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

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 11 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to require 

that the Supreme Court of the United States be composed of nine justices. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 4, 2021 

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota (for himself, Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania, Mr. 

DUNCAN, Mrs. LESKO, Mr. MEUSER, Mr. ARMSTRONG, Mr. BALDERSON, 

Mr. WEBER of Texas, Mr. KELLER, Mr. JOYCE of Ohio, Mr. BABIN, Mr. 

KATKO, Mr. PFLUGER, Mr. FEENSTRA, and Mr. CARL) submitted 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 to require that the Supreme Court of the United 

States be composed of nine justices. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives 

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two3 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 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HJ 11 IH 

1 States within seven years after the date of its submission 

2 for ratification: 

3 ‘‘ARTICLE — 

4 ‘‘The Supreme Court of the United States shall be 

5 composed of nine justices.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
**Exhibit 31.1****Certifications**I, Michael W. Patrick, certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Carmike Cinemas, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(f) and 15d- 15(f)) for the registrant and have:a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b)Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control overfinancial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assuranceregarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements forexternal purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andd) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors:a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.November 9, 2005   /s/ Michael W. Patrick  Michael W. Patrick  President, ChiefExecutive Officer and
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-03-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-01-1997
<CASH>                                          14,758
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,634
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     49,659
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                73,806
<PP&E>                                         113,506
<DEPRECIATION>                                  63,513
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 131,211
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           34,352
<BONDS>                                         10,579
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            13
<OTHER-SE>                                      78,996
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   131,211
<SALES>                                         82,258
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                82,258
<CGS>                                           63,318
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   63,318
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                18,833
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  53
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     54
<INCOME-TAX>                                        20
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 34
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        34
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 6 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 6

  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
   limit the number of terms an individual may serve as a Member of 
                               Congress.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 4, 2021

Mr. Fitzpatrick (for himself, Mr. Gallagher, Mr. Hollingsworth, and Mr. 
Zeldin) submitted 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 to 
   limit the number of terms an individual may serve as a Member of 
                               Congress.

    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--

    ``Section 1. No person shall serve as a Representative for more 
than six two-year terms. Service as a Representative for more than one 
year of any two-year term shall be treated as a complete term for 
purposes of this section, without regard to whether the service was 
completed by the individual originally elected to the term.
    ``Section 2. No person shall serve as a Senator for more than two 
six-year terms. Service as a Senator for more than three years of any 
six-year term shall be treated as a complete term for purposes of this 
section, without regard to whether the service was completed by the 
individual originally elected to the term.
    ``Section 3. This article shall not apply to any person who served 
as a Representative or as a Senator during any Congress occurring 
before the One Hundred Seventeenth Congress.''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          14,712
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    398,693
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               730,656
<PP&E>                                          13,989
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,554
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 949,189
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,380,255
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      5,000
<COMMON>                                         2,614
<OTHER-SE>                                     875,500
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   949,189
<SALES>                                        674,750
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               674,750
<CGS>                                          181,653
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,420,102
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               119,532
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              27,732
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,428,977)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (29,250)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,399,727)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 56,780
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,342,947)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.57)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.57)
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 99.1


                           CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                            18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                               SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         I, C. Christian Winkle, President and Chief Executive Officer of
Mariner Health Care, Inc. (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. section 1350, that:

         (1)      the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the
                  quarterly period ended June 30, 2002 (the "Report") fully
                  complies with the requirements of sections 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.


Dated:  August 23, 2002


/s/ C. Christian Winkle
---------------------------------------------
C. Christian Winkle
President and Chief Executive Officer
#### August Gutsch v. Augustus Pittsley and Frederick Stevenson.

*Promissory note*— Fraud *on matter*— Admission *of evidence.*

Where the defense to a promissory note is that it was obtained by fraud, and that the consideration was misrepresented, it is within the discretion of the trial judge to allow considerable latitude in receiving testimony.

Error to Huron. (Wixson, J.)

October 9.

October 24.

Assumpsit. Plaintiff brings error.

Affirmed.

*Blbridge- T. Bacon*for appellant.

*Green <& Murphy*for appellees.

*567SheRwood, J.

Plaintiff brings assumpsit on a note made by defendants, reading as follows:

> “ $155.63 SaNd Beach, May 9, 1882.

> Sixty days from date we promise to pay to A. Gutsch, or order, the sum of one hundred and fifty-five doll, and sixty-three cents, at seven pr ct. per annum, payable, at Huron County Bank, at Sand Beach.

> A. Pittsley. his PbEDEBIOK X S'IEVENSON. mark.

> In presence of

> Geo. C. GeeeN.”

Defendants’ plea, general issue; with notice that plaintiff obtained the note from defendants by fraudulent representations, and that they never received any consideration therefor.

The evidence shows the note was given as part of the purchase price of a quantity of liquors sold to defendant- Pitts-ley by plaintiff. The defendants claim the liquors were represented to Pittsley to be worth $255, and he was to have them at cost price, and the same were to be measured by the parties; that Pittsley and plaintiff moved the liquors to Pittsley’s saloon, and plaintiff then refused to measure the liquors or furnish the original bills thereof showing the amount; that the defendant Pittsley, after this refusal, caused the liquors tb be measured, and that the amount fell short enough in value to amount to the sum for which the note was given. The jury found for the defendant and the plaintiff brings error.

Eighteen assignments of error are based upon the rulings of the circuit judge upon the admission and exclusion of testimony. Fraud was charged in obtaining the note, and misrepresentations as to the quantity of liquor delivered under the sale. A large latitude in receiving testimony in such a case is within the discretion of the trial judge; and a careful perusal of the testimony fails to disclose any abuse of that discretion, and we find no error under any of these assignments.

Several exceptions were taken to the charge as given, and *568to the refusals to charge. None of these are well taken. We think plaintiffs case was fairly tried, and went to the jury under a charge, so far as the record gives the same, quite as favorable to the plaintiff as the case would warrant. There was no consideration for the note. Indeed, we think the testimony strongly tends to show that the shortage in the liquor amounted to more than the note sued upon calls for.

The judgment must be affirmed with costs.

The other Justices concurred.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-2172
DIANE VON FURSTENBERG STUDIO, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CATHERINE SNYDER, d/b/a Cathy 3254, d/b/a katrina3254@vendio.com, d/b/a katrina3254@mailstep.com, d/b/a Fairfax Trading Company, Defendant - Appellant, and JOHN DOES, 1-15; XYZ CORPORATIONS, 1-15, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (1:06-cv-01356-JCC) Submitted: September 3, 2008 Decided: September 18, 2008 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Catherine Snyder, Appellant Pro Se. Kevin B. Bedell, Janet Shih Hajek, GREENBERG & TRAURIG, LLP, McLean, Virginia, for Appellee.- 2 - Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.*We note that the district court erred in holding that the Plaintiff’s registration provided Snyder with constructive notice for the purposes of the damages award. This error was harmless, however, because Plaintiff was entitled to elect statutory damages even if Snyder had no actual notice of the registration of Plaintiff’s mark. See15 U.S.C. §§ 1116(d)(1)(B)(I), 1117(c) (2000).
- 3 - PER CURIAM: Catherine Snyder appeals the district court’s order entering judgment against her on Plaintiff’s trademark infringement claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1114 (2000), trademark dilution claim under 15 U.S.C.A. § 1125(c) (West 1998 & Supp. 2008), and under Virginia common law. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. See Diane Von Furstenberg Studio v. Snyder , No. 1:06-cv-01356-JCC (E.D. Va. filed Oct. 23, 2007; entered Oct. 24, 2007). * We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED
# United States Court of Appeals **for the Fifth Circuit**

____________

No. 24-40248

____________ M. D., by next friend Sarah R. Stukenberg; D. I., by next friend Nancy G. Pofahl; Z. H., by next friend Carla B. Morrison; S. A., by next friend Javier Solis; A. M., by next friend Jennifer Talley; J. S., by next friend Anna J. Ricker; K. E., as next friend John W. Cliff, Jr.; M. R., as next friend Bobbie M. Young; J. R., as next friend Bobbie M. Young; H. V., by next friend Anna J. Ricker; P. O., as next friend Anna J. Ricker; L. H., as next friend Estela C. Vasquez; C. H.; S. R., as next friend Bobbie M. Young; S. S., as next friend Estela C. Vasquez; A. R., as next friend Tom McKenzie, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated , Plaintiffs—Appellees ,

versus
Greg Abbott, in his official capacity as Go vernor of the State of Texas ; Cecile Erwin Young, in her official capacity as Executive Commissioner of the Health and Human Services Commission of the State of Texas ; Stephanie Muth, in her official capacity as Commissioner of Texas Department of Family and Protective Services , Defendants—Appellants

.

______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 2:11-CV-84

______________________________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED April 17, 2024 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 24-40248 Document: 18-2 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/17/2024UNPUBLISHED ORDER

Before Elrod, Haynes, and Douglas, Circuit Judges

. Per Curiam:

IT IS ORDERED that the contempt order of the district court is temporarily administratively STAYED pending further order of this court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the district court proceedings are temporarily administratively STAYED pending further order of this

court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs-Appellees shall have until 12:00 PM Central Time on Monday, April 22, 2024 to file a response. Defendants-Appellants shall have until 12:00 PM Central Time on Wednesday, April 24, 2024 to file a reply.

Case: 24-40248 Document: 18-2 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/17/2024
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     3rd Quarter 1999 10Q
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000882288
<NAME>                        Textainer Equipment Income Fund IV
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     US Dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         1,769
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  5,671
<ALLOWANCES>                                   732
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         115,964
<DEPRECIATION>                                 44,520
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 78,152
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2,177
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     75,975
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   78,152
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               12,706
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  12,747
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               571
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (612)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (612)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0



</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Be th Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

April 1, 2015

p0325 

# Order

Clerk April 1, 2015

150134

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 150134

COA: 308654

Kent CC: 11

- 007667

- FC

MELVIN JAMES MARSHALL,

Defendant

- Appellant.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 7, 2014

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuan t to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in

lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE that part of the Court of Appeals

judgment that affirmed the trial court’s scoring of Offense Variable (OV) 13, and we

REMAND this case to the Kent Circuit Court for resentencing.

Th e trial court assessed 25 points for OV 13. But pursuant to MCL 777.43(2)(c),

“[e]xcept for offenses related to membership in an organized criminal group or that are

gang

- related, . . . conduct scored in offense variable 11 or 12” must not be scored under

OV 13. As the Court of Appeals correctly held, the defendant’s acts of resisting or

obstructing the police would have been properly scored under OV 12, but it erred in

concluding that those acts were “related to membership in an organized criminal group”

or “gang

- related.” Therefore, the trial court erred in scoring OV 13 because, without the

resisting or obstructing, there may not have been “3 or more crimes against a person.”

MCL 777.43(1)(c). Because the erroneous scoring of OV 13 changed the applic able

guidelines range, the defendant is entitled to resentencing. See People v Francisco , 474

Mich 82 (2006).

In all other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are not persuaded

that the remaining question presented should be reviewed by this Court.