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

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1896 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Fosetyl-Al. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 27, 2005 

Mr. CLEAVER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on FosetylAl. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. FOSETYL-AL. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.01.73 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended 

6 by striking ‘‘12/31/2006’’ and inserting ‘‘12/31/2008’’. 

7 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

8 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

9 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

10 the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ
Exhibit 31

CERTIFICATION

I,
Mike Ulrich, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Mesa Offshore Trust, for which JPMorgan Chase Bank acts as Trustee;

2.     Based
on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

3.     Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, distributable income and changes in trust corpus of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4.     I
am 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:



5.     I
have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors:



In
giving the foregoing certifications in paragraphs 4 and 5, I have relied to the extent I consider reasonable on information provided to me by the working interest owners and
the managing general partner of the Mesa Offshore Trust Partnership, in which the registrant owns a 99.99% interest.

|Date August 14, 2003 |  |  | /s/MIKE ULRICHMike Ulrich,
Vice President and Trust Officer
JPMorgan Chase Bank
|-------------------- |  |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

15

---

QuickLinks
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2005 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2005

 To amend the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 to modify the 
            provisions relating to citations and penalties.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 28, 2005

  Mr. Owens introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
   Committee on Education and the 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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 to modify the 
            provisions relating to citations and penalties.

    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 ``Workplace Wrongful Death 
Accountability Act''.

SEC. 2. OSHA CRIMINAL PENALTIES.

     Section 17 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 
U.S.C. 666) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (e)--
                    (A) by striking ``fine of not more than $10,000'' 
                and inserting ``fine in accordance with section 3571 of 
                title 18, United States Code,'';
                    (B) by striking ``six months'' and inserting ``10 
                years'';
                    (C) by inserting ``under this subsection or 
                subsection (i)'' after ``first conviction of such 
                person'';
                    (D) by striking ``fine of not more than $20,000'' 
                and inserting ``fine in accordance with section 3571 of 
                title 18, United States Code,''; and
                    (E) by striking ``one year'' and inserting ``20 
                years'';
            (2) in subsection (f), by striking ``fine of not more than 
        $1,000 or by imprisonment for not more than six months,'' and 
        inserting ``fine in accordance with section 3571 of title 18, 
        United States Code, or by imprisonment for not more than 2 
        years''; and
            (3) in subsection (g), by striking ``fine of not more than 
        $10,000, or by imprisonment for not more than six months,'' and 
        inserting ``fine in accordance with section 3571 of title 18, 
        United States Code, or by imprisonment for not more than 1 
        year,''.
                                 <all>
```
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

________________________

No. 07-14-00041-CR 

________________________

ROY DOWELL BRITT, APPELLANT 

 

V. 

 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE 

 

 

On Appeal from the 181st District Court 

Randall County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 24,078-B; Honorable John B. Board, Presiding 

 

February 27, 2014 

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

 

Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ. 

Appellant, Roy Dowell Britt, was convicted of aggravated assault causing serious 

bodily injury1and sentenced to ten years confinement. The Trial Court's Certification of 

Defendant's Right to Appeal filed in the case reflects that Appellant's case is a pleabargained case with no right of appeal and that Appellant waived the right of appeal. 

 

1

TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.02(a)(1) (West 2011).
2

The certification notwithstanding, Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal challenging 

his conviction.

By letter dated February 13, 2014, this Court notified Appellant of the 

consequences of the certification and invited him to either file an amended certification 

showing a right to appeal or demonstrate other grounds for continuing the appeal on or 

before February 24, 2014. On February 21, 2014, Appellant filed a response requesting 

to “halt all process on this appeal” and indicated he has documents pending in the trial 

court and is seeking appointment of counsel to assist him. Appellant’s response 

notwithstanding, he has not filed an amended certification reflecting a right of appeal nor 

established good cause for continuing this appeal. Consequently, we have no 

alternative but to dismiss the appeal based on the certification signed by the trial court. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d).

Patrick A. Pirtle

 Justice

Do not publish.
Jonathan MELENDEZ, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 13-6857.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 18, 2013.

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

Justice KAGAN took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 20, 2017

No. 04

- 15

- 00120

- CV

UNIVERSITY OF INCARNATE WORD and Christopher Carter,

Appellants

v.

Valerie REDUS , Individually, and Robert M. Redus, Individually and as Administrator of the

Estate of Robert Cameron Redus,

Appellees

From the 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014

- C I

- 07249

Honorable Cathleen M. Stryker, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

On May 12, 2017, the Texas Supreme Court remanded this appeal for resolution of

Appell ant’s interlocutory appeal. Appellant has filed a motion to set briefing schedule on

remand. Appellant’s motion is GRANTED.

We ORDER Appellant to file its brief on or before August 9, 2017 . Appellees ’ brief will

be due twenty days after appellant files its brief.

It is so ORDERED on July 20, 2017.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:

__________________________________

Luz Estrada

C hief Deputy Clerk
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

LUCKY WEAH, )

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Cause No.: 3:14-cv-01988-PPS-CAN

)

CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA; )

SOUTH BEND POLICE DEPARTMENT; )

SOUTH BEND POLICE OFFICER )

ANDREW HINES AND SOUTH BEND )

POLICE OFFICERS CURRENTLY UNKNOWN, )

Defendants.

MOTION TO DISMISS THE PLAINTIFF’S FEDERAL-BASED 

CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANT, CITY OF SOUTH BEND 

PURSUANT TO 12(b)(6)

Comes now the Defendant, City of South Bend, and moves to dismiss the Plaintiff’s § 1983 

claim against it and in support states the following:

1. Liability against a municipality is not actionable in a §1983 claim unless the Plaintiff 

can allege some factual content that allows a Court to draw a reasonable inference that it maintained 

a policy, procedure, custom, or practice that lead to the outcome.

2. The United States Supreme Court and the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals requires a 

Plaintiff to provide specific facts to support the legal claims asserted in a Plaintiff’s complaint.

3. In his third cause of action, the Plaintiff asserts no factual allegation that supports

his claim that the acts complained of were a result of a City policy, procedure, custom, or practice.

4. The Plaintiff has failed to assert a claim against the City in his third cause of action;

he is not entitled to relief as to the particular claim.

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-01988-PPS-CAN document 3 filed 11/05/14 page 1 of 2
2

WHEREFORE, Defendant, City of South Bend, moves to dismiss the Plaintiff’s Federalbased claims against it pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6).

Respectfully submitted,

/s Jeffrey L. Sanford 

Jeffrey L. Sanford, Atty. No. 14111-71

Deputy City Attorney

227 W. Jefferson Blvd., Suite 1200

South Bend, Indiana 46601

(574) 235-9241

Attorney for the Defendants

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was 

served upon Jeffrey E. Kimmell, Attorney for Plaintiff, 218 W. Washington Street, Suite 600, South 

Bend, IN 46601 by depositing same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid this 5

th day of 

November, 2014.

s/Jeffrey L. Sanford 

Jeffrey L. Sanford

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-01988-PPS-CAN document 3 filed 11/05/14 page 2 of 2
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

PAUL CALLAHAN,

Petitioner

v.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

AND BUCKS COUNTY COMMON PLEAS

COURT,

Respondent s :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 194 MM 2018

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW

, this 15th day of February , 2019, the Application for Leave to File

Original Process is GRANTED, and the Petition for Writ of Mandamus and/or

Extraordinary Relief is DENIED.
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Crop Genetics and Breeding Research: Tifton, GA
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Southeast Biomass Research Center
                    Forage & Turf ResearchSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




In the U.S., peanuts are most commonly used to produce peanut butter or snack foods. Our research has improved resistance to drought, diseases, and nematodes that affect yield and quality.
 
 The Crop Genetics and Breeding Research Unit is improving diverse grasses that includebermudagrass,napiergrass,centipedegrass, and sweet sorghum.


Mission


People Allen, Stephen Atkinson, Shannon Barela, Mikayla Crowell, Jason Davis, Richard Golden, Jason Guo, Baozhu Harris-Shultz, Karen Holbrook, Carl
                                            *- Corley* Knoll, Joseph
                                            *- Joe* Marchant, Kathy Mote, Jackson Ni, Xinzhi Perla, Trevor Purvis, Michael Sapkota, Suraj Schumacher, Lesley Tapp, Penny Torbert, Landon Wilson, William
                                            *- Billy*


Southeast Area   corley.holbrook@usda.gov


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) Case No. 3:15-CR-52 JD

)

DAVID M. FELSKE )

UNITED STATES’ SENTENCING MEMORANDUM

 Comes now the United States of America by David Capp, United States 

Attorney for the Northern District of Indiana, and by Donald J. Schmid, 

Assistant United States Attorney, and submits the following memorandum in 

preparation for the sentencing hearing in this case.

Correction

Paragraph 69 of the PSR filed November 5, 2015 incorrectly states:

Based upon a total offense level of 25 and a criminal history category of V, the guideline 

imprisonment range is 100 months to 125 months, however due to the statutory maximum being 10 

years for this offense the guideline maximum is 120 months. 

The defendant pleaded guilty to two counts (10 years each) and those 

can be added together consecutive to accommodate the applicable guideline 

range in excess of 120 months.

USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cr-00052-JD-CAN document 17 filed 11/06/15 page 1 of 2
2

Sentencing Recommendation

Pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement, the government 

recommends a sentence of imprisonment at the midpoint of the applicable 

guideline range, followed by a three year term of supervised release.

Dated: November 6, 2015 

 Respectfully submitted,

 DAVID CAPP

 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

 By: s/ Donald J. Schmid 

 Donald J. Schmid

 Assistant United States Attorney

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on November 6, 2015, I electronically filed the foregoing 

with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which sent notification 

of such filing to defense counsel.

s/ Chris Carson 

United States Attorney=s Office

204 S. Main Street, Room M01

South Bend, IN 46601

(574) 236-8287

USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cr-00052-JD-CAN document 17 filed 11/06/15 page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.2

                                  Certification
                Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
         of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of
                          Title 18, United States Code)

         Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections
(a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the
undersigned officer of ELXSI Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the
"Company"), does hereby certify, to the best of such officer's knowledge and
belief, that:

         (1)   the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September
30, 2003 (the "Report") of the Company 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
materials respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.


Dated:   November 11, 2003                  /s/ DAVID M. DOOLITTLE
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            David M. Doolittle
                                            Chief Financial Officer

         A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to ELXSI Corporation and will be retained by ELXSI Corporation and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

HAMMOND DIVISION 

RONALD H. BUTLER 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

SAMUEL A. KIDSTON, et al., 

 Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. 2:14-CV-237 JD 

OPINION AND ORDER

Now before the Court is Plaintiff Ronald H. Butler’s second motion for entry of default 

against the Defendants. [DE 16]. The Court denied the first motion without prejudice because, 

though the Defendants had not responded to the complaint as required, the complaint failed to 

properly allege diversity jurisdiction, so the Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff 

then filed an Amended Complaint that cures the jurisdictional defect, and has now moved for 

entry of default again, as the Defendants have yet to appear in this action. 

However, there is no indication that the Amended Complaint was ever served on the 

Defendants, so the Court cannot direct an entry of default. Under Rule 5(a)(2), “No service is 

required on a party who is in default for failing to appear.” Plaintiff argues that because the 

Defendants failed to respond to the initial complaint, they were in default, so no service of the 

Amended Complaint was required.1

 However, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to enter 

 

1

 Rule 5(a)(2) also states that “a pleading that asserts a new claim for relief against such a party 

must be served on that party under Rule 4.” Plaintiff argues that the Amended Complaint does 

not assert a new claim because it only fixed the jurisdictional defects. However, if the Court had 

no jurisdiction over the claims in the initial complaint but does have jurisdiction over the claims 

in the Amended Complaint, those could plausibly be considered “new claims.” Thus, if Plaintiff 

opts to serve the Amended Complaint pursuant to Rule 5 instead of Rule 4, he should be 

prepared to establish why such service is sufficient should he again seek an entry of default. 
2 

default against the Defendants, so the Defendants were not yet in default. In addition, under Rule 

15, the Defendants’ responses to the Amended Complaint are due “within 14 days after service 

of the amended pleading.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(3) (emphasis added). If the Defendants have not 

been served with the Amended Complaint, then this 14-day period has not yet begun to run, so 

the Defendants have not failed to respond to the Amended Complaint. And since the Defendants 

have no continuing obligation to respond to the initial complaint, over which the Court did not 

have subject matter jurisdiction and which the Court dismissed, entry of default is not justified 

on that basis, either. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for entry of default [DE 16] is DENIED without 

prejudice to refiling after having properly served the Amended Complaint on the Defendants. 

 SO ORDERED. 

 ENTERED: November 5, 2014 

 

 /s/ JON E. DEGUILIO 

 Judge 

 United States District Court
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

GLENN CHERRY, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CASE NO: 1:15-cv-00241-JVB-SLC

)

EMID, LLC, )

 )

 Defendant. )

OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Glenn Cherry filed a complaint against Defendant EMID, LLC, on August 28,

2015, alleging that this Court has diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (DE 1). 

The complaint recites that Plaintiff is domiciled in Indiana and that Defendant EMID, LLC, is a

Florida corporation authorized to conduct business in Indiana. (DE 1 ¶¶ 1-2). 

To the extent the complaint attempts to establish diversity jurisdiction, it is inadequate

because it fails to properly allege the citizenship of Defendant.1

 Although Plaintiff alleges that

Defendant is a Florida corporation, its name—EMID, LLC—suggests that it instead is a limited

liability company. For purposes of establishing diversity jurisdiction, a limited liability

company’s citizenship is different than that of a corporation. Thomas v. Guardsmark, LLC, 487

F.3d 531, 533 (7th Cir. 2007). 

Corporations “are deemed to be citizens of the state in which they are incorporated and

the state in which they have their principal place of business.” N. Trust Co. v. Bunge Corp., 899

1 Plaintiff advances a claim of wrongful discharge in Count 1, alleging that Defendant discriminated against

him by terminating his employment based on his race; he does not, however, advance this claim under Title VII or

42 U.S.C. § 1981 and instead attempts to establish diversity jurisdiction. 
F.2d 591, 594 (7th Cir. 1990); see 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). Conversely, a limited liability

company’s citizenship “for purposes of . . . diversity jurisdiction is the citizenship of its

members.” Cosgrove v. Bartolotta, 150 F.3d 729, 731 (7th Cir. 1998). 

Therefore, if Defendant is a limited liability company as its name reflects, the Court must

be advised of the citizenship of all its members to ensure that none of the members share a

common citizenship with Plaintiff. Hicklin Eng’g, L.C. v. Bartell, 439 F.3d 346, 347 (7th Cir.

2006). Moreover, citizenship must be “traced through multiple levels” for those members of 

EMID, LLC, who are a partnership or a limited liability company, as anything less can result in a

dismissal or remand for want of jurisdiction. Mut. Assignment & Indem. Co. v. Lind-Waldock &

Co., LLC, 364 F.3d 858, 861 (7th Cir. 2004). 

Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to supplement the record by filing an amended

complaint that properly alleges subject-matter jurisdiction on or before September 16, 2015.

SO ORDERED.

Enter for this 2nd day of September 2015.

s/ Susan Collins 

Susan Collins,

United States Magistrate Judge 

2
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Flow International Corporation, a Washington
corporation (the Company), on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending January 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Stephen R. Light, Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to 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 result of operations of the Company.



|                           
|---------------------------
|/s/ STEPHEN R. LIGHT       
|Stephen R. Light           
|Principal Executive Officer
|March 16, 2004