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

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

MICIIAEL DARNELL JONES,

Plaintifi.

ESTIII]R GORMAN. E/,11..

Defcndants. Civil Action No. 3:22-CV-1875-C

ORDER

Before the Court are the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation ofthe United

States Magistrate Judge advising the Court that Plaintiff s claims in the above-styled

and -numbered civil action should be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 12(bX6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiff timely

filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's Recommendations on April 4,2023.

The Court conducts ade novo review ofthose portions of the Magistrate Judge's report or

specified proposed findings or recommendations to which a timely objection is made. 28 U.S.C.

S 63 6(bX I XC). Portions of the report or proposed findings or recommendations that are not the

subject ofa timely objection will be accepted by the Court unless they are clearly erroneous or

contrary to law. See lJnited Stares v. lltilson,864F.2d 1219,l22l (5th Cir. 1989).

Having considered Plaintiffs objections, the Court is of the opinion that they are without

merit and should be OVERRULED. The Court has further conducted an independent review of

the Magistrate Judge's thorough and well-reasoned findings and conclusions and finds no error.

It is therefore ORDERED that the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation are hereby

Case 3:22-cv-01875-C-BT Document 23 Filed 04/17/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID 166
ADOPTED as the findings and conclusions of the Court. For the reasons stated therein,

Plaintifls claims are hereby DISMISSED with prejudice.

So oRDERED. 7

Datedthis /? iay of Apr11,2023.

C GS

OR STATES D JUDGE

2

/

{

Case 3:22-cv-01875-C-BT Document 23 Filed 04/17/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID 167
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1510 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1510

To amend the lead prohibition provisions of the Consumer Product Safety 
Improvement Act of 2008 to provide an exemption for certain all-terrain 
                   vehicles, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 16, 2009

 Mr. Rehberg introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the lead prohibition provisions of the Consumer Product Safety 
Improvement Act of 2008 to provide an exemption for certain all-terrain 
                   vehicles, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. EXEMPTION FOR ALL-TERRAIN VEHICLES.

    (a) Exclusion of Certain Materials or Products and Inaccessible 
Component Parts.--Section 101(b) of the Consumer Product Safety 
Improvement Act of 2008 is amended by redesignating paragraph (5) as 
paragraph (6) and inserting after paragraph (4) the following:
            ``(5) Exception for all-terrain vehicles.--
                    ``(A) Determination by commission.--If the 
                Commission determines that it is not technologically 
                feasible for certain all-terrain vehicles to comply 
                with subsection (a) due to certain component parts that 
                are required for the safety or functionality of such 
                vehicles, the Commission, by regulation, shall exempt 
                such vehicles from the requirements of such subsection.
                    ``(B) All-terrain vehicles defined.--For purposes 
                of this section, the term `all-terrain vehicle' means 
                any motorized, off-highway vehicle designed to travel 
                on 2, 3, or 4 wheels, having a seat designed to be 
                straddled by the operator and handlebars for steering 
                control.''.
    (b) Additional Amendment.--Such section is further amended in 
paragraph (1)(A) by striking ``any''.
                                 <all>
```
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas
August 26, 2020

No. 04-20-00288-CR
Neil Howard MCGINNIS , Appellant
v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 451st Judicial District Court, Kendall County, Texas

Trial Court No. 6773 Honorable Kirsten Cohoon, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R
After Appellant’s trial, his trial counsel filed a Notice of Appeal. Appellant’s trial counsel now asks that appellate counsel be appointed and the deadline to file an opening brief be extended. We ABATE this appeal and REMAND the cause to the trial court. See Duncan v. State , 653 S.W.2d 38, 40 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983) (authorizing appellate courts to abate appeals so the trial court can assure the appellant has effective assistance of counsel). We ORDER the trial court to conduct a hearing, receive evidence as necessary— including by electronic means such as a voice or video call—and make findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to the following questions: (1) Has Appellant been assigned appellate counsel, or has he retained any appellate counsel? (2) Is Appellant indigent? (3) If Appellant is indigent and not already represented by court-appointed appellate counsel, does Appellant want court-appointed appellate counsel? If Appellant wants and is entitled to court-appointed counsel on appeal, the trial court shall appoint counsel to represent Appellant. We ORDER the trial court to hold the hearing and deliver written findings of fact and conclusions of law to the trial court clerk within FORTY-FIVE DAYS of the date of this order. We ORDER the trial court clerk to file in this court, not later than TWENTY DAYSfrom the date it receives the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, a

supplemental clerk’s record containing the court’s written findings of fact and conclusions of law. We ORDER the court reporter to make a record of the hearing and to file in this court, within TWENTY DAYS from the date of the hearing, a reporter’s record of the hearing. We DIRECT the clerk of this court to deliver a copy of this order to the trial court, Appellant, all counsel, the trial court clerk, and the court reporter. Appellant’s trial counsel’s request for extension of time to file the opening brief is MOOT. All other appellate deadlines are SUSPENDED pending further order of this court.

_________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 26th day of August, 2020.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
EX-10.9



 






Exhibit 10.9




CENTURY ALUMINUM COMPANY




SUMMARY OF NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR COMPENSATION




     The following is a summary of compensation to be paid to the non-employee directors of Century
Aluminum Company (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2005 as determined by the
Compensation Committee of the Company’s Board of Directors on March 21, 2005. For additional
information regarding the compensation of the Company’s non-employee directors, please read the
Company’s definitive proxy statement relating to its 2005 annual meeting of shareholders to be
filed pursuant to Regulation 14A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.




	 	•  	Annual retainer of $25,000 for Board membership, except for the Chairman
of the Audit Committee, who will receive an additional $5,000 for serving in that
capacity.
	 
	 	•  	$2,000 for each Board or Board Committee meeting attended, except for the
Chairman of the Audit Committee, who will receive $3,000 per Audit Committee meeting
attended.
	 
	 	•  	Each non-employee director continuing in office after the 2005 annual
meeting of stockholders will receive options to purchase 3,000 shares of the Company’s
common stock at an exercise price equal to the market price of such shares on the date
of the grant.
	 
	 	•  	Reimbursement for travel and other expenses incurred in attending Board
and Board Committee meetings.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 229 (Tuesday, November 28, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 70935]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-30186]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--42 Volt Working Group

    Notice is hereby given that, on October 4, 2000, pursuant to 
section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), the 42 Volt Working Group 
has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney 
General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing (1) the identities 
of the parties and (2) the nature and objectives of the venture. The 
notifications were filed for the purpose of invoking the Act's 
provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual 
damages under specified circumstances. Pursuant to Section 6(b) of the 
Act, the identities of the parties are General Motors Corporation, 
Detroit, MI; DaimlerChrysler Corporation, Auburn Hills, MI; and Ford 
Motor Company, Dearborn, MI. The nature and objectives of the venture 
are to research ways to address the challenges associated with the 
conversion of motor vehicles to 42 volt electrical systems. The higher 
voltage system is expected to mitigate the negative impacts of 
inceasing vehicle power demands by allowing significantly smaller wires 
and electronics devices. The research is expected to include 
investigation into areas such as voltage regulation, electrical arcing, 
corrosion, and other topics as they relate to the conversion to 42 volt 
systems. To accomplish this objective, the parties are working together 
and with various potential suppliers to fund studies on this technology 
and to investigate common interfaces and performance. The parties 
expect to share the information generated with other suppliers and 
vehicle manufacturers in the future and to explore standards with 
industry standard-setting groups.

Constance K. Robinson,
Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 00-30186 Filed 11-27-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FORTHE NORTHERN DISTRICT OFTEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

MARILYN D. SMITH,

Plaintiff,

No. 3:22-CV-1982-C (BH)

IBIDUNNI UKEGBU, et al.,

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND

RECOMMENDA TION OF THE UNITED STATE,S MAGISTRATE .II]DGF],

After reviewing all relevant matters ofrecord in this case, including the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation ofthe United States Magistrate Judge and any objections thereto, in

accordance with 28 U.S.C. $ 636(bXl), the undersigned District Judge is of the opinion that the

Findings and Conclusions ofthe Magistrate Judge are correct and they are accepted as the Findings

and Conclusions of the Court.

By separate judgment, the plaintifls sole federal claim will be DISMISSED with prejudice

for lailure to state a claim, and her remaining state law claims will be DISMISSED without

prejudice to pursuing them iq state

tl

SIGNED this /l"day of ,20

IORU

k

C NGS

/Z 77t t'" 

'

S

D STATES I CT JUDGE

vs.

Defendants.

Case 3:22-cv-01982-C-BH Document 10 Filed 10/17/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 62
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-6005

THOMAS M. ACCARDI, SR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

JOHN HERRING, Superintendent; ROBERT N. BURGESS, Unit Manager; 

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER COTTO; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER 

LAWRENCE,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:19-ct-03107-D)

Submitted: June 23, 2021 Decided: August 18, 2021

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, RUSHING, Circuit Judge, and TRAXLER, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas M. Accardi, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Thomas M. Accardi, Sr., appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) for failure to state a claim. Accardi 

forfeited appellate review of the portion of the district court’s order dismissing Defendants 

Herring and Burgess from the action. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 

170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth 

Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”). As to the claims 

against the remaining Defendants, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Accardi v. 

Herring, No. 5:19-ct-03107-D (E.D.N.C. Dec. 18, 2019). We deny Accardi’s request to 

appoint counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions 

are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
# QSBL 123117

# QSBL 093017

# QSBL 063017

# QSBL 033117

# QSBL 123116

# QSBL 093016

# QSBL 063016

# QSBL 033116

# QSBL 123115

# QSBL 093015

# QSBL 063015

# QSBL 033115

# QSBL 123114

# QSBL 093014

# QSBL 063014

# QSBL 033114

# QSBL 123113

# QSBL 093013

# QSBL 063013

# QSBL 033113

# QSBL 123112

# QSBL 093012

# QSBL 063012

# QSBL 033112

# QSBL 123111

# QSBL 093011

# QSBL 063011

# QSBL 033111

# image1.png
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 76 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 76

    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
     authorizing the President to disapprove or reduce an item of 
                            appropriations.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 27, 1993

 Mr. Clement (for himself, Mr. Montgomery, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Porter, Mr. 
Lancaster, and Mr. Bateman) introduced the following joint resolution; 
          which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
     authorizing the President to disapprove or reduce an item of 
                            appropriations.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

                              ``Article --

    ``The President may reduce or disapprove any item of appropriation 
in any Act or joint resolution, except any item of appropriation for 
the legislative branch of the Government. If any Act or joint 
resolution is approved by the President, any item of appropriation 
contained therein which is not reduced or disapproved shall become law. 
The President shall return with his objections any item of 
appropriation reduced or disapproved to the House in which the Act or 
joint resolution containing such item originated. The Congress may, in 
the manner prescribed under section 7 of article I for Acts disapproved 
by the President, reconsider any item disapproved or reduced under this 
article, except that only a majority vote of each House shall be 
required to approve an item which has been disapproved or to restore an 
item which has been reduced by the President to the original amount 
contained in the Act or joint resolution.''.

                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 225 (Tuesday, November 21, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 69925]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-29687]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. ER99-970-001; ER00-38-001; ER97-4586-004; ER97-1431-011; 
and ER99-972-004]


RockGen Energy LLC; Broad River Energy LLC; DePere Energy LLC; 
PEC Energy Marketing, Inc.; SkyGen Energy Marketing LLC; Notice of 
Filing

November 15, 2000.
    Take notice that on November 2, 2000, RockGen Energy LLC, Broad 
River Energy LLC, DePere Energy LLC, PEC Energy Marketing, Inc., and 
SkyGen Energy Marketing LLC (collectively, the SkyGen Marketers), 
tendered for filing a Notification of Change in Status. The 
Notification of Change in Status is intended to inform the Commission 
that pursuant to Calpine Corporation's (Calpine) purchase of 100 
percent of the outstanding shares of Polsky Energy Corporation, the 
ultimate owner of the SkyGen Marketers, the SkyGen Marketers have 
completed their change in ownership and are now affiliated with 
Calpine.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 395.211 and 385.214). All such motions 
and protests should be filed on or before November 23, 2000. Protests 
will be considered by the Commission to determine 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. This filing may 
also be viewed on the Internet 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, 18 CFR 
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site 
at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-29687 Filed 11-20-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
IA

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 29

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing

the Congress and the States to prohibit the act of desecration of the

flag of the United States and to set criminal penalties for that act.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 5, 1993

Mr. EMERSON introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to

the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United

States authorizing the Congress and the States to prohibit the act of desecration of the flag of the United

States and to set criminal penalties for that act.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when

7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several
2

•HJ 29 IH

1 States within seven years after the date of its submission

2 for ratification:

3 ‘‘ARTICLE—

4 ‘‘The Congress and the States shall have power to

5 prohibit the act of desecration of the flag of the United

6 States and to set criminal penalties for that act.’’.

Æ
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Image Sensing System, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, James Murdakes, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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/ James Murdakes                                   
| | -----------------------------------------------------
| | James Murdakes
Chief Executive Officer
August 9, 2006

---
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Corporate Trust Services**MAC R1204-0109062 Old Annapolis RoadColumbia, MD 21045Tel: 410 884 2000 Fax: 410 715 2380 |
|--------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 RE: Annual Statement of Compliance for JPMBB Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust 2015-C31 Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2015-C31 Per the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of August 1, 2015 (the "Agreement"), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Certificate Administrator ("Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies as follows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2015 (the "Reporting Period"): (a) A review of Wells Fargo's activities during the Reporting Period and of its performance under the Agreement has been made under such officer's supervision; and (b) To the best of such officer's knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.  March 1, 2016 /s/ Brian SmithBRIAN SMITHVice President   Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
----

            COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1582/2006

of 24 October 2006         

amending Regulation (EEC) No 1907/90, as regards the derogation on egg washing

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2771/75 of 29 October 1975 on the common organisation of the market in eggs (1), and in particular Article 2(2) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

In the first subparagraph of Article 6(4) of Regulation (EEC) No 1907/90, the date ‘31 December 2006’ shall be replaced by the date ‘30 June 2007’.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Luxembourg, 24 October 2006.

For the Council

The President

J. KORKEAOJA            

----

(1)OJ L 282, 1.11.1975, p. 49. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 679/2006 (OJ L 119, 4.5.2006, p. 1).

(2)OJ L 173, 6.7.1990, p. 5. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1039/2005 (OJ L 172, 5.7.2005, p. 1).

(3)OJ L 186, 7.7.2006, p. 1.

----
Case 4:22-cr-00328-P Document 17 Filed 12/01/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 19
Case 4:22-cr-00328-P Document 17 Filed 12/01/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 20