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

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5309 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5309

          To extend the temporary suspension of duty on PHBA.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 27, 2012

 Mr. Sessions introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
          To extend the temporary suspension of duty on PHBA.

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

SECTION 1. PHBA.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.29.03 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to PHBA) is amended by striking 
the date in the effective period column and inserting ``12/31/2015''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO DIVISION

WSOU INVESTMENTS, LLC D/B/A 

BRAZOS LICENSING AND 

DEVELPOTMENT,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICROSOFT CORPORATION,

Defendant.

Civil Action No. 6:20-cv-00455-ADA

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL 

Notice is hereby given that Melissa R. Smith of Gillam & Smith, LLP enters her appearance on 

behalf of Defendant Microsoft Corporation in this matter as additional counsel.

Melissa R. Smith may receive all communications from the Court and from other parties at 

Gillam & Smith, LLP, 303 South Washington Avenue, Marshall, Texas 75670; Telephone: (903) 934-

8450; Facsimile: (903) 934-9257; e-mail melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com.

Dated: November 12, 2021 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Melissa R. Smith 

Melissa R. Smith 

State Bar No. 24001351

GILLAM & SMITH, LLP

303 South Washington Avenue

Marshall, Texas 75670

Telephone: (903) 934-8450

Facsimile: (903) 934-9257

Email: melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com

Case 6:20-cv-00455-ADA Document 88 Filed 11/12/21 Page 1 of 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to electronic service 

are being served this 12TH day of November, 2021, with a copy of this document via the Court’s 

CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV-5(b)(1).

/s/ Melissa R. Smith

Melissa R. Smith

Case 6:20-cv-00455-ADA Document 88 Filed 11/12/21 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>      5
<MULTIPLIER>   1,000,000
       
<S>                                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                     3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                 DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                      MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                            $    80
<SECURITIES>                                           14
<RECEIVABLES>                                         561
<ALLOWANCES>                                            5
<INVENTORY>                                            55
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      947
<PP&E>                                             14,616
<DEPRECIATION>                                      4,485
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     12,149
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               1,111
<BONDS>                                               692
<COMMON>                                              167
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                            55
<OTHER-SE>                                          5,784
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       12,149
<SALES>                                                 0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    1,030
<CGS>                                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                         808
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      (15)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      7
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                       230
<INCOME-TAX>                                           84
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                   146
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                          146
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                           0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           0
        

</TABLE>
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Aeronautics and Space Administration

###### [Notice 00-121] 

# AGENCY:

National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Pub. L. 92-463, as amended, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration announces a meeting of the NASA Advisory Council, Technology and Commercialization Advisory Committee. 

# DATES:

Wednesday, November 15, 2000, 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. and Thursday, November 16, 2000, 8 a.m. to 12 Noon. 

# ADDRESSES:

John H. Glenn Research Center, Building 3, Room 225, 2100 Brookpark Road, Cleveland, OH 44135. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Gregory M. Reck, Code R, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, DC 20546 (202/358-4700). 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The meeting will be open to the public up to the seating capacity of the room. The agenda for the meeting is as follows: 

—Proposed TCAC/Aero-Space Technology Advisory Committee (ASTAC) Changes 

—Overview of GRC Activities 

—GRC Technology Programs 

—Technology Implementation at GRC 

It is imperative that the meeting be held on these dates to accommodate the scheduling priorities of the key participants. Visitors will be requested to sign a visitor's register. 

Dated: October 2, 2000.

Beth M. McCormick, 

Advisory Committee Management Officer, National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

[FR Doc. 00-25815 Filed 10-6-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7510-01-U
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 amendment No. 1 to the annual report of Whitestone REIT, a Maryland real estate investment trust (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2018, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, David K. Holeman, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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 results of operations of the Company.










/s/ David K. HolemanDavid K. HolemanChief Financial Officer





Date: April 1, 2019
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 98-4827

DANA LEONARD FISHER,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk.

J. Calvitt Clarke, Jr., Senior District Judge.

(CR-98-67)

Submitted: July 27, 1999

Decided: August 12, 1999

Before MURNAGHAN, ERVIN, and KING, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Jennifer T. Stanton, J. T. STANTON, P.C., Norfolk, Virginia, for

Appellant. Helen F. Fahey, United States Attorney, Laura M. Everhart, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Dana Leonard Fisher was convicted by a jury of possession with

intent to distribute cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)

(1994). He was sentenced to 211 months imprisonment. He appeals

his conviction.

Fisher argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction. We disagree. The totality of the circumstances surrounding

Fisher's arrest, his nervous demeanor at the arrest scene, and his lies

to the arresting trooper provide sufficient evidence for a rational trier

of fact to have found, beyond a reasonable doubt, the essential elements of the crime. See United States v. Brewer , 1 F.3d 1430, 1437

(4th Cir. 1993); see also Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80

(1942).

Fisher also contends that the court erred in admitting the arresting

trooper's trial testimony that Fisher said the car he had been driving

belonged to his uncle. Fisher argues that the statement had not been

disclosed by the Government prior to trial, and maintains that the nondisclosure violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16 and the

district court's discovery order. Because the challenged statement was

offered in response to a standard request for motor vehicle information that is analogous to a routine booking question, we find that it

was not made in response to interrogation. See United States v.

D'Anjou, 16 F.3d 604, 608-09 (4th Cir. 1994). Therefore, the statement fell outside the purview of Rule 16 and the discovery order, and

was properly admitted. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(a)(1)(A).

Accordingly, we affirm Fisher's conviction. 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

 2
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-10965

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JAVIER GUILLEN-REYES

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:07-CR-47-1

Before GARWOOD, WIENER and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Javier Guillen-Reyes (Guillen) appeals the 77-month sentence imposed

following his guilty plea conviction on one count of illegal reentry. Guillen

argues that the district court erred by enhancing his offense level pursuant to

U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) (2006) based on the determination that his prior

Texas conviction of burglary of a habitation was a crime of violence as defined

by the Sentencing Guidelines.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

April 25, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-10965

2

As Guillen concedes, because he did not object to the district court’s

application ofthe enhancement, review is for plain error only. See United States

v. Gracia-Cantu, 302 F.3d 308, 310 (5th Cir. 2002). Plain error exists when the

district court committed a clear and obvious error that affected the substantial

rights of the defendant. See United States v. Marek, 238 F.3d 310, 315 (5th Cir.

2001). This court will exercise its sound discretion to correct the error if it finds

that the error “seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of

judicial proceedings.” Id.

The record includes a judicial confession, admitted at the sentencing

hearing below without objection, in which Guillen admitted to facts that

establish that he committed the offense of burglary of a habitation in a manner

that is equivalent to the enumerated offense of “burglary of a dwelling.” See

TEX. PENAL CODE § 30.02(a)(1); United States v. Garcia-Mendez, 420 F.3d 454,

456-57 (5th Cir. 2005). A written judicial confession may be relied on “in an

effort to determine the nature of the Texas offense to which [the defendant]

previously pleaded guilty.” United States v. Garcia-Arellano, ___ F.3d ___, 2008

WL 771709 (5th Cir. Mar. 25, 2008). In view of the judicial confession, the

district court did not err, plainly or otherwise, in enhancing Guillen’s offense

level based on his Texas conviction of burglary of a habitation. See id.

AFFIRMED.
SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA
• (0) 1947A cc: Hon. David B. Barker, District Judge

Law Offices of Michael F. Bohn, Ltd. Wright, Finlay & Zak, LLP/Las Vegas Eighth District Court Clerk

2
#### ROY v. ÆTNA LIFE INS. CO.

No. 14741.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Fort Worth.

Dec. 14, 1945.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 11, 1946.

R. S. Ragsdale, of Burkburnett, for appellant.

Carrigan, Hoffman & Carrigan, of Wichita Falls, for appellee.

McD'ONALD, Chief Justice.

This suit is on a group insurance policy. Plaintiff, the widow of tire deceased employee, was denied a recovery in the trial court, and appeals.

Plaintiff’s husband left the employ of the Tucker Oil Company on October 25, 1943. On October 26, 1943, the secretary of Tucker Oil Company wrote a letter on behalf of the former employee to the group insurer, stating the fact that Mr. Roy was leaving the employ of the company, and requesting the insurer to advise Mr. Roy direct as to the cost of converting the group insurance into permanent insurance as provided for in the group policy. On November 4th the general agents of the insurer wrote Mr. Roy a letter, enclosing blank application forms and a schedule showing the premium rates applicable to the various types of insurance available. Mr. Roy died on November 5, 1943, without having made any application for a conversion of the group insurance, and without having paid a premium on any policy of converted insurance.

Plaintiff first argues that the group insurance continued in force for a period of thirty-one days following the termination of Mr. Roy’s employment, and also that the insurance continued in force for a period of thirty-one days by reason of the provisions of the policy, and of our statutes, allowing such a grace period under certain conditions.

The provisions of the policy are similar to those considered in Schooley v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., Tex.Civ.App., *77*S.W.2d 886; and Lewis v. Connecticut General Life Ins. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 94 S.W.2d 499, writ refused. Without repeating what is said in those cases, we hold that plaintiff’s contentions just mentioned are not supported’ by the Texas decisions. For decisions from other jurisdictions to *499the same effect, see the annotation in 145 A.L.R. 951, and previous annotations there referred to.

Plaintiff also contends that the policy was in force at the time of her husband’s death by reason of there being sufficient accumulation of excess premiums to pay the cost of extended insurance. Art. 4732, Secs. 6 and 7. The group policy in question is clearly term insurance, and does not therefore come under the terms of the cited statute. Gilley v. Missouri State Life Ins. Co., 116 Tex. 43, 273 S.W. 825, 285 S.W. 807.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

BRUCE LEIGHTON DIEHL,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 13-30287

D.C. No. 4:12-cr-00189-EJL

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Idaho

Edward J. Lodge, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 5, 2014**

Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

Bruce Leighton Diehl appeals from the district court’s judgment and 

challenges the 72-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for 

unlawful possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). We have 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

 

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

DEC 12 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 13-30287

Diehl contends that the district court erred by denying his pre-trial motion to 

suppress evidence. Diehl concedes that he entered an unconditional guilty plea. 

He, therefore, waived the right to appeal the denial of his suppression motion. 

See Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 267 (1973). Furthermore, contrary to 

Diehl’s contention, the record reflects that his plea was voluntary. 

Diehl next contends that the court abused its discretion in imposing the 

sentence because the court made factual findings to determine Diehl’s base offense 

level in violation of the Sixth Amendment. This argument fails because the court’s 

factual findings affected neither the statutory maximum sentence nor any mandatory

minimum sentence applicable to Diehl’s conviction and, therefore, the Sixth 

Amendment was not violated. See United States v. Vallejos, 742 F.3d 902, 906-07

(9th Cir. 2014).

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 15.2



| | Tel: 0438 802 818            
| | -----------------------------
| | AndrewF@KenmoreConsult.com.au
| |                              
| | PO Box 2055                  
| | Churchlands WA 6018          
| | ABN: 29 159 944 591          



March 28, 2014



The Board of Directors of

Randgold Resources Limited (the “Company”)



| | Re: | Consent
| | --- | -------



Ladies and Gentlemen:



I, Andrew Fox, do hereby consent to the
reference of myself in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2013 (the “Annual Report’)
to which this consent is an exhibit, to any reference to Mr. Andrew Fox under the heading “Experts” in any registration
statement into which the Annual Report is incorporated by reference, and to the citation and/or summarization of the reserve statement
in the Annual Report as calculated by me for the Loulo underground mineral reserves.



Dated this 28th day of March, 2014.



|By:               | /s/ Andrew Fox | 
|----------------- | -------------- | 
|Name: Andrew Fox  |               
|Title: Consultant |               





Page 1 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 193 (Wednesday, October 4, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 59172]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-25385]


========================================================================
Notices
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules 
or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings 
and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings, 
delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency 
statements of organization and functions are examples of documents 
appearing in this section.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 4, 2000 / 
Notices

[[Page 59172]]



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Klamath Provincial Advisory Committee (PAC)

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Klamath Provincial Advisory Committee will meet on October 
11, 2000, at the Northern California Service Center, Training Room 1, 
6101 Airport Road, Redding, California. The meeting will start at 9 
A.M. and adjourn at 5 P.M. Agenda items for the meeting include: (1) 
Discussion on topics of general interest to the PAC (Implementation 
Monitoring Field Trips); (2) the President's Fire and Fuels Report; (3) 
Socio-Economic Issues: and (4) Public Comment Periods. All Provincial 
Advisory Committee meetings are open to the public. Interested citizens 
are encouraged to attend.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Connie Hendryx, USDA, Klamath National 
Forest, 11263 N. Hwy 3, Fort Jones, California 96032; telephone 530-
468-1281 (voice), TDD 530-468-2783.

    Dated: September 27, 2000.
Constance J. Hendryx,
PAC Support Staff.
[FR Doc. 00-25385 Filed 10-3-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M