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

!
#
$ !%!$&   &   !  
 "!!' "	(()*((+
	,	-)&  ! !       #
     $   !  .#
$$#
! 
  
! 	 !((/0/	+&
		-.$&!#
 
#
! 
 !


#
!"#	$/	10//(/	+&
	-0 %	


&$!   

 !  &       !  !  

 #
 
%
&
$ !

#
7KH +RQRUDEOH 7KRPDV * +XOO 8QLWHG 6WDWHV 'LVWULFW -XGJH IRU WKH(DVWHUQ 'LVWULFW RI 7HQQHVVHH VLWWLQJ E\ GHVLJQDWLRQ5(&200(1'(' )25 )8//7(;7 38%/,&$7,213XUVXDQW WR 6L[WK &LUFXLW 5XOH (/(&7521,& &,7$7,21  )(' $SS 3 WK &LU)LOH 1DPH DS	




234%56*&7%58&48)&%99999999999999999:21$/'4$<'(11('<;*+,5/(<<($1'(11('<#	(',&$3=+$50$&,(6 &1&#>	.!)*:8
0:'
 3(,?<5' <:<
.
@*!
/:2@3//A@B)C33468
<
;5)DD:<
/	

				99999999999999999	  :$ 6 .$ 5$ '
  .  .  . D.4'& 5322.:.DC E D&:B46 A!  . 	   :$ 6 .$ 5$'
 ...865D.4'&5322.:.DCED&:B46A!.	4.D=5AB)C<48
<
::4'   *  < '   ! #
!
!)*A
 8
0:'
 
' "
$ !    ! 
! =!&#
%' 


 
 "
! $F!G
 .$
!!&
		(' !   =!  3 '
 )   !  '  
 FHI
!  
  !     +/- !  =! J
G K!!		

			,3    
    #
$!!    
   & &
21(1+,8
		(-

  
      $  !     %  
!
$!&$#

  !  !
  %   #
  !
!%

$ 
!!&	$		'$   L 

+-+A-       ! !F!G!$ !FG
! & !F$G
!   K!



21(0%

  !   $   !!

 !! &$$! !@+
-#


M $ !;  +/-
!
! 
!  8
      #
    
    (	
  &  !   #
 
  
 K
  !   % '  
 !  
! $ !  D   
  N	

				+A0:
	-3$#
$!
$ !   
        ! ! (/1A4((/((1 +A6:.
			-; 
	A4		

+A:2
		-;)%	
'*)+
11A4/,+A:&
		
-; ,1A4/	1/ +A: 2
	- &!        !   
 !! !
& 
 
 #
$    #
$
 
 
! &
 
! 
!#
"!

)*8L,/,+-!,1A41/%
 
$
$!
 &
	'
NA4NN(+A6:
		1-
 

 

 )*8 L 

+-      
 ! !!$
 !
! )$!
!  !  % 
  
 
  !$ 
 $! $!.

$!
!NN&		
%	*%	+
	(A4,1,
/+A:N-
 


!
 !!#
$$!A
!"

!#
"
$!


)*8L
+A-		

			1&<

		,! #
!!&  
  !     
 !  & :! 
		,  ' !!%'  $! ! ' =! !=! &<
 
		
&
#'  =!   $   $  !%!$)*:8
*
:&3   ( 
		  '    8 
1
   $8,<
 
			%' <
(  3 <
 
 
			    $ 
  !   ' 
  #   ! 
  !"
     $   !    
     
 !#
$!% 
  
  
!!  #
! !
! !#
&
%' )*:8
0:'
   %  
 !  
 
0$
!! #
! 

!!"/121N	+N8/-*
!! #
!
!
!$ #
!!2('4 8,9 =N+-;2(' 4 A$1.5 =,N(	

				6KA
8
L,/,!
 

)*8L,/,+-.F !G

)*8L

+
/-.!@+.-    !    
  
  #
! 
 

 K!

!







;+A-!  	 -	.
  & .	 &&	 &  .	 !   	 ! 	    
    
!   
  #
! K !

!



 

HI)*8L

+-+!-&)	(N	)*/,(+
	-*
!8
$!
L

+-+A-. 54/
!
!$$ !/% !   $  3    L

+-+A-+L

+(-+A--
K   
  
  !  !! $ 
 !    
  ! 

 2K!!*#
!  ! !      $ !$!
; $   ! 
 $  F!G  
 


		

			/(821* 4(&1/1	1+
	,-+!46-.$ 8
	#
$ !! !%

#

$! !%
    $        8
  
     
   % *
! 8
    
"

 $ !  
%
 $! *
$ !! !
 /1%8
!M#


F!G/(&	 %/ (
 2/
(, +N8-
#
!
!%
@FH0I
! 
   !%K!  * "  
  !  
 ! G

%!# 
 
$
$!   
   *!    	 $        ! 
!
K
! (0	.1*1+
,A4(/((/+A:8
		-;$!
NNA4
1
N+A*:3
		(-;	
2#*
	+
(
A4	(	((+A*:3
		/-;/A411N11+A:2
	-;	$	
  * +(,A4(/(
##### 



Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
      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)
    
    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 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; andd)
    
    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
  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;
andb)
    
    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 8, 2007/s/ Claire S. BeanClaire
S. Bean
Chief Financial Officer
Travis HIGGINS v. WILLIAMS ENERGY PARTNER, L.P., Williams Olefins, L.L.C., the Williams Company, Inc., XYZ Insurance Company, Chicago Bridge and Iron Company, and X Insurance Company

Artie Hudson, Jeffery D. Wells v. Williams Olefins Development, L.L.C., et al.

Emile Wade and Patrica Wade v. The Williams Companies, Inc. et al.

Leroy Mitchell v. Williams Companies, Inc., et al.

Mark Bateast, Terrence Crosby, Blake Joseph, Tyrone Lawson, Alvin Long, Jr., Cheri Owens-Griffin, Mary Robinson, Bernard Sears, Aaron Stafford, Donitello Thomas, Calvin Vanner, Donald Wheaton, Asiag Williams, Marcus Wilson and Marcus Yates v. The Williams Companies, Inc., et al.

No. 2019-C-0049

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 6, 2019

*575Rehearing denied.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 99-31372

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

CLIFTON RODNEY COTTEN

Defendant - Appellant

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana 

USDC No. 99-CR-85-ALL-C

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

June 6, 2000

Before KING, Chief Judge, and WIENER and BARKSDALE, Circuit

Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

 In this direct criminal appeal, Clifton Rodney Cotten argues

that the district court did not afford him the right to

allocution before sentencing him to 24 months of imprisonment 

upon his guilty plea to wire fraud. Rule 32 of the Federal Rules

of Criminal Procedure mandates that a defendant be given the

opportunity “to make a statement and [] present any information

in mitigation of sentence.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(c)(3)(C); United

States v. Myers, 150 F.3d 459, 462 (5th Cir. 1998). To comply
No. 99-31372

-2-

with Rule 32, “the court, the prosecutor, and the defendant must

at the very least interact in a manner that shows clearly and

convincingly that the defendant knew he had a right to speak on

any subject of his choosing prior to the imposition of sentence.” 

Myers, 150 F.3d at 462. It is not enough that the sentencing

court addresses a defendant on a particular issue, affords

counsel the right to speak, or hears the defendant’s specific

objections to the PSR. Id. at 461-62 & n.3. We review a

determination whether the defendant was allowed his right to

allocution de novo. Id. at 461. 

 A review of the sentencing transcript reveals that the

district court did not afford Cotten his right to allocution. 

Accordingly, Cotten’s sentence is VACATED and the case is

REMANDED for resentencing so that Cotten may exercise his right

to allocution.

 Since the issues raised by the sentence may arise again, we

address them. Cotten also argues that the district court’s

decision to depart upward at sentencing was an ex post facto

application of the law. He also argues that there was not a

sufficient factual basis to support the court’s finding that he

used mass-marketing to recruit his victims. Although he

challenged the departure on other grounds at sentencing, Cotten

failed to object to the upward departure on the grounds he now

urges on appeal; therefore, his arguments are limited to plainerror review. See United States v. Alford, 142 F.3d 825, 830

(5th Cir. 1998). Cotton has failed to demonstrate plain error in

the district court’s upward departure.
No. 99-31372

-3-

 VACATED and REMANDED for resentencing.
Cryshan MUHAMMAD, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellee.

No. 1D18-413

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 17, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
No. 29,845.

#### P. G. Porter, *Appellant,*v. Fred A. Walker, *Appellee.*

(300 Pac. 1095.)

Opinion filed July 3, 1931.

*Elisha Scott*and *C. Oakley M.cIntosh,*both of Topeka, for the appellant.

*Keene Saxon*and *S. L. Lashbrook,*both of Topeka, for the appellee.

*433The opinion of the court was delivered by

Burch, J.:

The action was one for damages for injury to person and property sustained in an automobile collision. The verdict was for plaintiff. The court set aside the verdict, and rendered judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals.

The collision occurred at a highway intersection. Porter’s automobile, driven by his wife, approached the intersection from the north. Three hundred feet north of the intersection was a highway sign warning of the intersection. Porter’s driver sounded- the horn of his automobile and reduced its speed, but the automobile entered the intersection at a speed of about thirty miles per hour. Thereafter nothing was done to avert a collision. Walker approached the intersection from the west at a speed of about twenty-five miles per hour. Porter entered the intersection first. Walker was on the right of Porter, and the left front of Walker’s automobile struck Porter’s automobile back of the right front fender. These facts were found by the jury. The jury also found Walker was negligent, Porter was not negligent, and Walker’s negligence caused the injury.

Porter abstracts and complains of but one instruction to the jury. The instruction advised the jury that, under the circumstances, the negligence of Porter’s driver should be regarded as his negligence. The instruction was properly given. The petition pleaded that Porter was operating his car, and he testified he was going to Topeka on business of his own.

The trouble with the general verdict and the special finding relating to who was and who was not negligent is that they disregarded the instructions of the court, which Porter did not abstract. For example, as the court told the jury, the statute required Porter to reduce speed as he approached the intersection to a rate not exceeding eight miles per hour, and to maintain such rate until entirely past the intersection. Had Porter done this, Walker would have been beyond the intersection before Porter arrived at the point of collision. No matter how negligent Walker may have been, Porter was not entitled to recover.

There is nothing else of importance in the case, and the judgment of the district court is affirmed.
OFFICE OF THE STANDING CHAPTER 13 TRUSTEE

6851 N.E. Loop 820, Suite 300

North Richland Hills, TX 76180-6608

(817) 770-8500

Fax (817) 770-8508

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

WAEL SAMIR FALTS

 DEBTOR

IN RE: CASE NO:24-43547-MXM

Judge Mark X Mullin

First Payment Date: 10/30/2024

§

§

§

§

§

§

TRUSTEE'S SEVEN (7) DAY NOTICE OF INTENT TO CERTIFY 

CHAPTER 13 CASE FOR DISMISSAL 

(7 DAY NOI - NO SHOW AT 341 MEETING)

Notice is HEREBY GIVEN to the above named Debtor and to the Debtor's Attorney that on or after seven (7) 

days herefrom, the Trustee intends to certify the above numbered Chapter 13 case for Dismissal for the following 

reason(s):

Debtor failed to attend the Section 341 Meeting of Creditors held on November 13, 2024.

FAILURE TO CURE ANY AND ALL OF THE DEFICIENCIES NOTED ABOVE WITHIN SEVEN (7) 

DAYS HEREOF SHALL SUBJECT THIS CASE TO DISMISSAL BY THE BANKRUPTCY CLERK 

WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE.

DISMISSAL WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE. Pursuant to General Order 2023-04 Section 3 d-1, a Chapter 

13 Petition may be dismissed without prejudice, after seven (7) days prior written notice to the Debtor and 

Debtor's counsel, and without further notice. The clerk is authorized to enter an Order of Dismissal upon 

certification by the Trustee that:

d-1. The Debtor failed to attend the Section 341 Meeting of Creditors as required by Section 343 of the 

Bankruptcy Code (the "Section 341 Meeting") or any continued Section 341 Meeting which the Trustee required 

the Debtor to attend, without the agreement of the Trustee to continue the Section 341 Meeting.

 /s/ Tim Truman

Tim Truman, Trustee/State Bar # 20258000

Case 24-43547-mxm13 Doc 37 Filed 11/15/24 Entered 11/15/24 12:48:30 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 2
Case Number: 24-43547-MXM WAEL SAMIR FALTS

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing "Trustee's Seven (7) Day Notice of Intent to Certify 

Chapter 13 Case for Dismissal" was served on the parties listed below in the manner listed below on or before 

November 18, 2024.

BY FIRST CLASS MAIL:

WAEL SAMIR FALTS, 19 WYCK HILL LN, ROANOKE, TX 76262-0000

ELECTRONIC SERVICE:

LEINART LAW FIRM, 10670 N CENTRAL EXPWY #320, DALLAS, TX 75231

MCCREARY VESELKA BRAGG & ALLEN, PO BOX 1269, ROUND ROCK, TX 78680

LINEBARGER GOGGAN BLAIR & SAMPSON LLP, 2777 N STEMMONS FWY #1000, DALLAS, TX 75207

AKERMAN, 2001 ROSS AVE #3600, DALLAS, TX 75201

United States Trustee, 1100 COMMERCE STREET, ROOM 976, DALLAS, TX 75242

 /s/ Tim Truman

Tim Truman, Trustee/State Bar # 20258000

Case 24-43547-mxm13 Doc 37 Filed 11/15/24 Entered 11/15/24 12:48:30 Desc Main

Document Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA §

§

v. § Criminal Case No. 3:05-CR-113-L(03)

§

CLYDE DALE EVANS § 

§

ORDER

On October 28, 2018, the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States

Magistrate Judge (“Report”) (Doc. 290) were entered in this case, recommending that the court deny

the Defendant’s Rule 60(b)(6) Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 288) in which Defendant requests

that the court reconsider its denial of his prior motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582.

No objections to the Report were filed, although Defendant was granted an extension to December

17, 2018, to file objections.

After considering the motion, file, record in this case, and Report, the court determines that

the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are correct, and accepts them as those of the

court. Accordingly, the court denies Defendant’s Rule 60(b)(6) Motion for Reconsideration (Doc.

288). 

It is so ordered this 14th day of January, 2019.

_________________________________

Sam A. Lindsay

United States District Judge

Order – Solo Page
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# 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 30, 2025.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on January 24, 2025, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail, USPS Ground Advantage® & Parcel Select Contract 8 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-1155, K2025-1155.                

Sean Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2025-01920 Filed 1-29-25; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```

[Congressional Bills 119th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 6 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

<DOC>

119th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 6

 Expressing the thanks of the Senate to the Honorable Patty Murray for 
her service as President Pro Tempore of the United States Senate and to 
   desiginate Senator Murray as President Pro Tempore Emerita of the 
                         United States Senate.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 3, 2025

 Mr. Schumer submitted the following resolution; which was considered 
                             and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Expressing the thanks of the Senate to the Honorable Patty Murray for 
her service as President Pro Tempore of the United States Senate and to 
   desiginate Senator Murray as President Pro Tempore Emerita of the 
                         United States Senate.

    Resolved, That the United States Senate expresses its deepest 
gratitude to Senator Murray for her dedication and commitment during 
her service to the Senate as the President Pro Tempore.
    Further, as a token of appreciation of the Senate for her long and 
faithful service, Senator Patty Murray is hearby designated President 
Pro Tempore Emerita of the United States Senate.
                                 <all>
```
A.P. v. TUSCALOOSA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2170148

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

March 30, 2018

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32.1

               CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND CFO FURNISHED PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                    ss. 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In  connection  with the  Quarterly  Report on Form  10-QSB  of Valley  Commerce
Bancorp (the  "Company")  for the quarterly  period ended June 30, 2005 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
each of Donald A. Gilles,  President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
and Roy O. Estridge,  Chief  Financial  Officer of the Company,  hereby certify,
pursuant  to 18  U.S.C.  ss.  1350,  as  adopted  pursuant  to  ss.  906  of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of 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 result of operations of the Company.


              Date: August 12, 2005        /S/ DONALD A. GILLES
                                           --------------------
                                           Donald A. Gilles
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer




              Date: August 12, 2005        /S/ ROY O. ESTRIDGE
                                           -------------------
                                           Roy O. Estridge
                                           Chief Financial Officer


This  certification   accompanies  this  Report  pursuant  to  ss.  906  of  the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and shall not,  except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  or  otherwise  required,  be  deemed  filed by the
Company  for  purposes  of ss. 18 of the  Securities  Exchange  Act of 1934,  as
amended.


                                       30
1

Order entered April 23, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-01284-CV

IN RE VENATOR MATERIALS, PLC, Relators

Original Proceeding from the 134th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-19-02030

ORDER

Before Justices Bridges, Osborne, and Carlyle

At relators’ request, we abated this original proceeding pending the issuance 

of the mandate in a related appeal. Because the mandate in that appeal has issued, 

we REINSTATE this original proceeding.

Before the Court is the unopposed motion to dismiss filed by relators 

Venator Materials PLC, Simon Turner, Kurt D. Ogden, Stephen Ibbotson, and 

Russ R. Stolle’s (collectively, Venator relators) and Citigroup Global Markets Inc., 

Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc., Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, and J.P. 

Morgan Securities LLC (the Underwriter relators). We GRANT the motion and 
2

dismiss this original proceeding with respect to the Venator relators and the 

Underwriter relators. 

The opposed motion to transfer venue of this proceeding with respect to the 

remaining parties, Huntsman Corporation, Huntsman International LLC, and 

Huntsman (Holdings) Netherlands B.V.’s (collectively, Huntsman relators), is also 

before the Court. Pursuant to the procedure set forth in Miles v. Ford Motor Co., 

914 S.W.2d 135, 137 n.2 (Tex. 1995) (per curiam), the Court refers the Huntsman 

relators’ motion to the Texas Supreme Court. In light of this Court’s opinion in a 

related appeal, Venator Materials PLC v. Macomb County Employees’ Retirement 

System, 05-19-01177-CV, 2020 WL 289296 (Tex. App.—Dallas Jan. 21, 2020, no 

pet.) (mem. op.), the Court does not object to the transfer. 

We ABATE this original proceeding pending disposition of the motion to 

transfer. 

/s/ LESLIE OSBORNE 

JUSTICE