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

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 295

Providing for the sine die adjournment of the first session of the One

Hundred Seventh Congress.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

DECEMBER 20, 2001

Mr. ARMEY submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was

considered and agreed to

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Providing for the sine die adjournment of the first session

of the One Hundred Seventh Congress.

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That when the House adjourns on the legisla3 tive day of Thursday, December 20, 2001, or Friday, De4 cember 21, 2001, on a motion offered pursuant to this

5 concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader or his des6 ignee, it stand adjourned sine die, or until Members are

7 notified to reassemble pursuant to section 2 of this concur8 rent resolution, whichever occurs first; and that when the

9 Senate adjourns at the close of business on Thursday, De10 cember 20, 2001, or Friday, December 21, 2001, on a
2

HCON 295 ATH

1 motion offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by

2 its Majority Leader or his designee, it stand adjourned

3 sine die, or until Members are notified to reassemble pur4 suant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever

5 occurs first.

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

7 Leader of the Senate, acting jointly after consultation with

8 the Minority Leader of the House and the Minority Lead9 er of the Senate, shall notify the Members of the House

10 and the Senate, respectively, to reassemble at such place

11 and time as they may designate whenever, in their opinion,

12 the public interest shall warrant it.

Passed the House of Representatives December 20,

2001.

Attest:

Clerk.
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-14-00095-CV

KEVIN COOPER ROSS, Appellant

V.

TIFFANY MCCRARY, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court

Franklin County, Texas

Trial Court No. 1969

Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Kevin Cooper Ross timely filed a notice of appeal November 25, 2014. The complete 

appellate record was filed January 16, 2015, making Ross’ brief due to be filed with this Court on 

or before February 17, 2015. When neither a brief nor a motion to extend time for filing same 

were received by February 17, our clerk’s office, pursuant to our instructions, contacted Ross by 

letter and advised him that his brief was late, extended the deadline for filing the brief to March 19, 

and warned him that failure to file the brief by March 19 would subject his appeal to dismissal for 

want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b), (c).

We have received no responsive communication from Ross and have not received his 

appellate brief. Pursuant to Rules 38.8 and 42.3 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, we 

dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b), (c).

Josh R. Morriss, III

Chief Justice

Date Submitted: April 6, 2015

Date Decided: April 7, 2015
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 MAY 1, 2008

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 07-15424

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 07-00005-CR-4-RH

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

versus 

COREY TYRELL JOHNSON, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Florida

_________________________

(May 1, 2008)

Before TJOFLAT, BLACK and WILSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Corey Johnson appeals his conviction for possession of stolen firearms, in
2

violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(j) & 924(a)(2). On appeal, Johnson argues that the

government presented insufficient evidence at trial to establish his actual

possession or constructive possession of the stolen firearms. Therefore, he

contends, there was insufficient evidence for an objectively reasonable jury to find

him guilty. 

When, as here, a defendant fails to move for a judgment of acquittal after all

of the evidence has been presented, reversal of the conviction is appropriate only to

prevent “a manifest miscarriage of justice.” United States v. Bender, 290 F.3d

1279, 1284 (11th Cir. 2002). Under this standard, the evidence on a key element

of the offense must be “so tenuous that a conviction would be shocking.” Id. In

reviewing witness testimony, “[t]he jury gets to make any credibility choices, and

we will assume that they made them all in the way that supports the verdict.” 

United States v. Thompson, 473 F.3d 1137, 1142 (11th Cir. 2006), cert. denied,

127 S. Ct. 2155, 167 L. Ed. 2d 882 (2007). 

In this case, to establish possession of a stolen firearm, the government must

prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant: (1) possessed; (2) a stolen

firearm; (3) which was part of interstate commerce; (4) knowing or having

reasonable cause to believe that the firearm was stolen. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(j). 

Possession can be actual or constructive. United States v. Garcia-Jaimes, 484 F.3d
3

1311, 1323 (11th Cir. 2007). To establish constructive possession, “the

government must show that the defendant exercised ownership, dominion, or

control over the firearm or the [property] concealing the firearm.” Id. (alteration in

original) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

Each element of the offense was sufficiently established by the government. 

The jury was free to reject Johnson’s testimony that he was intoxicated when he

admitted to purchasing the stolen guns. For these reasons, Johnson has failed to

establish that his conviction was the result of a manifest miscarriage of justice. 

Accordingly, we affirm Johnson’s conviction.

AFFIRMED.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**1392 CA 10-01223**  PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., CARNI, SCONIERS, AND PINE, JJ.

WILLIAM MORAN AND WENDY MORAN, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS,

V ORDER
CITY OF SYRACUSE, DEFENDANT, CONDREN REALTY MANAGEMENT CORP., SYRACUSE INTOWN HOUSES, INC., AND TOWNSEND TOWER ASSOCIATES, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

COSTELLO, COONEY & FEARON, PLLC, CAMILLUS (MAUREEN G. FATCHERIC OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.
FINKELSTEIN & PARTNERS LLP, NEWBURGH (GEORGE A. KOHL, II, OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Anthony J. Paris, J.), entered February 23, 2010 in a personal injury action. The order denied the motion of defendants Condren Realty Management Corp., Syracuse Intown Houses, Inc., and Townsend Tower Associates for summary judgment.
Now, upon reading and filing the stipulation of discontinuance signed by the attorneys for the parties on January 3, 2011,
It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is dismissed without costs upon stipulation.
All concur except P INE , J., who is not participating.

Entered: February 10, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan Clerk of the Court
EXHIBIT 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Robert E. Swanson, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Ridgewood Energy L
Fund, LLC;

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(s) 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; and

(c) 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 (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
report) 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(s) 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; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.



Date: November 14, 2005
/s/ Robert E. Swanson
Robert E. Swanson
President and Chief Executive Officer
(principal executive officer)
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A16A0459. JOSEPH C. HOLMES v. THE STATE.

This case was docketed by this Court on November 5, 2015, and appellant’s

brief and enumerations of error were due November 25, 2015. As of the date of this

order, appellant still has not filed a brief and enumeration of errors and has not

requested an extension of time in which to do so. Accordingly, this appeal is hereby

DISMISSED as abandoned pursuant to Court of Appeals Rules 13 and 23.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

03/11/2016

March 11, 2016
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 2012 - 0448 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 2010 - SW - 016 - AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: **Next Step:** FRAN SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. No 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, lis t latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter togeth er. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA - IR- M - 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3

If **NO** , we don’t agree because **For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.: **ASE** Printed Name **: Date** 

**Branch M anager**  **Date**
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 699 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 699

       Designating November 25, 2018, as ``Drive Safer Sunday''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           November 15, 2018

  Mr. Isakson (for himself, Mr. Coons, and Mr. Perdue) submitted the 
        following resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
       Designating November 25, 2018, as ``Drive Safer Sunday''.

Whereas motor vehicle travel is the primary means of transportation in the 
        United States;
Whereas every individual traveling on roads and highways should drive in a safe 
        manner so as to reduce deaths and injuries that result from motor 
        vehicle accidents;
Whereas, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 
        wearing a seat belt saves as many as 15,000 lives each year; and
Whereas the Sunday after Thanksgiving is the busiest highway traffic day of the 
        year: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) encourages--
                    (A) high schools, colleges, universities, 
                administrators, teachers, primary schools, and 
                secondary schools to launch campus-wide educational 
                campaigns to urge students to focus on safety when 
                driving;
                    (B) national trucking firms--
                            (i) to alert employee drivers to be 
                        especially focused on driving safely on the 
                        Sunday after Thanksgiving; and
                            (ii) to publicize the importance of driving 
                        safely on the Sunday after Thanksgiving on the 
                        Citizens Band Radio Service and at truck stops 
                        across the United States;
                    (C) clergies to remind congregations to travel 
                safely when attending services and gatherings;
                    (D) law enforcement personnel to remind drivers and 
                passengers to drive safely, particularly on the Sunday 
                after Thanksgiving;
                    (E) motorists to drive safely during the holiday 
                season and throughout the rest of the year; and
                    (F) the people of the United States--
                            (i) to understand the life-saving 
                        importance of wearing a seat belt; and
                            (ii) to educate themselves about highway 
                        safety; and
            (2) designates November 25, 2018, as ``Drive Safer 
        Sunday''.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT

TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the Quarterly Report of International Securities Exchange Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), Bruce Cooperman, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



By:

/S/ BRUCE COOPERMANName:

Bruce CoopermanTitle:

Chief Financial Officer


Date: November 6, 2007



|* | A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 or other document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed
form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to International Securities Exchange Holdings, Inc. and will be retained by International Securities Exchange Holdings, Inc. and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
|- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|** | This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18
or any other provision of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6208

TRAVIS LEQUINN SARVIS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

FCI WILLIAMSBURG WARDEN CRUZ,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District 

Judge. (5:14-cv-02695-TLW)

Submitted: April 1, 2015 Decided: April 7, 2015

Before KING, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Travis Lequinn Sarvis, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Travis Lequinn Sarvis, a federal prisoner, appeals the 

district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the 

magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 

(2012) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm the district court’s order.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Order entered January 10, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-12-01583-CV

EDWARD C. NEWBERRY, Appellant

V.

CLAUDIA J. NEWBERRY, Appellee

On Appeal from the 397th Judicial District Court

Grayson County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 06-0752

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s December 31, 2012 motion to dismiss the appeal. In the 

motion, appellant states the parties have reached an agreement to compromise and settle their 

differences in this appeal. We GRANT appellant’s motion, and pursuant to his request, we 

ABATE this appeal to permit the trial court to effectuate the parties’ agreement. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 42.1(a)(2)(C). The appeal will be reinstated in FORTY-FIVE DAYS or when the Court 

receives a motion to dismiss confirming the trial court has effectuated the parties’ agreement, 

whichever is first.

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT

CHIEF JUSTICE
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 79 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

<DOC>
116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. J. RES. 79

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 13, 2020

   Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
    Removing the deadline for the ratification of the equal rights 
                               amendment.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That notwithstanding any time 
limit contained in House Joint Resolution 208, 92d Congress, as agreed 
to in the Senate on March 22, 1972, the article of amendment

              

 proposed to the States in that joint resolution shall be valid to all 
intents and purposes as part of the United States Constitution whenever 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States.

            Passed the House of Representatives February 13, 2020.

            Attest:

                                             CHERYL L. JOHNSON,

                                                                 Clerk.

                               By Robert F. Reeves,

                                                          Deputy Clerk.
```