alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 The fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. 405(g) states that the “court shall have

power to enter, upon the pleadings and transcript of the record, a judgment

affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the Secretary, with or without

remanding the cause for a rehearing.” See Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89

(1991). 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

RENEE D. ANDERSON §

§

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:04-CV-362-Y

§

JO ANNE B. BARNHART §

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S FINDINGS,

CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION

On March 29, 2005, the United States Magistrate Judge issued

his proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation (“findings

and conclusions”) in the above-styled and -numbered cause. An

order issued that same day gave all parties until April 19, 2005,

to serve and file with the Court written objections to the proposed

findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge. The Court has

not received any written objections. As a result, in accordance

with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), de novo review is not required.

Nevertheless, the Court has reviewed the magistrate judge’s

findings and conclusions for plain error and has found none. 

Thus, after consideration of this matter, the Court finds that

the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge should be and

are hereby ADOPTED as the findings and conclusions of this Court.

It is, therefore, ORDERED that the decision of the

Commissioner is REVERSED and the action REMANDED, pursuant to the

fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g),1 for further administrative

 

 Case 4:04-cv-00362-Y Document 19 Filed 04/26/05 Page 1 of 2 PageID 83
2

proceedings for the reasons set forth in the magistrate judge’s

findings and conclusions.

SIGNED April 26, 2005.

TRM/kat

 

 Case 4:04-cv-00362-Y Document 19 Filed 04/26/05 Page 2 of 2 PageID 84
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER  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 JMG Exploration, Inc.  (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Joseph W. Skeehan, Chief Executive and Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to his knowledge, that:  (1)The Report fully complies 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 Company.   Date: July 23­­, 2010  /s/ Justin YorkeName:Justin YorkeTitle:Chief Executive and Financial Officer  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to JMG Exploration, Inc.   and will be retained by JMG Exploration, Inc.  and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.   *This certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

JAMIE BANDA, BOP No. 31229-177, §

 §

Petitioner, §

 §

v. § No. 3:03-CR-0355-M

 § No. 3:05-CV-0318-M

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, §

 §

Respondent. §

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF

THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

United States Magistrate Judge William F. Sanderson made findings, conclusions, and a

recommendation in this case. Plaintiff filed objections and the District Court has made a de novo

review of those portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which objection was

made. The Court notes that petitioner did not raise the ineffective assistance of counsel argument

which is contained in his objections in his § 2255 motion, but even if he had, he has not satisfied

the standard enunciated in Strickland v.Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). The availability of the

safety valve and the determination of whether a defendant should receive an additional one point

for acceptance of responsibility are both in the sole discretion of the government. Id. The

objections are therefore overruled. The Court accepts the Findings, Conclusions and

Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge.

SO ORDERED.

September 13, 2005.

_________________________________

Barbara M. G. Lynn

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:03-cr-00355-M Document 201 Filed 09/13/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 587
# C_2019016EN.01001801.xml

| 14.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/18

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Veneto — Italy) — Memoria Srl, Antonia Dall’Antonia v Comune di Padova

(Case C-342/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Restrictions on freedom of establishment - Jurisdiction of the Court - Admissibility of the request for a preliminary ruling - Purely domestic situation - National legislation prohibiting any profit-making activity relating to the safekeeping of cinerary urns - Proportionality test - Coherence of national rules))

(2019/C 16/21)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Veneto

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Memoria Srl, Antonia Dall’Antonia

Defendant: Comune di Padova

Intervener: Alessandra Calore

Operative part of the judgment

Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which prohibits, even despite the express wishes of the deceased, the recipient of a cinerary urn from entrusting its safekeeping to a third party, and requires him to store the urn in his home, unless it is entrusted to a municipal cemetery, and furthermore prohibits any activity carried out for profit relating, even non-exclusively, to the safekeeping of cinerary urns, on whatever basis and for whatever period.

---

(1)  OJ C 309, 18.9.2017.

---
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**




**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**


**(18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**





In
      connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report of OmniReliant Holdings Inc.
      (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008 (the
“Report”), I, Paul Morrison, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby
      certify that to my knowledge:





(1)           The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and





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




Date:
                November 19, 2008
            By:
            /s/ *Paul
                Morrison*Paul
                MorrisonChief
                Financial Officer
Jarvis Lavel TUNSTALL v. Torsa Lafaya TUNSTALL

2160847

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

August 18, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
STATE of Louisiana v. Kevin SHEPPARD

NO. 2018-KO-1635

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 15, 2019

*1127Denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 119th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 141 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

119th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 141

To amend title 23, United States Code, to include education on trailer 
                safety in State highway safety programs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 3, 2025

  Mr. Burchett (for himself and Mr. Bishop) introduced the following 
    bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and 
                             Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 23, United States Code, to include education on trailer 
                safety in State highway safety programs.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Trailer Safety Improvement Act''.

SEC. 2. TRAILER SAFETY PROGRAMS.

    Section 402(a)(2)(A)(xiv) of title 23, United States Code, is 
amended by inserting ``, prevent improper and unsafe use of light-duty 
and medium-duty trailers, and educate the public about required trailer 
safety equipment and preventive maintenance'' after ``unsecured vehicle 
loads''.
                                 <all>
```
Aovember 17, 1950

Hon. Robert M. Allen OpinionRo. Q-1122. County Attorney Rusk County Re: Authority of the ComHenderson,Texas mIssionera Court to purchase a radio to be Installedin a police patrol car of a municlDear Sir: palitg.

You have requested our opinionrelative to the authority of the Commlssloners ' Court of Rusk County to purchase a radio to be Installedin a police car of the City of Overton,with the understanding that the radio shall remain the property of Rusk County.

The commlssloners'

court is a court of limited jurisdiction

and can only exercise such powers as are authorlzecl

by the Constitution and statutesof t&s State, either expressedor by necessaryimplication. Tex. Const., Art. V, Sec. 18; Bland v. Orr, 90 Tex. 492, 39 S.W. 558 (1897);El Pas;EFtvy v.n, 106 S.W.2d 393 (Tex.Civ. APP. 19371; r.a . State, g7.S.W.2d264 (Tex.Civ.App. 1936, error ref.).

Sub&vision (b) of Article 3899, Vernonn's Civil Statutes,authorizesthe commissioners court to purchase radio equipmentfor the use of the sheriff. Att'y Gen. ops. O-1906 (lg40),O-3571 (lg41),o-5898 (1944). However, we find no constitutional or statutoryprovision authorizingthe commissioners' courttopurchase a radio to be lnstalleain a police patrol car for the use ana benefit of a city or municipality. Thereforewe agree with you that the commissioners' court does not have authority to purchasea radio to be installedIn a police patrol car of a municipality. SUMMARY The commissionersf court has no authority to purchasea radio to be installed in a police patrol car of a municipality, there being no constitutional or statutoryHon. RobertM. Allen, page 2 (Q-1122)

provisiongranting such power. Tex.Const., Art. V, Sec. 18; Bland P. Orr, 90 Tex. 492, 39 S.W. 558 (1897'); El Paso County v. Rlam, 106 S.W.2d 393 (Tex.iX.v.App. 19371; numan v.,",a:;?.ST

S.W.26 264 (Tex.Civ.App~~

APPROVED% J. C. Davis, Jr. County Affairs Mvision Everett Hutchinson ExecutiveAssistant Yours very truly, PRICE DMIEL AttorneyGeneral

Charles D. Mathews **First** Assistant JR:mw
#### Norman Smith, *Plaintiff in Error,*v. William C. Harllee, *Defendant in Error.*

Division B.

Decision Filed November 7, 1927.

*McMidlen, Worth & Draper,*for Plaintiff in Error;

No appearance for Defendant in Error.

Per Curiam.

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the judgment herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said judgment; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the said judgment of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby affirmed.

Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
Exhibit 32

                            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 Hangman  Productions,  Inc. (the
"Registrant")  on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending  September 30, 2008, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Quarterly
Report"),  we, James Doolin and Shane  Thueson,  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 Quarterly  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 Quarterly Report fairly presents,  in
all material respects,  the financial  condition and result of operations of the
Registrant.


Date: 11/10/08                  /S/ JAMES DOOLIN
                                --------------------------------------------
                                James Doolin, President and Director

Date: 11/10/08                  /S/ SHANE THUESON
                                --------------------------------------------
                                Shane Thueson, Vice President and Director
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 855 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 855

  To authorize testimony and representation in United States v. Cudo.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 24, 2024

  Mr. Schumer (for himself and Mr. McConnell) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  To authorize testimony and representation in United States v. Cudo.

Whereas, in the case of United States v. Cudo, Cr. No. 24-007, pending in the 
        United States District Court for the District of Columbia, the 
        prosecution has requested the production of testimony from Daniel 
        Schwager, a former employee of the Office of the Secretary of the 
        Senate;
Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 704(a)(2) of the Ethics in Government 
        Act of 1978, 2 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 288b(a) and 288c(a)(2), the Senate may 
        direct its counsel to represent current and former officers and 
        employees of the Senate with respect to any subpoena, order, or request 
        for evidence relating to their official responsibilities;
Whereas, by the privileges of the Senate of the United States and Rule XI of the 
        Standing Rules of the Senate, no evidence under the control or in the 
        possession of the Senate may, by the judicial or administrative process, 
        be taken from such control or possession but by permission of the 
        Senate; and
Whereas, when it appears that evidence under the control or in the possession of 
        the Senate may promote the administration of justice, the Senate will 
        take such action as will promote the ends of justice consistent with the 
        privileges of the Senate: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That Daniel Schwager, a former employee of the Office of 
the Secretary of the Senate, is authorized to provide relevant 
testimony in the case of United States v. Cudo, except concerning 
matters for which a privilege should be asserted.
    Sec. 2.  The Senate Legal Counsel is authorized to represent Mr. 
Schwager, and any current or former officer or employee of the 
Secretary's office, in connection with the production of evidence 
authorized in section one of this resolution.
                                 <all>
```
#### T. J. Campbell and Eli Guggenheim, *Appellants,*v. Frank A. Walpole, *Appellee.*

Division A.

Decision Filed July 8, 1927.

*Frank Redd,*for Appellants;

No appearance for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the decree herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said decree; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and decreed by the Court that the said decree of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby affirmed.

Ellis, C. J., and Strum and Brown, J. J., concur.
Case 3:04-cv-02162-K Document 1 Filed 10/05/04 Page 1 of 43 PageID 1
Case 3:04-cv-02162-K Document 1 Filed 10/05/04 Page 2 of 43 PageID 2
Case 3:04-cv-02162-K Document 1 Filed 10/05/04 Page 3 of 43 PageID 3
Case 3:04-cv-02162-K Document 1 Filed 10/05/04 Page 4 of 43 PageID 4
Case 3:04-cv-02162-K Document 1 Filed 10/05/04 Page 5 of 43 PageID 5
Case 3:04-cv-02162-K Document 1 Filed 10/05/04 Page 6 of 43 PageID 6
Case 3:04-cv-02162-K Document 1 Filed 10/05/04 Page 7 of 43 PageID 7
Case 3:04-cv-02162-K Document 1 Filed 10/05/04 Page 8 of 43 PageID 8
Case 3:04-cv-02162-K Document 1 Filed 10/05/04 Page 9 of 43 PageID 9
Case 3:04-cv-02162-K Document 1 Filed 10/05/04 Page 10 of 43 PageID 10
Case 3:04-cv-02162-K Document 1 Filed 10/05/04 Page 11 of 43 PageID 11
Case 3:04-cv-02162-K Document 1 Filed 10/05/04 Page 12 of 43 PageID 12
Case 3:04-cv-02162-K Document 1 Filed 10/05/04 Page 13 of 43 PageID 13
Case 3:04-cv-02162-K Document 1 Filed 10/05/04 Page 14 of 43 PageID 14
Case 3:04-cv-02162-K Document 1 Filed 10/05/04 Page 15 of 43 PageID 15
Case 3:04-cv-02162-K Document 1 Filed 10/05/04 Page 16 of 43 PageID 16
Case 3:04-cv-02162-K Document 1 Filed 10/05/04 Page 17 of 43 PageID 17
Case 3:04-cv-02162-K Document 1 Filed 10/05/04 Page 18 of 43 PageID 18
Case 3:04-cv-02162-K Document 1 Filed 10/05/04 Page 19 of 43 PageID 19
Case 3:04-cv-02162-K Document 1 Filed 10/05/04 Page 20 of 43 PageID 20
Case 3:04-cv-02162-K Document 1 Filed 10/05/04 Page 21 of 43 PageID 21
Case 3:04-cv-02162-K Document 1 Filed 10/05/04 Page 22 of 43 PageID 22
Case 3:04-cv-02162-K Document 1 Filed 10/05/04 Page 23 of 43 PageID 23
Case 3:04-cv-02162-K Document 1 Filed 10/05/04 Page 24 of 43 PageID 24
Case 3:04-cv-02162-K Document 1 Filed 10/05/04 Page 25 of 43 PageID 25
Case 3:04-cv-02162-K Document 1 Filed 10/05/04 Page 26 of 43 PageID 26
Case 3:04-cv-02162-K Document 1 Filed 10/05/04 Page 27 of 43 PageID 27
Case 3:04-cv-02162-K Document 1 Filed 10/05/04 Page 28 of 43 PageID 28
Case 3:04-cv-02162-K Document 1 Filed 10/05/04 Page 29 of 43 PageID 29
Case 3:04-cv-02162-K Document 1 Filed 10/05/04 Page 30 of 43 PageID 30
Case 3:04-cv-02162-K Document 1 Filed 10/05/04 Page 31 of 43 PageID 31
Case 3:04-cv-02162-K Document 1 Filed 10/05/04 Page 32 of 43 PageID 32
Case 3:04-cv-02162-K Document 1 Filed 10/05/04 Page 33 of 43 PageID 33
Case 3:04-cv-02162-K Document 1 Filed 10/05/04 Page 34 of 43 PageID 34
Case 3:04-cv-02162-K Document 1 Filed 10/05/04 Page 35 of 43 PageID 35
Case 3:04-cv-02162-K Document 1 Filed 10/05/04 Page 36 of 43 PageID 36
Case 3:04-cv-02162-K Document 1 Filed 10/05/04 Page 37 of 43 PageID 37
Case 3:04-cv-02162-K Document 1 Filed 10/05/04 Page 38 of 43 PageID 38
Case 3:04-cv-02162-K Document 1 Filed 10/05/04 Page 39 of 43 PageID 39
Case 3:04-cv-02162-K Document 1 Filed 10/05/04 Page 40 of 43 PageID 40
Case 3:04-cv-02162-K Document 1 Filed 10/05/04 Page 41 of 43 PageID 41
Case 3:04-cv-02162-K Document 1 Filed 10/05/04 Page 42 of 43 PageID 42
Case 3:04-cv-02162-K Document 1 Filed 10/05/04 Page 43 of 43 PageID 43
Kelton K. HATHORNE v. STATE of Mississippi

2017-CT-00811-COA

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Filed: March 19, 2019 Closed: April 18, 2019

Motion Desc: Petition for Writ of Certiorari.

Certiorari - Denied.
Case 3:04-cv-02046-B Document 12 Filed 07/06/06 Page 1 of 1 PageID 48
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 4 (Tuesday, January 7, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Page 1210]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-00053]

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

POSTAL SERVICE

Product Change--Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, and USPS 
Ground Advantage[supreg] Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: January 7, 2025.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
December 26, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg] Contract 1212 to Competitive Product List. Documents 
are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2025-1010, K2025-1009.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2025-00053 Filed 1-6-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```
Hiram SANTONI, Jr., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-0076

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 20, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUTPUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
/s



# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 2, 2015

N o. 04

- 14

- 00414

- CV

Whitney Brewster , in her capacity as E xecutive Director of t he

Texas Department of Motor Vehicles,

Appellant

v.

Drew ROICKI and Richard Roicki a s Successors in Interest to Pinnacle Motors

, Appellee s

From the 407th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013

- CI

- 06565

Honorable Richard Price, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

The panel has considered Appellant’s motion for rehearing; the motion is DENIED. See

T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 49.3.

_________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

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

court on this 2nd day of J uly, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court