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

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 57

A resolution making majority party appointments to the Small Business

and Aging Committees for the One Hundred Fourth Congress.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 17 (legislative day, JANUARY 10), 1995

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

considered and agreed to

RESOLUTION

A resolution making majority party appointments to the

Small Business and Aging Committees for the One Hundred Fourth Congress.

1 Resolved, That the following shall constitute the ma2 jority party’s membership on the following Senate commit3 tees for the One Hundred Fourth Congress, or until their

4 successors are appointed:

5 SMALL BUSINESS: Mr. Bond (Chairman), Mr. Pres6 sler, Mr. Burns, Mr. Coverdell, Mr. Kempthorne, Mr. Ben7 nett, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Warner, Mr. Frist, and Ms.

8 Snowe.
2

SRES 57 ATS

1 AGING: Mr. Cohen (Chairman), Mr. Pressler, Mr.

2 Grassley, Mr. Simpson, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Craig, Mr.

3 Burns, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Santorum, and Mr. Thompson.

Æ
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 31, 2021

No. 04-19-00516-CR

Kedreen Marque PUGH,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018CR6053

Honorable Stephanie R. Boyd, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice1

On July 13, 2021, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals issued the mandate in this appeal 

in which it reversed our decision and remanded the matter to this court. See Pugh v. State, 624 

S.W.3d 565 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021). Specifically, the Court of Criminal Appeals held that our

harm analysis related to the trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion to suppress was unsound 

and that our finding of harm was in error. See id. at 570. The Court of Criminal Appeals 

remanded the case for us to consider appellant’s remaining issue that we did not reach. See id.;

Pugh v. State, 04-19-00516-CR, 2020 WL 1866289 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Apr. 15, 2020), 

rev’d, 624 S.W.3d 565 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021).

Accordingly, we ORDER that the parties may file supplemental briefs in this court in 

light of the decision by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. We ORDER appellant to file his 

supplemental brief, if any, in this court on or before October 1, 2021. The State’s supplemental 

brief, if any, will be due in this court thirty days after the date appellant’s supplemental brief is 

1 This case was originally submitted on briefs before a panel consisting of Chief Justice Sandee Bryan Marion, 

Justice Martinez, and Justice Rios. Chief Justice Martinez has now assumed Chief Justice Marion’s place and 

replaces her on remand in accordance with Rule 8(j)(iii) of our Internal Operating Procedures. Likewise, Justice 

Valenzuela has now assumed Justice Martinez’s place and replaces her on remand in accordance with Rule 8(j)(iii).
filed. If either party chooses not to file a supplemental brief, that party is ORDERED to notify 

this court of such fact in writing on or before September 10, 2021. If appellant decides not to file 

a supplemental brief, appellee may still file a supplemental brief, and such brief will be due thirty

days after the date appellant advises this court in writing that he does not intend to file a 

supplemental brief.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 31st day of August, 2021.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
#### UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Orlando Damian PONCE Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-2092

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: November 7, 2017

Filed: November 13, 2017

Kristin Huntington Bryant, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Arkansas, Little Rock, AR, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Orlando Damian Ponce, Pro Se

Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

*533PER CURIAM.

Orlando Damian Ponce directly appeals after he pleaded guilty to illegal reentry and the district court1 sentenced him to a prison term at the bottom of the calculated Guidelines range. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), arguing that the district court miscalculated the Guidelines range. Ponce has filed a pro se brief arguing that the court miscalculated the Guidelines range by failing to use the 2016 Guidelines manual, and that defense counsel failed to communicate effectively with him about the case.

To begin, to the extent Ponce raised an ineffective-assistance claim, we decline to consider it on direct appeal. See United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d 824, 826-27 (8th Cir. 2006) (ineffective-assistance claims are usually best litigated in collateral proceedings, where record can be properly developed). Further, we find no error in the district court’s calculation of the Guidelines range. See United States v. Turner, 781 F.3d 374, 393 (8th Cir. 2015) (this court reviews district court’s application of Guidelines de novo, and its findings of fact for clear error); United States v. Menteer, 408 F.3d 445, 446 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (unobjected-to facts in pre-sentence report are deemed admitted). We also reject Ponce’s Guidelines-manual argument because the district court used the 2016 Guidelines manual.

In addition, we have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and affirm the judgment.

1

. The Honorable Kristine G. Baker, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
Pursuant to clause 6.1 of the **Agreement**and by a separate letter agreement dated 25January 2007, **Melco PBL** and the **Promissory Sellers** have agreed to postpone thedate of completion to July, 27, 2007.We hereby inform that compliance with all the conditions above mentioned will not be fulfilled onor before July 27, 2007. Therefore, we propose a further extension of the date of completion,until July 27, 2008, and in case the aforesaid conditions remain unfulfilled by that date, thenthe completion date shall be further postponed if there is mutual agreement. The said furtherpostponement of the completion date to July 27, 2008 shall not prejudice any of the rights andobligations of the **PROMISSORY SELLERS**, **OMAR**and **MELCO PBL**under the **AGREEMENT**, including but notlimited to, all **Melco PBL**’s rights under clauses 6.1.2 and 6.1.3 of the**Agreement**.Other than the further postponement of the completion date to July 27, 2008 operated by means ofyour acceptance of the terms and conditions of this letter, all other provisions of the**Agreement**, including but not limited to, all the conditions precedent and conditions forcompletion, shall remain fully valid and in force.Please sign the enclosed copy of this letter to signify your acceptance and agreement to the termsand conditions of this letter set out herein.Yours faithfully,**Double Margin Limited**       SIGNED by Mr. Lee Chi Keong  )  /s/ Lee Chi Keong   )   in the presence of:-  )  /s/ Kong Ieong       Witness : Kong Ieong, Connie  )          **Leong On Kei**aka **Angela Leong**  )  /s/ Angela Leong   )   signed in the presence of:-  )    Witness: Kong Ieong, Connie  )  /s/ Kong Ieong
 
 

 
We hereby confirm our acceptance of and agreement to the terms and conditions of the letter set outabove.       **Melco PBL (Macau Peninsula) Limited**  )  /s/ Clarence Chung   )   SIGNED by Clarence Chung  )      )   in the presence of:-  )    Edmond Choi       Witness:-  )  /s/ Edmond Choi
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 203 Introduced in House (IH)]

105th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 203

Requesting that the United States Postal Service issue a commemorative 
  postage stamp honoring the 100th anniversary of the founding of the 
             Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 27, 1998

   Mr. Mascara (for himself, Mr. Evans, Mr. Murtha, and Mr. Kildee) 
 submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to 
            the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Requesting that the United States Postal Service issue a commemorative 
  postage stamp honoring the 100th anniversary of the founding of the 
             Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States.

Whereas the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States (hereinafter in this 
        resolution referred to as the ``VFW''), which was formed by veterans of 
        the Spanish-American War and the Philippine Insurrection to help secure 
        rights and benefits for their service, will be celebrating its 100th 
        anniversary in 1999;
Whereas members of the VFW have fought, bled, and died in every war, conflict, 
        police action, and military intervention in which the United States has 
        engaged during this century;
Whereas, over its history, the VFW has ably represented the interests of 
        veterans in Congress and State legislatures across the Nation and 
        established a network of trained service officers who, at no charge, 
        have helped millions of veterans and their dependents to secure the 
        education, disability compensation, pension, and health care benefits 
        they are rightfully entitled to receive as a result of the military 
        service performed by those veterans;
Whereas the VFW has also been deeply involved in national education projects, 
        awarding nearly $2,700,000 in scholarships annually, as well as 
        countless community projects initiated by its 10,000 posts; and
Whereas the United States Postal Service has issued commemorative postage stamps 
        honoring the VFW's 50th and 75th anniversaries, respectively: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That the Congress requests that the United States Postal Service issue 
a commemorative postage stamp in 1999 in honor of the 100th anniversary 
of the founding of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States.
                                 <all>
```
EX-35 (d)
(logo) WELLS FARGO

Corporate Trust Services
MAC N2702-011
9062 Old Annapolis Road
Columbia, MD 21045
410 884-2000
410 715-2380 Fax

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.


March 23, 2007

Morgan Stanley Capital I Inc.


RE: Annual Statement As To Compliance for Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust
2006-17XS

Per Section 9.11 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated as of 12/1/2006,
the undersigned Officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., (Securities Administrator),
hereby certifies the following for the 2006 calendar year or portion thereof:


(A)  a review of such party's activities during the preceding calendar year or
     portion thereof and of such party's performance under this Agreement, or
     such other applicable agreement in the case of an Additional Servicer, has
     been made under such officer's supervision

(B)  to the best of such officer's knowledge, based on such review, such party
     has fulfilled all its obligations under this Agreement, or such other
     applicable agreement in the case of an Additional Servicer, in all material
     respects throughout such year or portion thereof, or, if there has been a
     failure to fulfill any such obligation in any material respect, specifying
     each such failure known to such officer and the nature and status thereof
     and

(C)  in the case of the Securities Administrator, to the best of such officer's
     knowledge, each Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under its
     Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout such year, or, if
     there has been a failure to fulfill any such obligation in any material
     respect specifying each such failure known to such officer and the nature
     and status thereof


Certified By:
/s/ Scott Strack
Scott Strack, Vice President

Certified By:
/s/ Gordon Johnson
Gordon Johnson, Assistant Secretary
III

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. RES. 254

To express the sense of the Senate regarding the reopening of Pennsylvania

Avenue.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 14, 1996

Mr. GRAMS submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on Governmental Affairs

RESOLUTION

To express the sense of the Senate regarding the reopening

of Pennsylvania Avenue.

1 Resolved,

2 SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

3 The Senate makes the following findings:

4 (1) In 1791, President George Washington

5 commissioned Pierre Charles L’Enfant to draft a

6 blueprint for America’s new capital city; they envi7 sioned Pennsylvania Avenue as a bold, ceremonial

8 boulevard physically linking the U.S. Capitol build9 ing and the White House, and symbolically the Leg10 islative and Executive branches of government.
2

•SRES 254 IS

1 (2) An integral element of the District of Co2 lumbia, Pennsylvania Avenue stood for 195 years as

3 a vital, working, unbroken roadway, elevating it into

4 a place of national importance as ‘‘America’s Main

5 Street’’.

6 (3) 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, the White

7 House, has become America’s most recognized ad8 dress and a primary destination of visitors to the

9 Nation’s Capital; ‘‘the People’s House’’ is host to

10 5,000 tourists daily, and 15,000,000 annually.

11 (4) As home to the President, and given its

12 prominent location on Pennsylvania Avenue and its

13 proximity to the People, the White House has be14 come a powerful symbol of freedom, openness, and

15 an individual’s access to their government.

16 (5) On May 20, 1995, citing possible security

17 risks from vehicles transporting terrorist bombs,

18 President Clinton ordered the Treasury Department

19 and the Secret Service to close Pennsylvania Avenue

20 to vehicular traffic for two blocks in front of the

21 White House.

22 (6) By impeding access and imposing undue

23 hardships upon tourists, residents of the District,

24 commuters, and local business owners and their cus25 tomers, the closure of Pennsylvania Avenue, under-
3

•SRES 254 IS

1 taken without the counsel of the government of the

2 District of Columbia, has replaced the former open3 ness of the area surrounding the White House with

4 barricades, additional security checkpoints, and an

5 atmosphere of fear and distrust.

6 (7) In the year following the closure of Penn7 sylvania Avenue, the taxpayers have borne a tremen8 dous burden for additional security measures along

9 the Avenue near the White House.

10 (8) While the security of the President is of

11 grave concern and is not to be taken lightly, the

12 need to assure the President’s safety must be bal13 anced with the expectation of freedom inherent in a

14 democracy; the present situation is tilted far too

15 heavily toward security at freedom’s expense.

16 SEC. 2. SENSE OF THE SENATE.

17 It is the sense of the Senate that the President should

18 order the immediate, permanent reopening to vehicular

19 traffic of Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White

20 House, restoring the Avenue to its original state and re21 turning it to the People.

Æ
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 77 

To provide for the appointment of additional immigration judges. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 6, 2015 

Ms. JACKSON LEE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To provide for the appointment of additional immigration 

judges. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Justice for Children 

5 Now Act of 2015’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ADDITIONAL IMMIGRATION JUDGES. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Attorney General may ap8 point 70 additional immigration judges in addition to im9 migration judges currently serving as of the date of enact10 ment of this Act. 


EMCDONALD on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 77 IH

1 (b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There 

2 are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be 

3 necessary to carry out this section. 

Æ 


EMCDONALD on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED April 23, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-50537 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JORGE ANTONIO CHAVEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. P-02-CR-14-1

-------------------- Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Jorge Antonio Chavez appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Chavez complains that his sentence was improperly enhanced pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) based on a prior conviction. He argues that the sentencing provision is unconstitutional. Chavez thus contends that his sentence should not exceed the two-year maximum term of imprisonment prescribed in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).No. 02-50537 -2-
In Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. Chavez acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres , but asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres
. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit , 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED. The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                     1,380  
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                     4,451
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                2,661  
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                    10,792  
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                      10,740 
<LOANS>                                   44,856
<ALLOWANCE>                                  400
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            65,521  
<DEPOSITS>                                52,844  
<SHORT-TERM>                                   0 
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          545 
<LONG-TERM>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       9
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<OTHER-SE>                                12,123 
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>            65,521  
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              902 
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            256
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                           1,158
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           642
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           645
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        513
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                 81
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                             0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              476
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                3
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     7
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   7
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                .01
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                              3.27
<LOANS-NON>                                  498
<LOANS-PAST>                                   0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                               0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             400
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                 83
<RECOVERIES>                                   2
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            400
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         400
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                            0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        0
        

</TABLE>