alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-3055

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States 

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Kevin N. Thomas, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: May 29, 2008

Filed: November 28, 2008

___________

Before WOLLMAN, BEAM, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

 

Kevin Thomas was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm, a

violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2), and of one count of possessing a

firearm with an obliterated serial number, a violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(k) and 922

(a)(1)(B). Thomas was given consecutive sentences of 120 months’ imprisonment on

the felon-in-possession charge and 48 months’ imprisonment on the obliterated serial

number charge. In imposing sentence, the district court found that Thomas’s 1991

Missouri state first-degree tampering conviction, based upon his unlawful operation

of a motor vehicle without the owner’s consent, constituted a crime of violence within

the meaning of United States Sentencing Guidelines § 4B1.2. See United States v.

Thomas, 484 F.3d 542 (8th Cir. 2007).
-2-

Following our affirmance of Thomas’s conviction, the United States Supreme

Court granted Thomas’s petition for certiorari, vacated our judgment, and remanded

the case to us for reconsideration in light of Begay v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 1581

(2008). See Thomas v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 2046 (2008).

We recently held that the Missouri crime of tampering does not qualify as a

“crime of violence” for purposes of U.S. Sentencing Guideline § 2K2.1(a)(2), United

States v. Williams, 537 F.3d 969, 974-75 (8th Cir. 2008), a term we recognize as

synonymous with the term “violent felony” for purposes of the Armed Career

Criminal Act, see United States v. Johnson, 417 F.3d 990, 996 (8th Cir. 2007) (“The

statutory definition of ‘violent felony’ is viewed as interchangeable with the

guidelines definition of ‘crime of violence.’”). 

Based on the holding in Williams, we vacate Thomas’s sentence and remand

the case to the district court for resentencing.

______________________________
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                         Subsidiaries of Hydril Company
             Percentage of Voting Securities Owned by Hydril Company


<Table>
<S>                                                                                <C>
Hydril General LLC (Delaware)                                                      100%
         Hydril Company LP (Delaware)                                                1%

Hydril Limited LLC (Delaware)                                                      100%
         Hydril Company LP (Delaware)                                               99%

Hydril S.A. (Switzerland)                                                          *53%

Hydril Canadian Company, Ltd. (Canada)                                             100%

Hydril U.K. Ltd. (England, U.K.)                                                   100%
         Rototec Ltd. (Scotland, U.K.)                                             100%

Hydril Private Ltd. (Republic of Singapore)                                        100%
         Technical Drilling & Production Services Nigeria, ltd. (Nigeria)           60%
         P.T. Hydril Indonesia                                                     100%

Hydril S.A. de C.V. (Mexico)                                                       100%

Bettis de Mexico S.A. de C.V. (Mexico)                                             100%

SubSea MudLift Drilling Company, LLC (Texas)                                       100%
</Table>

*Hydril Private Ltd. owns the remaining 47% equity interest in Hydril S.A.
Case 3:05-cv-00800 Document 42 Filed 06/09/2005 Page 1 of 1

GW Equity LLC et al v. PBS Global Inc et al Doc. 42

Dockets.Justia.com
Case 3:04-cv-00495-B Document 21 Filed 03/24/05 Page 1 of 2 PageID 76
 

 Case 3:04-cv-00495-B Document 21 Filed 03/24/05 Page 2 of 2 PageID 77
CASE NO 23-31115-SWE-13

CHAPTER 13

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

IN RE: Palmer, Twona Montique

VERIFICATION OF CREDITOR MATRIX

The above named Debtor hereby verifies that the attached list of creditors is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge.

Date 06/15/2023 Signature /s/ Twona Montique Palmer

Twona Montique Palmer, Debtor

Case 23-31115-swe13 Doc 16 Filed 06/15/23 Entered 06/15/23 18:22:03 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 2
CWS Marquis at Texas Street

2801 Live Oak St

Dallas, TX 75204

Greystar - Broadstone

Paragon

2403 N Washington Ave.

Dallas, TX 75204

Macallan on Ross

3501 Ross Ave, East Dallas

Dallas, TX 75204

Case 23-31115-swe13 Doc 16 Filed 06/15/23 Entered 06/15/23 18:22:03 Desc Main

Document Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 119th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 81 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

119th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 H. R. 81

 To prohibit the imposition of mask mandates on public transportation.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 3, 2025

    Mr. Biggs of Arizona (for himself and Mr. Clyde) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation 
  and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committees on Energy and 
   Commerce, and Homeland Security, for a period to be subsequently 
   determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 
 provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To prohibit the imposition of mask mandates on public transportation.

    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 ``Travel Mask Mandate Repeal Act of 
2025''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN MASK MANDATES.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no 
Federal agency shall impose any Federal requirement related to COVID-19 
that an individual wear a face mask when utilizing any conveyance (as 
defined in section 70.1 of title 42, Code of Federal Regulations, or 
any successor regulation) or transportation hub.
    (b) Limitation on Existing Orders.--Effective on the date of 
enactment of this Act, the order issued on January 29, 2021, by the 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention under section 361 of the 
Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 264) establishing a requirement 
for persons to wear masks while on conveyances and at transportation 
hubs, as well as any other related order, directive, and emergency 
amendment of the Transportation Security Administration (including 
those described in EA 1546-21-01A, SD 1542-21-01A, SD 1544-21-02A, SD 
1582-84-21-01A, EA 1546-21-01, SD 1542-21-01, SD 1544-21-02, and SD 
1582/84-21-01) shall have no force or effect.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 31.2**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Jack L.Wyszomierski, certify that:

1.     I havereviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of VWR International, Inc.;

2.     Based onmy knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.     Based onmy knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4.     Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a)     Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation 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)     Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

c)     Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.     Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a)     Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

b)     Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

| /s/ JACK L. WYSZOMIERSKI                                      |   |
|---------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Name: Jack L. Wyszomierski                                    |
| Title:*Executive Vice  President and Chief Financial Officer* |
| Dated: November 14, 2006                                 |

 

----
Case 3:05-cv-00198-B Document 8 Filed 01/18/07 Page 1 of 1 PageID 50
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE 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 MHI Hospitality Corporation (the Corporation) on Form 10-Q for the
period ending March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Andrew M. Sims, Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:



| | (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 Corporation.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: May 4, 2011

By:

/s/ Andrew M. SimsName:

Andrew M. SimsTitle:

Chief Executive Officer
PREFERRED ELECTRIC, INC. v. PARISH OF JEFFERSON

NO. 2019-CC-0358

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 22, 2019

Denied.
Jeffery Day RIEBER v. STATE

CR-15-0355

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

October 20, 2017

Reh. denied.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6889

WILLIAM HENCELY DAVIS, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DAVID POWELL, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., District Judge. (CA-03-1190-1) Submitted: October 14, 2004 Decided: October 20, 2004 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Hencely Davis, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: William Hencely Davis, Jr., appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. See Davis v. Powell , No. CA-03-1190-1 (M.D.N.C. Mar. 31, 2004). We deny as moot Davis’ motion and amended motion to consolidate this appeal with Appeal Nos. 04-6890 and 04-6951. 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. DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 31.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Bennet P. Lientz, Jr., certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Innovative Card
Technologies, Inc.;

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 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 report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) 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)) for the registrant 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 registrant, 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) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant'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

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control
    over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent
    fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
    annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
    materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial
    reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(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 registrant's ability to record, process,
    summarize 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 registrant's internal control
    over financial reporting.


Date: August 15, 2005         By: /s/ Bennet P. Lientz, Jr.
                                 --------------------------------
                                 Bennet P. Lientz, Jr.
                                 Chief Financial Officer
                                 (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
Order filed March 7, 2019

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 19

- 00016

- CV

____________ SANTIAGO CRUZ , Appellant

V.

DANIELLE JANNETTE CR UZ , Appellee

On Appeal from the 312th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2017

- 77407



### ORDER
The record before this court reflects that appellant filed a Statement of Inability to Afford Payment of Costs in the trial court on January 10, 2019. On January 14, 2019, Barbara K. Nagji, the court reporter, filed a contest to appellant’s statement of inability.
A party who filed a Statement of Inability to Afford Payment of Court Costs in the trial court is not required to pay costs in the appellate court unless the trialcourt overruled the party’s claim of indigence in an order that complies with Texas

Rule of Civil Procedure 145. Tex. R. App. P. 20.1(b)(1). The clerk’s record in this appeal, filed February 19, 2019, does not contain the trial court’s ruling on the court reporter’s contest to appellant’s st atement of inability to afford payment of costs.
Therefore, we order the Harris County Dist rict Clerk and the court reporter
for the 312th District Court to prepare and file with this court the record of all trial court proceedings on appellant’ s claim of indigence including the trial court’s order on the court reporter’s contest

. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 145( f )(3). The record must be provided without charge and filed with this court on or before April 4, 2019.

PER CURIAM
IV 

119TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 95 

Recognizing the significance of the Greensboro Four sit-in during Black 

History Month. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 4, 2025 

Ms. ADAMS (for herself, Ms. BROWN, Mr. IVEY, Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia, Ms. 

TLAIB, Mrs. FOUSHEE, Ms. ROSS, Ms. NORTON, Mr. GOLDMAN of New 

York, Mr. DAVIS of North Carolina, Mr. GREEN of Texas, Mr. CARTER

of Louisiana, Mr. VEASEY, and Mrs. MCIVER) submitted the following 

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Education and Workforce, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period 

to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 

concerned 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing the significance of the Greensboro Four sitin during Black History Month. 

Whereas February 1, 2025, is the 65th anniversary of the 

Greensboro Four sit-in; 

Whereas February 1, 2025, also marks the beginning of 

Black History month, and America’s celebration of the 

contributions of Black Americans to America’s rich history and culture; 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 95 IH 

Whereas Joseph McNeil, Jibreel Khazan (formerly Ezell 

Blair, Jr.), Franklin McCain, and David Richmond are 

the members of the Greensboro Four; 

Whereas the Greensboro Four attended North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University; 

Whereas the Greensboro Four were refused service at the 

F.W. Woolworth cafeteria in Greensboro, North Carolina, 

on February 1, 1960; 

Whereas the Greensboro Four ignited a movement to challenge racial inequality throughout the South; 

Whereas the Greensboro Four were joined by female students 

from Bennett College and Greensboro Women’s College; 

Whereas the sit-ins spread nationwide with over 700,000 people participating, including students, clergymen, and citizens, both White and Black; 

Whereas the protests resulted in more than 3,000 arrests; 

Whereas the Greensboro Four remained peaceful throughout 

the 6-month sit-in; and 

Whereas the Woolworth Lunch Counter was integrated on 

July 26, 1960: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) recognizes the Greensboro Four for their 

3 contribution to the civil rights movement and the 

4 significant role they played as a catalyst for the mo5 bilization of college students in the civil rights move6 ment coalescing in the formation of the Student 

7 Non-Violent Coordinating Committee; 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•HRES 95 IH 

1 (2) recognizes that ethnic and racial diversity of 

2 the United States enriches and strengthens the Na3 tion; 

4 (3) recognizes the continued importance of sit5 ins as an effective form of nonviolent resistance to 

6 spur positive social change; and 

7 (4) encourages all States to include in their 

8 educational curriculum the history and contributions 

9 of the Greensboro Four. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
H. Res. 93

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

February 5, 2025.

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall 

be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 27) to 

amend the Controlled Substances Act with respect to the 

scheduling of fentanyl-related substances, and for other purposes. All points of order against consideration of the bill are 

waived. The amendment printed in part A of the report of 

the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution shall 

be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the 

bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall be 

considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any 

further amendment thereto, to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided 

and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of 

the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their respective 

designees; (2) the further amendment printed in part B of 

the report of the Committee on Rules, if offered by the Member designated in the report, which shall be in order without 
2

•HRES 93 EH 

intervention of any point of order, shall be considered as 

read, shall be separately debatable for the time specified in 

the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent 

and an opponent, and shall not be subject to a demand for 

division of the question; and (3) one motion to recommit. 

Attest:

Clerk.