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

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 47

Concerning criminal aliens.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 23, 1993

Mr. BEILENSON submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was

referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Concerning criminal aliens.

Whereas the Federal Government has sole jurisdiction over

the enforcement of United States immigration laws;

Whereas the Federal Government has failed to enforce such

laws adequately, resulting in the unlawful entry into the

United States of millions of illegal immigrants each year;

Whereas the Federal Government also has sole jurisdiction

over the deportation of immigrant aliens who have been

convicted of certain felonies;

Whereas illegal and legal immigrants represent a substantial

portion of the prison populations of several States and

local communities in the United States;

Whereas the presence of large numbers of criminal aliens has

placed an enormous financial burden on the criminal justice systems of the affected communities;
2

•HCON 47 IH

Whereas Congress recognized this burden in the Immigration

Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), and called for

the ‘‘expeditious deportation’’ by the Federal Government

of convicted aliens;

Whereas IRCA also called for the reimbursement to States

for costs incurred for the imprisonment of illegal aliens;

and

Whereas none of the commitments made by Congress in

IRCA to alleviate the burden of criminal aliens on States

and local communities have been fulfilled: Now, therefore,

be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That the Federal Government should ac3 knowledge its responsibility to enforce United States im4 migration law, and that the Attorney General should es5 tablish as a priority, through the allocation of adequate

6 resources, the identification and deportation of criminal

7 aliens in an expeditious manner.

Æ
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6259

ALBERT JONES,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

MICHAEL MOORE; WILLIAM D. CATOE; GEORGE N.

MARTIN, III; WILLIAM DAVIS; S. HUNTER RENTZ,

Doctor; MARIA BLANDSHAW; DEBORAH T. SMITH;

ROSE MARY MURPHY; JAMES BRYAN; JOHN PATE, JR.,

Doctor,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Charleston. Falcon B. Hawkins, Chief District

Judge. (CA-96-3101-2-11AJ)

Submitted: August 28, 1997 Decided: September 16, 1997

Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Albert Jones, Appellant Pro Se. James E. Parham, Jr., Columbia,

South Carolina; William Llewellyn Pope, Leroy Free Laney, POPE &

RODGERS, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying his

motion for a preliminary and permanent injunction. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.

Jones v. Moore, No. CA-96-3101-2-11AJ (D.S.C. Jan. 23, 1997). 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
#### MATHIS v. STATE.

No. 26307.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 11, 1953.

No- attorney on appeal, for-appellant.

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

BELCHER, Commissioner.

' Appellant was convicted for the offense of driving an automobile upon a public highway while intoxicated, and his pun-r ishment was assessed at a fine of $50.

The indictment, as well as all matters of procedure, appear regular. The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception, in the absence of which nothing is presented for review.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE 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 Coinstar, Inc. (the“***Company***”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “***Form 10-Q***”), I, David W. Cole, Chief ExecutiveOfficer 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 Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and 

(2) The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany. 

Dated: November 8, 2007
**CERTIFICATION      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE**

**SARBANES-OXLEY      ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C SECTION 1350**

| (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. |
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                              |   |   |

|                                                           |                                                                                                       |                                       |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------|
| Date: March              17, 2008     | By:                                                                                              |  /s/              Frank E. Verdecanna |
|                                                           | Frank              E. Verdecanna                                                                           |
|                                                           | Vice President                and Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial                Officer) |
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.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice 3471] 

# AGENCY:

“Unseen Treasures: Imperial Russia and the New World” United States Department of State. 

# ACTION:

Amendment.

# SUMMARY:

                        On July 30, 1999, Notice was published on page 41488 of the                         **Federal Register**                         (Volume 64, Number 146) by the Department of State pursuant to Pub. L. 89-259 relating to the exhibition “Unseen Treasures: Imperial Russia and the New World.” That referenced Notice is hereby amended as follows: after the words “on or about December 31, 2000,” insert the following additional language: “and at the Presidio Trust Exhibition Hall, San Francisco, California, from on or about March 16, 2001, to on or about June 15, 2001,”.                     

      ( print page 68167)    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For further information, including a list of exhibit objects, contact Paul W. Manning, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, 202/619-5997, and the address is United States Department of State, SA-44, Room 700, 301 4th Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20547-0001. 

Dated: November 6, 2000. 

William B. Bader, 

Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State. 

[FR Doc. 00-29070 Filed 11-13-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710-08-U
#### TYSON v. STATE.

No. 21668.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 27, 1941.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 15, 1941.

Polk Shelton, of Austin, for appellant.

Carlos C. Ashley, Dist. Atty., of Llano, Thos. C. Ferguson, of Burnet, and Spur-geon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

The indictment charged only that the appellant did “with malice aforethought in and upon Emil Kroll make an assault, with the intent then and there to murder the said Emil Kroll.” Under such charge, the trial court submitted to the jury assault with intent to murder with and without malice, and aggravated assault.

The jury returned the following verdict, which was received by the trial court, viz.: “We, the jury, find the defendant, Vance Tyson, guilty of Murder with malice aforethought and assess his punishment at 2 years confinement in the penitentiary.”

Upon such verdict, judgment was entered finding appellant guilty of assault with intent to murder, and decreeing that he be punished by confinement in the state penitentiary for a term of two years. Sentence was duly passed in keeping with such judgment; from which notice of appeal was given.

That the verdict of the jury found appellant guilty of an offense not charged in the indictment is evident. Such a verdict was, therefore, a nullity, and could not support the judgment and sentence entered. Tarkenton v. State, 138 Tex.Cr.R. 292, 135 S.W.2d 716; Moore v. State, 84 Tex.C.R. 256, 206 S.W. 683; Grant v. State, 59 Tex.Cr.R. 123, 127 S.W. 173.

The State, in its brief, very forcefully argues that the verdict shows that the jury intended to find appellant guilty of the offense as submitted to them, and that such intent should be given effect by construing the verdict as a whole. To this contention we cannot agree, for lo do so would, in this case, have the effect of substitution by the courts of a verdict different from that which the jury found and returned into court.

*478For the want of a valid verdict, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

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.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant has filed a motion for rehearing asking that this court hold that the verdict of the jury constitutes an acquittal of the defendant of the charge of assault to murder by reason of which the judgment of this court should order the case dismissed.

 We do not think the question is before this court for consideration, “and, if it should be, it appears that the conviction was for the greater offense, which could not work an acquittal of the lesser.

The motion for rehearing is overruled.
i i i i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-07-00802-CV

HAGANS, BURDINE, MONTGOMERY, RUSTAY & WINCHESTER, P.C.,

Appellant

v.

Fabiola MARTINEZ, Individually and as Independent Administratrix of 

the Estate of Gilbert Martinez, Deceased, and Artemia Martinez, et al.,

Appellees

From the 166th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2005-CI-06606

Honorable Barbara Hanson Nellermoe, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Alma L. López, Chief Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Delivered and Filed: June 18, 2008

DISMISSED

Appellant has filed an unopposed motion to dismiss this appeal. The motion contains a

certificate of service to appellees, who have not opposed the motion. Therefore, we grant the motion

and dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). Costs of the appeal are taxed against

appellant.

PER CURIAM
Exhibit 10.25



 Exhibit 10.25 
 Highland Hospitality Corporation 
 Compensation for Non-Employee Directors 
 Annual Fees 
 The Chairman of our Board is paid a fee of $250,000 annually. Each of our directors (other than the Chairman and President and Chief Executive Officer)
who does not serve as the chairman of one of our committees is paid a director’s fee of $20,000 annually. Each director who serves as a committee chairman, other than our Audit Committee chairman, is paid a director’s fee of $25,000
annually. The director who serves as our Audit Committee chairman is paid a director’s fee of $30,000 annually. 
 Effective with the
completion of our initial public offering, we granted our Chairman a restricted common stock award for 175,000 shares of restricted common stock, which vest at the rate of one-third of the number of shares of restricted common stock on each of the
first three annual anniversary dates of the completion of our initial public offering. The vesting of those shares of restricted common stock will accelerate if the Chairman’s service as a director terminates for death or disability, by reason
of the failure of the Chairman to be re-nominated by our Board or re-elected by the stockholders (other than his voluntary withdrawal from the Board or a removal for cause and in accordance with our charter) or by reason of a change in control of
our Company. Each of our other non-employee directors serving at the time of our 2005 Annual Meeting of Stockholders received a grant of 2,000 vested shares of common stock at the time of the meeting of the Board immediately following that Annual
Meeting of Stockholders. Assuming each of our current non-employee directors (other than our Chairman) continues service on the Board, each will receive a grant of an additional 2,000 vested shares of common stock at the time of the meetings of the
Board immediately following our 2006 Annual Meeting of Stockholders and each subsequent annual meeting of our stockholders. 
 Meeting Fees 
 Each director, other than our Chairman and President and Chief Executive Officer, is also paid $1,500 per
Board or committee meeting attended (or $500 per telephonic meeting), except that committee chairpersons are paid $2,500 per committee meeting attended. 
 Expenses 
 Directors are reimbursed for their reasonable expenses of attending board and committee
meetings.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 219 (Monday, November 13, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 67728]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-28933]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP99-176-021]


Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America; Notice of Proposed 
Change in FERC Gas Tariff

November 6, 2000.
    Take notice that on October 31, 2000, Natural Gas Pipeline Company 
of America (Natural) tendered for filing to be a part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, Sixth Revised Volume No. 1, Original Sheet No. 26L, 26M and 
26N, to be effective November 1, 2000.
    Natural states that the purpose of this filing is to implement 
three (3) negotiated rate transactions with Laclede Gas Company and 
Central Illinois Light Company under Natural's Rate Schedule FTS 
pursuant to Section 49 of the General Terms and Conditions of Natural's 
Tariff.
    Natural states that copies of the filing are being mailed to its 
customers, interested state commissions and all parties set out on the 
Commission's official service list in Docket No. RP99-176.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in 
accordance with section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). 
Comments and protests may be filed electronically via the internet in 
lieu of paper. See, 187 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on 
the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-28933 Filed 11-9-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Exhibit 4(i)

                           Specimen Stock Certificate

NOT VALID UNLESS COUNTERSIGNED BY TRANSFER AGENT
INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
CUSIP 29365A 10 5

ENTERNET, INC.
AUTHORIZED COMMON STOCK: 45,000,000 SHARES
PAR VALUE: $.001


This Certifies that ________________________

Is The Record  Holder of  ___________________  Shares of ENTERNET,  INC.  Common
Stock  transferable  on the  books  of the  Corporation  in  person  or by  duly
authorized attorney upon surrender of this Certificate  properly endorsed.  This
Certificate  is  not  valid  until  countersigned  by  the  Transfer  Agent  and
registered by the Registrar.

Witness the facsimile seal of the  Corporation  and the facsimile  signatures of
its duly authorized officers.

Dated: ______________                                                     [SEAL]

/s/ Ruairidh Campbell (President)
---------------------------------

/s/ Ruairidh Campbell (Secretary)
---------------------------------
COUNTERSIGNED & REGISTERED BY: [AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE] INTERWEST TRANSFER
COMPANY, INC.








                                       46


<PAGE>
#### PADILLA v. STATE.

No. 24856.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

May 10, 1950.

Rehearing Denied June 7, 1950.

None on appeal-, for appellant.

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

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was charged in. the County Court at Law of Travis County by complaint and information with the offense of unlawfully operating a motor vehicle upon a public street while he was under the influence of ihtoxicating liquor. He plead not guilty to such charge, but was found guilty by a jury and his penalty assessed at a fine of fifty dollars, from which judgment this appeal is perfected.

Neither statement of facts nor bills of exceptions' are brought forward in the record. The proceedings appear to be regular, and the judgment is affirmed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

MINOR CHILD P.S.R.M., §

§

 Plaintiff, §

§

v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:22-CV-0833-B-BT

§

DALLAS INDEPENDENT SCHOOL

DISTRICT et al.,

§

§

§

 Defendant. §

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND 

RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Before the Court are the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of United States

Magistrate Judge Rebecca Rutherford June 14, 2022. (ECF No. 31). The Court has made a de novo

review of those portions of the proposed Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation to which

objections were made. See Doc. 32, Objs. The objections are OVERRULED. The record plainly

demonstrates that P.S.R.M. failed to comply with Judge Rutherford’s Order directing P.S.R.M. to

obtain legal representation or risk dismissal of this case. See Doc. 16, Notice of Deficiency.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

SO ORDERED.

SIGNED: August 10, 2022.

______________________________

JANE J. BOYLE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

- 1 -

Case 3:22-cv-00833-B-BT Document 35 Filed 08/10/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 404
|                                                                         
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                         
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                           
|View History: Annual                                                     
|View History: Annual                                                     
|View History:                                                            
|                                                                         
|Alaska Number of Operable Refineries as of January 1 (Number of Elements)
|                                                                         
|                                                                         
|Alaska Number of Operable Refineries as of January 1 (Number of Elements)
|                                                                         

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1980's                                                                                                                            |        |        | 4      | 4      | 4      | 4      | 5      | 6      | 6      | 6     
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 6      | 6      | 5      | 6      | 6      | 6      | NA     | 6      | NA     | 6     
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 6      | 6      | 6      | 6      | 6      | 6      | 6      | 6      | 6      | 6     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 6      | 6      | 6      | 6      | 6      | 5      | 5      | 5      | 5      | 5     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 5      | 5      | 5      | 5      | 5      |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 6/14/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: June 2025