alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 216

JOINT RESOLUTION

Designating January 16, 1994, as ‘‘Religious

Freedom Day’’.
★

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 216

JOINT RESOLUTION

Designating January 16, 1994, as ‘‘Religious Freedom Day’’.

Whereas December 15, 1991, is the 200th anniversary of the

completion of the ratification of the Bill of Rights;

Whereas the first amendment to the Constitution of the

United States guarantees religious liberty to the people

of the United States;

Whereas millions of people from all parts of the world have

come to the United States fleeing religious persecution

and seeking freedom to worship;
2

•HJ 216 EH1S

Whereas in 1777 Thomas Jefferson wrote the bill entitled ‘‘A

Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom in Virginia’’ to

guarantee freedom of conscience and separation of

church and state;

Whereas in 1786, through the devotion of Virginians such as

George Mason and James Madison, the General Assembly of Virginia passed such bill;

Whereas the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom inspired and shaped the guarantees of religious freedom in

the first amendment;

Whereas the Supreme Court of the United States has recognized repeatedly that the Statute of Virginia for Religious

Freedom was an important influence in the development

of the Bill of Rights;

Whereas scholars across the United States have proclaimed

the vital importance of such statute and leaders in fields

such as law and religion have devoted time, energy, and

resources to celebrating its contribution to international

freedom; and

Whereas America’s First Freedom Center, located in Richmond, Virginia, plans a permanent monument to the

Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom, accompanied

by educational programs and commemorative activities

for visitors from around the world: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That January 16, 1994, is designated as ‘‘Religious Free4 dom Day’’, and the President is authorized and requested

5 to issue a proclamation calling on the people of the United

6 States to join together to celebrate their religious freedom
3

•HJ 216 EH1S

1 and to observe the day with appropriate ceremonies and

2 activities.

Passed the House of Representatives November 18,

1993.

Attest:

Clerk.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Harold Birmingham, Also Known as Mark Gilliam, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme *504Court, Queens County (Sherman, J.), rendered November 30, 1987, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (three counts), robbery in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the conviction of robbery in the first degree as charged in the first count of the indictment to robbery in the second degree and vacating the sentence imposed thereon; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for resentencing on that count.

The defendant’s contention that a police witness made improper reference to a photographic identification of the defendant is unpreserved for appellate review. In any event, the police witness simply testified that after he spoke to witnesses he continued to conduct his investigation and that he took information and "came up with the identification of a suspect * * * Harold Birmingham”. There was no implication that witnesses had looked at photographs in identifying the defendant *(cf., People v Hines,*112 AD2d 316). Moreover, there was no statement in the police officer’s testimony that the witnesses had identified the defendant as the perpetrator of the robbery *(see, People v Poindexter,*138 AD2d 418). There was nothing improper in the officer’s testimony that he conducted an investigation which ultimately focused on the defendant *(see, People v Armstead,*134 AD2d 601).

Similarly unpreserved for appellate review is the defendant’s contention that the evidence was insufficient to support a finding that the complainant suffered "serious physical injury” (Penal Law § 10.00 [10]; *see, People v Bynum,*70 NY2d 858; *People v Bailey,*146 AD2d 788). We find, however, in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction, that his conviction on the first count of the indictment of robbery in the first degree predicated upon causing serious physical injury should be reduced to robbery in the second degree. There was no evidence that the injury to the complaining witness’s head, which required 16 stitches, was life threatening or caused a protracted or serious disfigurement or impairment *(cf., People v Gibson,*140 AD2d 453). However, the defendant concedes and the record supports a finding that the complaining witness suffered "physical injury” (Penal Law § 10.00 [9]; *see, People v Lundquist,*151 AD2d 505). Therefore the conviction on this count may be properly reduced to robbery in the second degree.

*505The defendant’s remaining contentions, including those found in his supplemental *pro se*brief, are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Mangano, P. J., Eiber, O’Brien and Ritter, JJ., concur.
* Pursuant to 5 T H C IR

. R

. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limit ed circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-40860

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE JUAN ZAPATA,

also known as Jaime Ociel Barrera, Defendant-Appellant.

------------------------------------------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. C-98-CR-169-1

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

April 16, 2002

Before JOLLY, BARKSDALE and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Jose Juan Zapata, federal prisoner # 71879-079, appeals from the district court’s judgment

dismissing his collateral challenge to his 1998 drug conviction. Zapata had moved in the district court

for issuance of a nunc pro tunc order to correct the sentence that he received under the Sentencing

Guidelines. The district court construed the motion as arising under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. As federal

courts are courts o f limit ed jurisdiction, Zapata must have statutory authority for the filing of his

motion. Veldhoen v. United States Coast Guard

, 35 F.3d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1998). Section 2255-2-

of Title 28 is the means by which a federal prisoner may challenge the validity of his sentence. U nited

States v. Cates

, 952 F.2d 149, 151 (5th Cir. 1992). The district court’s construction o f Zapata’s

motion as arising under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 was proper.

Because the district court properly construed Zapata’s motion as arising under 28 U.S.C. §

2255, Zapata must obtain a certificate of appealability (COA) before he can appeal the dismissal of

his motion. S ee 28 U.S.C. § 2253. A COA ruling should be made in the first instance in the district

court, and the district court should make such a ruling sua sponte if no request is made. M uniz v.

Johnson , 114 F.3d 43, 45 (5th Cir. 1997); United States v. Youngblood , 116 F.3d 1113, 1114 (5th

Cir. 19 97). Although the district court did not construe Zapata’s notice of appeal as requesting a

COA, we decline to remand this case in light of the patent frivolity of Zapata’s motion. See United

States v. Alvarez , 210 F.3d 309, 310 (5th Cir. 2000). We therefore DISMISS this appeal for lack

of jurisdiction.

APPEAL DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION.
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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. RP96-312-035]

Take notice that on November 17, 2000, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company (Tennessee), tendered for filing an FT-A Agreement and three letter agreements (Negotiated Rate Arrangement). Tennessee requests that the Commission approve the Negotiated Rate Arrangement effective December 1, 2000.

Tennessee states that the Negotiated Rate Arrangement reflects a negotiated rate transaction between Tennessee and Eastman Chemical Company for transportation under Rate Schedule FT-A.

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, 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.

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-30345  Filed 11-28-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
exv10w21



 











Exhibit 10.21




Alaska Communications Systems Group, Inc.

Executive Cash Incentive




On April 11, 2005, the Compensation and Personnel Committee of the Board of Directors approved
an Equity Incentive Program comprising an annual performance program
for all non-represented employees and an
equity-based long term incentive program (“LTIP”) for executives within the scope of the Company’s
existing 1999 Stock Incentive Plan. These programs provide
performance accelerated restricted stock vesting in five years with
accelerated vesting at three years if certain three-year cumulative
objectives that impact free cash flow are met.
<PAGE>
                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.302

                           LICENSE AGREEMENT AMENDMENT


         This amendment ("Amendment") is effective this 23 day of
April 1998, between The Regents of the University of California, a
California corporation having statewide administrative headquarters at 300
Lakeside Drive, 22nd Floor, Oakland, California 94612-3550, said headquarters to
be moved as of April 24, 1998, to 1111 Franklin Street, 5th Floor, Oakland, CA
94607-5200 ("The Regents") and Cygnus, Inc., a California corporation, having a
principal place of business at 400 Penobscot Drive, Redwood City, California
94603 ("Licensee").


                                    RECITALS
         A. The Regents and the Licensee entered into an exclusive license
agreement effective January 31, 1995 (UC Control No. 95-04-0565), relating to a
"Device for Iontophoretic Non-invasive Sampling or Delivery of Substances"
disclosed under UC Case No. 87-162 ("Agreement"), granting to the Licensee an
exclusive license to make, have made, use, sell and distribute Licensed Products
and to practice the Licensed Method under Regents' Patent Rights (as defined in
the Agreement).

         B. [CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT REQUESTED];"

         C. The Licensee has requested (pursuant to its letter to The Regents of
March 3, 1998) such an extension, and The Regents has agreed to grant a
[CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT REQUESTED]extension under the terms and Provisions of
this Amendment.
                                 - - oo 0 oo - -


<PAGE>

         1. Therefore, in view of the foregoing, The Regents and the Licensee
 agree to [CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT REQUESTED]

         2. [CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT REQUESTED] as follows:

            a.  [CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT REQUESTED];

            b.  [CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT REQUESTED]

            c.  [CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT REQUESTED]

         3. [CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT REQUESTED]

         The parties have executed this Amendment by their respective and duly
authorized officers, as evidenced by the signatures below.

CYGNUS, INC.                               THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY
                                           OF CALIFORNIA


By       /s/ John C. Hodgman               By  /s/ David J. Aston
  -----------------------------------        -----------------------------------
                  (SIGNATURE)                           (SIGNATURE)

Name     John C. Hodgman                   Name:   David J. Aston
    ---------------------------------
                (PLEASE PRINT)

Title President, Cygnus Diagnostics        Title:  Associate Director
     --------------------------------              Office of Technology Transfer

Date     5-1-98                            Date  5-5-98
    ---------------------------------          ---------------------------------


                                       2
Exhibit 99.3


                Written Statement of the Chief Financial Officer
                         Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, I, the undersigned
Chief Financial Officer of SBM Certificate Company (the "Company"), hereby
certify, based on my knowledge, that Amendment No. 2 to the Annual Report on
Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2000 (the "Amended
Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Amended Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.


/s/ Trey Stafford
-----------------------------
    Trey Stafford
    Chief Financial and Accounting Officer


Date:  October 29, 2002
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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of WNC Housing Tax Credit
Fund V, L.P., Series 3 (the “Partnership”) for the quarter ended June 30, 2010
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), and pursuant to 18 U.S.C., section
1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Wilfred N. Cooper, Jr., President and
Chief Executive Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc., general partner of the
Partnership, hereby certify 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 result of operations of the
      Partnership.
 
 
 /s/WILFRED
N. COOPER, JR.
 Wilfred
N. Cooper, Jr.
 President
and Chief Executive Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc.
  August
6, 2010
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Angel San Juan, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kreindler, J.), rendered April 18, 1988, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress statements made by him to law enforcement officials.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

In view of the totality of the circumstances, we agree with the hearing court that the defendant voluntarily waived his rights when he made his statements to law enforcement officials *(see, People v Anderson,*42 NY2d 35). The defendant was not so intoxicated that he was unable to comprehend the *Miranda*warnings and voluntarily waive them. Nor was he unable to comprehend the meaning of his statements or lacking an awareness or understanding of his admissions *(see, People v Schompert,*19 NY2d 300, 305, *cert denied*389 US 874; *People v Colonna,*147 AD2d 582). Moreover, the defendant failed to raise any claim during the hearing that his learning disability affected the voluntariness of his statements.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]).

Finally, the defendant’s sentence was not excessive *(see, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80). Thompson, J. P., Lawrence, Kunzeman and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1333 

To amend chapter 40 of title 18, United States Code, to exempt the transportation, shipment, receipt, or importation of explosive materials for delivery to a federally recognized Indian tribe or an agency of such a tribe 

from various Federal criminal prohibitions relating to explosives. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 5, 2009 

Mr. GRIJALVA introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend chapter 40 of title 18, United States Code, to 

exempt the transportation, shipment, receipt, or importation of explosive materials for delivery to a federally 

recognized Indian tribe or an agency of such a tribe 

from various Federal criminal prohibitions relating to 

explosives. 

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


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1333 IH

1 SECTION 1. EXEMPTION OF THE TRANSPORTATION, SHIP2 MENT, RECEIPT, OR IMPORTATION OF EX3 PLOSIVE MATERIALS FOR DELIVERY TO A 

4 FEDERALLY RECOGNIZED INDIAN TRIBE OR 

5 AN AGENCY OF SUCH A TRIBE FROM VAR6 IOUS FEDERAL CRIMINAL PROHIBITIONS RE7 LATING TO EXPLOSIVES. 

8 Section 845(a)(3) of title 18, United States Code, is 

9 amended by striking ‘‘to any agency of the United States 

10 or to any State or any political subdivision thereof’’ and 

11 inserting ‘‘to any agency of the United States, to any 

12 State or any political subdivision thereof, or to any feder13 ally recognized Indian tribe or agency thereof’’. 

Æ 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
#### BROWN v. STATE.

No. 19796.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 1, 1938.

Ramsey & Ramsey, of San Augustine, for appellant.

, Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Au.stin, for the State,. v . .

*108GRAVES, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of a violation of the law regulating the liquor traffic, and fined the sum of $100.00.

The complaint and information both allege that San Augustine County was what is termed a dry area relative to the sale of intoxicating liquor. The statement of facts fails to show any proof relative thereto. This matter was called to the trial court’s attention in a request for an instructed verdict, which was refused, and to which refusal appellant took his only bill of exceptions. This matter was also called to the trial court’s attention in appellant’s motion for a new trial.

There is no way that we can know whether or not the sale of intoxicating liquor has been prohibited in certain localities except from proof thereof, and we have repeatedly held that it is necessary not only to allege by proper averments the calling of an election to determine such question, its result and the necessary orders thereafter, but also to prove such matters, in order that it might be shown that such an area was a dry area. See Humphreys v. State, 131 Tex.Cr.R. 383, 99 S.W.2d 600; Green v. State, 131 Tex.Cr.R. 552, 101 S.W.2d 241; Cunningham v. State, 132 Tex.Cr.R. 63, 102 S.W.2d 413; Stewart v. State, 132 Tex.Cr.R. 79, 102 S.W.2d 416; Baldridge v. State, 132 Tex.Cr.R. 590, 106 S.W.2d 700.

On account of a failure to show that San Augustine County was a dry .area, this judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
Case 5:22-cr-00099-H-BQ Document 7 Filed 11/01/22 Page 1 of 8 PageID 10
Case 5:22-cr-00099-H-BQ Document 7 Filed 11/01/22 Page 2 of 8 PageID 11
Case 5:22-cr-00099-H-BQ Document 7 Filed 11/01/22 Page 3 of 8 PageID 12
Case 5:22-cr-00099-H-BQ Document 7 Filed 11/01/22 Page 4 of 8 PageID 13
Case 5:22-cr-00099-H-BQ Document 7 Filed 11/01/22 Page 5 of 8 PageID 14
Case 5:22-cr-00099-H-BQ Document 7 Filed 11/01/22 Page 6 of 8 PageID 15
Case 5:22-cr-00099-H-BQ Document 7 Filed 11/01/22 Page 7 of 8 PageID 16
Case 5:22-cr-00099-H-BQ Document 7 Filed 11/01/22 Page 8 of 8 PageID 17
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with the Annual Report of Wells Real Estate Fund V, L.P. (the Registrant) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), the
undersigned, Leo F. Wells, III, Chief Executive Officer of the corporate general partner of one of the General Partners of the Registrant, and Douglas P. Williams, Chief Financial Officer of the corporate general partner of one of the General
Partners of the Registrant, hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), that, to the best of our knowledge and belief:



| | (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 Registrant.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                          
|--------------------------
|/s/    LEO F. WELLS, III  
|Leo F. Wells, III         
|Chief Executive Officer   
|March 28, 2006            
|                          
|/s/    DOUGLAS P. WILLIAMS
|Douglas P. Williams       
|Chief Financial Officer   
|March 28, 2006