alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
H. R. 504

One Hundred Ninth Congress

of the

United States of America 

AT THE FIRST SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, 

the fourth day of January, two thousand and five 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 4960 West 

Washington Boulevard in Los Angeles, California, as the ‘‘Ray Charles Post Office 

Building’’.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

The facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

4960 West Washington Boulevard in Los Angeles, California, shall 

be known and designated as the ‘‘Ray Charles Post Office Building’’. 

SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, 

or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 

in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Ray Charles 

Post Office Building’’.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
No. 09-8900.

#### Celeste Simone Carrington, Petitioner v. California.

559 U.S. 1094, 130 S. Ct. 2373,

176 L. Ed. 2d 771,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3514.

April 26, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the Supreme Court of California denied.

Same case below, 47 Cal. 4th 145, 97 Cal. Rptr. 3d 117, 211 P.3d 617.
**EXHIBIT 31.2****CERTIFICATION**I, Franklin Byrd, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Panda Ethanol, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;  b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and  c. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and  b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.        November 16, 2007 /s/ Franklin Byrd   Franklin Byrd   Chief Financial Officer
##### 



SIXTH AMENDED AND RESTATED
CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
OF
SOURCEFIRE, INC.
 Corporation DGCL




---



##### 



ARTICLE ONE
 Name
 Sourcefire, Inc. Corporation
 ARTICLE TWO
 Registered Office and Agent
  ARTICLE THREE
 Purpose
 DGCL
 ARTICLE FOUR
 Period of Existence
  ARTICLE FIVE
 Authorized Capital
 Common Stock Preferred Stock
 2




---



##### 



General
 Voting
  Dividends
 Liquidation
 PREFERRED STOCK
 Bylaws
  3




---



##### 



provided however
  ARTICLE SIX
 Board of Directors
 GENERAL POWERS
    BOARD ELECTION AND MEMBERSHIP
   4
          ARTICLE SEVEN
 Limitation on Liability
    5




---



##### 



ARTICLE EIGHT
 Indemnification
   ARTICLE NINE
 Special Meetings of the Stockholders
  ARTICLE TEN
 Stockholder Action
  6




---



##### 



ARTICLE ELEVEN
 Miscellaneous
   7




---



##### 



SOURCEFIRE, INC.By:  /s/ E. Wayne Jackson, IIIName: E. Wayne Jackson, IIITitle: Chief Executive Officer
No. 10-11180.

#### Christela Neal, Petitioner v. Ford Motor Company.

565 U.S. 1156, 132 S. Ct. 1089,

181 L. Ed. 2d 976,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 839,

January 17, 2012.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5074 

To amend the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974 to provide for continued 

payment of railroad retirement annuities by the Department of the 

Treasury, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 4, 2006 

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska (for himself, Mr. OBERSTAR, Mr. LATOURETTE, and 

Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida) introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974 to provide 

for continued payment of railroad retirement annuities 

by the Department of the Treasury, 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 ‘‘Railroad Retirement 

5 Technical Improvement Act of 2006’’. 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5074 IH 

1 SEC. 2. DISBURSEMENT AGENT. 

2 Section 7(b)(4) of the Railroad Retirement Act of 

3 1974 (45 U.S.C. 231f(b)(4)) is amended so that subpara4 graph (A) reads as follows: 

5 ‘‘(A) The Secretary of the Treasury shall 

6 serve as the disbursing agent for benefits pay7 able under this Act, under such rules and regu8 lations as the Secretary may in the Secretary’s 

9 discretion prescribe.’’. 

Æ 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-1794

LISA MURRAY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

FAIRFAX COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District

Judge. (CA-02-14-A)

Submitted: November 7, 2002 Decided: November 14, 2002

Before WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lisa Murray, Appellant Pro Se. Ardra Monique O’Neal, HUNTON &

WILLIAMS, McLean, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Lisa Murray appeals the district court’s order granting her

employer’s motion for summary judgment and dismissing her

discrimination action. We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

district court for the reasons stated from the bench. See Murray

v. Fairfax Cty. Sch. Bd., No. CA-02-14-A (E.D. Va. filed July 12,

2002 & entered July 15, 2002). We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 44 (Monday, March 9, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 10128]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-4934]



[[Page 10128]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS


Veterans' Advisory Committee on Environmental Hazards; Notice of 
Meeting

    The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under Public 
Law 92-463 (Federal Advisory Committee Act) that a meeting of the 
Veterans' Advisory Committee on Environmental Hazards will be held on 
March 23-24, 2009, in room 630 at the Department of Veterans Affairs, 
810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. each 
day. The meeting is open to the public.
    The purpose of the Committee is to provide advice to the Secretary 
of Veterans Affairs on adverse health effects that may be associated 
with exposure to ionizing radiation, and to make recommendations on 
proposed standards and guidelines regarding VA benefit claims based 
upon exposure to ionizing radiation.
    The major items on the agenda for both days will be discussions of 
medical and scientific papers concerning the health effects of exposure 
to ionizing radiation. On the basis of the discussions, the Committee 
may make recommendations to the Secretary concerning the relationship 
of certain diseases to exposure to ionizing radiation.
    An open forum for oral statements from the public will be available 
for 30 minutes in the afternoon each day. Individuals wishing to make 
oral statements before the Committee will be accommodated on a first-
come, first-served basis and will be provided three minutes per 
statement.
    Members of the public wishing to attend should contact Ms. Bernice 
Green at the Department of Veterans Affairs, Compensation and Pension 
Service, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420, by phone at 
(202) 461-9723, or by fax at (202) 275-1728. Individuals should submit 
written questions or prepared statements for the Committee's review to 
Ms. Green at least five days prior to the meeting. The Committee may 
ask those who submit material for clarification prior to its 
consideration.

    Dated: March 3, 2009.

    By Direction of the Secretary.
E. Philip Riggin,
Committee Management Officer.
 [FR Doc. E9-4934 Filed 3-6-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-P
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4995 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.4995

                       One Hundred Ninth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
             the third day of January, two thousand and six

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
  7 Columbus Avenue in Tuckahoe, New York, as the ``Ronald Bucca Post 
                                 Office.

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

SECTION 1. RONALD BUCCA POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 7 Columbus Avenue in Tuckahoe, New York, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Ronald Bucca Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Ronald 
Bucca Post Office''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
STATE of North Carolina v. Cameron Romero GRAVES

No. 33P19

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 9, 2019

David W. Andrews, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Graves, Cameron Romero.

Glenn Gerding, Appellate Defender.

Kimberly D. Potter, Special Deputy Attorney General, Patrick Nadolski, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

*703Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 22nd of January 2019 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of May 2019."
Exhibit 31

      CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14 AND 15d-14 UNDER THE SECURITIES
                        EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED


I, Daniel K. Leonard, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Oxford Ventures,
Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

   (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

   (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
quarterly report (the "Evaluation date"); and

   (c) Presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation
as of the Evaluation date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the registrant's board
of directors:

   (a) All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls, and

   (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether there were significant changes in internal controls or
in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to
the date of our most recent evaluation including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: November 16, 2005


/s/ Daniel K. Leonard
------------------------
    Daniel K. Leonard
    President CEO & CFO
No. 09-8487.

#### Wells Holland, Petitioner v. Renee Holland.

559 U.S. 1103, 130 S. Ct. 2400,

176 L. Ed. 2d 788,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3606.

April 26, 2010.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 559 U.S. 982, 130 S. Ct. 1711, 176 L. Ed. 2d 197, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 2129.
### JUDGMENT 

## Court of Appeals First District of Texas

NO. 01

- 13

- 00834

- CR

CAYLON JOHNSON , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee
Appeal from the 174th District Court of Harris County. (Tr. Ct. No. No. 133872 1 ).

This case is an appeal from the final judgment signed by the trial court on August 15, 2013. After submitting the case on the appellate record and the arguments properly raised by the parties, the Court holds that the trial court’s judgment contains no reversible error. Accordingly, th e Court affirms the trial court’s judgment.

The Court orders that this decision be certified below for observance.

Judgment rendered September 22 , 2015

.

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Bland and Huddle.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 23
- 0340 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. SHAWN THOMAS ANDERSEN,

Defendant and Appellant
.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including September 3 , 202 4, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 29 2024

07/29/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0340
STATE of North Carolina v. Darwin NEWKIRK

No. 166P19

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 11, 2019

Leslie C. Rawls, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, Darwin Newkirk, for Newkirk, Darwin.

G. Mark Teague, Assistant Attorney General, Ernie Lee, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by Defendant on the 1st of May 2019 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30 (substantial constitutional question), the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the notice of appeal is *163"Dismissed Ex Mero Motu by order of the Court in conference, this the 11th of June 2019."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 1st of May 2019 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 11th of June 2019."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 1st of May 2019 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 11th of June 2019."
STATE v. Cedric Theodis HOBBS, Jr.

263PA18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 20, 2019

John Keating Wiles, Attorney at Law, Raleigh.

Amy Kunstling Irene, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Sterling P. Rozear, Assistant Appellate Defender, Cedric Theodis Hobbs, Jr., for Hobbs, Cedric Theodis (Jr.)

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 20th of May 2019 by Defendant:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of May 2019."

*110Defendant shall have up to and including the 28th day of June 2019 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
# C_2018356EN.01020201.xml

| 4.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 356/202 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 356/202

---

P8_TA(2017)0466

Accession of San Marino to the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction *

European Parliament legislative resolution of 30 November 2017 on the proposal for a Council decision authorising Croatia, the Netherlands, Portugal and Romania to accept, in the interest of the European Union, the accession of San Marino to the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (COM(2017)0359 — C8-0232/2017 — 2017/0149(NLE))

(Consultation)

(2018/C 356/47)

The European Parliament,

| — | having regard to the proposal for a Council decision (COM(2017)0359), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the proposal for a Council decision (COM(2017)0359),

| — | having regard to Article 38, fourth paragraph, of the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Article 38, fourth paragraph, of the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction,

| — | having regard to Article 81(3) and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (b), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C8-0232/2017), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Article 81(3) and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (b), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C8-0232/2017),

| — | having regard to the opinion of the Court of Justice (1) on the exclusive external competence of the European Union for a declaration of acceptance of an accession to the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the opinion of the Court of Justice (1) on the exclusive external competence of the European Union for a declaration of acceptance of an accession to the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction,

| — | having regard to Rules 78c and 108(8) of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rules 78c and 108(8) of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A8-0360/2017), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A8-0360/2017),

| 1. | Approves the authorisation for Croatia, the Netherlands, Portugal and Romania to accept, in the interest of the European Union, the accession of San Marino to the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction; |
| --- | --- |

1.

| 2. | Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States, as well as to the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law. |
| --- | --- |

2.

---

(1)  Opinion of the Court of Justice of 14 October 2014, 1/13, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2303.

---
No. 09-9815.

#### Ray Hunter Sutton, Jr., Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 1100, 130 S. Ct. 2391,

176 L. Ed. 2d 782,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3539.

April 26, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.

Same case below, 350 Fed. Appx. 780.
STATE of North Carolina v. Kenneth Vernon GOLDER

No. 79PA18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 9, 2019

Anne Bleyman, Attorney at Law, for Golder, Kenneth Vernon.

Michael T. Henry, Assistant Attorney General, N. Lorrin Freeman, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the conditional petition filed on the 26th of March 2018 by State of NC in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of May 2019."

Therefore the case is docketed as of the date of this order's certification. Briefs of the respective parties shall be submitted to this Court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 15(g)(2).
≥95% (37 awardees)

75% - 94% (17 awardees)

50% - 74% (0 awardee)

25% - 49% (0 awardees)

<25% (0 awardees)

No IIS (1 awardee)

No data (1 awardee)

Percentage of children aged < 6 years participating in an immunization 

information system -- United States, five cities§, and D.C., 2019

National Participation: 96% (excluding Territories)

Source: CY2019 IISAR

§ Chicago, IL; Houston, TX; New York City, NY; Philadelphia, PA; San Antonio, TX.