alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

ROBERT N. GOLDSTEIN, et al., §

§

Plaintiffs, §

§

V. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 3: 04-CV-0677-B

§ ECF

TOMMY HABEEB, §

§

Defendant. §

ORDER DESIGNATING CASE FOR THE ELECTRONIC 

CASE FILING SYSTEM “CM/ECF”

The court has decided that this case is suitable for electronic case filing. Accordingly,

1. ALL further filings in this case must include the “ECF” designation in the caption

of the case as set forth above. 

2. The electronic record will be the official court record in this case.

3. This case will be governed, unless otherwise ordered (and as set forth below), by

Miscellaneous Order 61, the CM/ECF Civil and Criminal Administrative Procedures

Manual, and the CM/ECF User Guide.

4. Courtesy copies: No paper copies of electronically filed documents shall be

delivered to chambers EXCEPT for copies of dispositive motions and responsive pleadings

which shall be noted or stamped as “Judge’s Copy” and delivered to CHAMBERS and NOT

to the Clerk’s Office within three business days of filing.

5. Proposed Orders : Proposed orders shall be filed electronically with EVERY motion.

 (Modification to Local Rule 7.1(c)). Submit all proposed orders in a WordPerfect or Word

 

 Case 3:04-cv-00677-B Document 21 Filed 04/13/05 Page 1 of 2 PageID 197
compatible format for all motions filed using the CM/ECF Proposed Orders (Agreed Only)

function. The parties may submit orders that are not agreed in spite of “(Agreed Only)”

designation.

6. Questions: ECF questions should be directed to Autumn Yarnell at 214/753-2160

or the Help Desk at 1/866/243-2866.

PRIVACY POLICY: Counsel must ensure that all pleadings filed via the CM/ECF

system strictly comply with the privacy policy of the U.S. District Court for the Northern

District of Texas. The Court’s privacy policy regulates the transmission of private and case

sensitive information through the CM/ECF system. The policy is located on the Court’s

website at http://www.txnd.uscourts.gov/pdf/TXNprivnot.pdf. ALL litigants must be familiar

with the policy which restricts the use and manner of use of certain types of information

including; social security numbers, tax identification numbers, minors’ names, birth dates,

and financial account numbers, medical records, employment histories, proprietary or trade

secret information, crime victim information, national security information, sensitive security

information as described in 49 U.S.C. § 114(s), and information regarding an individual’s

cooperation with the government.

SO ORDERED.

SIGNED April 13th , 2005

_________________________________

JANE J. BOYLE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

 Case 3:04-cv-00677-B Document 21 Filed 04/13/05 Page 2 of 2 PageID 198
Sidney Keith Austin FERGUSON v. STATE of Mississippi

2017-CT-00855-COA

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Filed: January 28, 2019 Closed: April 11, 2019

Motion Desc: Petition for Certiorari.

Certiorari - Denied.
STATE of Louisiana v. Larry MOSES

NO. 2018-KH-1598

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 29, 2019

Denied.
---

Exhibit 12.1


I, Chet Idziszek, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Madison Minerals Inc. (the Company); 2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The Companys other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the Company and have: a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; b) designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles; c) evaluated the effectiveness of the Companys disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and d) disclosed in this report any change in the Companys internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by this annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Companys internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The Companys other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Companys auditors and the audit committee of the Companys board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function): a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Companys ability to record, process, summarise and report financial information; and b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Companys internal control over financial reporting. Date: February 25, 2011 Signed Chet IdziszekChet Idziszek, President


---
William Thomas LANDERS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-5206

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 25, 2019

Affirmed.
STATE of Louisiana v. Cecilio A. ROMERO

NO. 2018-K-0416

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 6, 2019

*900Denied.
Vasiliy BABICHEV, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-1952

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

February 12, 2019 Rehearing Denied April 16, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 119th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 1 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.Con.Res.1
                                       Agreed to January 3, 2025        

                     One Hundred Nineteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

           Begun and held at the City of Washington on Friday,
         the third day of January, two thousand and twenty five

                          Concurrent Resolution

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring),

SEC. 1. REAUTHORIZATION OF JOINT COMMITTEE.

    Effective from January 3, 2025, the joint committee created by 
Senate Concurrent Resolution 34 (118th Congress), to make the necessary 
arrangements for the inauguration of the President-elect and the Vice 
President-elect of the United States, is continued with the same power 
and authority provided for in that resolution.

SEC. 2. USE OF CAPITOL.

    Effective from January 3, 2025, the provisions of Senate Concurrent 
Resolution 35 (118th Congress), to authorize the use of the rotunda and 
Emancipation Hall of the Capitol by the Joint Congressional Committee 
on Inaugural Ceremonies in connection with the proceedings and 
ceremonies conducted for the inauguration of the President-elect and 
the Vice President-elect of the United States are continued with the 
same power and authority provided for in that resolution.
Attest:

                                               Secretary of the Senate.
Attest:

                                 Clerk of the House of Representatives.
```
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 6 A1 16 6 . J I MMY LAVAUGHN LEW I S v

. THE STATE.

On Oct o b er 2 9

, 2 0 1 4, J i m m y L av au g h n L ewi s p l ed g u i lt y t o p o ss es s i o n o f

m e t h a m p h et am i ne wi t h i n t en t t o d i s t ri b u te an d t wo t raffi c o ffen s es

. On M ay 2 0

, 2 0 1 5

, Lewi s fi led a pro s e m o t i o n fo r l eav e t o fi l e an o u t o f t i m e ap p eal

. On J u n e 1 5,

2 0 1 5

, t h e t ri al co u rt d en i ed th e m o t i o n

. On J u l y 1 6, 2 0 15

, L ewi s fi l ed a p ro s e n o t i ce

o f ap p eal t o t h i s Co u rt

. A no t i ce o f ap peal m u s t b e f i led w i t hi n 3 0 d ay s aft er en t ry

o f t h e ap p eal ab l e o rd er. See OCGA § 5 -6 -3 8 (a). Th e p ro p er an d t i m el y fi l i n g o f a

n o t i ce o f ap p eal i s an ab s ol u t e req u i rem en t t o co n fer ju ri sd i ct i o n o n t h i s Co u rt . See

Ro wl a n d v. S t a t e , 2 64 Ga. 8 7 2 (1 ) (4 5 2 SE2 d 75 6 ) (1 99 5 ). Lewi s ’ s n ot i ce of ap p eal

, fi led 3 1 d ay s aft er en t ry o f t h e o r d e r, i s un t i m el y , an d t h i s ap p eal i s t h erefo re

DISM ISSED fo r l ack o f ju ri s d i ct i o n

.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e
, A t la n t a
,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d th e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 03/23/2016 March 23, 2016
Richard PALMER v. UV INSURANCE RISK RETENTION GROUP, INC., UV Logistics, LLC, and Michael Lewis Smith

Jeannie Breaux v. UV Insurance Risk Retention Group, Inc., UV Logistics, LLC, and Michael Lewis Smith

No. 19-C-0107

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 29, 2019

**ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL, FIFTH CIRCUIT, PARISH OF ST. JAMES**

Writ denied.

HUGHES, J., would grant.

CRICHTON, J., would grant and docket and assigns reasons.

GENOVESE, J., would grant and assigns reasons.

Crichton, J., would grant and docket and assigns reasons:

*285I would grant the plaintiff's writ and docket this matter to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying his challenges for cause of certain jurors ultimately seated in this case. Several of the jurors demonstrated a particular opposition to personal injury lawsuits and/or acknowledged that they could not properly apply the preponderance of the evidence standard. Thus, I would grant this application to examine whether the *voir dire* "as a whole" indicates an abuse of discretion by the trial judge. *See**Riddle v. Bickford* , 00-2408 (La. 5/15/01), 785 So.2d 795, 801.

GENOVESE, J., would grant this writ and assigns reasons

The issue presented in this case is whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying plaintiff's challenge for cause involving four prospective jurors. It is undisputed that upon the questioning of these four prospective jurors in this case, all four indicated that they were opposed to lawsuits for personal injuries; three of them indicated that they would not be able to apply the preponderance of the evidence standard to the facts of this case; and, two of them acknowledged that they would have difficulty being fair. Though there was a general attempt by the trial judge at rehabilitation of these four jurors, the transcript reveals that theses jurors were fairly well-entrenched and opinioned in their views. A general inquiry by the trial court to these prospective jurors as to whether he or she could follow the law, with no indication by the prospective jurors that he or she could not do so, does not purge potential bias and partiality.

With all due respect for the mindset of these four prospective jurors, I nevertheless conclude that plaintiff would not and could not obtain a fair trial with one or all of them on the jury panel. Thus, I find the trial court abused its discretion in not granting plaintiff's challenge for cause of these four prospective jurors.
Ray Charles BULLARD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-4564

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 21, 2019

Michael Ufferman of Michael Ufferman Law Firm, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, and Benjamin L. Hoffman, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED . *See**Sims v. State* , 260 So.3d 509 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018) ; *Murphy v. State* , 227 So.3d 242 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) ; *Williams v. State* , 143 So.3d 423 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014).

Lewis, Rowe, and Makar, JJ., concur.
Jerry GILBERT, Appellant, v. DOR CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT, Appellee.

No. 1D18-0152

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 18, 2019

Jerry Gilbert, pro se, Appellant.

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, and Toni C. Bernstein, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

*280Upon consideration of Appellee Department of Revenue's confession of error, we vacate the final order and remand for further proceedings.

Makar, Winsor, and M.K. Thomas, JJ., concur.
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 16

- 00303

- CV

In the Interest of D.C. and G.M.,

Children §

§

§

§ From the 323rd District Court

of Tarrant County (323

- 101576

- 15)

November 17, 2016

Per Curiam



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

PER CURIAM
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, September 20, 2018. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, September 20, 2018 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A19D0070. GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY HEALTH v. EMORY UNIVERSITY d/b/a EMORY UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL et al..
Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.
LC NUMBERS: 17CV12642
```

[Congressional Bills 119th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 42 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
119th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 H. R. 42

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To amend the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act to exclude certain 
 payments to aged, blind, or disabled Alaska Natives or descendants of 
  Alaska Natives from being used to determine eligibility for certain 
                   programs, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Alaska Native Settlement Trust 
Eligibility Act''.

SEC. 2. ELIGIBILITY FOR CERTAIN PROGRAMS.

    Section 29(c) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 
1626(c)) is amended, in the undesignated matter following paragraph 
(3), by striking subparagraph (E) and inserting the following:
            ``(E) an interest in a Settlement Trust and, for the 5-year 
        period beginning on the date of the enactment of the Alaska 
        Native Settlement Trust Eligibility Act, an amount distributed 
        from or benefit provided by a Settlement Trust to a Native or 
        descendant of a Native who is an aged, blind, or disabled 
        individual (as defined in section 1614(a) of the Social 
        Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1382c(a))).''.

            Passed the House of Representatives February 4, 2025.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
119th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                H. R. 42

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

  To amend the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act to exclude certain 
 payments to aged, blind, or disabled Alaska Natives or descendants of 
  Alaska Natives from being used to determine eligibility for certain 
                   programs, and for other purposes.
```
***CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED***

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

|   | (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/ Mark                Klein                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          |
| Name: Mark                KleinTitle:                 Chief                Executive Officer, President and                           Director (Principal Executive Officer and Principal                          Financial and Accounting Officer) August                18, 2006 |

----
EXHIBIT 32.2

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

In connection with this Report on Form 10-Q of
Foundation Coal Holdings, Inc. for the period ended June 30, 2008, I, Frank J. Wood, Chief Financial Officer of Foundation Coal Holdings, Inc., hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



|1. | This Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008 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 this Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of Foundation Coal Holdings, Inc.
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |                                      
|-------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: August 8, 2008 |  | /s/ FRANK J. WOOD                    
|                     |  | Frank J. Wood Chief Financial
Officer
Benigno CALVILLO DOC #H51507, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-793

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 22, 2019.

**DECISION WITHOUTPUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

The Board of Directors
XM Satellite Radio Holdings Inc. and Subsidiaries:

  We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
Nos. 333-47570, 333-93529 and 333-39176 on Forms S-3 and Nos. 333-92049 and 333-
42590 on Form S-8 of XM Satellite Radio Holdings Inc. and subsidiaries of our
reports dated February 9, 2001 with respect to the consolidated balance sheets
of XM Satellite Radio Holdings Inc. and subsidiaries (a development stage
company) as of December 31, 1999 and 2000 and the related consolidated
statements of operations, stockholders' equity (deficit) and cash flows for each
of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2000 and for the period
from December 15, 1992 (date of inception) to December 31, 2000, and related
schedule, which reports appear in the December 31, 2000 annual report on
Form 10-K of XM Satellite Radio Holdings Inc. and subsidiaries.

  Our reports, dated February 9, 2001, contain an explanatory paragraph that
states that the Company has not commenced operations and is dependent upon
additional debt or equity financing, which raises substantial doubt about its
ability to continue as a going concern. The consolidated financial statements do
not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of that
uncertainty.

                                              /s/ KPMG LLP

McLean, VA
March 14, 2001
Timothy Dale WASHINGTON, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-5031

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 09, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Hakeem BYRD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-2102

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

January 22, 2019 Rehearing Denied March 28, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Case 5:04-cv-00283-C Document 13 Filed 07/25/05 Page 1 of 8 PageID 215
 

 Case 5:04-cv-00283-C Document 13 Filed 07/25/05 Page 2 of 8 PageID 216
 

 Case 5:04-cv-00283-C Document 13 Filed 07/25/05 Page 3 of 8 PageID 217
 

 Case 5:04-cv-00283-C Document 13 Filed 07/25/05 Page 4 of 8 PageID 218
 

 Case 5:04-cv-00283-C Document 13 Filed 07/25/05 Page 5 of 8 PageID 219
 

 Case 5:04-cv-00283-C Document 13 Filed 07/25/05 Page 6 of 8 PageID 220
 

 Case 5:04-cv-00283-C Document 13 Filed 07/25/05 Page 7 of 8 PageID 221
 

 Case 5:04-cv-00283-C Document 13 Filed 07/25/05 Page 8 of 8 PageID 222
Case 3:04-cr-00165-K Document 67 Filed 10/05/06 Page 1 of 1 PageID 156