2 ‘‘Nothing in the first amendment to this Constitution

3 shall be construed to prohibit the recitation of the Pledge

4 of Allegiance, as follows: ‘I pledge allegiance to the Flag

5 of the United States of America, and to the Republic for

6 which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with

7 liberty and justice for all’.’’.

Æ
FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J ULY 28, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 15 86 9 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 9 :1 0- cr-8 00 85 -KAM-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff - App el le e, vers us SALVADOR GONZ ALEZ GARCIA, a.k .a. San to s G. Liz arra ga , a.k .a. Ro be rto Sal azarGon zal ez, a.k .a. Ro m ero Ro dr ig ue z, a.k .a. San ti ag o Ayala, a.k .a. Ro be rto R, Defen da nt- App el la nt .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Jul y 28 , 20 11 ) Befo re CARNES, HULL andPRYOR, Ci rcu itJu dg es .PER CURI AM:

Bru ce E. Rei nh art , app oi nt edap pe ll at e co un se l fo r Sal va do r Gon zal ez Garci a, ha s fi le d am ot io n t o wi th dr aw on ap pe al supp orte d b y a br ie f pr ep ared pu rs ua ntto Ander

s v. C al if orni a , 38 6 U.S. 7 38 , 87 S.Ct . 19 36 , 18 L.Ed.2d49 3 (1 96 7) . Our i nd ep en de ntrev ie w of t he en ti re re co rdrev eal s t ha t co un se l’s as se ss m en t o f th e rel at iv e m eri t o f th e ap pe al is co rrec t. Bec au se in de pe nd en t ex am in at io n o f th e en ti re re co rdrev eal s n o arg uabl e is su es of m eri t, co un se l’s m ot io n t o wi th dr aw is GRANTED , andGarci a’s co nv ic ti on s an d s en te nc es are AFFIRMED .

2
**1.2.1 Americans with Disabilities Act Requirements** 

The passenger rail equipment constructed in accordance with the requirements of this Specification shall be fully compliant, at the time of manufacture, with all rules and regulations of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and shall include the fo llowing that exceed minimum requirements as outlined in 49CFR Part 38:

The requirement in 49CFR Section 38.125(b) for wheelchair or mobility aid lift design load is increased from a minimum of 600 lbs (272 kg) to a minimum of 800 lbs (363 kg),
for carborn e lifts. Safety factor requirements in 49CFR Section 38.125(b) are unchanged. The requirement in 49CFR Section 38.125(b)(6) for wheelchair or mobility aid lift platform surface is increased from 30 in. by 48 in. (762 mm by 1,219 mm) to a
minimum of 30 in. by 54 in. (762 mm by 1,372 mm), for carborne lifts. The load specified in 49CFR Section 38.125(b)(9) for wheelchair or mobility aid lift platform deflection is increased from 600 lbs (272 kg) to 800 lbs (363 kg), for carborne
lifts. The requirements in 4 9CFR Section 38.125(d)(2) for seating location of an occupied/unoccupied wheelchair or mobility aid is increased from 30 in. by 48 in. (762 mm by 1,219 mm) to a minimum clear space of 32 in. by 59 in. (762 mm by 1,499 mm). The 32 in. by 59 in. (762 mm by 1 ,499 mm) clear space is needed to provide maneuverability into the accessible seating location. The requirement in 49CFR Section 38.113(b) for minimum vestibule width (in cars where accessible doorways require passage through a vestibule) is increased fro m 42 in. (1,067 mm) to 44 in (1,118 mm).
# Materials Not Included in **Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket**

Docket Number: FAA - 2013 - 0868 Directorate Identifier: 2013NM194AD

145 - 53 - A082, R01 --- 9/26/13 145 - 53 - A082 --- 9/22/13

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the Supplemental AD Docket 

### MA **Y BE VIEWED AT:** Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate Rules Docket 1601 Lind Ave. SW., Renton, WA 98057 425.227.1221 **DURING THE HOURS OF:** 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Form Date: 0 3/05/2008
Exhibit 32.1
 Certification of Chief Executive Officer
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  (i)
    
    the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended June
30, 2010 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section
15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and(ii)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  By:
    /s/ Kimberly K. SchaeferKimberly K. SchaeferChief Executive Officer and Director
(Principal Executive Officer)
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
 Certification of Chief Executive Officer
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  (i)
    
    the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended March
31, 2007 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section
15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and(ii)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  By:/s/ John Emery

John EmeryChief Executive Officer and Director(Principal Executive Officer)
  37
AMS Frozen Pasteurized Whole Eggs Microbial Performance - Fiscal Year: 20191/,2/

Standard Plate Count3/ Total Coliforms4/ Salmonella5/

Contractor

# Lots Produced 

(% of Total)

# Exceeding 

Critical Limit

% Exceeding 

Critical Limit

# Exceeding 

Critical Limit

% Exceeding 

Critical Limit # Positive % Positive

C2 198 (57.4) 0 0 0 0 0 0

C4 147 (42.6) 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 345(100.0) 0 0 0 0 0 0

1/A full description of the frozen pasteurized whole eggs purchase program specification is available at https://www.ams.usda.gov/selling-food/product-specs#Eggs. 2/Production Dates: October 1, 2018 to September 30, 2019. 3/Standard Plate Count Critical Limit: 1,000 CFU/g.

4/Total Coliforms Critical Limit: 10 CFU/g.

5/Salmonella Critical Limit: Positive (+) Result / 25g.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 6323** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. SHONTONIO L. WITHERSPOON , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Charleston
. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior District Judge. ( 2:08

- cr - 00844

- PMD

- 1 )

Submitted : September 29, 2016 Decided: October 4, 2016

Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and HARRIS , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Shontonio L. Witherspoon, Appellant Pro Se. Sean Kittrell, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Shontonio L. Witherspo on seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ( 2012 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (B) (20 12 ). A certificate of a ppealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (20 12 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable ju rists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

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

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on proced ural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the rec ord and conclude that Witherspoon 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 legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 31.1


Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certification





I, David Viney, certify that:





1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Harley-Davidson Motorcycle Trust 2021-B (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);





2.  Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do 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 report;





3.   Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;





4.   I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicer and based on my knowledge and the compliance reviews conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and





5.  All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report.  Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.





In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated party: Citibank, N.A. as indenture trustee of the issuing entity.








/s/ David VineyDavid VineyVice President and Treasurer (senior officer in charge of the servicing function) of Harley-Davidson Credit Corp., Servicer to Harley-Davidson Motorcycle Trust 2021-BMarch 21, 2024
- 1 - Alexander Van der Bellen Managing Director and

Associate General Counsel

Delta Air Lines, Inc.

1212 New York Avenue NW Washington, DC 20005

202.842.4184
sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com

March 24, 2011

via email and regulations.gov

Esta Rosenberg Chief, U.S. Air Carrier Licensing Division George Wellington Chief, Foreign Air Carrier Licensing Division U.S. Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Ave, SE Washington, DC 20590

Re: Joint Application of Delta and China Eastern

For Statements of Authorization and Codeshare Exem ptions

Docket DOT-OST-2011-0065

Dear Ms. Rosenberg and Mr. Wellington:

This letter is to confirm that Delta has polled all carriers on the service list to the above referenced application filed on March 23, 2011 and there are no objections. In these circumstances, we urge that the application be gran ted as soon as possible.

Respectfully submitted,

Alexander Van der Bellen

cc: Bob Finamore, DOT Evelyn Sahr, Counsel for China Eastern James Ehrig, Counsel for China Eastern info@airlineinfo.com
Opinion issued December 12, 2023

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-23-00710-CV

———————————

KASSIRIM ONYERI, Appellant

V.

TB ROBINSON LAW GROUP PLLC, TERRRENCE B. ROBINSON,

SEAN MILLER, JOANNA NAKAMOTO, ASHOK BAIL,

AND THE BAIL LAW FIRM PLLC, Appellees

On Appeal from the 152nd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 2022-14015

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Kassirim Onyeri, has filed an unopposed motion for voluntary 

dismissal of this appeal. No opinion has issued in this appeal. Accordingly, we grant 
2

the motion and dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). We dismiss any 

other pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Goodman, Countiss, and Farris.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen

Kurtis T. Wilder,

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.

 August 15, 2017

s0815d

Order 

Clerk

August 15, 2017

156182 & (73)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 156182

COA: 332288

Wayne CC: 15-005228-FH

VIRGIL SMITH,

Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED. 

The application for leave to appeal the April 18, 2017 judgment of the Court of Appeals 

is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we 

REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for consideration as on reconsideration 

granted. We DIRECT the Court of Appeals to issue an opinion on remand no later than 

5:00 p.m. on Friday, August 25, 2017. Any appeal from that decision must be filed in 

this Court by 5:00 p.m. on Monday, August 28, 2017.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-50365 & No. 95-50620 Summary Calendar

__________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ROBERT BOUVIER, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. A-90-CR-30 USDC No. A-90-CR-30-1

- - - - - - - - - - March 21, 1996 Before REAVLEY, DUHÉ and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Robert Bouvier, in this consolidated appeal of the district court's denial of his motion to reconsider its judgment granting relief pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and the court's subsequent entry of an amended order reducing his sentence, argues that 1) the district court's method of recalculating his base offense level resulted, erroneously, in a base offense level of 32 rather than a base offense level of 30; 2) the district court, for sentencing purposes, should not have relied upon aNo. 95-50365 & No. 95-50620 -2- statement by codefendant Kelly without clear corroboration of the statement; 3) the district court should have distinguished between L-type and D-type methamphetamine at sentencing; 4) the district court, for sentencing purposes, should have used a 75 percent yield rather than a 100 percent yield in determining how much methamphetamine Bouvier could have produced; and 5) the district court, for sentencing purposes, mischaracterized Bouvier's role in the offense as aggravating. Even assuming the district court used an improper method of calculating Bouvier's base offense level, any error was harmless because the court, in its amended order, determined Bouvier's base offense level as 30. Bouvier's remaining issues do not seek retroactive application of changes, but rather pertain to challenges to the district court's application of the guidelines. These issues are thus not cognizable under § 3582(c)(2). United States v. Shaw , 30 F.3d 26, 29 (5th Cir. 1994).
AFFIRMED.
##### 



Exhibit 31.1 Certification of Principal Executive Officer
Pursuant to Section 302 Of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 I, John Emery, the Chief Executive Officer of Great Wolf Resorts, Inc., certify that:  1.
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Great Wolf Resorts, Inc.;2.
    Based on my knowledge, this 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
report;3.
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included 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 periods presented in this report;4.
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining disclosure
controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the registrant and
have:  a.
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or
caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, 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 report is being
prepared;b.
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants
disclosure controls and procedures and presented in
this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures, as of
the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andc.
    disclosed in this report any change in the
registrants internal control over financial reporting that
occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has
materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control
over financial reporting; and  5.
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of
internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors
and the audit committee of the
registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):  a.
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses
in the design or operation of internal control
over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb.
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a
significant role in the registrants internal controls over financial
reporting. Date: May 12, 2005 By:/s/ John EmeryJohn EmeryChief Executive Officer and Director (PrincipalExecutive Officer)
Document

AMENDMENT TO THE
AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT




    This Amendment (“Amendment”) is entered into as of the 20th day of May 2022, by and between Home Bank, N.A. (the “Bank”) and John W. Bordelon (the “Executive”).


WITNESSETH


    WHEREAS, the Bank and the Executive previously entered into an Amended and Restated Employment Agreement, dated as of May 20, 2019 (the “Agreement”); and


    WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend the Agreement in order to extend its term, as provided in Section 2(b) thereof.


    NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto, intending to be legally bound hereby, agree as follows:


        1.    The last sentence in Section 2(a) of the Agreement is amended and restated to read as follows: “The terms and conditions of this Agreement shall be and remain in effect during the period beginning on the Effective Date of this Agreement and ending on May 20, 2025, plus such extensions, if any, as are provided pursuant to Section 2(b) hereof (the “Employment Period”).”


        2.    Except to the extent expressly amended hereby, the Agreement shall continue unmodified and shall remain in full force and effect.


    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been duly executed by the parties hereto as of the day and year first written above.


                                HOME BANK, N.A.




By:  /s/ Daniel G. Guidry                           By:   /s/ John A. Hendry            
        Daniel G. Guidry                        John A. Hendry
        Corporate Secretary                    Chairman of the Compensation Committee




                                 EXECUTIVE




                                  /s/ John W. Bordelon            
                                 John W. Bordelon
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 11, 2018

No. 04

- 18

- 00133

- CV

IN THE MATTER OF S.T.,

From the County Court at Law, Starr County, Texas

Trial Court No. JV

- 17

- 035

Honorable Romero Molina, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

The appellant ’ s motion to reconsider denial of oral argument is hereby DENIED.

It is so ORDERED on October 11, 2018.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
Order filed October 26, 2015

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 14

- 01018

- CR

____________ JENNIFER ANNE THOMAS , Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 400th District Court Fort Bend County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 14

- DCR

- 065587



### ORDER
Appellant is represented by appointed counsel, Zachary Scott Maloney. On June 2, 2015, counsel filed a frivolous appeal brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel failed to comply with the requirements
set forth in Anders because he did not file a motion to withdraw as counsel for appellant. On September 15, 2015, this court issued a letter requesting that counsel file a motion to withdraw within 15 days. W hen counsel failed to comply
, the court
issued a follow

- up letter on October 7, 2015 again requesting counsel’s motion towithdraw to be filed within 15 days. No motion to withdraw has been filed.

Accordingly, we order appellant’s appointed counsel, Zachar y Scott Maloney, to file a motion to withdraw in this appeal on or before November 9,
2015 . If counsel fails to file motion to withdraw counsel’s brief may be stricken and the court may require appointment of new counsel.

PER CURIAM
APPALACHIAN DAIRY 

FARMERS COOPERATIVE 

October 26, 2022 

Via electronic mail to: Dant1.coale<i.btsda.gov 

Ms. Dana Coale, Deputy Administrator 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

United States Department ofAgriculture 

USDA-AMS-1400 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, D.C. 20250-0225 

Re: Request for a hearing to amend Federal Milk Marketing Orders 5, 6, and 7 

Dear Ms. Coale, 

This letter confirms the support ofAppalachian Dairy Farmers Cooperative for a hearing 

to amend the southeastern US federal milk orders as requested by DCMA in the request letter 

from Attorney Marvin Beshore. This further confirms our supportfor the five proposals 

submitted with the hearing request. We respectfully request that a hearing be held on an 

emergency basis to expedite the reliefrequested to our orders. 

1A 

Gary MacGibbon 

President, Appalachian Dairy Farmers Cooperative 

P.O. Box296 

BlounMlle, TN 37617 

{423)323-9817