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

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 26

A resolution making majority party appointments to the Governmental Affairs

Committee for the 104th Congress.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 5, 1995

Mr. COCHRAN (for Mr. DOLE) submitted the following resolution; which was

considered and agreed to

RESOLUTION

A resolution making majority party appointments to the

Governmental Affairs Committee for the 104th Congress.

1 Resolved, That the following shall constitute the ma2 jority party’s membership on the following standing com3 mittee for the 104th Congress, or until their successors

4 are chosen:

5 COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS: Mr. Roth,

6 Mr. Stevens, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Thompson, Mr. Cochran,

7 Mr. Grassley, Mr. McCain, and Mr. Smith.

Æ
Exhibit 32


Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the filing of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for
the quarter ended December 31, 2004 (the "Report") by Nevstar Gaming and
Entertainment, Inc. the undersigned hereby certifies that:

       1.    The Report complies in all material respects with the requirements
             of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
             as amended, 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/ William O. Fleischman
                                        ___________________
                                        Chief Executive Officer and
                                        Chief Financial Officer
#### HJS EMISSIONS TECHNOLOGY GMBH & CO. KG, Johnson Matthey PLC, Daimler AG, Appellants v. BASF CORPORATION, Appellee

2016-2440

2016-2441

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

July 19, 2017

*910Jennifer Loraine Swize, Jones Day, Washington, DC, argued for appellants. Also represented by Daniel Kazhdan.

Michael Hawes, Baker Botts LLP, Houston, TX, argued for appellee. Also represented by Sandra Lee, New York, NY.

(Prost, Chief Judge, Newman and Linn, Circuit Judges).

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

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

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
MANDATE

Court of Appeals 

First District of Texas 

NO. 01-13-00960-CR

RONNIE DUSTIN HARRISON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

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

TO THE 178TH DISTRICT COURT OF HARRIS COUNTY, GREETINGS:

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 executed.

September 18, 2015 

Date CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE

 CLERK OF THE COURT
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Shane Michael DREYER, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-11579 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed December 21, 2017

James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Shane Michael Dreyer, Pro Se

Before REAVLEY, PRADO, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Shane Michael Dreyer has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed briefs pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Dreyer has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s briefs and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivo-lous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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.
# EUR-Lex - 32004D0441 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32004D0441

**2004/441/EC: Council Decision of 26 April 2004 concerning the conclusion of the Trade, Development and Cooperation Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, on the one part, and the Republic of South Africa, on the other part **

*
Official Journal L 127 , 29/04/2004 P. 0109 - 0109 *

Council Decision

of 26 April 2004

concerning the conclusion of the Trade, Development and Cooperation Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, on the one part, and the Republic of South Africa, on the other part

(2004/441/EC)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular its Article 310 in connection with the second phrase of Article 300(2) and the second subparagraph of paragraph 3,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,

Having regard to the assent of the European Parliament(1),

Whereas:

(1) The Trade, Development and Cooperation Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, on the one part, and the Republic of South Africa, on the other part, signed in Pretoria on 11 October 1999, has been provisionally applied according to Decision 1999/753/EC of the Council of 29 July 1999(2).

(2) The procedures for ratification and acceptance or endorsement by the Member States have been finalised.

(3) The Trade, Development and Cooperation Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, on the one part, and the Republic of South Africa, on the other part, signed in Pretoria on 11 October 1999 should be approved,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The Trade, Development and Cooperation Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, on the one part, and the Republic of South Africa, on the other part, together with the Annexes and Protocols attached thereto and the declarations made by the Community unilaterally or jointly with other parties that are attached to the Final Act are hereby approved on behalf of the Community.

The texts of the Agreement, Annexes, Protocols and the Final Act are attached to Decision 1999/753/EC.

Article 2

The President of the Council shall give the notification provided for in Article 109 of the Agreement on behalf of the Community.

Article 3

The position to be taken by the Community within the Cooperation Council established by the Agreement, shall be laid down by the Council, on a proposal from the Commission, in accordance with the corresponding provisions of the Treaty establishing the European Community.

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Luxembourg, 26 April 2004.

For the Council

The President

B. Cowen

(1) OJ C 107, 13.4.2000, p. 69.

(2) OJ L 311, 4.12.1999, p. 1.
III

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. RES. 243

To designate the week of May 5, 1996 as ‘‘National Correctional Officers

and Employees Week’’.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

APRIL 16, 1996

Mr. ROBB (for himself, Mr. BRYAN, Mr. CONRAD, Mr. D’AMATO, Mr. DOMENICI, Mr. HEFLIN, Mr. HELMS, Mr. HOLLINGS, Mr. WARNER, Mr.

CHAFEE, Mr. DORGAN, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. JOHNSTON, Mr. KOHL, Mr.

LAUTENBERG, Mr. REID, Mr. SPECTER, Mr. THURMOND, Mr. ABRAHAM,

Mr. BENNETT, Mr. BRADLEY, Mr. BUMPERS, Mr. BYRD, Mr. COATS, Mr.

COCHRAN, Mr. CRAIG, Mr. DASCHLE, Mr. DEWINE, Mr. DODD, Mr.

DOLE, Mr. EXON, Mr. FAIRCLOTH, Mr. FORD, Mr. FRIST, Mr. GLENN,

Mr. GORTON, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. GRAMS, Mr. KEMPTHORNE, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. KERREY, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. LUGAR, Mr. MACK, Mr. MCCONNELL, Ms. MIKULSKI, Mr. MOYNIHAN, Mr. NICKLES, Mr. PRYOR, Mr.

SMITH, Mr. THOMAS, Mr. WYDEN, Mr. BIDEN, Mr. FEINGOLD, Mr.

NUNN, and Mr. LOTT) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

MAY 3, 1996

Committee discharged; considered and agreed to

RESOLUTION

To designate the week of May 5, 1996 as ‘‘National

Correctional Officers and Employees Week’’.

Whereas the operation of correctional facilities represents a

crucial component of our criminal justice system;
2

SRES 243 ATS

Whereas correctional personnel play a vital role in protecting

the rights of the public to be safeguarded from criminal

activity;

Whereas correctional personnel are responsible for the safety

and dignity of human beings charged to their care; and

Whereas correctional personnel work under demanding circumstances and face danger in their daily work lives:

Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the Senate designates the week of May

2 5, 1996 as ‘‘National Correctional Officers and Employees

3 Week’’. The President is authorized and requested to issue

4 a proclamation calling upon the people of the United

5 States to observe such week with appropriate ceremonies

6 and activities.

Æ
#### Odilia ALVAREZ-CORRAL, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 14-72299

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted November 15, 2017 * San Francisco, California

Filed November 29, 2017

Christopher John Stender, Esquire, Attorney, Federal Immigration Counselors, AZ, PC, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner

Edward C. Durant, Attorney, Juria L. • Jones, Andrew Nathan O’Malley, Trial At*712torneys, OIL, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA

Before: GOULD and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges, and GRITZNER,** District Judge.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

**

The Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

Odilia Alvarez-Corral, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an expedited removal order reinstated by the Secretary of Homeland Security and an immigration judge’s subsequent determination that Alvarez-Corral did not have a reasonable fear of persecution or torture in Mexico. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We do not have jurisdiction to consider Alvarez-Corral’s collateral attack on her underlying expedited removal order. *See Garcia de Rincon v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec.,*539 F.3d 1133, 1139 (9th Cir. 2008).

The immigration judge’s decision is sufficiently detailed to satisfy the requirements of due process. See *Lopez v. Ashcroft,*366 F.3d 799, 807 n.6 (9th Cir. 2004).

The immigration judge’s reasonable fear determination is supported by substantial evidence. *See Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch,*828 F.3d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 2016). Alvarez-Corral denied suffering past persecution or torture in Mexico. Alvarez-Corral speculated that her ex-boyfriend might harm her if she returned to Mexico, yet she identified no specific threats and admitted to having no recent contact with him. Also, Alvarez-Corral mentioned only hearing stories of the Mexican government and police’s ineffectiveness, but she has no individualized reason to think that it would acquiesce in her being harmed. We conclude that this evidence would not compel any reasonable adjudicator to conclude that Alvarez-Corral had a reasonable fear of persecution or torture. *See id.*at 833.

DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 79 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

  1st Session
S. RES. 79

Designating March 25, 1995, as ``Greek Independence Day: A National Day 
           of Celebration of Greek and American Democracy''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

            February 24 (legislative day, February 22), 1995

 Mr. Specter (for himself, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. D'Amato, Mr. Pressler, 
   Mr. Simon, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. 
 Kennedy, Mrs. Feinstein, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Reid, Ms. 
   Mikulski, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Robb, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Simpson, Mr. 
  Hollings, Mr. Biden, Mr. Bradley, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. 
Moynihan, Mr. Roth, Mr. Kerry, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. 
  Heflin, Mr. Coverdell, Mr. Cohen, Ms. Moseley-Braun, Ms. Snowe, Mr. 
 Warner, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Dole, Mr. Nunn, Mr. Thurmond, Mr. Chafee, Mrs. 
Kassebaum, Mr. Bryan, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Glenn, Mr. Levin, Mr. Mack, and Mr. 
 Helms) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

               March 21 (legislative day, March 16), 1995

             Committee discharged; considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Designating March 25, 1995, 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 these and other ideals have forged a close bond between our two nations 
        and their peoples;
Whereas March 25, 1995, marks the 174th 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, 1995, 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>
```
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

January 29, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

131293 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

SHELLY NOWAK and BRAD NOWAK, 

Plaintiffs-Appellees, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 131293 

 COA: 258688 

Oakland CC: 2002-038692-NH 

ELAINE K. GANTZ, D.D.S., ELAINE K.

GANTZ, D.D.S., & ASSOCIATES, and

ELAINE K. GANTZ, D.D.S., P.C.,

Defendants-Appellants. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 18, 2006 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

t0122 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

January 29, 2007 

 Clerk
EXHIBIT 99.2


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


     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, William
J. Hemelt, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and
Secretary of the Company, certify, pursuant to U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1)  the Report fully complies with the requirements 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 Company.



                                        /s/ William J. Hemelt
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        William J. Hemelt
                                        Executive Vice President, Chief
                                        Financial Officer, Treasurer & Secretary

Dated August 14, 2002
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William A. WHITE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6932

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: December 22, 2017

Decided: January 22, 2018

William A. White, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Day Rottenborn, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

William A. White seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and denying reconsideration.* The order is not ap-pealable 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 *195claim 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 White has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny White’s motion to correct the. docketing of the appeal, 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*

*

 Although the district court should have construed White’s motion as a motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) rather than Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), and denied it rather than dismissed it, *see MLC Auto., LLC v. Town of S. Pines,*532 F.3d 269, 276 (4th Cir. 2008), as we conclude that White’s motion was nonetheless without merit, we also conclude that White is not entitled to. a certificate of appeal-ability regarding the denial of his motion for reconsideration.
### 6P^^^" " ' ? ' v h L •* ' ^-''-"--^- ^ tf " > . ^ / * 810-110113-00 9 

## .i.^ARTMENTO F ^ •\N3PORTATI0 N >^W._ ^ ^cc^- ^ ^^'2_^-^f ^ !A N 1 3 P 3 : u^ORDOV/ \

SCHOO L DISTRICT ^ P O Bo x14 0 * 10 0 Fisherma n Avenu e Cordova , Alask a 99574-014 0 (907 ) 424-326 5 * FA X (907 ) 424-32 n Cordov o Jr/S rHig h Schoo l Mt

. Eeele s Elementar y (907)424-326 6 (907)424-323 6 FA X (907 ) 424-521 5 FA X (907 ) 424-311 7 Th e Honorabl e Ra y LaHoo dJanuar y 12,201 1 Secretary Departmen t

of Transportatio n 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S E Washington , D C 2059 0 Dea r Secretary LaHood , I amwritin g i n suppor t

of th e renewa l of

Alask aAirline s essentia l ai r servic e agreemen t

tha t provide s dail y servic e t o ou r communit y of

Cordova , Alaslc a(docke t OS T 1998-4899)

. A s withman y smalle r

communitie s acros s ou r

state , Alask aAirline s i s ou r lifeline t o th e ''outside " a s i t

i s ak o th e destinatio n fo r man y traveler s lookin g fo r th e drea mvacatio n locate dwithi n ou r

community

. Fro mth e schoo l district' s perspectiv e however , i t i s muc h more . Alask aAirline s provide s acritica l servic e tha t allow s ou r

student s t o trave l t o area s allowin g the mt o develo p vita l skills , whethe r i t i s throug hsportin g activitie s o r tha t of takin g i n th e varyin g opportunitie s fo r leadershi p training

. Withou t suppor t an davailabilit y o

f AlaskaAirlines , professiona l developmen t fo r ou r staf f woul dcom e t o astandstill , a s woul d bein g abl e t o provid e critica l service s fo r ou r hig hneed s childre n requirin g specialize dhelp

. Wit hs o man y communitie s strugglin g t o maintai n it s population , thos e familie s i n transi t wil l often loo k

fo r acommunit y tha t

provide s vita l service s suc ha s transportatio n i n an dou t o f th e community

. I n Cordova , Alaska , thi s means airlin e service s a s ther e ar e n o road s connectin g u s wit hth e roa dsystem
. Maintainin g th e populatio n i s th e ultimat e challeng e i n smalle r

communitie s suc ha s ours , a s schools , cit y government , commerce , etc ar e al l dependen t

o f suc hsupport/acces s provide db y Alask aAir

. Airfreigh t delivery of

freshl y caugh t

(local ) salmo n benefit s al l parties , rangin g fro m local fisherme n an dcanneries , t o vas t restaurant s locate dacros s America

. Simila r airfreigh t support s delivery of

fres hproduce/dair y product s int o ou r community

. An dfinally , Alask aAirline s provide s on e of th e finest service s availabl e fo r

travel

. Inclemen t weather , winte r

weather , an ddarknes s issue s ar e al l take n i n strid e wit hth e highl y trainedstaf

f an dwithth e cuttin g edg e technolog y mad e available

. I loo k forwar dt o continue dservic e of Alask aAirlines..

. Sincerely ,

Superintenden t

of School s
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-13-00051-CV 

TINA M. CANTRELL APPELLANT

V.

RONALD M. CANTRELL APPELLEE 

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

FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF PARKER COUNTY

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

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

On July 10, 2013 and August 1, 2013, we notified appellant that her brief 

had not been filed as required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.6(a). 

See Tex. R. App. P. 38.6(a). We stated we could dismiss the appeal for want of 

prosecution unless appellant or any party desiring to continue this appeal filed 

with the court within ten days a response showing grounds for continuing the 

appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3. We have not received any response.

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

Because appellant's brief has not been filed, we dismiss the appeal for 

want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a), 42.3(b), 43.2(f).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: GARDNER, WALKER, and MCCOY, JJ. 

DELIVERED: August 22, 2013