alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 17 

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, February 17, 2011, Friday, Feb4 ruary 18, 2011, or Saturday, February 19, 2011, on a 

5 motion offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by 

6 its Majority Leader or his designee, it stand adjourned 

7 until 2 p.m. on Monday, February 28, 2011, or until the 
2 

•HCON 17 EH 

1 time of any reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this con2 current resolution, whichever occurs first; and that when 

3 the Senate recesses or adjourns on any day from Thurs4 day, February 17, 2011, through Friday, February 25, 

5 2011, on a motion offered pursuant to this concurrent res6 olution by its Majority Leader or his designee, it stand 

7 recessed or adjourned until noon on Monday, February 28, 

8 2011, or such other time on that day as may be specified 

9 in the motion to recess or adjourn, or until the time of 

10 any reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent 

11 resolution, whichever occurs first. 

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

13 Leader of the Senate, or their respective designees, acting 

14 jointly after consultation with the Minority Leader of the 

15 House and the Minority Leader of the Senate, shall notify 

16 the Members of the House and the Senate, respectively, 

17 to reassemble at such place and time as they may des18 ignate if, in their opinion, the public interest shall warrant 

19 it. 

Passed the House of Representatives February 15, 

2011. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 17 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Providing for a conditional adjournment of the 

cess or adjournment of the Senate. House of Representatives and a conditional re-
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 53 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 53

  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
   limit the number of years Representatives and Senators may serve.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 31, 2011

 Mr. Price of Georgia introduced 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 years Representatives and Senators may serve.

    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 be a Representative for more than 
eighteen years, except that service to fill a vacancy shall not be 
included in determining eligibility.
    ``Section 2. No person shall be a Senator for more than eighteen 
years, except that service to fill a vacancy shall not be included in 
determining eligibility.
    ``Section 3. Only service that begins after the date of 
ratification of this article shall count in determining the number of 
years a Representative or Senator serves.''.
                                 <all>
```
IA 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 57 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States allowing 

the States to call a limited convention solely for the purposes of considering whether to propose a specific amendment to the Constitution. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 10, 2011 

Mr. CULBERSON (for himself and Mr. CUELLAR) introduced 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 allowing the States to call a limited convention 

solely for the purposes of considering whether to propose 

a specific amendment to the Constitution. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives 

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-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 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•HJ 57 IH 

1 States within seven years after the date of its submission 

2 for ratification: 

3 ‘‘ARTICLE— 

4 ‘‘The Congress, on application of the legislatures of 

5 two-thirds of the several states, which all contain an iden6 tical amendment, shall call a convention solely to decide 

7 whether to propose that specific amendment to the States, 

8 which, if proposed, shall be valid to all intents and pur9 poses as part of this Constitution when ratified pursuant 

10 to Article V.’’. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
No. 12-234.

#### Craven *v.*Cobell et al.

C. A. D. C. Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.

The Chief Justice and Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
EXHIBIT 32.2   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 on Form 10-Q of MGE Energy, Inc. (the "Company"), for the period ended June 30, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof ("the Report"), I, Jeffrey C. Newman, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 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/ Jeffrey C. NewmanJeffrey C. Newman
Vice President, Chief Financial Officer,
Secretary and Treasurer

Date: August 5, 2011
# C_2019063EN.01000101.xml

| 18.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.9232 — Ivanhoe Cambridge/Macquarie/RHP Manager/RHP Platform)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2019/C 63/01)

On 28 January 2019, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32019M9232. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32019M9232. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
#### Donald BERNAICHE, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-223

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

February 1, 2017

L.T. No.: 2014-CF-1398

Dismissed.
#### State v. Beck

109,657

07/21/2015

Denied.

Unpublished
No. 12-6400.

#### Hagler *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 77 (Wednesday, April 22, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 19938]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-10705]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management
[ID-957-1150-00]


Idaho: Filing of Plats of Survey; Idaho

    The plat of the following described land was officially filed in 
the Idaho State Office, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho, 
effective 9:00 a.m. April 14, 1998.
    The plat representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the 
subdivisional lines and subdivision of section 1, and the survey of lot 
6 in section 1, and the as-built centerline of Hayden Creek Road in 
sections 1 and 12, T. 17 N., R. 23 E., Boise Meridian, Idaho, Group 
991, was accepted April 14, 1998.
    This survey was executed to meet certain administrative needs of 
the Bureau of Land Management. All inquiries concerning the surveys of 
the above described land must be sent to the Chief, Cadastral Survey, 
Idaho State Office, Bureau of Land Management, 1387 South Vinnell Way, 
Boise, Idaho, 83709-1657.

    Dated: April 14, 1998.
Duane E. Olsen,
Chief Cadastral Surveyor for Idaho.
[FR Doc. 98-10705 Filed 4-21-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-GG-P
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 78 (Thursday, April 23, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 20207]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-10877]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis 
Panel (SEP) meeting:

    SEP: Mechanisms of Ige Regulation on Human Leukocytes.
    Date: May 8, 1998.
    Time: 12:30 p.m. to Adjournment.
    Place: Teleconference, Solar Building, Room 1A2, 6003 Executive 
Blvd., Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 496-2550.
    Contact Person: Dr. Vassil Georgiev, Scientific Review Adm., 
6003 Executive Boulevard, Solar Bldg., Room 4C04, Bethesda, Maryland 
20892, (301) 496-8206.
    Purpose/Agenda: To evaluate a grant application.
    The meeting will be closed in accordance with the provisions set 
forth in secs. 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5, U.S.C. 
Applications and/or proposals and the discussions could reveal 
confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable 
material and personal information concerning individuals associated 
with the applications and/or proposals, the disclosure of which 
would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, 
Immunology, Allergic and Immunologic Diseases Research; 93.856, 
Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes 
of Health.)

    Dated: April 16, 1998.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Committee Management Officer, NIH.
[FR Doc. 98-10877 Filed 4-22-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
Exhibit 32.2


                    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 filing of the Annual Report on Form  10-K
for  the  fiscal  year ended December 31, 2008  (the  Report)  by
Seaboard Corporation (the Company), the undersigned, as the Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies pursuant to 18
U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section  906  of  the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

  -  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
     13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
     and

  -  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
     all material respects, the financial condition and results of
     operations of the Company.

Date: March 2, 2009
                                 /s/ Robert L. Steer
                                 Robert L. Steer, Senior Vice President,
                                 Chief Financial Officer

<PAGE>
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-03-00008-CR

Michael Kellough, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 147TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 2022546, HONORABLE WILFORD FLOWERS, JUDGE PRESIDING

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

A jury found appellant Michael Kellough guilty of possessing less than one gram of

cocaine. Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.115 (West Supp. 2003). The district court assessed

punishment at incarceration in a state jail for one year and 250 days.

Appellant’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief concluding that the app e al is

frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of A nders v. California

, 386 U.S. 738

(1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no

arguable grounds to be advanced. S ee also Penson v. Ohio

, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); High v. State

, 573

S.W.2d 8 0 7 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State

, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974);

Jackson v. State

, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Gainous v. State

, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1969). A copy of counsel’s brief was delivered to appellant, who was advised of his

right to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed.2 We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and agree that the appeal is frivolous

and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. Counsel’s

motion to withdraw is granted.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Jan P. Patterson, Justice

Before Justices Kidd, Patterson and Puryear

Affirmed

Filed: June 19, 2003

Do Not Publish
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-1604

KRISTY FRYE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

AMERICAN COLLEGE OF RADIOLOGY,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Alexandria. Anthony John Trenga, Senior District Judge. (1:19-cv-00080-AJT-IDD)

Submitted: January 24, 2022 Decided: February 1, 2022

Before NIEMEYER and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kristy Frye, Appellant Pro Se. Jeffrey Brian Hardie, Thomas Patrick Murphy, Jason 

Alexander Ross, JACKSON LEWIS PC, Reston, Virginia, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Kristy Frye appeals the district court’s orders granting summary judgment in favor 

of her former employer, the American College of Radiology, on Frye’s claims under the 

Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601 to 2654, and the Americans 

with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 to 12213, and denying Frye leave to file an 

amended complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Frye v. Am. Coll. of Radiology, No. 1:19-

cv-00080-AJT-IDD (E.D. Va. Mar. 11, 2020; April 27, 2020). 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.

AFFIRMED
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-10275

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DWAYNE PATTON,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:95-CR-310-H

- - - - - - - - - -

October 23, 1996

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Dwayne Patton has appealed his conviction of having violated

18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). His contention that the statute is

unconstitutional as applied to him lacks merit. United States v.

Rawls, 85 F.3d 240 (5th Cir. 1996). Patton’s contention that the

evidence was insufficient, based on credibility choices made by

the jury, is frivolous. See United States v. Robles-Pantoja, 887

F.2d 1250, 1254-55 (5th Cir. 1989). 
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 50 Received in Senate (RDS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 50

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 12, 2011

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
        Providing for a conditional adjournment of the House of 
                            Representatives.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That when the House adjourns on the legislative day of Friday, May 13, 
2011, or Saturday, May 14, 2011, on a motion offered pursuant to this 
concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader or his designee, it stand 
adjourned until 2 p.m. on Monday, May 23, 2011,

              

 or until the time of any reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this 
concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first.
    Sec. 2.  (a) The Speaker or his designee, after consultation with 
the Minority Leader, shall notify the Members to reassemble at such 
place and time as he may designate if, in his opinion, the public 
interest shall warrant it. (b) After reassembling pursuant to 
subsection (a), when the House adjourns on a motion offered pursuant to 
this subsection by its Majority Leader or his designee, the House shall 
again stand adjourned pursuant to the first section of this concurrent 
resolution.

            Passed the House of Representatives May 12, 2011.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### State v. Vogt

106,487

08/19/13

Denied.

Unpublished
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

S.P.,

Petitioner

v.

B.S.,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 803 MAL 2016

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 22nd day of December, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of 

Appeal is DENIED.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

MEMORANDUM ORDER 

### Appellate case name: In re Kenny Bates d/b/a Bates Backhoe Service Appellate case number: 01-13-00037-CV Trial court case number: 11-CV-0328 Trial court: 212th District Court, Galveston County, Texas Real Party in Interest, Jacob Walker, moved to extend the time to file his response to the petition for writ of mandamus filed by relator, Kenny Bates d/b/a Bates Backhoe Service, and to stay proceedings in the trial court pending this Court’s ruling on the mandamus petition. We 

### grant the motion. It is ordered that real party in interest’s response 1S due Monday, March4, 2013 The Court stays, until further order of this Court, the underlying proceedings in Jacob Walker v. Kenny Bates d/b/a Bates Backhoe Service, No. 11-CV-0328 (212th Dist. Ct., Galveston Cnty., Tex.). See TEX. R. APP. P 52.10(b).
It is so ORDERED. Judge’s signature /s/Evenlyn V. Keyes

[] Acting individually [] Acting for the Court Date: February 4, 2013
# C_2019384EN.01000101.xml

| 12.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 384/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 384/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.9062 — Fortress Investment Group/Air Investment Valencia/JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2019/C 384/01)

On 23 July 2019, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32019M9062. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32019M9062. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
No. 12-56.

#### E. T. et al. *v.*Cantil-Sakauye et al.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.