alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 108

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Providing for an adjournment or recess of the two

Houses.
105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 108

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That when the House adjourns on the legisla3 tive day of Thursday, June 26, 1997, it stand adjourned

4 until 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday, July 8, 1997, or until noon

5 on the second day after Members are notified to reassem-
2

•HCON 108 EH

1 ble pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution,

2 whichever occurs first; and that when the Senate recesses

3 or adjourns at the close of business on Thursday, June

4 26, 1997, Friday, June 27, 1997, Saturday, June 28,

5 1997, or Sunday, June 29, 1997, pursuant to a motion

6 made by the Majority Leader, or his designee, in accord7 ance with this concurrent resolution, it stand recessed or

8 adjourned until noon on Monday, July 7, 1997, or such

9 time on that day as may be specified by the Majority

10 Leader or his designee in the motion to recess or adjourn,

11 or until noon on the second day after Members are notified

12 to reassemble pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent res13 olution, whichever occurs first.

14 SEC. 2. The Speaker of the House and the Majority

15 Leader of the Senate, acting jointly after consultation with

16 the Minority Leader of the House and the Minority Lead17 er of the Senate, shall notify the Members of the House

18 and the Senate, respectively, to reassemble whenever, in

19 their opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.

Passed the House of Representatives June 26, 1997.

Attest:

Clerk.
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 123 Received in Senate (RDS)]

  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 123

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 25, 1997

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
 Providing for the use of the catafalque situated in the crypt beneath 
 the rotunda of the Capitol in connection with memorial services to be 
conducted in the Supreme Court Building for the late honorable William 
J. Brennan, former Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United 
                                States.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That the Architect of the Capitol is authorized and directed to 
transfer to the custody of the Chief Justice of the United States the 
catafalque which is presently situated in the crypt beneath the rotunda 
of the Capitol so that such catafalque may be used in the Supreme Court 
Building in connection with services to be conducted there for the late 
honorable William J. Brennan, former Associate Justice of the Supreme 
Court of the United States.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 25, 1997.

            Attest:

                                                ROBIN H. CARLE,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### SECURITY PEOPLE, INC., Appellant v. OJMAR US, LLC, Appellee

2017-1385

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

November 13, 2017

Tarek N. Fahmi, Ascenda Law Group, PC, San Jose, CA, argued for appellant.

James L. Day, Jr., Farella Braun & Martel LLP, San Francisco, CA, argued for appellee. Also represented by Roderick Manley Thompson, Daniel C. Callaway.

(Prost, Chief Judge, Lourie and Chen, Circuit Judges).

*983JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports.

Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum

opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain

computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of

Appeals and does not include the filing date. 

1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 PENNYMAC LOAN SERVICES, LLC.,

3 Plaintiff-Appellee,

4 v. No. 35,742

5 SCOTT K. JEFFERS and

6 ATHENA JEFFERS,

7 Defendants-Appellants.

8 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SANDOVAL COUNTY

9 John F. Davis, District Judge

10 Benjamin Feuchter

11 Keleher & McLeod, P.A.

12 Albuquerque, NM

13 for Appellee

14 Scott K. Jeffers

15 Athena Jeffers

16 Rio Rancho, NM 

17 Pro Se Appellees

18 MEMORANDUM OPINION

19 GARCIA, Judge.
1 {1} Defendants-Appellants Scott K. Jeffers and Athena Jeffers (“Defendants”)

2 appeal, in a self-represented capacity, from the district court’s orders denying

3 Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of standing, and granting a motion for

4 summary judgment filed by Plaintiff-Appellee Pennymac Loan Services

5 (“Pennymac”). [RP 239, 241] Summary affirmance was proposed for the reasons

6 stated in the notice of proposed disposition. Pennymac has filed a response in support

7 of our notice of proposed disposition. No memorandum opposing summary affirmance

8 has been filed, and the time for doing so has expired.

9 {2} Accordingly, we affirm.

10 {3} IT IS SO ORDERED.

11 ___________________________________

12 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge 

13 WE CONCUR:

14 ___________________________________

15 J. MILES HANISEE, Judge

16 ___________________________________

17 M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Samuel WESLEY, Jr., a/k/a Rick, a/k/a Samuel Wesley-El, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-7010

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: January 30, 2018

Decided: February 1, 2018

*146Samuel Wesley, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. John Francis Purcell, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Samuel Wesley, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as successive his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have reviewed the record and Wesley’s informal brief and conclude that Wesley has failed to challenge on appeal the district court’s dispositive procedural ruling. *See*4th Cir. R. 34(b). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
#### Robert W. DOUGHERTY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ivan T. GILMORE, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-7503

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: February 15, 2018

Decided: February 20, 2018

Robert W. Dougherty, Appellant Pro Se.

Before WILKINSON, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit,

PER CURIAM:

Robert W. Dougherty seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Dougherty has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability *255and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
### MANDATE



## Court of Appeals

**First District of Texas**

NO. 01

- 13

- 00960

- CR

RONNIE DUSTIN HARRIS ON , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

Appeal from the 178th District Court of Harris County. (Tr. Ct. No. 1302555).

TO THE 178TH DISTRIC T COURT OF HARRIS COUNTY, GREET INGS :

Before this Court, on the 16th day of June 2015, the case upon appeal to revise or

to reverse your judgment was determined. This Court made its order in these words:

After inspecting the record of the court below, the Court holds that it lacks subject

- matter jurisdiction over this appeal. Accordingly, the Court dismisses the appeal.

The Court orders that this decision be certified below

for observance.

Judgment rendered June 16, 2015.

Per curiam opinion delivered by panel consisting of Justices Keyes, Huddle, and Lloyd.WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court

in this behalf and in all things to have it duly recognized, obeyed, and execute d.

September 1 8 , 2015

Date CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE

CLERK OF THE COURT
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

I,
Kang Chungmai, certify, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Amendment
No. 2 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Tsingda eEdu Corporation for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2011 fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
information contained in this Amendment No. 2 to Annual Report on Form 10-K
fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of
operations of Tsingda eEdu Corporation.

|                        |  |        |                              
|----------------------- |  | ------ | -----------------------------
|                        |  | By:    | /s/ Kang
 Chungmai           
|                       
|                        |  |        |                              
|Date:
 February 4, 2013 |  | Name:  | Kang
 Chungmai               
|                        |  | Title: | Chief Financial Officer      
|                        |  |        | (Principal Financial Officer)

---
P u r s u a n t t o F ifth C ir c u it R u le 4 7 .5 , th e co u r t h a s d e te r m in e dth a t t h is * opi n i on shou l d n otbe pu bl i shed an d i s not preceden texcep t u n d er th e l i m i t ed c ir c u m s ta n c e s s e t fo r th inF ifth C ir c u it R u le 47. 5. 4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 40937 Su m m ar y Cal 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. EL I Z AB ET H S ALAZ AR
- GA L VA N , D efen d a n t- A p p ell a n t.

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or th e S ou t h ernD i st ri ctof T exas U SDC N o . 7 : 0 7 - CR- 1 1 6 8 - ALL B ef ore H IG G IN B O T H A M , B A R K S D A L E , an d E L R O D , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * E l i zabe t h Sal azar - G alvan ( Sal azar) pl eade d gui l t y t o o ne c ountof il l egal r e e n t r ya f

t e rde po r t at i o n f

o l l o wi n gafe l o n yc o n v i c t i o n i n v i o l a t i o n o f 8 U. S . C. § 1 3 2 6 ( a ) a n d(b ) . S h e a p p e a l s h e rwi t h i n - g u i d e l i n e s s e n t e n c e o f 3 7 mo n t hs i m pri sonm en t , argu i n g t h at t h e sentence i s procedurally u n reasona bl e becau se t h e di st ri ctcourtfailed to p rovi de ad equ ate r eason s t o expl ai n i t s c h oi ce of s e n te n c e . United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D May 27, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 40937

2 A s S a l a zarfai l ed t o a r t i c ul at e he rs pec i f i cpr oc edur alobj ec t i on at s e n te n c in g , t h is c o u r t r e v ie w s fo rp la in e r r o r . Se eUni t e d St at e s v . Mo ndrago nSa nt i ago , ___ F. 3d ___, N o. 07- 41099, 2009 W L 782894, at*3 ( 5t h C i r . M ar . 26, 2 0 0 9 ). T o d e m o n s tr a te p la in e r r o r , S a la z a rm u s t s h o w a fo r fe ite de r r o rth a t is c le a ro ro b v io u s a n da ffe c ts h e rs u b s ta n tia l rig h ts . S e eid . I f t he s e c o ndit i o ns a r e m e t, th is c o u r t m a ye x e r c is e its d is c r e tio n to co r r e c t t h e e r r o rif it “s e r io u s ly a ff ects th e fa i rn ess , i n teg ri ty, or pu b l i c rep u tati on of j u d i ci a l p roce ed i n gs . ” Id . T h ere i s n oth i n g inthe reco rdto i n d i ca te tha t Sa l a za r’ s sen ten ce w o u ld h ave been di f

ferent if t h e courtha d provi ded m ore exp l an ati on f or i t s choi ce of se nt enc e. Sal azarhas t hus fai l ed t o de m ons t r at e e r r oraf fec t i ng hers ubst ant i al r ig h ts . Se ei d. at*7 . A c c o r d in g ly , w e A F F IR M th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s ju d g m e n t.
#### Trent TAYLOR, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Robert STEVENS, Warden, Individually and in their official capacity; Robert Riojas, Sergeant of Corrections Officer, Individually and in their official capacity; Ricardo Cortez, Sergeant of Corrections Officer, Individually and in their official capacity; Stephen Hunter, Correctional Officer, Individually and in their official capacity; Larry Davidson, Correctional Officer, Individually and in their official capacity; Creastor Henderson, L.V.N., Individually and in their official capacity; Stephanie Orr, L.V.N., Individually and in their official capacity, et al., Defendants-Appellees

No. 16-11355 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed December 21, 2017

Trent Taylor, Pro Se

Ariel Nicole Wiley, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Texas, Austin, TX, Craig McCam Jacobs, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, Law *281Enforcement Defense Division, Austin, TX, for Defendants-Appellees

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Trent Taylor, Texas prisoner # 1691384, has appealed the district court’s interlocutory order denying his motion for appointment of counsel. We will not overturn a district court’s decision regarding appointment of counsel unless the appellant shows a “clear abuse of discretion.” *Cupit v. Jones,*835 F.2d 82, 86 (5th Cir. 1987). Because this case does not present exceptional circumstances requiring appointment of counsel, Taylor has failed to make such a showing. *See Ulmer v. Chancellor,*691 F.2d 209, 212 (5th Cir. 1982). The district court’s order is AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
# Official Journal C 316/2014

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 316 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5716 September 2014 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 316

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5716 September 2014

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2014/C 316/01 | Euro exchange rates | 1 |
| 2014/C 316/02 | Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union | 2 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2014/C 316/01

Euro exchange rates

1

2014/C 316/02

Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union

2

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2014/C 316/03 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7370 — INEOS / Styrolution) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (1) | 3 |
| 2014/C 316/04 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7366 — Whirlpool/Indesit) (1) | 4 |
| 2014/C 316/05 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7364 — Blackstone/Lombard) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (1) | 5 |
| | OTHER ACTS |
| | European Commission |
| 2014/C 316/06 | Publication of an amendment application pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs | 6 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2014/C 316/03

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7370 — INEOS / Styrolution) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (1)

3

2014/C 316/04

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7366 — Whirlpool/Indesit) (1)

4

2014/C 316/05

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7364 — Blackstone/Lombard) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (1)

5

OTHER ACTS

European Commission

2014/C 316/06

Publication of an amendment application pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs

6

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

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

EN
Order entered January 10, 2017

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 16 - 00763 - CV THE FAN EXPO, LLC, Appellant

V. NATIONAL FOOTBALL LE AGUE, NFL ENTERPRISE S, LLC, NFL NET WORK SERVICES, INC. D/B/A NFL NETWORK, NFL DIG ITAL MEDIA, AND NFL. COM, Appellee s On Appeal from the 193rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC - 15 - 08119



### O RDER The Court has before it appellant’s January 9, 2017 third unop posed motion to extend time to file its brief. We GRANT the motion and ORDER appellant’s brief filed as of the date of this order

. /s/ CRAIG STODDART JUSTICE
#### Donnie Ray DUMAS Plaintiff-Appellant v. Matthew A. FALKNER; Gary L. Broyles Defendants-Appellees

No. 17-1942

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: December 7, 2017

Filed: December 12, 2017

Donnie Ray Dumas, Pro Se

Thomas M. Larson, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Kansas City, MO, for Defendants-Appellees

Before GRUENDER, BOWMAN,.and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Donnie Ray Dumas appeals after the District Court1 granted summary judgment to defendants in his action brought under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). Viewing the summary judgment record in the light most favorable to Du*484mas and drawing all reasonable inferences in his favor, we agree with the District Court that summary judgment was warranted. See Clay v. Credit Bureau Enters., Inc., 754 F.3d 535, 539 (8th Cir. 2014) (standard of review). We further conclude that the court did not err in denying Dumas’s motion to add a habeas claim against the United States Parole Commission. See Kozlov v. Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc., 818 F.3d 380, 394-95 (8th Cir. 2016) (standard of review). We affirm the judgment.

1

. The Honorable Stephen R. Bough, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri,
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 219 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 219

Designating March 25, 1996 as ``Greek Independence Day: A National Day 
           of Celebration of Greek and American Democracy''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            February 1, 1996

  Mr. Specter (for himself, Mr. Simon, Mr. Dole, Mr. Lautenberg, Mrs. 
Boxer, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Heflin, Ms. Mikulski, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Grassley, 
Mr. Thurmond, Mr. Glenn, Mr. Bradley, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Reid, 
 Mr. Mack, Ms. Moseley-Braun, Mr. Sarbanes, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Cohen, 
Mrs. Murray, Mr. Biden, Mr. Pressler, Mr. Levin, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Dodd, 
and Mr. Warner) submitted the following resolution, which was referred 
                   to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Designating March 25, 1996 as ``Greek Independence Day: A National Day 
           of Celebration of Greek and American Democracy''.

Whereas the ancient Greeks developed the concept of democracy, in which the 
        supreme power to govern was invested in the people;
Whereas the Founding Fathers of the United States of America drew heavily upon 
        the political experience and philosophy of ancient Greece in forming our 
        representative democracy;
Whereas the founders of the modern Greek state modeled their government after 
        that of the United States in an effort to best imitate their ancient 
        democracy;
Whereas Greece is one of only three nations in the world, beyond the former 
        British Empire, that has been allied with the United States in every 
        major international conflict this century;
Whereas 1996 will mark the historic first official state visit to the United 
        States of an elected head of state of Greece;
Whereas these and other ideals have forged a close bond between our two nations 
        and their peoples;
Whereas March 25, 1996 marks the 175th anniversary of the beginning of the 
        revolution which freed the Greek people from the Ottoman Empire; and
Whereas it is proper and desirable to celebrate with the Greek people, and to 
        reaffirm the democratic principles from which our two great nations were 
        born: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That March 25, 1996 is designated as ``Greek Independence 
Day: A National Day of Celebration of Greek and American Democracy''. 
The President is requested to issue a proclamation calling upon the 
people of the United States to observe the day with appropriate 
ceremonies and activities.
                                 <all>
```