alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
H. R. 1287

One Hundred Ninth Congress

of the

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and six 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 312 East 

North Avenue in Flora, Illinois, as the ‘‘Robert T. Ferguson Post Office Building’’.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

The facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

312 East North Avenue in Flora, Illinois, shall be known and 

designated as the ‘‘Robert T. Ferguson Post Office Building’’. 

SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, 

or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 

in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Robert 

T. Ferguson Post Office Building’’.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
Mabrine ALEXIS, Appellant, v. WAL-MART STORES, INC., Appellee.

Nos. 4D18-543

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[June 20, 2019]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

*Affirmed.*
**Exhibit 31.1**
****CERTIFICATION****
     I, Susan K. Rosburg, certify that:
     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Kiewit RoyaltyTrust, for which U.S. Bank National Association acts as Trustee;
     2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisquarterly report;
     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, distributable income and changes in trustcorpus of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisquarterly report;
     4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controlsand procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)), or for causing such procedures tobe established and maintained, for the registrant and I have:
     a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchcontrols and procedures to be designed, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant is made known to me by others within the registrant,particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is beingprepared;
     b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this quarterly report my conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this quarterly report; and
     c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and
     5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internalcontrol over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors:
     a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialdata; and
     b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controlsover financial reporting.
     In giving the certifications in paragraphs 4 and 5 above, I have relied tothe extent I consider reasonable on information provided to me by AmberBrewster, Bank of Oklahoma.
Date: August 11, 2003   By: /s/ Susan K. Rosburg
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

WAYMO LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No.3:17-cv-00939-WHA 

NOTICE REGARDING VIDEO RECORDING 

A request has been made to video record the April 12, 2017 Tutorial in this case pursuant 

to General Order 65, Cameras in the Courtroom Pilot Project. 

(X) All parties have consented to the video recording of the proceeding; unless otherwise 

ordered by the presiding judge, the proceeding will be video recorded as part of the Pilot 

Project. See cand.uscourts.gov/cameras for more information. 

 

( ) At least one party has opposed the request to video record and/or the Court has denied the 

request; the proceeding will not be video recorded. 

Dated: 3/30/2017 Susan Y. Soong, Clerk of Court 

 Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 128 Filed 03/30/17 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-30658

SEITEL GEOPHYSICAL INCORPORATED, doing business as Eagle Geophysical, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross Appellant,

versus

GREENHILL PETROLEUM CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant-Cross Appellee.

(consolidated with)

No. 96-31148

SEITEL GEOPHYSICAL INCORPORATED, doing business as Eagle Geophysical, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

GREENHILL PETROLEUM CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

(95-CV-1648-K)* David Folsom, Eastern District of Texas, sitting by designation.

** Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

1 Probo II London v. Isla Santay MV , 92 F.3d 361 (5th Cir. 1996).

2 May 5, 1997

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, KING, Circuit Judge, and FOLSOM, * District Judge.

PER CURIAM: **

Greenhill Petroleum Corporation appeals an adverse judgment awarding

damages, costs, attorneys’ fees, and prejudgment interest to Seitel Geophysical,

Inc., d/b/a Eagle Geophysical, in this contract dispute action. Having considered

the briefs, oral arguments of counsel, and pertinent parts of the record, on the facts

as found, authorities cited, and analysis made by the district court in its Order and

Reasons of June 10, 1996, the decision on the merits is affirmed. The judgment,

however, is amended to reflect that the prejudgment interest is to be computed from

the date of the loss. 1 The matter is returned to the district court in order that this

compensation may properly be made a part of the judgment.

AFFIRMED as AMENDED.
Charles H. LEE, petitioner, v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI, et al.

No. 12-7774.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 29, 2013.

Petition for rehearing 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. 00-40721

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JESUS JOSÉ ESCOBAR,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC Nos. C-00-CV-10 &

C-96-CR-84-1

- - - - - - - - - -

April 11, 2001

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Jesus José Escobar, a federal prisoner, appeals from the

district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion as

time-barred by 28 U.S.C. § 2255's one-year statute of

limitations. We have reviewed the record and the briefs of the

parties, and we ascertain no reversible error. 

Escobar’s conviction became final on October 5, 1998, the

date on which the Supreme Court denied his petition for a writ of

certiorari. See United States v. Thomas, 203 F.3d 350, 356 (5th
No. 00-40721

-2-

Cir. 2000). Because Escobar filed his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion

more than one year after this date, the district court did not

err by dismissing it as time-barred. See id.; 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255(1). 

Escobar’s assertion that the district court’s application of

Thomas amounted to a violation of Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288

(1989), is meritless because Thomas merely construed the

limitations aspect of 28 U.S.C. § 2255; it did not announce a new

rule of constitutional law. Nor has Escobar established rare and

exceptional circumstances that would entitle him to equitable

tolling of the limitations period. See Davis v. Johnson, 158

F.3d 806, 811 (5th Cir. 1998). The district court’s judgment of

dismissal is AFFIRMED.
MAXIM CRANE WORKS, L.P., petitioner, v. Tinna DILTS, as the Administratrix of the Estate of Rickie Dilts, et al.

No. 12-893.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 29, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
EXHIBIT 1

   

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 467-1 Filed 05/19/17 Page 1 of 2
1

From: David Perlson <davidperlson@quinnemanuel.com>

Sent: Friday, May 19, 2017 11:37 AM

To: Ray, Wendy J.

Cc: James Judah; QE-Waymo; Gonzalez, Arturo J.; jcooper@fbm.com

Subject: RE: Waymo v Uber: Protocol

Wendy, Waymo does not oppose a request for clarification that “customers,” “suppliers,” “consultants,” and “agents”

(as used in Paragraphs 2 and 3 only) should be limited to Defendants’ customers, suppliers, consultants, and agents

related to LiDAR.   We intend to drop a footnote in our Objections noting this.   

David

From: Ray, Wendy J. [mailto:WRay@mofo.com]  

Sent: Friday, May 19, 2017 11:33 AM

To: David Perlson <davidperlson@quinnemanuel.com>

Cc: James Judah <jamesjudah@quinnemanuel.com>; QE‐Waymo <qewaymo@quinnemanuel.com>; Gonzalez, Arturo J.

<AGonzalez@mofo.com>; jcooper@fbm.com

Subject: Re: Waymo v Uber: Protocol

David, 

This is a reminder to let us know your position on the self-driving vehicles issue I raised on the call so we know 

whether we need to file anything at noon. Thanks. 

Wendy J. Ray 

Morrison & Foerster LLP 

707 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 6000 

Los Angeles, CA 90017-3543 

213-892-5446 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 467-1 Filed 05/19/17 Page 2 of 2
In re Howard L. THOMPSON, petitioner.

No. 12-7991.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Carolyn JONES, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE.

No. 12-9776.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 20, 2013.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied. Petitioner allowed until June 10, 2013, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Thunder Mountain Gold Inc, (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, E. James Collord, President, Director and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(1)

The 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/ E. James Collord

By  __________________________________

E.  James Collord

President, Director and Chief Executive Officer

Date:  August 16, 2011
July 14, 2016

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF STEVEN W. ARD AND MARSHA 

ARD-PHILLIPS

NO. 14-14-00808-CV 

________________________________

This cause, an appeal from the final divorce decree signed August 29, 2014, 

was heard on the transcript of the record. We have inspected the record and find 

no error in the judgment. We order the judgment of the court below AFFIRMED.

We order appellant Marsha Ard-Phillips to pay all costs incurred in this 

appeal. 

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Robin S. McRae, Secretary/Treasurer and Director and Chief Financial Accounting Officer of Thunder Mountain Gold, Inc. (the Registrant) do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



1.

This Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Registrant for the fiscal period ended June 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (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 Registrant.

Date:  August 14, 2003

/s/ Robin S. McRae

Robin S.  McRae

Secretary/Treasurer and

Director and Chief Financial Accounting Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1463 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1463

To designate a portion of the Federal building located at 2100 Jamieson 
  Avenue, in Alexandria, Virginia, as the ``Justin W. Williams United 
                     States Attorney's Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 5, 2005

Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia (for himself, Mrs. Jo Ann Davis of Virginia, 
     Mrs. Drake, Mr. Scott of Virginia, Mr. Forbes, Mr. Goode, Mr. 
 Goodlatte, Mr. Cantor, Mr. Moran of Virginia, Mr. Boucher, Mr. Wolf, 
Mr. Sensenbrenner, and Mr. Coble) introduced the following bill; which 
   was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To designate a portion of the Federal building located at 2100 Jamieson 
  Avenue, in Alexandria, Virginia, as the ``Justin W. Williams United 
                     States Attorney's Building''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    (a) In General.--The building and structure described in subsection 
(b) shall be known and designated as the ``Justin W. Williams United 
States Attorney's Building''.
    (b) Description.--The building and structure to be designated under 
subsection (a) is that portion of the Federal building located at 2100 
Jamieson Avenue, in Alexandria, Virginia, that is attached to the 
Federal building's main tower structure, described as A-Wing in the 
architectural plans, and currently occupied by the Office of the United 
States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria 
Division.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the building and structure described in 
section 1(b) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Justin W. 
Williams United States Attorney's Building''.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be 
necessary for appropriate identifying designations to be affixed to the 
building and structure described in section 1(b) and for an appropriate 
plaque reflecting the designation and honoring Justin W. Williams and 
his service to the Nation to be affixed to or displayed in such 
building and structure.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) Case No. 3:13-CR-005 JD

)

JONATHAN PARAHAMS (01) )

ORDER

No objections have been filed to the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendation upon

a plea of guilty issued on June 24, 2013 [DE 80]. Accordingly, the court now ADOPTS those

findings and recommendations, ACCEPTS defendant Jonathan Parahams’ plea of guilty, and FINDS

the defendant guilty of Count 1 of the Indictment, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 286.

SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: July 17, 2013 

 /s/ JON E. DEGUILIO 

Judge

United States District Court
David SANCHEZ, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9264.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LUIS LORENZO ARMENTERO,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

JAMES E. TILTON, CDCR Secretary;

MATTHEW KRAMER, Warden, Folsom

State Prison,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 08-16307

D.C. No. 2:07-cv-00268-JKSCMK

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

James K. Singleton, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 19, 2011** 

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

Luis Lorenzo Armentero, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the

district court’s judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that prison

lockdowns violated his constitutional rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

FILED

JAN 11 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-16307

§ 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Armentero’s claim based on deliberate

indifference to his medical needs because Armentero failed to allege that

defendants were aware of an excessive risk to his health based on his placement in

segregation during prison lockdowns. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057

(9th Cir. 2004).

To the extent that Armentero challenged the conditions of his confinement

based on a lack of exercise, the district court properly dismissed his claim because

Armentero failed to allege a substantial deprivation in his second amended

complaint. See May v. Baldwin, 109 F.3d 557, 565 (9th Cir. 1997) (explaining that

“a temporary denial of outdoor exercise with no medical effects is not a substantial

deprivation” under the Eighth Amendment); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258,

1262 (9th Cir. 1992) (reference to original and first amended complaints was

precluded by doctrine that an amended pleading supersedes the original pleading).

Armentero’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 31.1**CERTIFICATIONI, Terrance J. Lillis, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D requiredto be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of PrincipalLife Income Fundings Trust 2007-78 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);  2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as whole, donot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other informationrequired to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report isincluded in the Exchange Act periodic reports;  4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement(s) required in thisreport under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Actperiodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicingagreement(s) in all material respects; and  5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria forasset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment ofcompliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be includedin this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwisedisclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in suchreports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by thefollowing unaffiliated parties: Citibank, N.A. and Bankers Trust Company, N.A.Date: March 27, 2008   /s/ Terrance J. Lillis   Terrance J. Lillis  Chief Financial Officer- Retirement and Investor Services
Michael A. SALAZAR, petitioner, v. SEARS, ROEBUCK & COMPANY.

No. 12-9365.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Kenneth Roshaun REID, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-10404.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 24, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1255 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1255

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the tax incentives 
                             for biodiesel.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 10, 2005

  Mr. Peterson of Minnesota introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the tax incentives 
                             for biodiesel.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF BIODIESEL TAX CREDITS.

    (a) In General.--Sections 40A(e), 6426(c)(6), and 6427(e)(3)(B) of 
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 are each amended by striking ``2006'' 
and inserting ``2010''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall take 
effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```