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

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 502 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 502

    To permanently reauthorize the Land and Water Conservation Fund.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 12, 2017

  Mr. Grijalva (for himself and Mr. Meehan) introduced the following 
     bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To permanently reauthorize the Land and Water Conservation Fund.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PERMANENT REAUTHORIZATION OF LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION 
              FUND.

    (a) In General.--Section 200302 of title 54, United States Code, is 
amended--
            (1) in subsection (b), in the matter preceding paragraph 
        (1), by striking ``During the period ending September 30, 2015, 
        there'' and inserting ``There''; and
            (2) in subsection (c)(1), by striking ``through September 
        30, 2015''.
    (b) Public Access.--Section 200306 of title 54, United States Code, 
is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(c) Public Access.--Not less than 1.5 percent of amounts made 
available for expenditure in any fiscal year under section 200303, or 
$10,000,000, whichever is greater, shall be used for projects that 
secure recreational public access to existing Federal public land for 
hunting, fishing, and other recreational purposes.''.
                                 <all>
```
##### 



/s/ Akio AriuraAkio AriuraChief Financial OfficerFebruary 22, 2008
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

MAY 26, 2010

JOHN LEY

 CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 09-15977

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 90-00032-CR-KLR

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MICHAEL MALGOZA,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

_________________________

(May 26, 2010)

Before BLACK, PRYOR and FAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Michael Malgoza appeals the denial of his second motion to reduce his
sentence. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We affirm.

In 1997, Malgoza moved to reduce his sentence of life imprisonment based

on Amendment 505 to the Sentencing Guidelines. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). The

district court denied the motion. The district court considered the quantity of

cocaine involved in Malgoza’s drug offenses and criminal history, see 18 U.S.C. §

3553(a), and determined that Malgoza’s sentence “was fair and just.” Malgoza did

not appeal the decision.

In 2009, Malgoza filed a “renewed motion for reduction of sentence” and

repeated the arguments made in his first motion to reduce. The district court

denied Malgoza’s motion based on lack of jurisdiction. In the alternative, the

district court ruled that it was bound by the “law of the case” and, if not, “it was

“exercising its discretion [by] refus[ing] to reduce” Malgoza’s sentence.

Malgoza’s second motion to reduce was barred by the law of the case. The

district court rejected Malgoza’s first request to reduce his sentence, and Malgoza

failed to appeal that decision. See United States v. Escobar-Urrego, 110 F.3d

1556, 1560–61 (11th Cir. 1997). Malgoza’s alleged “new evidence” also was

available when he moved to reduce his sentence in 1997.

The denial of Malgoza’s successive motion to reduce his sentence is

AFFIRMED.

2
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Barbara SUTTON, Defendant-Appellant. In re: Barbara SUTTON, Petitioner.

Nos. 02-7422, 02-7563.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 23, 2003.

Decided Feb. 12, 2003.

*688Barbara Sutton, Appellant Pro Se. Scott Frederickson, Office of the United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appel-lee.

Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

No. 02-7422, dismissed and No. 02-7563 petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

In action No. 02-7422, Barbara Sutton seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that Sutton has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. *See United States v. Sutton,*CR-90-432-A (E.D.Va., Sept. 10, 2002). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000).

In action No. 02-7563, Sutton petitions for a writ of mandamus, seeking an order compelling the district court to appoint her counsel and grant her an evidentiary hearing. Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. *In re: First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n,*860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used only in extraordinary circumstances. *Kerr v. United States Dist. Court,*426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976); *In re: Beard,*811 F.2d 818, 827 (4th Cir.1987). Sutton has not established a basis for mandamus relief. Although we grant Sutton’s pending motion for leave to proceed in forma pau-peris, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid in the decisional process.

No. *02-7A22-DISMISSED.*

No. *QZ-im3-PETITION DENIED.*
CERTIFICATION OF
                           CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
                             CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of
Wisedriver.com, Inc. for the quarter ending September 30, 2003, I, Joshua
Berger, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Wisedriver.com,
Inc. hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and
belief, that:

     1.   Such Quarterly Report of Form 10-QSB for the period ending September
          30, 2003, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for
          the period ended September 30, 2003, fairly represents in all material
          respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
          Wisedriver.com, Inc.

Dated:    October 14, 2004

Wisedriver.com,, Inc.

By:  /s/ Joshua Berger
-----------------------------------------
Chief Executive Officer
Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 99.1



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 Form 10-QSB Quarterly Report of Internet Recreation, Inc.
(the "Company") for the period ended August 31, 2002, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned
hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

- the Report 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 Report fairly presents, in all material
  respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



October 15, 2002

By: /s/ Kathleen (Patty) Hackler
Kathleen (Patty) Hackler, President, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial
Officer, and Principal Accounting Officer
#### Alfred Lee MAULDIN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; Mary Ellen Thomas, Warden, Butner, North Carolina; Joseph Tang, Staff Attorney; Lieutenant Yonce; Lieutenant Wenzler; Cardinal White, SRO Unit Manager, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 02-7230.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 16, 2003.

Decided Jan. 22, 2003.

Alfred Lee Mauldin, Appellant Pro Se.

Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Alfred Lee Mauldin, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order denying *149relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. *See Mauldin v. Federal Bureau of Prisons,*CA-02-336-5-H (E.D.N.C. July 5, 2002). We deny Maul-din’s motion for appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

April 28, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 130436 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 130436 

 COA: 255435 

Oakland CC: 2000-021362-CZ 

HUGH P. CARSON,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 1, 2005 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

d0424 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

April 28, 2006 

Clerk
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1924 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 1924

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
   documentation and coastwise trade endorsement for the vessel DAMN 
                                YANKEE.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 28, 1996

  Mr. Stevens introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
   referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
   documentation and coastwise trade endorsement for the vessel DAMN 
                                YANKEE.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That notwithstanding 
sections 12106, 12107, and 12108 of title 46, United States Code, and 
section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 (46 App. U.S.C. 883), as 
applicable on the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 
Transportation may issue a certificate of documentation with 
appropriate endorsements for employment in the coastwise trade for the 
vessel DAMN YANKEE (vessel number 263611).
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>   1
                                                                 EXHIBIT 10(c)


             SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE 1994 EQUITY PARTICIPATION PLAN
                           OF DOUBLETREE CORPORATION


        This Second Amendment to the 1994 Equity Participation Plan of
Doubletree Corporation (the "Amendment") is adopted by Doubletree Corporation,
a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), effective as of April 22, 1996.


                                   RECITALS:


        A.  The Company's 1994 Equity Participation Plan (the "Incentive Plan")
was adopted by the Board of Directors (the "Board") on June 3, 1994, and
approved by the stockholders of the Company on June 30, 1994. On January 27,
1995, the Board adopted, and on April 25, 1995, the stockholders of the Company
approved the First Amendment to the Incentive Plan.

        B.  The Incentive Plan currently states that shares of stock of the
Company subject to the Incentive Plan shall not exceed 2,000,000. This second
amendment increases the aggregate number of shares of stock subject to the
Incentive Plan from 2,000,000 to 3,300,000.

        C.  Section 10.2 of the Incentive Plan provides that the Board may
amend the Incentive Plan, subject in certain instances to receipt of approval
of the stockholders of the Company.

        D.  Effective February 13, 1996, the Board unanimously recommended and
the Board unanimously adopted this Second Amendment in the form given below
("Second Amendment").

        E.  The Second Amendment was approved by the stockholders of the
Company at its Annual Meeting of Stockholders held on April 22, 1996.

                                SECOND AMENDMENT

        1.  Section 2.1(a) of the Incentive Plan is hereby amended to read in
its entirety as follows:

                "2.1  Shares Subject to Plan.
                      ----------------------

                (a)  The shares of stock subject to Options, awards of
        Restricted Stock, Performance Awards, Dividend Equivalents, awards of
        Deferred Stock, Stock Payments or Stock Appreciation Rights shall be
        Common Stock, initially shares of the Company's Common Stock, par value
        $.01 per share. The aggregate number of such shares which may be issued
        upon exercise of such options or rights or upon any such awards under
        the Plan shall not exceed three million three hundred thousand
        (3,300,000). The shares of Common Stock issuable upon exercise of such
        options or rights or upon any such awards may be either previously
        authorized but unissued shares or treasury shares."

        The undersigned, David L. Stivers, Secretary of the Company, hereby
certifies that the Board and the stockholders of the Company adopted the
foregoing Second Amendment as stated above.

           Executed at Phoenix, Arizona this 22nd day of April, 1996.


                                          /s/ DAVID L. STIVERS
                                        ----------------------------------
                                              David L. Stivers, Secretary
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHDEULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AND STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                      18,640,729
<SECURITIES>                                 7,280,000
<RECEIVABLES>                               60,712,594
<ALLOWANCES>                              (10,593,150)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            81,359,973
<PP&E>                                      91,770,792
<DEPRECIATION>                            (11,824,836)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             339,023,383
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       73,377,181
<BONDS>                                    155,447,410
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       237,492
<OTHER-SE>                                 133,274,593
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               339,023,383
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           102,061,282
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            96,800,721
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             4,015,944
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           8,974,246
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (5,354,529)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (600,318)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (6,330,848)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (6,330,848)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.47)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.47)
        

</TABLE>
## THE STATE OF TEXAS

MANDATE

TO THE 8TH DISTRICT COURT OF HOPKINS COU NTY, GREETINGS:

Before the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Court of Appeals District of Texas, on the 8th

day of January, A.D. 2015, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your Judgment was

determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

Marvin Frank Hall, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee No. 06

- 14

- 00213

- CR

Trial Court No. 0216557

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find that the appeal should be dismissed

for want of jurisdiction. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal.

We note that the appellant, Marvin Frank Hall, has adequately indicated his inability to

pay costs of appeal. The refore, we waive payment of costs.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court in this

behalf, and in all things to have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS, the Hon. Josh R. Morriss, III, Chief Justice of our said Court of Appeals, with

the seal thereof annexed, at the City of Texarkana, this the 11th day of March , A.D. 2015

.

DEBRA K. AUTREY , Clerk
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 15

- 1950

_____________________________
D ONALD V ERNON K ELLEY , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Okaloosa County

. Michael Flowers , Judge

. November 6, 2018

O N R EMAND F ROM THE F LORIDA S UPREME C OURT

P ER C URIAM

. We previously reversed Appellant’s sentences and convictions as to three of his twelve convictions : lewd and lascivious battery and two lewd and lascivious conduct counts

. Kelley v. State , 204 So. 3d 37, 37

- 38 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016). The Florida Supreme Court quashed our decision and remanded for reconsideration in light of its decision in State v. Knighton , 235 So. 3d 312 (Fla. 2018).

In li ght of Knighton
, the trial court correctly rejected Appellant’s request for a jury instruction on unnatural and lascivious act. See Knighton , 235 So. 3d at 316

- 17 (explaining2 that unnatural must mean something other than an act that would be criminalized u nder lewd and lascivious statutes)

. Accordingly, we A FFIRM Appellant’s judgments and sentences on all counts, in all respects.

B ILBREY , K ELSEY , and M.K. T HOMAS , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and auth orized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________

Andy Thomas , Public Defender, and Courtenay H. Miller, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee
, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Trisha Meggs Pate, Assista nt Attorney General, and Michael Schaub , Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

August 13, 2007 Session

RONDAL AKERS ET AL. v. BUCKNER-RUSH ENTERPRISES, INC. ET AL.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Bradley County

Nos. V-02-0620, V-02-623, and V-02-624 W. Neil Thomas, III, Judge

No. E2006-01513-COA-R3-CV Filed November 21, 2007

CHARLES D. SUSANO, JR., J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.

For the reasons stated in my separate opinion, concurring in part and dissenting in part, in

the case of Robert H. Crawford, Sr. et al. v. J. Avery Bryan Funeral Home, Inc. et al., No. E2006-

00987-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. E.S., filed November 21, 2007), I respectfully dissent from so

much of the majority opinion as affirms the dismissal of the complaints filed by Rondal D. Akers,

Jr., Lucinda Akers, Donna Burns, Susan Hall, Doyle Harden, Ricky Harden, Sandra Fogle, Mollie

C. Denton, and Elaine Waldron, against the individuals and entities directly associated with the

operation of Tri-State Crematory, as to the claims in those complaints alleging outrageous

conduct/infliction of emotional distress. In all other respects, I concur in the majority opinion.

_______________________________ 

CHARLES D. SUSANO, JR., JUDGE
EXHIBIT 23.1





We hereby consent to the inclusion of our report dated January
30, 2004 in this 10 K and to the incorporation by reference of
such report in the company's previously filed (i) Registration
Statement on Form S-3 (File No. 333-24281), (ii) Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (File No. 333-24269), (iii) Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (File No. 333-42016), and (iv) Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (File No. 333-71976).



/s/ VITALE, CATURANO & COMPANY P.C.


Boston, Massachusetts
March 26, 2004
EXHIBIT 3.2.1

AMENDMENTS TO THE BYLAWS OF DUPONT PHOTOMASKS, INC.        AS APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS ON JUNE 23, 2003

SECTION 5.01 The officers of the corporation shall be chosen by the board of directors and shall be a chief executive officer and/or president, one or more vice
presidents, a secretary, a treasurer, and such other officers as may be elected in accordance with the provisions of section 5.03 of this Article. Any number of offices may be held by the same
person. Officers may, but need not, be directors or stockholders of the corporation. The board of directors may elect from among the members of the board a chairman of the board and a vice chairman of
the board. The chairman of the board or the president, as designated from time to time by the board of directors, may (but is not required to) also be the chief executive officer of the corporation.

SECTION
5.04 The chairman of the board may (but is not required to) also be the chief executive officer of the corporation and, subject to the control of the board of directors, the
chief executive officer shall have general charge and control of all its business and affairs and shall have all powers and shall perform all duties incident to the office of chief executive officer
and shall have such other powers and perform such other duties as may from time to time be assigned to him by these bylaws or by the board of directors. The chairman of the board shall preside at all
meetings of the stockholders and at all meetings of the board of directors and shall have such other powers and perform such other duties as may from time to time be assigned to him by these bylaws or
by the board of directors.

---

QuickLinks