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

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3285 

To make technical corrections to the Pay Our Military Act to include midshipmen at the United States Merchant Marine Academy, who are appointed as midshipmen in the Navy Reserve. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 11, 2013 

Mr. GRIMM (for himself, Mr. KING of New York, Mr. NUNNELEE, Mr. HUNTER, Mr. FORBES, Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania, and Mr. THOMPSON of 

Pennsylvania) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Appropriations 

A BILL 

To make technical corrections to the Pay Our Military Act 

to include midshipmen at the United States Merchant 

Marine Academy, who are appointed as midshipmen in 

the Navy Reserve. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS FOR MID4 SHIPMEN AT THE UNITED STATES MER5 CHANT MARINE ACADEMY. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 2 of the Pay Our Military 

7 Act (Public Law 113–39) is amended— 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3285 IH

1 (1) in subsection (a)— 

2 (A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ‘‘(in3 cluding those specified in section 51311(b) of 

4 title 46, United States Code)’’ after ‘‘reserve 

5 components thereof’’; and 

6 (B) in paragraph (2)— 

7 (i) by striking ‘‘(and the Department’’ 

8 and inserting ‘‘(the Department’’; 

9 (ii) by inserting ‘‘and the Department 

10 of Transportation in the case of the United 

11 States Merchant Marine Academy’’ after 

12 ‘‘Coast Guard’’; and 

13 (iii) by inserting ‘‘or those in training 

14 for such service’’ before the semicolon; and 

15 (2) in subsection (b)— 

16 (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘and’’ at 

17 the end; 

18 (B) in paragraph (2), by striking the pe19 riod at the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

20 (C) by adding at the end the following: 

21 ‘‘(3) the Secretary of Transportation with re22 spect to matters concerning the United States Mer23 chant Marine Academy.’’. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 3285 IH

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

2 subsection (a) shall take effect as if enacted as part of 

3 the Pay Our Military Act (Public Law 113–39). 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17

- 50403

JAMES FULTON, JR. , Petitioner

- Appellant

v. LORIE DAVIS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION , Respondent

- Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 6:13

- CV

- 47

Before SMITH, WIENER, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * James Fulton, Jr., Texas prisoner # 1770265, has filed a notice of appeal that is untimely with respect to the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 application challenging his conviction for murder. See F ED

. R. A PP

. P. 4 (a)(1)(A)

. It also is untimely with respect to the denial of his motion seeking to reopen the time for appeal. See F ED

. R. A PP

. P. 4 (a)(1)(A) , (c)(1). Alternatively, his request to the district court to reopen the time for appeal was un timely, so his appeal of

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED March 13, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 17-50403 Document: 00514383848 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/13/2018No. 17

- 50403

2 that denial is without merit. Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED. See Hamer v. Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of Chicago , 138 S. Ct. 13, 16

- 17 (2017); 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a) , (c) . The motions for a certificate of appealability and lea ve to proceed in forma pauperis are DENIED. Case: 17-50403 Document: 00514383848 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/13/2018
Opinion issued October 4, 2012

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-12-00683-CV

———————————

REGINALD PETTEWAY, Appellant

V.

MEMBERSOURCE CREDIT UNION, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4 & Probate Court

Brazoria County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CI046593

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Reginald Petteway, has neither paid the required filing fee for this 

appeal nor established indigence for purposes of appellate costs. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 5 (“A party who is not excused by statute or these rules from paying costs must 

pay—at the time an item is presented for filing—whatever fees are required by 
2

statute or Supreme Court order.”), 20.1 (listing requirements for establishing 

indigence); see also TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 51.207 (Vernon Supp. 2011), § 

51.941(a) (Vernon 2005), § 101.041 (Vernon Supp. 2011) (listing fees in court of 

appeals); Order Regarding Fees Charged in Civil Cases in the Supreme Court and 

the Courts of Appeals and Before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, 

Misc. Docket No. 07-9138 (Tex. Aug. 28, 2007), reprinted in TEX. R. APP. P. app. 

A § B(1) (listing fees in court of appeals). Appellant was notified on July 31, 2012 

that he must pay the fee by August 10, 2012, or the appeal would be subject to 

dismissal. After being so notified, appellant requested an extension of time to pay 

the fee to August 31, 2012, which was granted. After being granted an extension 

of time to pay the fee, appellant did not pay the fee. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5 

(allowing enforcement of rule); 42.3(c) (allowing involuntary dismissal of case).

We dismiss the appeal for failure to pay the filing fee. We dismiss any 

pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Massengale, and Brown.
#### DAGLEY v. STATE.

No. 22903.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 14, 1944.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 18, 1944.

Hawkins & Myers, of Houston, for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

KRUEGER, Judge.

The offense is theft of an automobile over the value of $50. The punishment assessed is confinement in the state penitentiary for a term of five years.

'There are no bills of exception in the record complaining of the admission or exclusion of any evidence, nor any objections to the court’s charge.

The only question presented for review is the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction. The State’s evidence, briefly stated, shows .that at 11 or 11:30 p. m. on the 28th day of November, 1943, J. B. Martin parked his automobile on Louisiana Street in the City of Houston, Harris County, Texas. The next morning he discovered that it was gone. He did not give the appellant or anyone else his consent to take it. On the night in question, two city policemen noticed the car in question being driven on Fannin Street. They observed that it did not have any rear-license plate. The officers followed the car around the block and overtook it. They inquired of the appellant (who was driving it) where the keys to the car were, to which he replied that he had lost them and therefore wired around the switch so as to operate it. He told the officers that he had purchased the automobile about two or three weeks prior thereto from the Cox Motor Company.

On his trial appellant testified that a soldier boy, whom he did not know and had never seen before the night in question, loaned him the car to take a drunk woman home, but she declined to go with him. He admitted that he had been to the penitentiary twice before.

It is our opinion that the evidence is ample upon which the'jury could base their conclusion of his guilt.

*718The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The- foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.

On Motion for Rehearing.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

Appellant insists that the facts are insufficient to support the conviction, and that we erred in reaching a contrary conclusion.

To accept appellant’s version would do violence to the rule that the unexplained possession of recently stolen property is a sufficient circumstance upon which a jury may conclude that such possessor was guilty of theft of the property. 25 Texas Digest, Larceny, @^64, page 637.

The motion for rehearing is overruled.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
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 Annual Report of Abgenix, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2002, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I hereby 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) 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.

March 28,
2003

| |  | /s/RAYMOND M. WITHY, PH.D.Raymond M. Withy, Ph.D.
President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
| |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Abgenix, Inc. and will be retained by Abgenix, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

---

QuickLinks
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-02-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-28-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-03-1998
<CASH>                                             634
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,477
<ALLOWANCES>                                        13
<INVENTORY>                                      1,189
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 5,245
<PP&E>                                           3,192
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   8,475
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         34
<COMMON>                                            94
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,879
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     8,475
<SALES>                                          1,471
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,471
<CGS>                                            1,894
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,834
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (81)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,528)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,528)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,528)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.38)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.38)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.3

                                 PROMISSORY NOTE
$8,000.00                                                        April 1, 2005

     FOR VALUE RECEIVED, Fresh Ideas Media, Inc a Nevada corporation
(hereinafter, referred as the "Borrower") promises to pay to the order of
American Business Services, Inc. (hereinafter, "Lender") at Lender's offices,
6521 Ocaso Drive, Castle Rock, Colorado 80108, or at such other place as the
holder of this Note may from time to time designate, in lawful money of the
United States of America, the principal sum of Eight Thousand Dollars ($8,000).
The following terms shall apply to this Note.

          1. INTEREST RATE. For the period from the date of this Note until the
     date on which the entire principal balance outstanding is paid in full,
     interest shall accrue on the principal balance from time to time
     outstanding at ten percent (5%).

          2. REPAYMENT. Interest accrued hereunder on the outstanding principal
     amount shall be paid annually in arrears, beginning on April 1, 2005, or
     earlier with repayment of the entire amount of principal. The entire amount
     of principal outstanding, together with all accrued unpaid interest thereon
     at the rates hereinabove specified, shall be paid due and payable in full
     on or before April1, 2006, however, the principal of the note can be
     renewed on the anniversary date of the Note for a period of three years,
     providing that the interest due and payable on that anniversary date is
     paid in full. This Promissory Note is entered into this 1st day of April
     2005.

         Fresh Ideas Media, Inc.

         By: /s/ Phil E. Ray
             ------------------------------


         American Business Services, Inc.

         By: /s/ Phil E. Ray
             ------------------------------
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         974,248
<SECURITIES>                                 1,480,913
<RECEIVABLES>                                  291,578
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,184,022
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,030,695
<PP&E>                                         637,059
<DEPRECIATION>                                 217,763
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,481,747
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          724,614
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        47,523
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,709,610
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,481,747
<SALES>                                        888,091
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               888,091
<CGS>                                          824,118
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,394,675
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,607,518
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (38,747)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (3,040,036)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (3,040,036)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (3,040,036)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.76)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.76)
        


</TABLE>
#### The Baltimore & Ohio Rd. Co., Appellant, *v.*Kepner, Appellee. 

(No. 28205

Decided July 10, 1940.)

*Messrs. Waite, Schindel & Bayless, Mr. Herbert Shaffer*and *Mr. Philip J. Schneider,*for appellant.

*Messrs. Borden & Gaines, Mr. Edward M. Ballard*and *Mr. George Metzger,*for appellee.

It appearing that the judges of the court are equally *207divided in opinion as to the merits of this case and are for that reason unable to agree upon a judgment, and the entry of that fact constituting an affirmance of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, it is ordered that said judgment he affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*

Day, Williams and Hart, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

              Consent of Independent Certified Public Accountants

General Partner
Essex Portfolio, L.P.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No. 333-
44467) on Form S-3 of Essex Portfolio, L.P. of our report dated January 30,
1999, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Essex Portfolio, L.P. and
subsidiaries as of December 31, 1998 and 1997, and the related consolidated
statements of operations, partners' capital and cash flows of Essex Portfolio,
L.P. and subsidiaries for each of the years in the three-year period ended
December 31, 1998. and the related financial statement schedule, which report
appears in the December 31, 1998 annual report on Form 10-K of Essex Portfolio,
L.P.

KPMG LLP

San Francisco, California
March 31, 1999
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 Berthel Growth & Income Trust I (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ronald
O. Brendengen, Chief Financial Officer of Berthel Fisher & Company Planning,
Inc., the Trust Advisor of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

         (1) The Company's 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.


May 9, 2008                         /s/  Ronald O. Brendengen
                                    -----------------------------------
                                         Ronald O. Brendengen
                                         Chief Financial Officer
                                         Berthel Fisher & Company Planning, Inc.
                                         Trust Advisor
                                         Berthel Growth & Income Trust I
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3547 

To extend the application of certain space launch liability provisions through 

2014. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 20, 2013 

Mr. SMITH of Texas (for himself, Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas, 

Mr. PALAZZO, and Ms. EDWARDS) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

A BILL 

To extend the application of certain space launch liability 

provisions through 2014. 

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 ‘‘Space Launch Liability 

5 Indemnification Extension Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. INDEMNIFICATION EXTENSION. 

7 Section 50915(f) of title 51, United States Code, is 

8 amended by striking ‘‘December 31, 2013’’ and inserting 

9 ‘‘December 31, 2014’’. 

Æ 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### ROYAL v. STATE.

No. 24721.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 10, 1950.

Vincent Ferrell, Linden, for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Judge.

In his motion for rehearing it is afgued that the opinion is contrary to that expressed in Burt v. State, 138 Tex.Cr.R 540, 137 S.W.2d 1045, and many others, some of which were discussed in the Burt case. We will not discuss all of the decisions referred to. The Burt case will serve as a fair example to illustrate the point at issue.

Burt was an officer. He attempted to arrest a party who was fleeing by shooting at him and was charged with murder. He said: “I drew my gun to fire to the right of him. I didn’t intend to hit the boy at all. He hadn’t done nothing to me to try to kill him because I was a little officer down there. It wasn’t my intention to do that at all. My intention was to shoot kind of to the right of him and possibly stop him. I didn’t have any intention to hit the boy and kill him — nothing like that.” In other words, striking the injured party was an accident, according to Burt’s evidence, while in the case now before us appellant did exactly what he intended to do. He shot at the injured parties and hit them. The only defensive evidence in the case was that, in shooting at them, he did not intend to kill them. We think that issue was submitted to the jury in a proper manner and that the opinion is not in conflict with the Burt case, nor with the other cases discussed in that opinion.

Appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This summary contains  summary  financial  information  extracted from Form
10QSB for the quarter ended  September 30, 2000 and is qualified in its entirety
by reference to such financial statements
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000937252
<NAME>                        CAREADVANTAGE, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. DOLLAR

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         2,038,000
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  1,731,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               4,013,000
<PP&E>                                         515,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 5,666,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2,941,000
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       83,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     2,642,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   5,666,000
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               13,367,000
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  12,949,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (38,000)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                485,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   456,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   456,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0



</TABLE>