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

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1179 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1179

  To authorize appropriations for the Federal Election Commission for 
                           fiscal year 1994.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 2, 1993

  Mr. Swift introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                   Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To authorize appropriations for the Federal Election Commission for 
                           fiscal year 1994.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That the second 
sentence of section 314 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
U.S.C. 439c) is amended by striking out ``and'' after ``1978,'' and by 
inserting after ``1981'' the following: ``, and $23,654,000 for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 1994''.

                                 <all>
```
# Official Journal C 177A/9 Ju

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 177A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 479 July 2004 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 177A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 479 July 2004

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | III   Notices |
| | Commission |
| 2004/C 177A/2 | Guide for applicants | 3 |
| 2004/C 177A/3 | Notice of open competition COM/AD/2/04 for the recruitment of a head of unit in the field of research (A*9). Candidates must have a university degree and a minimum of 12 years professional experience | 11 |

Notice No

Contents

page

III   Notices

Commission

2004/C 177A/2

Guide for applicants

3

2004/C 177A/3

Notice of open competition COM/AD/2/04 for the recruitment of a head of unit in the field of research (A*9). Candidates must have a university degree and a minimum of 12 years professional experience

11

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
#### WOOD et al. v. GULF OIL CORPORATION.

No. 3768.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Beaumont.

March 25, 1941.

Rehearing Denied April 16, 1941.

For former opinion, see 147 S.W.2d 818,

Pollard & Lawrence and William S. Reeves, all of Tyler, Gerald C. Mann, Atty. Gen., and Jas. P. Hart, D. D. Mahon, and Edgar W. Cale, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellants.

Joe S. Brown, of Houston, and Stanley Hornsby, of Austin, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellants’ motion for rehearing was Overruled February 12. After a careful examination of the facts, it is our conclusion that, on that date, our clerk mailed to each attorney of record a post card, correctly addressed but not registered, advising him that the motion for rehearing had been overruled. This notice was duly received by each attorney of record except Messrs. Pollard & Lawrence, who, on the showing made by them, had the burden of the further prosecution of the appeal from our judgment affirming the judgment of the lower court. On the affidavit of Mr. Lawrence we find that the post card mailed to his firm on the 12th day of February was not received by them and that they did not know until March 21 that the motion for rehearing had been overruled. On March 25, 1941, Messrs. Pollard & Lawrence, appearing as “attorneys for appellants,” filed their second motion for rehearing alleging that the order overruling their motion for rehearing had. been entered without notice to them; that they had no notice of the order overruling their motion for rehearing until March 21; that the time for filing the application for writ of error had expired before they had notice that thé motion for rehearing had been overruled; that, unless the order overruling the motion for rehearing is set aside, “appellants will be deprived of due process of law guaranteed under the constitution of the State of Texas and the United States of America.” They further allege: “That no harm will be done* to any party hereto by the setting aside of such order of February 12, 1941, but that a great and irreparable damage and injury will result to said Appellants by the failure of this Court to set aside such order of February 12, 1941, and in order that justice may be done, this Court should set aside said order overruling the motion for rehearing, even though it is not convinced of the merits of appellants’ motion for rehearing, in that the Court can, if deemed wise and expedient by it, immediately after setting aside said order of February 12, 1941, enter a new order overruling said Appellants’ motion for rehearing, which *1015will permit these Appellants to have their day in Court, which is now denied them through no fault or negligence on their part, and at the same time accord to all other parties their rights at law as found and determined by this Honorable Court.”

On authority of Henningsmeyer v. First State Bank of Conroe, 109 Tex. 116, 195 S.W. 1137, 201 S.W. 652, we are compelled to overrule appellants’ second motion for rehearing. We regret that we are not 'in position to grant appellants the relief prayed for.
`[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 275 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.Con.Res.275
                                         Agreed to July 29, 1994        

                       One Hundred Third Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America


                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
 the twenty-fifth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-
                                  four


                          Concurrent Resolution

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That, notwithstanding the provisions of section 132(a)(1) of the 
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 198), the House of 
Representatives and the Senate shall not adjourn for a period in excess 
of three days, or adjourn sine die, until both Houses of Congress have 
adopted a concurrent resolution providing either for an adjournment (in 
excess of three days) to a day certain or for adjournment sine die.
Attest:







                                 Clerk of the House of Representatives.

Attest:







                                               Secretary of the Senate.`
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 99.2


           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 Source Interlink Companies, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending April 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Marc
Fierman, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer 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 Report fully complies with the requirements section 31(a) or 15(d) of
     Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
     respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.


                                        /s/ Marc Fierman
                                        --------------------------
                                        Marc Fierman
                                        Chief Financial Officer
                                        December 16, 2002
* 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 October 21, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-40220 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus OCIEL MARTINEZ-MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:03-CR-777-ALL

-------------------- Before JOLLY, JONES, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Ociel Martinez-Martinez (Martinez) appeals his conviction and sentence for illegal reentry following deportation. He argues that the district court plainly erred by characterizing his state felony conviction for simple possession of marijuana as an “aggravated felony” for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C) and 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B), when that same offense was punishable only as a misdemeanor under federal law. This issue, however, is foreclosed by United States v. Caicedo-Cuero ,No. 04-40220 -2- 312 F.3d 697, 706-11 (5th Cir. 2002), cert. denied , 538 U.S. 1021 (2003), and United States v. Hinojosa-Lopez , 130 F.3d 691, 694 (5th Cir. 1997). Therefore, Martinez has not demonstrated plain

error. Martinez also argues that the “felony” and “aggravated felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000). He acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed, but seeks to preserve the issue for possible Supreme Court review. As Martinez concedes, this issue is foreclosed. See AlmendarezTorres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 247 (1998); United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000).
AFFIRMED.
Skip to main content


NCD.gov
      
      
      -A +ASearch form
    SearchFollow us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter About UsNewsroomNewsroom HomeTestimony & SpeechesNewsletterFunding OpportunitiesProgress ReportsPublicationsResourcesFAQsMeeting & EventsOther Events30 on ADA 30NCD policy briefings to Congressional staff on AbilityOne ReportAccountabilityBuy American Act ReportsGovernment Performance and Results Act ReportsCongressional Budget Justification ReportsFinancial Audit ReportsNCD Strategic PlanNCD Annual Employee SurveyNCD BylawsNo Fear ActFOIAFOIA e-LibraryAnnual ReportsQuarterly ReportsChief FOIA Officer ReportsMake a FOIA RequestReference GuideNCD FOIA RegulationEquity
 Preview NCD's New NCD.gov Website in Beta
  
  Take a look at the new beta site, an early, in-progress version at beta.NCD.gov
          Page not foundSkip to Page ContentThe requested page "/rawmedia_repository/NCD-OMB%20-%20PAR%2012-09.pdf" could not be found. NCD Policy Areas
  
  CRPDCivil RightsCultural DiversityEducationEmergency ManagementEmploymentFinancial Assistance & IncentivesHealth CareHousingInternationalLong Term Services & SupportTechnologyTransportationYouth Perspectives Contact Us
  
  If you have a question or comment, please let us know.
202-272-2004 (voice)
202-272-2022 (Fax)   Email NCD   Language Access Needs? Stay Connected with NCD
  
  Subscribe to NCD Updates   Newsroom   Join us on Facebook   Follow us on Twitter   Follow us on Instagram   Subscribe to our YouTube Channel   Follow us on LinkedIn   Meetings and Events   Link to Us   NCD Council & Staff
Employment Opportunities
 **National Council on Disability**   1331 F Street, NW, Suite 850   Washington, DC 20004
Order entered July 29, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-00837-CV

J&M SALES OF TEXAS, LLC, Appellant

V.

ANETTE H. SAMS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 192nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-14-13851

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s motion to extend time to file its notice of appeal. We 

GRANT the motion. Based on the record before the Court, it appears that the Court has 

jurisdiction over this appeal. Accordingly, appellant’s brief is due on or before August 21, 2015. 

TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(a).

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT

CHIEF JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           1,305
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                57,392
<PP&E>                                       1,020,007
<DEPRECIATION>                                 147,780
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 986,528
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,007,388
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        10,920
<OTHER-SE>                                 (3,031,780)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   986,528
<SALES>                                         52,471
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                52,471
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,737,281
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,971
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             339,715
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,073,025)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,073,025)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,073,025)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.02)


        

</TABLE>
Exhibit
32.1





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 Deep Well Oil & Gas, Inc. (“the
Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2010 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (“the Report”), I, Dr.
Horst A. Schmid, President and Chief Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:





(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 result of operations of the Company.





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





Date:
                December
      23, 2010By:
                /s/
      Horst A. SchmidDr.
      Horst A. SchmidPresident
      and Chief Executive
Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule  contains summary financial  information  extracted from form
10Q and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such form 10Q.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000943820
<NAME>                        Sitel Corporation
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         12,166
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  170,352
<ALLOWANCES>                                   4,667
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               190,329
<PP&E>                                         226,290
<DEPRECIATION>                                 115,550
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 420,815
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          111,080
<BONDS>                                        100,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       68
<OTHER-SE>                                     0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   420,815
<SALES>                                        531,778
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               531,778
<CGS>                                          284,254
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  525,402
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (51)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             9,353
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,926)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   2,645
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (5,693)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,693)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.09)


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1103 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1103

  To modify the prohibition on recognition by United States courts of 
 certain rights relating to certain marks, trade names, or commercial 
                                 names.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 13, 2009

  Mr. Wexler (for himself, Mr. Issa, Mr. Engel, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, Mr. 
  Hastings of Florida, Mr. Burton of Indiana, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Wasserman 
   Schultz, Mr. Rothman of New Jersey, Mr. Klein of Florida, and Mr. 
Patrick J. Murphy of Pennsylvania) introduced the following bill; which 
             was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To modify the prohibition on recognition by United States courts of 
 certain rights relating to certain marks, trade names, or commercial 
                                 names.

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

SECTION 1. MODIFICATION OF PROHIBITION.

    Section 211 of the Department of Commerce and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act, 1999 (as contained in section 101(b) of division A 
of Public Law 105-277; 112 Stat. 2681-88) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a)(2)--
                    (A) by striking ``by a designated national''; and
                    (B) by inserting before the period ``that was used 
                in connection with a business or assets that were 
                confiscated unless the original owner of the mark, 
                trade name, or commercial name, or the bonafide 
                successor-in-interest has expressly consented'';
            (2) in subsection (b), by striking ``by a designated 
        national or its successor-in-interest'';
            (3) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (e);
            (4) by inserting after subsection (c) the following:
    ``(d) Subsections (a)(2) and (b) of this section shall apply only 
if the person or entity asserting the rights knew or had reason to know 
at the time when the person or entity acquired the rights asserted that 
the mark, trade name, or commercial name was the same as or 
substantially similar to a mark, trade name, or commercial name that 
was used in connection with a business or assets that were 
confiscated.''; and
            (5) in subsection (e), as so redesignated, by striking ``In 
        this section:'' and all that follows through ``(2) The term'' 
        and inserting ``In this section, the term''.
                                 <all>
```
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 7 D0 21 2 . RODERI CK CARTER v . THE STATE.

Ro d eri ck C a r t e r p l ed g u i l t y t o ag g rav at ed as sau l t

, k i d n ap p i n g an d cri m i n al

at t em p t

. In 2 0 16

, Cart er fi l ed a “ M o t i o n f o r an Ou t o f Ti m e Ap p eal /M o t i o n to

W i th d raw.” Th e t ri al co u rt d en i ed th e m o t i o n , an d Cart er fi l ed t h i s t i m el y ap p l i cat i o n

fo r d i s cret i o n ary

ap p eal

. Th e d e n i a l o f a m o t i on fo r an o u t -o f-t im e ap p eal i s d irect l y ap peal ab l e.

Lu n s fo r d v. S t a t e , 2 3 7 Ga. A p p

. 6 9 6, 6 9 6 ( 5 1 5 SE2 d 19 8 ) (1 99 9 ); s ee al s o

W et h er in g t o n v. S t a t e , 2 9 6 Ga. 4 5 1 (7 6 9 SE2 d 53 ) (2 0 1 5 ) (ad d res s i n g m eri t s o f d i rect

ap p eal fro m d en i al o f m o t i on fo r o u t -o f-t i m e ap p eal fo ll o wi ng g u i l t y p l ea). Th e d en i al

o f a m o t i o n to wi th draw a g u i l t y p l ea i s al s o d i rect ly ap p eal ab l e. See Smi t h v. S t a t e , 2 8 3 Ga. 3 7 6

, 3 7 6 (6 5 9 SE2 d 3 8 0 ) (2 0 0 8). Acco r d i n g l y , t h i s ap p l i cat i o n fo r

d i s cret i o n ary ap p eal is h ereb y GRANTED p u r s u a n t t o OCGA § 5 -6 -3 5 (j). Cart er

s h al l hav e t en d ay s fro m t h e d at e o f t h i s o rd er t o fi l e h i s no t i ce o f ap p eal in t h e t ri al

co u rt

. OCGA § 5 -6 -3 5 (g ). Th e cl erk o f t h e t ri al co u rt i s d i rect ed to i n cl u de a co p y o f December 28, 2016t h i s o rd er i n t h e reco rd t ran sm i t t ed t o t h e Co urt o f Ap peal s

.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e

, A t la n t a

,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d th e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 12/28/2016
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1105

To amend the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to require a three-fifths

vote in the House of Representatives to waive any point of order under

this Act.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 24, 1993

Mr. KOLBE (for himself, Mr. SHAYS, Mr. GREENWOOD, Mr. STUMP, Mr.

ROHRABACHER, Mr. RAMSTAD, Mr. HERGER, Mr. SMITH of Texas, Mr.

BUNNING, Mr. GALLEGLY, Mr. SMITH of Michigan, Mr. SAXTON, Mr.

PACKARD, Mr. KYL, Mr. GOSS, Mr. HASTERT, Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey, Mr. LAZIO, Mr. ZELIFF, Mr. PORTER, Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland,

Mr. PENNY , AND MS. SNOWE) introduced the following bill; which was

referred to the Committee on Rules

A BILL

To amend the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to require

a three-fifths vote in the House of Representatives to

waive any point of order under this Act.

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

3 That section 904(c) of the Congressional Budget Act of

4 1974 is amended by adding at the end the following new

5 sentence: ‘‘Any point of order set forth in title III, IV,

6 or VI may be waived or suspended in the House of Rep-
2

•HR 1105 IH

1 resentatives only by the affirmative vote of three-fifths of

2 the Members voting, a quorum being present.’’.

Æ