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

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4892 

To require the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System to continue 

to make available to the public on a weekly basis information on the 

measure of the M3 monetary aggregate, and its components, and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 7, 2006 

Mr. PAUL (for himself and Mr. JONES of North Carolina) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To require the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 

System to continue to make available to the public on 

a weekly basis information on the measure of the M3 

monetary aggregate, and its components, and for other 

purposes. 

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 ‘‘Sunshine in Monetary 

5 Policy Act’’. 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•HR 4892 IH 

1 SEC. 2. M3 MONETARY AGGREGATE REQUIRED TO BE PUB2 LISHED WEEKLY. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding the announce4 ment by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 

5 System on November 10, 2005, the Board of Governors 

6 of the Federal Reserve System shall continue, after March 

7 22, 2006, to compile and to publish on a weekly basis the 

8 measure of the M3 monetary aggregate and the compo9 nents of the M3 that are not included in the measure of 

10 the M2 monetary aggregate. 

11 (b) M3 MONETARY AGGREGATE DEFINED.—For 

12 purposes of this section, the term ‘‘M3 monetary aggre13 gate’’ means the inclusive measure of money compiled by 

14 adding the following: 

15 (1) M1 COMPONENTS.—Currency in circulation 

16 (plus traveler’s checks), demand deposits, Negotiable 

17 Order of Withdrawal (NOW) accounts, and similar 

18 interest-earning checking account balances. 

19 (2) THE NON-M1 COMPONENTS OF M2.—House20 hold holdings of savings deposits, small time depos21 its, and retail money market mutual fund balances 

22 (exclusive of balances held in IRA and Keogh ac23 counts). 

24 (3) THE NON-M2 COMPONENTS OF M3.—Institu25 tional money market mutual fund balances and man26 aged liabilities of depositories consisting of large 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
3 

•HR 4892 IH 

1 time deposits, repurchase agreements, and 

2 Eurodollars. 

Æ 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
No. 09M67.

#### Robert Neely, Petitioner v. Luis Marshall, Superintendent, Sing Sing Correctional Facility.

559 U.S. 933, 130 S. Ct. 1567,

176 L. Ed. 2d 106,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 1158.

February 22, 2010.

Motion to direct the Clerk to file a petition for writ of certiorari out of time denied.
1 NO. 03

- 14 -00617- CR

NATHANIEL PAUL FOX § IN THE THIRD

V. § DISTRICT COURT OF

THE STATE OF TEXAS § APPEALS OF TEXAS

STATE’S FIRST MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE BRIEF

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF SAID COURT:

Now comes the State of Texas, Appellee in the above styled and numbered

cause, and moves for an extension of time of 3 0 days to file Appellee’s brief, and

for good cause would show the following:

I.

Appellant was indicted by a grand jury on March 13, 2013 for the char ge s of

Murder and Aggravated Assault of a Family or Household Member with a Deadly

Weapon in CR2013-091

. Appellant filed his brief on January 22, 2015

. The State’s

brief is currently due on February 23, 2015.

II.

I am handling the appeal for the State in this case

. On January 26, 2015, I

filed a brief in cause number 03- 14 -00584-CR. Around February 9, 2015, I filed a

State’s Supplemental Memorandum and findings of fact and conclusions of law

related to a habeas hearing in CR2010-417. I prepared proposed findings of fact

and conclusions of law for the District Court related to a writ of habeas corpus in ACCEPTED 03-14-00617-CR 4243543 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS 2/23/2015 10:28:15 AM JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK2

cause numbers CR2013

- 593 and

- 594, which I submitted around February 17,

2015. I appeared in Court for another habeas corpus hearing related to CR2012

-

428 on February 19, 2015. I submitted a brief in appellate cause number 07

- 15

-

00025

- CV on February 20, 2015. Additionally, I have assisted other attorneys in

the office by researching various issues that have arisen in their trials and appeals.

While I have re viewed and begun researching Appellant’s brief, I have not yet

been able to complete a significant amount of work on a response, and respectfully

request an extension of 30 days to file the State’s brief in the instant cause. This is

the first extension so ught by Appellee.

III

. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the State’s counsel

respect fully p r a y s f

o r an extension of 3 0 days, until March 25

, 201 5 , so that an

adequate response may be made to Appellant’s brief. This extension is not

requested for purposes o f delay but so that justice may be done.

R espectfully submitted,

/s/ Joshua D. Presley Joshua D. Presley SBN: 24088254 preslj@co.comal.tx.us Comal Criminal District Attorney ’s Office 150 N. Seguin Avenue, Suite 307 New Braunfels, Texas 78130 Ph: (830) 221

- 1300 / Fax: (830) 608

- 20083 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Joshua D. Presley

, Assistant D istrict A ttorney for the State of Texas,

Appellee, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of t his State’s First Motion to

Extend Time to File Brief has been delivered t o Appellant NATHANIEL PAUL

FOX ’s attorney in this matter :

Paul A. Finley pfinley@reaganburrus.com Reagan Burrus PLLC 401 Main Plaza, Suite 200 New Braunfels, TX 78130 Counsel for Ap

pellant on Appeal

B y electronically sending it to his above

- listed email address through

e f i l e

. t x c o u r t s .gov , this 23 rd day of February

, 2015

.

/s/ Joshua D. Presley Joshua D. Presley
Exhibit
32.1




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 China Agritech, Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Yu Chang, the Chief
Executive Officer and President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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.  
Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




May 14, 2009
                  /s/ Yu ChangChief
      Executive Officer(Principal
      Executive
Officer)
COURT OF APPEALS

Thirteenth District

Corpus Christi - Edinburg, Texas

Below is the JUDGMENT in the numbered cause set out herein to be Filed and 

Entered in the Minutes of the Court of Appeals, Thirteenth District of Texas, at Corpus 

Christi - Edinburg, as of the 3rd day of October, 2013. If this Judgment does not 

conform to the opinion handed down by the Court in this cause, any party may file a 

Motion for Correction of Judgment with the Clerk of this Court.

CAUSE NO. 13-12-00604-CR (Tr.Ct.No. CR-5305-10-E)

JAMES DARYLL LAWRENCE

SCOTT, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal to this Court from Hidalgo County, Texas.

* * * * * * *

JUDGMENT

On appeal from the 275th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas, from a judgment 

signed August 28, 2012. Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Valdez. Do not 

publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). 

THIS CAUSE was submitted to the Court on October 1, 2013, on the record and 

appellant’s brief. These having been examined and fully considered, it is the opinion of 

the Court that there was some error in the judgment of the court below, and said 

judgment is hereby AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.

It is further ordered that this decision be certified below for observance.

* * * * * * *

DORIAN RAMIREZ, CLERK
Montana Twenty-First Judicial District Court. County of Ravalli.

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, -vs- WILLIAM ALLEN RORVIK, Defendant.

CAUSE NO. DC-15-084

DECISION

On October 28, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced as follows:

> Charge I - A commitment to a prison operated by the Montana Department of Corrections for a period of five (5) years, for the offense of Criminal Possession of Dangerous Drugs, a Felony. The sentence was ordered to run consecutively to any other sentences the Defendant was currently serving.

> Charge II: A commitment to the Ravalli County Detention Center for a period of six (6) months, for the offense of Criminal Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, a misdemeanor, ordered to run concurrently to Charge I.

> Charge III: A commitment to the Ravalli County Detention Center for a period of six (6) months, for the offense of Criminal Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, a misdemeanor, ordered to run concurrently with the sentences in Charges I and II.

Due to the Defendant’s financial circumstances, the Court did not impose any fines, fees or costs. The Defendant received credit for one hundred ninety-six (196) days for time served in detention prior to sentencing.

On May 5, 2016, the Defendant’s Application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court (hereafter “the Division”).

The Defendant was present and was represented by Jennifer Streano of the Office of the State Public Defender. The State was not represented. Marlene Rorvik, mother of the Defendant, was present.

Before hearing the Application, the Defendant was advised that the Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also increase it. The Defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Division. The Defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he wished to proceed.

Rule 12, Rules of the Sentence Review Division of the Supreme Court of *54Montana, provides that, “The sentence imposed by the District Court is presumed correct. The sentence shall not be reduced or increased unless it is clearly inadequate or clearly excessive.” (Section 46-18-904(3), MCA).

Done in open Court this 5th day of May, 2016.

DATED this 10th day of June, 2016.

The Division finds that the reasons advanced for modification are insufficient to hold that the sentence imposed by the District Court is clearly inadequate or clearly excessive.

Therefore, it is the unanimous decision of the Division that the sentence is AFFIRMED.

Hon. Brenda Gilbert, Chairperson, Hon. Brad Newman, Member and Hon. Kathy Seeley, Member.
No. 11-5587.

#### Brandon B. Drewry, Petitioner v. Maine.

565 U.S. 1186, 132 S. Ct. 1165,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 1014.

181 L. Ed. 2d 1034,

January 23, 2012.

Motion for leave to file a petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 565 U.S. 915, 132 S. Ct. 331, 181 L. Ed. 2d 206, 2011 U.S. LEXIS 5889.
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT JAC O VAN M AANEN, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. UNIVER SITY OF THE NATIONS, INC ., DB A YWA M -Unive rsity of the Nations and DOES, 1-10, De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s, And YOUTH W ITH A M ISSION INTER NATIONAL, INC ., DB A YWAM Offic e o f The Founde rs a nd YOUTH W ITH A M ISSION-B ISHOP, De fe nda

nts. No. 12-15515 D.C . No. 1:10-c v-00493-AW I-JLT M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia Anthony W . Ishii, Se nior Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Argue d and Subm i tte d

Oc tobe r 9, 2013 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia 

# FIL E D OCT 15 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.B e fore : D.W . NELSON, M . SM ITH, a n d IKUTA, C irc uit Judge s. Ja c o va n M a a ne n a p p e a ls the distric t c ourt’ s de c ision gra nting sum m ary judgm e nt in fa

vor of the Unive rsity

of the Na t ions (Unive rsity ) on va n M a ane n’ s c la im of oste nsible a g e nc y

unde r C a lifornia

la w . W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291. The e vide nc e in the re c ord doe s not e s ta blish a ny ge nuine dispute of m a te ria l fa c t sugge sting tha t va n M a ane n re lie d on a

be lie f that Youth W ith a M ission-B ishop (YW

AM -B ishop) wa s the a ge nt of the Unive rsity whe n he de c ide d to e nroll in the SOAR

c ourse . Se e C a l. C iv. C ode § 2300; Assoc iate d C re ditors’ Age nc y v . Dav i s , 13 C a l. 3d 374, 399 (1975). Va n M a ane n te s tifie d tha

t he re lie d on the inc lusion of the

YW A M -B ishop SOAR

c ourse a s pa

rt of the Unive rsity c ourse c a ta log be c a

use it inform e d him

tha t the c ourse wa s pa

rt of the YW AM m ove m e nt a

nd c om plie d with YW

AM ’ s va lue s. B ut Va

n M a ane n did not identify any othe r re a s on why

the inc l usion of theSOAR c o urse in the Unive rsity

wa s im porta nt to him . C

f . J .L. v . C h ildre n’s Institute

, Inc . , 177 C a l. App. 4th 388, 403–04 (2009). Ac c ordingly , the re is no e vide nc e that in m aking his de c i sion to e nroll in the SOAR

c o urse va

n M a ane n re lie d on the a

bility of the Unive rsity

to e xe rc ise c ontrol ove r YW AM -B ishop. C f. K aplan v . C

o ldw e ll Bank

e r Re side ntial

2Affiliate

s , Inc . , 59 C a l . App. 4th 741, 744–48 (1997); Be c k v . Arthur Murray

, Inc . , 245 C a l. App. 2d 976, 977–78 (1966). AFFIRM E D .

3