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

119TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 24 

Expunging the December 18, 2019, impeachment of President Donald John 

Trump. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 9, 2025 

Ms. GREENE of Georgia (for herself, Mrs. MILLER of Illinois, Mr. WEBER of 

Texas, Mr. COLLINS, Mr. CRANE, Ms. MALLIOTAKIS, Mr. MOYLAN, Mr. 

NEHLS, Mrs. LUNA, and Mr. VAN DREW) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Expunging the December 18, 2019, impeachment of 

President Donald John Trump. 

Whereas President Trump was wrongfully accused of misconduct in House Resolution 755, Impeaching Donald 

John Trump, President of the United States, for high 

crimes and misdemeanors, as demonstrated by the information revealed in an unclassified FD–1023 FBI document: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the December 18, 2019, impeachment 

2 of President Donald John Trump is expunged, as if such 

3 Articles had never passed the full House of Representa4 tives, as the facts and circumstances upon which such ArVerDate Sep 11 2014 00:56 Jan 10, 2025 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\HR24.IH HR24

ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 24 IH 

1 ticles were based did not meet the burden of proving the 

2 commission of ‘‘high Crimes and Misdemeanors’’, as set 

3 forth in section 4 of article II of the Constitution. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
EX PARTE James BEAMON-BEY

1170060 (CR-16-0634)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

December 8, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Cert. denied.
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
Just i ces

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk September 11, 2009

s0831 

# Order

September 11, 2009

138373

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 138373 COA: 288501 Baraga CC: 05-000910-FH CLIFFORD MCCORMACK, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the January 9, 2009 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, a nd it is DENIED, because the defendant has
failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
Michael James DEARDEUFF, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-835

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 3, 2019.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Susan M. Shanahan, Special Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Brian H. Zack, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

LaROSE, C.J., and VILLANTI and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.
S. Con. Res. 51 Agreed to December 23, 2022

One Hundred Seventeenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and twenty two 

Concurrent Resolution 

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That, in the enrollment of H.R. 2617, the Clerk of the House 

of Representatives shall make the following corrections: 

(1) Amend the title so as to read: ‘‘Making consolidated 

appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2023, 

and for providing emergency assistance for the situation in 

Ukraine, and for other purposes.’’. 

(2) Strike the first section 1 immediately following the 

enacting clause and all that follows through the end of the 

first section 2, up to and including ‘‘under subsection (b)(5) 

for that agency’’. 

(3) In title IV of division O, strike section 403. 

(4) Strike the final section 3 and all that follows through 

the end. 

Attest: 

Secretary of the Senate. 

Attest: 

Clerk of the House of Representatives.
Amendment to Memorandum of Understanding regarding Timothy J. Beaudin



 Exhibit 10.32 
 FIRST AMENDMENT TO 
 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING 
 REGARDING EMPLOYMENT 
  
 This First Amendment to Memorandum of Understanding regarding Employment is entered into as of July 31, 2003, by and between Catellus Development
Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and Timothy J. Beaudin (the “Executive”). 
  
 RECITALS 
  
 A. The Company and the Executive entered into a Memorandum of Understanding regarding Employment, dated February 7, 2001 (the “Memorandum”). 
  

B. The Company and the Executive desire to amend the first sentence of Section 4.2 of the Memorandum to clarify their intent that the special bonus
payment specified therein be payable when otherwise due so long as clause (i) of that sentence continues to apply and, prior to such bonus due date, the Executive has repaid the Relocation Loan in full, notwithstanding that, on or before such bonus
due date, the Executive has sold Common Stock of the Company that was acquired other than pursuant to the exercise of an option which was scheduled to expire by its terms within one year of the date of exercise. 
  
 NOW, THEREFORE, the Company and the Executive hereby agree as follows:

  

	 	1.	 	Capitalized Terms. Capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to them in the Memorandum. 


  

	 	2.	 	Special Bonuses. The first sentence of Section 4.2 of the Memorandum is hereby amended to read in full as follows: 

  
 In addition, you shall receive a special bonus in an amount equal to $166,667
on each of April 6, 2002, April 6, 2003, and April 6, 2004, but only if (i) you have remained continuously employed by the Company throughout the period beginning on the date of this Memorandum and ending on the date the special bonus payment is
otherwise due, and (ii) either (A) you have not sold any Common Stock of the Company on or before the date the special bonus payment is otherwise due unless that stock was acquired pursuant to the exercise of an option that was scheduled to expire
by its terms within one year of the date of exercise or (B) you have repaid the Relocation Loan in full prior to the date the special bonus is otherwise due. 
  








	 	3.	 	Effect of Amendment. Except as expressly amended hereby, all the terms and conditions of the Memorandum shall remain in full force and effect.


  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company and the
Executive have executed this First Amendment to Memorandum of Understanding regarding Employment as of the date first above written. 
  

	 COMPANY:
 CATELLUS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 
	 	 	 	 EXECUTIVE: 

					
	By:	 	 /s/    NELSON C. RISING        

	 	 	 	 	 	 /s/    TIMOTHY J. BEAUDIN        


	 	 	 Nelson C. Rising
 Chairman of the Board and
Chief
 Executive Officer
	 	 	 	 	 	 Timothy J. Beaudin
----

**EXHIBIT      32.1**

**CERTIFICATION      OF CEO PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) OR**

**RULE      15d-14(b) and 18 U.S.C. Sec.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. |
|--|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:                October 12, 2006 | /s/                Diane Dottavio          |   |
|---------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                  | **Diane                Dottavio, Ph.D.**   |   |
|                                  | **Chief                Executive Officer** |   |
|                                  | **Chairman                of the Board**   |   |

----
Patrick SMITH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D19-420

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed May 21, 2019

Patrick Smith, Coleman, pro se.

No Appearance for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

BERGER, HARRIS and GROSSHANS, JJ., concur.
If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to 

revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

-1-

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

UNPUBLISHED

October 29, 2019

v No. 344168

Macomb Circuit Court

LAMONTE ODELL JOHNSON, LC No. 2017-002877-FC

Defendant-Appellant.

Before: FORT HOOD, P.J., and SAWYER and SHAPIRO, JJ.

SHAPIRO, J. (concurring).

I concur in the result only.

/s/ Douglas B. Shapiro
Cheryl Rene DUNMORE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-3786

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 29, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

A.W., t he Mother

, Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 2023

- 2694

[ June 10, 2024 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit,

Broward County ; Stacey Schulman , Judge; L.T. Case No. 22

- 2420DP

.

Kathleen K. Pena, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Karla Perkins, B.C.S., Miami, for appellee.

Sara Elizabeth Goldfarb, Statewide Director of Appeals, and Sarah Todd

Weitz, Senior Attorney, Statewide Guardian Ad Litem Office, Tallahassee,

for Guardian Ad Litem, and Jamie Billotte Moses, B.C.S., of Holland &

Knight, LLP, Orlando, Pro Bono for Guardian Ad Litem.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

C IKLIN

, G ERBER and A RTAU , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
# Official Journal C 225/27 J

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 225 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6627 June 2023 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 225

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6627 June 2023

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Supervisory Committee of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) |
| 2023/C 225/01 | Activity Report of the Supervisory Committee of OLAF – 2022 | 1 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Supervisory Committee of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF)

2023/C 225/01

Activity Report of the Supervisory Committee of OLAF – 2022

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

In the Interest of M.C., a Child

No. 06-24-00014-CV

Appeal from the 354th District Court of 

Hunt County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 90939). 

Panel consists of Chief Justice Stevens and

Justices van Cleef and Rambin. 

Memorandum Opinion delivered by Chief 

Justice Stevens. Dissenting Opinion by 

Justice Rambin.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, the appellant filed an agreed motion with 

this Court to set aside the trial court’s judgment, without regard to the merits, which we grant.

Therefore, we set aside the judgment of the trial court, without regard to the merits, and 

remand the cause to the trial court for rendition of judgment in accordance with the parties’ 

settlement agreement.

We note that the Department is exempt from the payment of costs pursuant to Section 

40.062 of the Texas Human Resources Code and that Mother has adequately indicated her

inability to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED JULY 3, 2024

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

SCOTT E. STEVENS

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
Indasia UNDERWOOD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-4525

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 24, 2019.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Matthew D. Bernstein, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

CASANUEVA, Judge.

In this *Anders*1 appeal, Indasia Underwood appeals an order of revocation of community control and a judgment and sentence for one count of unlawful possession of the personal identification information of another (five or more). We affirm the judgment, sentence, and order of revocation without comment.

After sentencing, Ms. Underwood filed a pro se motion for mitigation and reduction of sentence and subsequently filed a pro se notice of appeal. After the notice of appeal was filed, the trial court entered an order denying the motion for mitigation and reduction of sentence. The trial court was without jurisdiction to consider the motion after the notice of appeal was filed. *See**Othouse v. State*, 912 So. 2d 682, 682 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). The trial court should have dismissed the motion rather than deny it. *See**Hawthorne v. State*, 226 So. 3d 292, 293 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) ("Because the filing of a notice of appeal divests the trial court of jurisdiction, the trial court should have dismissed the motion on that basis instead of denying it."). Accordingly, we remand for the trial court to vacate the order denying the motion for mitigation and reduction of sentence and enter an order dismissing the motion for lack of jurisdiction. Our affirmance is without prejudice to any right Ms. Underwood may have to raise this issue in a timely motion for postconviction relief. *See* Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(c).

Affirmed; remanded with instructions.

VILLANTI and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.

1

*Anders v. California*, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 911 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 911

 To require the installation of secondary cockpit barriers on existing 
                   aircraft, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 23, 2021

 Mr. Casey (for himself and Mr. Toomey) introduced the following bill; 
    which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, 
                      Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To require the installation of secondary cockpit barriers on existing 
                   aircraft, 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 ``Saracini Enhanced Aviation Safety 
Act of 2021''.

SEC. 2. INSTALLATION OF SECONDARY COCKPIT BARRIERS ON EXISTING 
              AIRCRAFT.

    (a) In General.--Not later than 18 months after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation 
Administration shall issue an order requiring installation of a 
secondary cockpit barrier on each covered aircraft.
    (b) Covered Aircraft.--In this section, the term ``covered 
aircraft'' means a commercial passenger aircraft operating under the 
provisions of part 121 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations.
                                 <all>
```
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

§

EDWARD LIONEL BLAKE §

 §

Petitioner, §

 §

v. § Civil Action No. 3:05-cv-2519-R

 §

DAN JOSLIN, Warden §

 §

Respondent. §

ORDER

United States Magistrate Judge William Sanderson, Jr. filed Findings, Conclusions and a

Recommendation in this case on February 23, 2006. Petitioner, Edward Lionel Blake, filed

objections to the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge

on February 28, 2006. Petitioner objections to the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that he has not

satisfied the “savings clause test” under 28 U.S.C. §2255, which, in turn, would permit him to seek

relief under 28 U.S.C. §2241. 

After reviewing Magistrate Judge Sanderson's Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b) along with Petitioner's objections to those findings, the Court

concludes that the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are correct

and are hereby ADOPTED as the findings of this Court. Petitioner’s objections are hereby

OVERRULED in their entirety.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

DALLAS DIVISION

FILED

April 11, 2006

CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT

 

 Case 3:05-cv-02519-R Document 5 Filed 04/11/06 Page 1 of 2 PageID 23
2

IT IS SO ORDERED

ENTERED: April 11, 2006 ___________________________________

HON. JERRY BUCHMEYER

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

 

 Case 3:05-cv-02519-R Document 5 Filed 04/11/06 Page 2 of 2 PageID 24
Glenn A. WHIGHAM, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-4495

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 22, 2019 Rehearing Denied June 6, 2019

Glenn A. Whigham, pro se, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Julian E. Markham, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED .

Makar, Osterhaus, and Bilbrey, JJ., concur.
Eric Wynn GALLMON, DOC #T32665, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-2940

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 3, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 21

- 0579 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. KEITH PRICE,

Defendant and Appellant.

**GRANT** Pursuant to authority granted under Mont. R. App. P. 26(1), the Appellant is given an extension of time until February 14, 2022, to prepare, file, and serve the Appellant’s opening brief.

Electronically signed by: Bowen Greenwood Clerk of the Supreme Court January 7 2022

01/07/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0579
**FCA Handbook Update Notice**

***FCA Bookletters***

**Strengthening Lending and Loan Servicing Controls (**BL-069**) --**The Farm Credit Administration issued this bookletter to provide further guidance on our expectation that each Farm Credit System  institution will continuously assess its lending and loan servicing controls to ensure controls remain effective and comply with § 618.8430. (March 8, 2018)
PONTCHARTRAIN NATURAL GAS SYSTEM, k/d/s Promix, L.L.C., and Acadian Gas Pipeline System v. TEXAS BRINE COMPANY, LLC

NO. 2019-CD-0922

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 7, 2019

Stay denied; writ denied.

HUGHES, J., would grant.

GENOVESE, J., would deny stay and grant the writ.
# Hiring Freeze

# Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, I hereby order a freeze on the hiring of Federal civilian employees, to be applied throughout the executive branch. As part of this freeze, no Federal civilian position that is vacant at noon on January 20, 2025, may be filled, and no new position may be created except as otherwise provided for in this memorandum or other applicable law. Except as provided below, this freeze applies to all executive departments and agencies regardless of their sources of operational and programmatic funding.

This order does not apply to military personnel of the armed forces or to positions related to immigration enforcement, national security, or public safety. Moreover, nothing in this memorandum shall adversely impact the provision of Social Security, Medicare, or Veterans' benefits. In addition, the Director of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) may grant exemptions from this freeze where those exemptions are otherwise necessary. 

Within 90 days of the date of this memorandum, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), in consultation with the Director of OPM and the Administrator of the United States DOGE Service (USDS), shall submit a plan to reduce the size of the Federal Government's workforce through efficiency improvements and attrition. Upon issuance of the OMB plan, this memorandum shall expire for all executive departments and agencies, with the exception of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). This memorandum shall remain in effect for the IRS until the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Director of OMB and the Administrator of USDS, determines that it is in the national interest to lift the freeze.

Contracting outside the Federal Government to circumvent the intent of this memorandum is prohibited.

In carrying out this memorandum, the heads of executive departments and agencies shall seek efficient use of existing personnel and funds to improve public services and the delivery of these services. Accordingly, this memorandum does not prohibit making reallocations to meet the highest priority needs, maintain essential services, and protect national security, homeland security, and public safety.

This memorandum does not limit the nomination and appointment of officials to positions requiring Presidential appointment or Senate confirmation, the appointment of officials to non-career positions in the Senior Executive Service or to Schedule A or C positions in the Excepted Service, the appointment of officials through temporary organization hiring authority pursuant to section 3161 of title 5, United States Code, or the appointment of any other non-career employees or officials if approved by agency leadership appointed by the President. Moreover, it does not limit the hiring of personnel where such a limit would conflict with applicable law.

This memorandum does not abrogate any collective bargaining agreement in effect on the date of this memorandum.

[FR Doc. 2025-01905

Billing code 3395-F4-P
Tony R. HILL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-3058

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 29, 2019

Tony R. Hill, pro se, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Heather Flanagan Ross, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED.

Rowe, Jay, and M.K. Thomas, JJ., concur.
Malik GREEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-2053

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 30, 2019

Malik Green, pro se, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Sharon Traxler, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED .

Lewis, Winsor, and M.K. Thomas, JJ., concur.
# **EXHIBIT23.1**

#  

**INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ CONSENT**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference inRegistration Statement No. 333-47485 of Scheid Vineyards Inc. on Form S-8 ofour report dated March 24, 2004 appearing in this Annual Report on Form10-KSB of Scheid Vineyards Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2003.

 

 
| /s/  DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP |   |
|--------------------------------|--------|
| San  Jose, California          |   |
| March 24,  2004           |   |

 

----