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

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3396 

To provide for the issuance of a Veterans Health Care Stamp. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 30, 2013 

Mr. BURGESS (for himself, Mrs. CHRISTENSEN, Mr. MICHAUD, Ms. MCCOLLUM, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. KING of New York, Mr. LATTA, Mr. WHITFIELD, Mr. WITTMAN, Mrs. BUSTOS, and Mr. HONDA) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and in addition to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, 

for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case 

for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the 

committee concerned 

A BILL 

To provide for the issuance of a Veterans Health Care 

Stamp. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Veterans Health Care 

5 Stamp Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. VETERANS HEALTH CARE STAMP. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—In order to afford a convenient 

8 way for members of the public to contribute to funding 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3396 IH

1 for the medical care and treatment of veterans, the United 

2 States Postal Service shall provide for the issuance and 

3 sale of a special postage stamp which shall be known as 

4 the ‘‘Veterans Health Care Stamp’’. 

5 (b) TERMS AND CONDITIONS.—The issuance and sale 

6 of the Veterans Health Care Stamp shall be governed by 

7 section 416 of title 39, United States Code (as last in ef8 fect, if expired), except that— 

9 (1) all amounts becoming available from the 

10 sale of the stamp shall be transferred to the Depart11 ment of Veterans Affairs in accordance with section 

12 416(d) of such title; and 

13 (2) the stamp— 

14 (A) shall be issued in time for Veterans 

15 Day of each year; 

16 (B) shall bear such illustration, depiction, 

17 design, or other image as the United States 

18 Postal Service shall determine; and 

19 (C) shall not be subject to any numerical 

20 limitation under section 416(e)(1)(C) of such 

21 title. 

Æ 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection withthe Annual Report of Abgenix, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Kfor the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I hereby certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)   The Reportfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

(2)   Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

March 15,2006

|   | /s/ H. WARD WOLFF                                                                                  |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | H. Ward Wolff                                                                                      |
|   | *Chief  Financial Officer and Senior Vice President  (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)* |

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to Abgenix, Inc. and will beretained by Abgenix, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

----
#### SHEPPARD v. STATE.

No. 22301.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 25, 1942.

*347Howard C. Davison, of Rotan, for appellant.

Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the state.

GRAVES, Judge.

Appellant was indicted by the grand jury of Fisher County, charged with driving an automobile upon a public highway in that county while intoxicated, the date of the offense being alleged to be February 8, 1941. At the October term, 1941, this cause was by the District Court transferred to the County Court, such alleged offense having been by the 47th Legislature reduced to a misdemeanor, said law taking effect June 17, 1941. Vernon’s Ann.P.C. art. 802. This was a correct procedure under Art. 13, P.C., the punishment being ameliorated under the last statute relative thereto.

There are no bills of exceptions nor any statement of facts in the record. All proceedings appearing to be regular, the judgment is affirmed.
**Exhibit 32.02****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 Quarterly Report of Viseon, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for thequarter and nine months ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon May 15, 2006 (“Report”), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicatedbelow, hereby certifies pursuant 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to our knowledge:     1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and     2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.Dated:May 15, 2006
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7654

PAUL MITCHELL BURGESS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; WALTER WHITMAN,Superintendent of Adult Correctional Institution; FRANKLIN FREEMAN, Secretary of the Department of Corrections for the State of North Carolina; SUPERINTENDENT CLARK, Respondents - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-95-283-3-MU-2) Submitted: March 6, 2001 Decided: March 19, 2001 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Paul Mitchell Burgess, Appellant Pro Se. Jill Ledford Cheek, Special Deputy Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Paul Mitchell Burgess appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we denya certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Burgess v. North Carolina , No. CA-95-283-3-MU-2 (W.D.N.C. Sept. 28, 2000). 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.

DISMISSED
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-16-00316-CV

OLD AMERICAN COUNTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY,

Appellant/Cross-Appellee

v.

Brenda Lynn JUAREZ,

Appellee/Cross-Appellant,

From the 365th Judicial District Court, Maverick County, Texas

Trial Court No. 13-06-28583-MCVAJA

Honorable Timothy F. Johnson, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Delivered and Filed: November 2, 2016

REVERSED AND REMANDED 

The parties have filed a “Joint Motion to Dismiss” stating they have reached an agreement 

to settle and compromise their differences in this appeal. The parties ask the court to render 

judgment setting aside the trial court’s judgment, dismiss both parties’ appeals, and remand the 

case to the trial court for rendition of judgment in accordance with the parties’ agreement. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(2)(B). The parties’ joint motion is granted. We reverse the trial court’s 

judgment, and remand this case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with the parties’ 

agreement. 

PER CURIAM
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                 7
<MULTIPLIER>                      1,000,000
<CURRENCY>                              USD


<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                         6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                    JUN-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                           1
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 10,535
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                     0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                       0
<EQUITIES>                               64
<MORTGAGE>                                0
<REAL-ESTATE>                             0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                       12,175
<CASH>                                1,621
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                        0
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                  759
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       19,271
<POLICY-LOSSES>                           0
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                       0
<POLICY-OTHER>                       12,018
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                     0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                         567
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                              11
<COMMON>                                  1
<OTHER-SE>                            1,201
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         19,271
<PREMIUMS>                                0
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                     422
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                     (17)
<OTHER-INCOME>                          240
<BENEFITS>                                0
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>              57
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                    202
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          88
<INCOME-TAX>                             34
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                             54
<EPS-BASIC>                            1.12
<EPS-DILUTED>                          1.11
<RESERVE-OPEN>                            0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                       0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                         0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                        0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                          0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                           0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                   0


</TABLE>
NUMBER 13-07-00669-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

______________________________________________________________

IN THE INTEREST OF M.H., ET AL., MINOR CHILDREN

_____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 398th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas.

______________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Yañez, Garza, and Benavides

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

On October 22, 2007, appellant, Ricardo Torres, attempted to perfect an appeal

from a judgment entered by the 398th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas, in cause

number CW-035-03-I. On October 26, 2007, the Clerk of this Court informed appellant that

his notice of appeal was defective and requested correction of the defect within thirty days.

See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.1(d)(2),(6), 37.1. On January 15, the Clerk again contacted

appellant because the defective notice of appeal had not been corrected. The Clerk

notified appellant that the appeal would be dismissed if the defect was not corrected within
2

ten days. Further, on January 16, 2008, the Clerk notified appellant that he was delinquent

in paying his filing fees and that this appeal was subject to dismissal if the filing fees were

not paid within 10 days from the date of receipt of this notice. To date, appellant has

neither corrected the defect in his notice of appeal nor paid his filing fees. 

 The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file, appellant’s

failure to comply with the appellate rules, and appellant’s failure to respond to this Court’s

notices, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is

hereby DISMISSED. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b),(c).

PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered and 

filed this the 17th day of April, 2007.
Opinion issued August 20, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-19-00048-CV

———————————

JAMES H. JOHNSON, Appellant

V.

CROCKETT POLICE, Appellee

On Appeal from the 152nd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 2013-34029

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, James H. Johnson, attempts to appeal the trial court’s dismissal of 

the underlying case in a judgment signed on July 8, 2014. We dismiss the appeal for 

want of jurisdiction because appellant’s notice of appeal filed over four years later, 

on January 8, 2019, was untimely.
2

Generally, a notice of appeal is due within thirty days after the judgment is 

signed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1. The deadline to file a notice of appeal is extended 

to ninety days after the date the judgment is signed if, within thirty days after the 

judgment is signed, any party timely files a motion for new trial, motion to modify 

the judgment, motion to reinstate, or, under certain circumstances, a request for 

findings of fact and conclusions of law. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(a); TEX. R. CIV. P.

329b(a), (g). The time to file a notice of appeal may also be extended if, within 

fifteen days after the deadline to file the notice of appeal, a party properly files a 

motion for extension. See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.5(b), 26.3. 

Appellant’s January 8, 2019 notice of appeal was untimely filed over four 

years after the deadline. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1. Without a timely filed notice of 

appeal, this Court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.1. On 

June 6, 2019, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that this appeal was subject 

to dismissal for want of jurisdiction unless he demonstrated this Court had 

jurisdiction over this appeal. Appellant failed to file a response.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f). We dismiss any pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Lloyd, Landau, and Countiss.
EXHIBIT 10.1


March 8, 2006


 


InFocus Corporation

27700 SW Parkway

Wilsonville, OR 97070

Attn:  Roger Rowe, CFO


Re:                               Extension of Delivery of Annual Financial
Statements


Ladies and Gentlemen:


Reference is hereby made to that certain Credit Agreement, dated as of
October 25, 2004 (as amended to date, the “Credit Agreement”), by and
among InFocus Corporation, an Oregon corporation (“Borrower”), the
lenders from time to time signatory to the Credit Agreement (the “Lenders”)
and Wells Fargo Foothill, Inc., a California corporation, in its capacity as
agent for the Lenders and Bank Product Providers (in such capacity, “Agent”).  All capitalized terms used in this letter
without definition shall have the meanings assigned thereto in the Credit
Agreement.


Pursuant to the terms of items (f) and (h) of Schedule 5.3 to
the Credit Agreement, Borrower is to deliver to Agent its annual audited
financial statements and a Compliance Certificate with respect thereto, all as
more fully described in said Schedule 5.3, within 90 days after the end
of Borrower’s fiscal year.  Borrower has
informed Agent that it is unable to deliver such annual financial statement and
accompanying Compliance Certificate for its fiscal year ending December 31,
2005 (the “2005 Statement”) within such time frame and has requested
that Agent grant an extension thereof. 
Agent hereby agrees that an Event of Default shall not be deemed to have
occurred as a result of Borrower’s failure to deliver the 2005 Statement on or
prior to March 31, 2006 so long as the 2005 Statement is delivered to Agent on
or prior to May 31, 2006 and otherwise in accordance with Schedule 5.3
of the Credit Agreement; provided, however, (i) any other Default
or Event of Default arising from or disclosed by the delivery to Agent of the
2005 Statement shall be deemed to have arisen or disclosed, as the case may be,
on March 31, 2006 and (ii) the extension provided in this letter is conditioned
on Borrower providing Agent, promptly upon its request, with updates as to the
status of, and other information with respect to, all audits and investigations
with respect to the 2005 Statement, all in form and content satisfactory to
Agent.


Except as expressly set forth herein, nothing contained in this letter
shall diminish, prejudice or waive any of Agent’s or any Lender’s rights and
remedies under the Credit Agreement, any other Loan Document or applicable law,
all of which are hereby reserved.


This extension letter is a supplement to the Credit Agreement and a
Loan Document.


	
   

  	
  Very truly yours,

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  WELLS FARGO FOOTHILL, INC.,

  
	
   

  	
  a California corporation,

  
	
   

  	
  as Agent and as the sole Lender

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  /s/ Thomas Forbath

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Thomas Forbath

  
	
   

  	
  Vice President