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

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2326 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2326

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 614 West Old County Road in Belhaven, North Carolina, as the ``Floyd 
                         Lupton Post Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 12, 2005

 Mr. Jones of North Carolina (for himself, Mr. Butterfield, Mr. Miller 
 of North Carolina, Mr. Price of North Carolina, Mr. Coble, Ms. Foxx, 
Mr. McIntyre, and Mr. McHenry) introduced the following bill; which was 
             referred to the Committee on Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 614 West Old County Road in Belhaven, North Carolina, as the ``Floyd 
                         Lupton Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. FLOYD LUPTON POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 614 West Old County Road in Belhaven, North Carolina, shall 
be known and designated as the ``Floyd Lupton Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Floyd 
Lupton Post Office''.
                                 <all>
```
Robert Russell MATCOVICH, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 13-6699.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 4, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
[No. 20954-3-II.

Division Two.

August 28, 1997.]

#### Chuck Haunreiter, *Appellant,*v. The City of Chehalis, *Respondent.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Lewis County, No. 95-2-00004-3, Milton R. Cox, J., entered June 24, 1996. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Armstrong, J., concurred in by Houghton, C.J., and Seinfeld, J.
#### JOHNSTON, Respondent, v. SYRACUSE LIGHTING CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, *1133Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

November 13, 1907.)

Action by Camille B. Johnston, as administratrix, etc., against the Syracuse Lighting Company.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.

KRUSE, J.,

dissents, upon the ground that the evidence shows that it was the duty of the deceased to make such an inspection as the court charged would make the deceased guilty of contributory negligence if he had made such inspection and failed to discover the defect.
#### MOWBRAY, Respondent, v. BROOKLYN HEIGHTS R. CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

January 10, 1899.)

Action by Andrew Mowbray against the Brooklyn Heights Railroad Company.

No opinion. Order modified so as to require, as a condition for a new trial, that the respondent within 20 days pay the appellant the costs and disbursements of the trial already had, and, as modified, affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party.
[No. 35672-1-I.

Division One.

September 2, 1997.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Darryl Manassa, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 94-1-04935-2, Arthur E. Piehler, J., entered November 16, 1994. *Affirmed in part*and *remanded*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN THE INTEREST OF J.M.M., A

MINOR CHILD

§

§

§

§

§

 § 

No. 08-08-00150-CV

Appeal from the

112th Judicial District Court

of Pecos County, Texas 

(TC# P-10,635-112-CV) 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This appeal is before the Court on its own motion for determination whether this appeal

should be dismissed for want of prosecution. Finding that Appellant has not filed a brief or a

motion for extension of time, we dismiss the appeal. 

Appellant’s brief was due to be filed on May 21, 2008, but Appellant has not filed the

brief or a motion for extension of time. On June 20, 2008, the clerk of this Court notified the

parties of the Court’s intent to dismiss for want of prosecution if, within ten days of the notice,

no party responded showing grounds to continue the appeal. We have not received a response. 

This Court possesses the authority to dismiss an appeal for want of prosecution when

Appellant has failed to his brief in the time proscribed, and gives no reasonable explanation for

such failure. TEX.R.APP.P. 38.8(a)(1); Elizondo v. City of San Antonio, 975 S.W.2d 61, 63

(Tex.App.--San Antonio 1998, no writ). We have given notice of our intent to do so, requested a

response if a reasonable basis for failure to file the brief or statement of facts exists, and have

recieved none. We see no purpose that would be served by declining to dismiss this appeal at
-2-

this stage in the proceedings. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution pursuant

to TEX.R.APP.P. 38.8(a)(1) and 42.3(c).

September 18, 2008

DAVID WELLINGTON CHEW, Chief Justice

Before Chew, C.J., McClure, and Carr, JJ.
[No. 19632-8-II.

Division Two.

August 8, 1997.]

#### Buddy Roach, et al., *Appellants,*v. Bruce Morlang, et al., *Respondents.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Pierce County, No. 94-2-00992-8, Grant L. Anderson, J., entered June 16, 1995. *Reversed*by unpublished opinion per Hunt, J., concurred in by Bridgewater, A.C.J., and Morgan, J.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
Exhibit 27.1 95SEP10QSB
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000714719
<NAME> FIRST COLONIAL GROUP
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                          11,082     
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             447  
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     45,618     
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          37,296     
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            37,195     
<LOANS>                                        193,255      
<ALLOWANCE>                                      2,422    
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 296,918      
<DEPOSITS>                                     247,381      
<SHORT-TERM>                                    19,062     
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              5,717    
<LONG-TERM>                                        643  
<COMMON>                                         7,338    
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      16,777     
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 296,918      
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 12,577     
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                3,614    
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   103
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                16,294     
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               6,114    
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,810    
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            9,484    
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    1,698    
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  15 
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  8,473    
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,008    
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         767  
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       767  
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.54   
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.54   
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.61   
<LOANS-NON>                                      1,764    
<LOANS-PAST>                                       804  
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 2,187    
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    1,628    
<RECOVERIES>                                       164  
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                2,422    
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             2,422    
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
[No. 15904-3-III.

Division Three.

October 9, 1997.]

#### *In the Matter of the Marriage of*Teresa Lynn Alden, *Respondent,*and Edwin F. Alden, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Walla Walla County, No. 85-3-00044-8, Donald W. Schacht, J., entered June 6, 1996. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Brown, J., concurred in by Sweeney, C.J., and Kurtz, J.
#### In the Matter of Brooklyn Union Gas Company v Commissioner of Department of Finance of the City of New York.

Motion for clarification, resettlement and/or reargument denied; *sua sponte,*petitioner granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals on the basis of the following certified question: “Was the order of this court, which annulled and vacated the determinations of the respondent Finance Department, properly made?” Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Ross, Carro and Bloom, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Eunice Davis, Appellant.

— Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Goodman, J.), rendered June 9, 1982, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

*847On this appeal, defendant contends, *inter alia,*that his statement to the police, namely, “I know about it. It was me” should have been suppressed since it was made prior to any *Miranda*warnings *(see, Miranda v Arizona,*384 US 436) in response to police questioning that “was tantamount to a custodial interrogation”. We cannot agree.

It is well settled that whether a defendant was in police custody and therefore not free to go is not determined by the individual defendant’s subjective beliefs; rather, the determinative test is “what a reasonable man, innocent of any crime, would have thought had he been in the defendant’s position” *(People v Yukl,*25 NY2d 585, 589, *cert denied*400 US 851; *see, Matter of Kwok T.,*43 NY2d 213, 219-220). The record at bar indicates that the police responded to the scene of a stabbing, obtained a description of the assailant and at the direction of an unidentified person, proceeded to a nearby house, where they were invited in by a woman who answered the door. The record also reveals that in observing the defendant, one of the two police officers merely asked him if “he knew anything about the stabbing that occurred down the street a little while ago”, in response to which the defendant spontaneously volunteered the statement in question, “I know about it. It was me”. Under these circumstances, Criminal Term could well find that a reasonable man, innocent of any crime, would not have believed himself to be in custody, that the police officer’s question was purely investigative and that *Miranda*warnings were not required to be given *(see, People v Yukl, supra; Matter of Kwok T., supra).*Hence, suppression of the statement was properly denied *(see, People v Oates,*104 AD2d 907; *People v Torres,*97 AD2d 802).

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be either unpreserved for review or lacking in merit. Mangano, J. P., Gibbons, O’Connor and Lawrence, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 31.2



CERTIFICATION



I, Richard A. Smith, Chief Financial Officer of Wyndham International, Inc., certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Wyndham International, Inc.;



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



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included
in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



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



(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure
that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



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



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



(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and



(b) Any fraud, whether or
not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.



|Date:    November 13, 2003 |  | By: |  | /s/    Richard A.
Smith            
|-------------------------- |  | --- |  | -----------------------------------
|                           |  |     |  | Name:    Richard A. Smith          
|                           |  |     |  | Title:      Chief Financial Officer
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T RO CI O RU I Z PERA LES, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 08- 73426 A ge nc yN o. A 095- 305- 045

ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d O c t obe r19, 2010 ** B efo re: O ’ S C A N N L A IN , T A L L M A N , an dB E A , C i rcu i tJu d g es. R oc i o R ui z P e r a l e s , ana t i ve a nd c i t i z e n of M e xi c o, pe t i t i ons f

orr e vi e w of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ (“ B IA ”) order denyi ng her m ot i on t o reopen r e m ova l pr oc e e di ngs . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r8 U . S . C . § 1252. W e r e vi e w f or abus e of di s c r e t i on the de ni a l of am ot i on t o r e ope n, a nd r e vi e w de novo que s t i ons



# FI LED OC T 25 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS08- 73426 2 o f law . Moh am m ed v. G on zales , 400 F . 3d 785, 791- 92 ( 9th C i r . 2005) . W e de ny th e p e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w. C on traryt o R ui z P er al es ’ cont ent i on , the B IA appl i ed the corre ctl egal s tan d a r din d e n y in g h e rm o tio n to r e o p e n . Se e O rdo n ezv . I NS , 345 F . 3d 777, 785 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) . T he B IA ac t ed w i thi n i t s broad di sc re t i on i n d et erm i ni ng thatthe evi dence s ub m itte dw ith R u iz P e r a le s ’ m o tio n w a s in s u f f ic ie n t to w arr an t r e o p e n in g . See S i n gh v . I

NS , 2 9 5 F .3 d1 0 3 7 , 1 0 3 9 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) ( th e B I A ’s d e n ia l o f am o tio n to re op en shal l be re vers ed on l y i f i ti s “ arbi trary , i rr at i on al , or contraryt o l aw ”) . PETI TI O N FO R R EVI EW D EN I ED .
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

HAMMOND DIVISION 

JOSEPH ELWELL, CRYSTAL ) 

ELWELL, DEBORAH BALDWIN, ) 

Individually and as custodian for her ) 

Minor children WM and AM, ) 

ROBERT BALDWIN, ) 

) Case No. 2:16-cv-158 

Plaintiffs, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF ) 

HAMMOND, INDIANA, INC., ) 

 ) 

Defendant. ) 

ORDER 

 This matter is before the court on the Agreed Motion to Take Depositions of Incarcerated 

Persons [DE 50] filed by the parties on March 9, 2017. In light of the parties’ agreement, the 

court GRANTS the motion. The parties are granted leave to depose Jack Schaap, Thomas 

Kimmel, James W. Kirk, and Glen E. Smith pursuant to Rule 30(a)(2)(B). 

 ENTERED this 10th day of March, 2017. 

 /s/ Andrew P. Rodovich 

 United States Magistrate Judge 

USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00158-APR document 52 filed 03/10/17 page 1 of 1
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
 Chemistry Research: Gainesville, FL
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Southeast Area Gainesville, Florida Center for Medical, Agricultural and Veterinary Entomology Chemistry Research





- ARS News & Events
- AgResearch Magazine
- Image Gallery
- News

Newsheadline bar   ARS News Articles  USDA's Agricultural Research Service Honors Scientists of the YearSep 09, 2014Hormone Therapy for Fruit Flies Means Better Pest ControlSep 04, 2012Better Biocontrol with Citrus Root SignalsJan 20, 2011New Bait Lures Varroa Mite to its DoomJul 01, 2009Using Beetle Biology to Protect BeehivesNov 01, 2007Cowpea Plants React to Insect AttackJun 14, 2007ARS Honors Top Scientists for 2006Mar 06, 2007High Temperatures Could Leave Seed Crops SterileAug 11, 2006


Return to top


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
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20
- 6868

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. JAMES MARTIN HARRIS, a/k/a Bloody 45 , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Norfolk

. Arenda L. Wright Allen , District Judge. ( 2:10

- cr - 00048

- AWA

- TEM

- 3 ; 2:16

- cv 00413

- AWA )

Submitted : November 19, 2020 Decided: November 23, 2020

Before WILKINSON, KING, and QUATTLEBAUM , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. James Martin Harris, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
James M artin Harris seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 225 5 motion . The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)( B ). A certificate of

a ppealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists c ould find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v.
Davis , 137 S. Ct. 759, 773

- 74 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the disposit ive procedural ruling is debatable and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler , 565 U.S. 134, 140

- 41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473,
484 (2000))

. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Harris has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED