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

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 540 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 540

Commending the officers of the Commissioned Corps of the Public Health 
               Service for their work in fighting Ebola.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 14, 2016

    Mr. Coons (for himself and Mr. Isakson) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Commending the officers of the Commissioned Corps of the Public Health 
               Service for their work in fighting Ebola.

Whereas the Commissioned Corps of the Public Health Service (in this preamble 
        referred to as the ``Commissioned Corps'') traces its antecedents to the 
        creation of the Marine Hospital Service in the Act entitled ``An Act for 
        the relief of sick and disabled seamen'', approved July 16, 1798;
Whereas the Commissioned Corps today consists of approximately 6,700 
        commissioned officers who serve in 11 specialty areas;
Whereas thousands of officers of the Commissioned Corps have deployed in the 
        aftermath of natural disasters such as Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and 
        Superstorm Sandy;
Whereas almost 900 officers of the Commissioned Corps deployed to Iraq and 
        Afghanistan to support members of the Armed Forces stationed in those 
        locations;
Whereas the officers of the Commissioned Corps constitute a rapidly-deployable 
        force of medical professionals who serve public health in the United 
        States and foreign countries;
Whereas more than 300 officers of the Commissioned Corps deployed to Liberia to 
        treat Ebola patients, voluntarily accepting the risks associated with 
        treating patients who carried this deadly disease;
Whereas hundreds of other officers of the Commissioned Corps provided support to 
        the officers who were deployed to Liberia;
Whereas the Ebola epidemic in Liberia no longer represents a public health 
        emergency of international concern, as determined by the World Health 
        Organization, due in part to the intervention of officers of the 
        Commissioned Corps; and
Whereas the United States was spared the danger of an Ebola outbreak because the 
        disease was contained in West Africa: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate commends all of the officers of the 
Commissioned Corps of the Public Health Service who participated in the 
effort to prevent an Ebola outbreak in the United States.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 161 (Friday, October 3, 2008)]
[House]
[Page H10701]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                          PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

  The SPEAKER. Will the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) come 
forward and lead the House in the Pledge of Allegiance.
  Ms. FOXX led the Pledge of Allegiance as follows:

       I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of 
     America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation 
     under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

                          ____________________
```
# Official Journal C 33A/8 Fe

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 33A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 488 February 2005 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 33A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 488 February 2005

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | III   Notices |
| | European Defence Agency |
| 2005/C 033A/1 | Notice of vacancies | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

III   Notices

European Defence Agency

2005/C 033A/1

Notice of vacancies

1

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

EN

---

III Notices

European Defence Agency

| 8.2.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CA 33/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CA 33/1

---

NOTICE OF VACANCIES

(2005/C 33 A/01)

The European Defence Agency intends to recruit:

| — | For the Planning and Policy Unit

  1 Senior Assistant (ref. EDA/A/2005/006) |
| --- | --- |

—

For the Planning and Policy Unit

1 Senior Assistant (ref. EDA/A/2005/006)

| — | For the Capabilities Directorate

  1 Secretary/Office Clerk (ref. EDA/A/2005/028) |
| --- | --- |

—

For the Capabilities Directorate

1 Secretary/Office Clerk (ref. EDA/A/2005/028)

| — | For the Armaments Directorate

  1 Senior Officer for Armaments Policy (ref. EDA/A/2005/045)
  2 Senior Officers for Armaments Cooperation (ref. EDA/A/2005/048 and 049) |
| --- | --- |

—

For the Armaments Directorate

1 Senior Officer for Armaments Policy (ref. EDA/A/2005/045)

2 Senior Officers for Armaments Cooperation (ref. EDA/A/2005/048 and 049)

| — | For the Industry and Market Directorate

  1 Senior Officer for Defence Industry (ref. EDA/A/2004/054)
  1 Senior Officer for Defence Market (ref. EDA/A/2004/057)
  1 Senior Officer (ref. EDA/A/2004/58) |
| --- | --- |

—

For the Industry and Market Directorate

1 Senior Officer for Defence Industry (ref. EDA/A/2004/054)

1 Senior Officer for Defence Market (ref. EDA/A/2004/057)

1 Senior Officer (ref. EDA/A/2004/58)

| — | For the R&T Directorate

  4 Technical Project Officers (ref. EDA/A/2005/037, 038, 039 and 040) |
| --- | --- |

—

For the R&T Directorate

4 Technical Project Officers (ref. EDA/A/2005/037, 038, 039 and 040)

| — | For the Corporate Services Directorate

  2 Contracting Officers (ref. EDA/A/2005/064 and 065)
  1 Senior Clerk - Infrastructure Section (ref. EDA/A/2005/074) |
| --- | --- |

—

For the Corporate Services Directorate

2 Contracting Officers (ref. EDA/A/2005/064 and 065)

1 Senior Clerk - Infrastructure Section (ref. EDA/A/2005/074)

Deadline: 25 February 2005, the postmark serving as proof.

More information (available in English) and application forms may be obtained on the Council website at the following address: http://ue.eu.int (contacts/job offers).

---
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-41301

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

LUCIANO SOLIS-RUIZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:16-CR-623-1

Before REAVLEY, SOUTHWICK, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Luciano Solis-Ruiz appeals his conviction and sentence for importing five 

kilograms or more of cocaine into the United States. 21 U.S.C. §§ 952,

960(a)(1), (b)(1); 18 U.S.C. § 2. His offense involved 28 kilograms of cocaine. 

The district court sentenced him at the bottom of the guideline range to 87 

months of imprisonment. Solis-Ruiz challenges the denial of a mitigating role 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 6, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-41301 Document: 00514144796 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/06/2017
No. 16-41301

2

reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2, and he raises a foreclosed challenge to the 

sufficiency of the factual basis for his guilty plea.

Whether a defendant was a minor or minimal participant is a factual 

question that we review for clear error. United States v. Torres-Hernandez, 

843 F.3d 203, 207 (5th Cir. 2016). A district court need not expressly weigh 

each factor in deciding whether to grant a mitigating role reduction. Id. at 209. 

Solis-Ruiz decided to bring his common-law wife and her 15-year old son with 

him when he tried to bring the drugs into the United States. Thus, he did 

participate in planning the criminal activity to some degree, and he had some 

degree of discretion in performing the acts. See § 3B1.2, comment. (n.3(C)(ii), 

(iv)). The district court’s finding that Solis-Ruiz was not “substantially less 

culpable than the average participant in the criminal activity” was plausible 

in light of the record as a whole. § 3B1.2, comment. (n.3(A)); see TorresHernandez, 843 F.3d at 207.

Solis-Ruiz argues that his factual basis was insufficient because it failed 

to establish that he knew the type and quantity of drugs that he was importing. 

He seeks to reduce his conviction to importation of marijuana, which carries a 

five-year maximum prison sentence under § 960(b)(4). As he acknowledges, 

we rejected the same argument under a nearly identical drug statute, 21 

U.S.C. § 841. See United States v. Betancourt, 586 F.3d 303, 307-09 (5th Cir. 

2009).

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 16-41301 Document: 00514144796 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/06/2017
Pursuant to Fifth Circuit Rule 47.5 , the court has determined that this o pinion should * not be publishe d and is not pre cedent except under the limit ed circu mstance s set forthinFifth Circuit Rule 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 50418 Su m m ar yC al endar UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA, P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee v. A N T O N IO A L C A S A R -S A N C H E Z , D e fe nda nt - Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e W est ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SDC N o . 3 : 0 8
- CR- 1 1
- ALL B ef ore JO L L Y , W IE N E R , an d E L R O D , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * D ef endant
- A ppel l antA nt oni o Al c a sar- Sanchez (A l c as ar) appeal s hi s 48- m on t h sentence f

or being f

ou n d i l l egall y i n t h e U n i t ed S t ates f ol l ow i n g a pri or de po r t at i o n, i n v i o l at i o n o f 8 U . S. C . § 1 32 6( a) a nd (b) ( 2) . H e c l ai m s t hatt he d is t r ic tc o u r te r r e d in r e ly in gu p o n th e P r e s e n t e n c e I n v e s t ig a t io n R e p o r t ’s c harac t er i zat i on o f

hi s pri orW as hi ngt on c onvi c t i on f or se c ond deg r ee r obbe r y as a cr im e o f v io le n c e fo rth e p u r p o s e o f e n h a n c in gh is s e n t e n c e b y 1 6 le v e ls p u rs u a n t to U n ited S ta te s S e n t e n cin gG u id e li n e se ctio n 2 L 1 .2(b )(a)(A )(i i). United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D October 28, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 50418

B ecau se A l casar di d n otrai se t h i s obj ect i on i n t h e di st ri ctcou rt , w e revi ew o n lyfo rp la in e r r o r . Uni t e d St at e s v. Mon d ragon- Sa nt i ago , 564 F. 3d 357, 364 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ), cer t . den i ed , 200 9 W L 18 49 97 4 ( U . S. O c t . 5 , 2 00 9) . Al t ho ugh t he di s t r i c tc o ur tw as s i l e nta s t o w he t he r t he c o ur t w as awar e o f a nd e xa m i ne d t he st atute of

convi ct i on , an y error does n ot requ i re reversalun der t h e pl ai n err or st andard b ec ause t he di st r i c tc our thad befo r e i tdoc um ent s es t abl i shi ng t hat Al c as arw as convi c t e d o f s e c o nd d e gr e e r o bb e r y unde r§ § 9 A. 56 . 21 0 and 9 A .5 6 .1 9 0 o f th e R e v is e d C o d e o f W a s h in g to n . S ee Un i t ed Stat es v. G arza-Lop ez , 4 1 0 F .3d 2 6 8 , 2 7 3 -7 4 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). AF F I RMED.
Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission
Commission Monthly Case Activity for May 2010
	
1.	Cases Pending Beginning of Month 	27
		
2.	Cases Added to Docket 

Pike Electric, Inc.
No. 08-1389
Direction for Review on 5/4/10

LJC Dismantling Corp.
No. 08-1318
Direction for Review on 5/4/10

		2

3.	Cases Subtracted From Docket 

	0
4.	Total Cases Pending End of Month	29
Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission
Commission Monthly Case Activity for May 2015

1.Cases Pending Beginning of Month 32
2.Cases Added to Docket 


0
3.Cases Subtracted From Docket

-04.Total Cases Pending End of Month32
Argued and submitted March 31,

affirmed June 9,

reconsideration denied September 1,

petition for review denied November 30, 1993 (318 Or 98)

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Respondent, v.*MICHAEL KELLY, *Appellant.*

(10-91-003326A; CA A71389)

853 P2d 1328

Louis R. Miles, Deputy Public Defender, Salem, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Sally L. Avera, Public Defender, Salem.

Youlee Yim You, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Theodore R. Kulongoski, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, Salem.

Before Warren, Presiding Judge, and Edmonds and De Muniz, Judges.

PER CURIAM

*100PER CURIAM

Defendant was charged in a 35-count indictment. He pled guilty to eight counts, and the other charges were dismissed pursuant to plea negotiations. He challenges the sentences imposed on the convictions. The sentences resulted from the plea agreement, and, under ORS 138.222(2)(d), we may not review his claim of error. *State v. Adams,*315 Or 359, 847 P2d 397 (1993); *State v. Kilborn,*120 Or App 462, 852 P2d 935 (1993); *State v. Johnston,*120 Or App 165, 851 P2d 1156 (1993).

Affirmed.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, December 19, 2014. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, December 19, 2014 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A15D0161. DANNY DENNIS PAIR v. THE STATE. Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 13CR02334
<PAGE>   1


                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

                         Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 333-69357) pertaining to the Landair Corporation Stock Option and
Incentive Plan, the Landair Corporation Non-Employee Director Stock Option Plan,
and the Landair Corporation Employee Stock Purchase Plan, of our report dated
February 2, 1999, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and
schedule of Landair Corporation included in its Annual Report (Form 10-K) for
the year ended December 31, 1998, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

                                              Ernst & Young LLP

Nashville, Tennessee
March 3, 1999
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 11


                       CAREDATA.COM, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
              STATEMENTS OF COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE INCOME (LOSS)
                    (in thousands, except per share amounts)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                         THREE MONTHS
                                                                         ------------
                                                                        ENDED MARCH 31,
                                                                        ---------------
                                                                      2000          1999
                                                                     -------       ------

                                                                     -------       ------
<S>                                                                  <C>           <C>
Net income (loss) attributable to common stock                       $  (532)      $  684
                                                                     =======       ======
Weighted average number of common shares outstanding                   8,249        7,391
                                                                     =======       ======
                                                                     -------       ------
Net income (loss) per share of common stock - basic                  $ (0.06)      $ 0.09
                                                                     =======       ======
Shares used in net income (loss) per diluted share calculation:
    Weighted average number of common shares outstanding               8,249        7,391
    Dilutive securities                                                   --          425
                                                                     -------       ------
                                                                       8,249        7,816
                                                                     =======       ======

                                                                     -------       ------
Net income (loss) per share of common stock - diluted                $ (0.06)      $ 0.09
                                                                     =======       ======
</TABLE>

                                      -21-
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 12.2
                            AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY
          COMPUTATION IN SUPPORT OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                              (Dollars in millions)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                       Years Ended December 31,
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               2003     2002     2001     2000     1999
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                           <C>      <C>      <C>      <C>      <C>
Earnings:
   Pretax income from continuing operations   $4,247   $3,727   $1,596   $3,908   $3,438
   Interest expense                            1,617    1,846    2,888    2,952    2,178
   Other adjustments                             157      174      175      163      151
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total earnings (a)                            $6,021   $5,747   $4,659   $7,023   $5,767
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fixed charges:
   Interest expense                           $1,617   $1,846   $2,888   $2,952   $2,178
   Other adjustments                             140      151      170      165      152
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total fixed charges (b)                       $1,757   $1,997   $3,058   $3,117   $2,330
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges (a/b)        3.43     2.88     1.52     2.25     2.48
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
</TABLE>

Included in interest expense in the above computation is interest expense
related to the international banking operations of American Express Company
(American Express) and Travel Related Services' cardmember lending activities,
which is netted against interest and dividends and cardmember lending net
finance charge revenue, respectively, in the Consolidated Statements of Income.

For purposes of the earnings computation, other adjustments include adding the
amortization of capitalized interest, the net loss of affiliates accounted for
at equity whose debt is not guaranteed by American Express, the minority
interest in the earnings of majority-owned subsidiaries with fixed charges, and
the interest component of rental expense and subtracting undistributed net
income of affiliates accounted for at equity.

For purposes of the fixed charges computation, other adjustments include
capitalized interest costs and the interest component of rental expense.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY,

Appellant,

v.

TOTAL ORTHOPAEDIC CARE, P.A. a/a/o DELISSA TAPPER,

Appellee.

No. 4D21-242

[June 30, 2021]

Appeal from the County Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Mardi Levey Cohen, Judge; L.T. Case Nos. CACE19-5473

and COCE16-20792.

Michael A. Rosenberg, Thomas L. Hunker, Peter D. Weinstein and 

Adrianna de la Cruz-Muñoz of Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., Plantation, for 

appellant.

David B. Pakula of David B. Pakula, P.A., Pembroke Pines and Amir 

Fleischer of Marks & Fleischer, Ft. Lauderdale, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Geico Indem. Co. v. Muransky Chiropractic P.A., No. 4D21-

457 (Fla. 4th DCA June 24, 2021).

GROSS, MAY and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-24-00407-CV

In re Phillip “Baby Shark” Scott

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM COMAL COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Phillip “Baby Shark” Scott filed a request for Abuse-of-Discretion Review of the 

failure of the 22nd District Court of Comal County to review “many documents and habeas 

corpus applications in need of rulings but ignored.” His requested relief is in the nature of a 

petition for writ of mandamus. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.

To be entitled to mandamus relief, a relator must show (1) that the relator has no 

adequate remedy at law for obtaining the relief the relator seeks; and (2) that the relator seeks to 

compel a ministerial act rather than a discretionary act. In re Powell, 516 S.W.3d 488, 494-95 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2017) (orig. proceeding). A trial court has a ministerial duty to consider and 

rule on motions properly filed and pending before it, and mandamus may issue to compel the 

trial court to act. In re Pete, 589 S.W.3d 320, 321 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2019, orig. 

proceeding). A relator must establish that the trial court (1) had a legal duty to rule on the 

motion; (2) was asked to rule on the motion; and (3) failed or refused to rule on the motion 

within a reasonable time. Id. It is a relator’s burden to provide a sufficient record to establish 

that the relator is entitled to relief. Id.
2

A relator who has established that his motions are properly pending must also 

show that his motions were properly presented to the trial court for rulings and show how long 

the motions have been pending since presentment. See In re Henry, 525 S.W.3d 381, 382 (Tex. 

App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, orig. proceeding). Merely filing a document with the district 

clerk does not impute the clerk’s knowledge of the filing to the trial court and does not equate to 

a request that the trial court rule on the motion. In re Craig, 426 S.W.3d 106, 107 (Tex. App.—

Houston [1st Dist.] 2012, orig. proceeding). The trial court is not required to consider any 

motion that has not been called to its attention by proper means. See Henry, 525 S.W.3d at 382.

Relator has not shown that he is entitled to mandamus relief. He did not attach

any file-stamped copies of the motions in question to establish their filing, has not established 

that he properly presented his motions to the trial court for rulings, and has not shown how long 

the motions have remained pending after presentment. In the absence of such a record, relator 

has not established that he is entitled to the extraordinary relief of a writ of mandamus.

Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. See Tex. R. App. 

P. 52.8(a).

__________________________________________

Darlene Byrne, Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Kelly and Theofanis

Filed: June 28, 2024