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

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 450 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 450

                 For the relief of Jacqueline W. Coats.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 2, 2011

Mrs. Feinstein introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
                 For the relief of Jacqueline W. Coats.

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR JACQUELINE W. COATS.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of section 
201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1151), Jacqueline 
W. Coats shall be eligible for issuance of an immigrant visa or for 
adjustment of status to that of an alien lawfully admitted for 
permanent residence upon filing an application for issuance of an 
immigrant visa under section 204 of that Act (8 U.S.C. 1154) or for 
adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident.
    (b) Adjustment of Status.--If Jacqueline W. Coats enters the United 
States before the filing deadline specified in subsection (c), 
Jacqueline W. Coats shall be considered to have entered and remained 
lawfully in the United States and shall be eligible for adjustment of 
status under section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
U.S.C. 1255) as of the date of enactment of this Act.
    (c) Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsections (a) and (b) shall 
apply only if the application for issuance of an immigrant visa or the 
application for adjustment of status is filed with appropriate fees not 
later than 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act.
    (d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Numbers.--Upon the granting of an 
immigrant visa or permanent residence to Jacqueline W. Coats, the 
Secretary of State shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by 1, 
during the current or subsequent fiscal year, the total number of 
immigrant visas that are made available to natives of the country of 
birth of Jacqueline W. Coats under section 203(a) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(a)) or, if applicable, the total 
number of immigrant visas that are made available to natives of the 
country of birth of Jacqueline W. Coats under section 202(e) of that 
Act (8 U.S.C. 1152(e)).
    (e) PAYGO.--The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of 
complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, shall be 
determined by reference to the latest statement titled ``Budgetary 
Effects of PAYGO Legislation'' for this Act, submitted for printing in 
the Congressional Record by the Chairman of the Senate Budget 
Committee, provided that such statement has been submitted prior to the 
vote on passage.
                                 <all>
```
SCWC-22-0000499 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI 

STATE OF HAWAIʻI, 

Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellee, 

vs. 

ALEXANDER AQUINO, 

Respondent/Defendant-Appellant. 

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS 

(CAAP-22-0000499; CASE NO. 3CPC-21-0000757) 

ORDER OF CORRECTION 

(By: Eddins, J.) 

 It is ordered that the Opinion of the Court, filed on June 

28, 2024, is corrected as follows: 

 On page 2, line 12, the word “subjected” is corrected to 

read “exposed.” 

 The Clerk of the Court is directed to take all necessary 

steps to notify the publishing agencies of this change. 

 DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, June 28, 2024. 

 /s/ Todd W. Eddins 

 Associate Justice 

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCWC-22-0000499

28-JUN-2024

01:39 PM

Dkt. 23 OCOR
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.

SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION

906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that the Annual Report of National Energy Services Company, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                  |  |  |  |  |  |                        
|----------------- |  |  |  |  |  | -----------------------
|September 8, 2010 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ Owen Dukes         
|                  |  |  |  |  |  | Owen Dukes             
|                  |  |  |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer
|                  |  |  | 
|                  |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ Owen Dukes         
|                  |  |  |  |  |  | Owen Dukes             
|                  |  |  |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer



---

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

A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by
Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 21.1  Subsidiaries of Registrant  Entity

Jurisdiction of OrganizationA123   Securities Corporation

MassachusettsA123   Systems (China) Co., Ltd.

ChinaA123   Systems (China) Materials Co., Ltd.

ChinaA123   Systems GmbH

GermanyA123   Systems (Zhenjiang) Co., Ltd.

ChinaA123   Systems Korea Co., Ltd.

KoreaChangchun   Farad Electric Co., Ltd.

ChinaChangchun   Guoji Electronic Technology Co., Ltd.*

ChinaA123   Systems Hong Kong, Ltd.

Hong   Kong 
 * 13% owned by the Registrant.
[No. 38668-9-I.

Division One.

September 29, 1997.]

#### Hipolito Cartagena, *Appellant,*v. John Coleman, Sr., et al., *Respondents.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 93-2-22822-8, Dale B. Ramerman, J., entered April 25, 1996. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Grosse, J., concurred in by Agid and Ellington, JJ.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-40104

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

CRISTOBAL VIELMA-ESQUIVEL,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:14-CR-1559-1

Before KING, OWEN, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Cristobal Vielma-Esquivel (Vielma) pleaded guilty of being found in the 

United States after previous deportation. In this appeal, Vielma contends that 

the district court reversibly erred by imposing a 16-level “drug trafficking 

offense” enhancement, under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i), because he was

convicted in 1998 of use of a communication facility to facilitate a drug 

trafficking crime in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 843(b). Citing Descamps v. United 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 22, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-40104 Document: 00513202785 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/22/2015
No. 15-40104

2

States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013), he asserts that § 843(b) is an indivisible statute 

and, thus, the modified categorical approach of Shepard v. United States, 544 

U.S. 13, 16 (2005), does not apply. Because the statute may be violated in ways 

that do not constitute a generic “drug trafficking offense,” he argues, a prior 

conviction under § 843(b) may never qualify as a drug trafficking offense for 

purposes of § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i). 

Although Vielma objected to the 16-level enhancement in the district 

court, he did so on other grounds. Thus, our review of Vielma’s arguments are

for plain error. See United States v. Henao-Melo, 591 F.3d 798, 801 (5th Cir. 

2009). To be plain, an “‘error must be clear or obvious, rather than subject to 

reasonable debate.’” United States v. Ellis, 564 F.3d 370, 377-78 (5th Cir. 2009) 

(quoting Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009)). Vielma’s 

argument relies only on an extension of the Supreme Court’s reasoning in 

Descamps. Because it asserts a novel legal theory, the district court did not 

commit a clear or obvious error in failing to recognize it. See United States v. 

Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 671 (5th Cir. 2009) (concluding that any error was not 

plain where argument was novel and not supported by circuit precedent). The 

judgment is AFFIRMED. 

 Case: 15-40104 Document: 00513202785 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/22/2015
**Exhibit 13.01**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE U.S. SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002

 

In connection withthe Annual Report of Genetic Technologies Limited (the “Company”) on Form 20-Ffor the fiscal year ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the U.S. Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Dr. PaulDonald Richard MacLeman, Chief Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the U.S.Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

 

(i)    the Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the U.S. SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(ii)   the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/  Paul D.R. MacLeman |                         |
|-------------------------|------------------------------|
| Name:                   | Dr. Paul D.R.  MacLeman |   |
|                    | Chief Executive Officer      |   |
|                    |                         |
|                    |                         |
| December 24, 2009  |                         |

 

----
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2094 

To suspend temporarily the duty on thionyl chloride. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 4, 2005 

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

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on thionyl chloride. 

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

3 SECTION 1. THIONYL CHLORIDE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.06.22 Thionyl chloride (CAS No. 

7719–09–7) (provided for in 

subheading 2812.10.50) ...... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2008 ’’. 

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

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 
2 

•HR 2094 IH 

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

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Tracy Durden, Appellant.

[941 NYS2d 842]

Judgment of resentence, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), rendered March 24, 2011, resentencing defendant, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of 12 years, with five years’ postrelease supervision, unanimously affirmed.

The resentencing proceeding imposing a term of postrelease supervision was neither barred by double jeopardy nor otherwise unlawful *(see People v Lingle,*16 NY3d 621 [2011]). Concur— Mazzarelli, J.P., Catterson, DeGrasse, Manzanet-Daniels and Román, JJ.
| 1. | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of AspenBio Pharma, Inc. (the “Registrant”); and |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 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 circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report. |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |
|--------|

|   |
|--------|

|   |                                                                           |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | /s/ Stephen T. Lundy                                                           |
|   | Stephen T. Lundy Chief Executive Officer PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER |
|   |                                                                           |

----
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

Appeal of - )

)

Gideon Contracting, LLC ) ASBCA No. 63560

)

Under Contract No. FA8101-16-D-0004 )

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: Robert L. Magrini, Esq.

Evan B. Gatewood, Esq.

Tanner B. France, Esq.

 Hayes Magrini & Gatewood

 Oklahoma City, OK

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Caryl A. Potter III, Esq.

 Air Force Deputy Chief Trial Attorney

Michael J. Farr, Esq.

 Trial Attorney

 

OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE HERZFELD

The parties have resolved their dispute and jointly request that the Board enter 

judgment in favor of appellant.

It is the Board’s decision, pursuant to 41 U.S.C. §§ 7105(e), 7108(b), and the 

parties’ stipulation and agreement, that the appeal is sustained. In the nature of a consent 

judgment, the Board makes a monetary award to appellant in the amount of $165,000. 

This amount is inclusive of Contract Disputes Act interest. No further interest shall be 

paid.

Dated: February 8, 2024

(Signatures continued)

DANIEL S. HERZFELD

Administrative Judge

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals
2

I concur

OWEN C. WILSON

Administrative Judge

Acting Chairman

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals

I concur

J. REID PROUTY

Administrative Judge

Vice Chairman

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Opinion and Decision of the 

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 63560, Appeal of Gideon 

Contracting, LLC, rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter.

Dated: February 9, 2024

PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS

Recorder, Armed Services

Board of Contract Appeals
*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.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________________

No. 97-11079

_______________________

HARRIS METHODIST HEALTH SYSTEM; HARRIS

METHODIST HEALTH SERVICES; WALLS REGIONAL

HOSPITAL; HARRIS CASUALTY COMPANY,

Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants/Appellants,

versus

EMPLOYERS REINSURANCE CORPORATION,

Defendant/Counter-Claimant/Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

(3:96-CV-54-R)

_________________________________________________________________

July 10, 1998

Before GARWOOD, JONES, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Having carefully considered this appeal in light of the

briefs, pertinent portions of the record, and the oral arguments,

we conclude that the district court did not err in his findings and

conclusions, and we affirm for essentially the same reasons

articulated in the district court’s thorough opinion.
AFFIRMED.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jason Wayne JONES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 11-6034.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 15, 2011.

Decided: June 27, 2011.

Jason Wayne Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Tracy Doherty McCormick, Office of the United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jason Wayne Jones appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b) (2006) motion seeking credit against his criminal sentence for time spent on home detention. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *United States v. Jones,*No. 1:09-cr-00470-LMB-1 (E.D.Va. Dec. 8, 2010). We deny the motion to seal and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
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
 Oklahoma and Central Plains Agricultural Research Center: El Reno, OK
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Plains Area El Reno, Oklahoma Oklahoma and Central Plains Agricultural Research Center





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

Newsheadline bar   ARS News Articles


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
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 1 8 - 0696 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,
v. SARAH LOUISE CARPENTER, a/k/a SARAH LOUISE SKINNER ,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including June 3 , 20 20 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 21 2020

04/21/2020

Case Number: DA 18-0696
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

ALONZO COLEMAN JR.
, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 17

- 3538

[ July 10, 2019 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Martin County ; Lawrence Michael Mirman , Judge; L.T. Case No.

432009CF000448B

.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Claire Victoria Madill, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jessenia J. Concepcion, Assist ant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

M AY
, J.

The d efendant appeals a written revocation order and consequent sentence. He argues the order incorrectly contains violations not orally pronounced by the trial court

, and the trial court ’s at tempt to fix the error was untimely and therefore void . The State agrees to remand the case to

correct the revocation order, but suggests the conviction and sentence

should not be disturbed. We agree.

“Where a written order does not conform to the court ’ s oral pronouncement of judgment and sentence, the oral pronouncement prevails.” Ellis v. State , 816 So. 2d 759, 762 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). “[A]n oral pronouncement will most certainly prevail where the state concedes

that the written sentence was in error.” Tory v. State , 686 So. 2d 689, 691 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).

Here, the trial court orally pronou nce d that the d efendant committed five Condition 5 violations (the new law offenses that he was acquitted for) and one Condition 6 violation (associating with the c o

- d efendants).2 However, the signed probation revocation order listed not only the se six

vio lations

, but it also included a Condition 2 violation (failing to pay the cost of supervision) and a Condition 10 violation (failing to pay court costs), neither of which were orally pronounced because the State agreed not to proceed on those violations

.

The d efendant filed a Rule 3.800(b)(2) motion to correct sentence and

the State conceded the error. The trial court g rant ed the motion and ordered the Department of Corrections to file a corrected order , but the

o rder was entered more than 60 days after the filing of the Rule 3.800(b)(2)

motion . It is therefore a nullity.

“A 3.800(b)(2) motion is deemed denied, and the trial court ’ s jurisdiction ends, once 60 days elapse without rendition of an order ruling on the motion, and any order rendered more t han 60 days after a rule 3.800(b)(2) motion is filed is a nullity.” Sessions v. State , 907 So. 2d 572, 573 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005).

We therefore affirm and remand the case for the court to correct the

scrivener’s error.

Affirmed, but remanded for correct ion of a scrivener’s error.

F ORST

, J., and S ASSER

, M EENU , Associate Judge, concur. 1

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

1 Judge Sasser participated in the consideration and disposition of this case prior to her untimely passing. See Bowles v. D. Mitchell Investments, Inc. , 365 So. 2d 1028, 1029 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978).
#### In the Matter of Christina Enright, Respondent, v Robert J. McGuire, as Police Commissioner of the City of New York and as Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Police Pension Fund, Article II, et al., Appellants.

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Alfred Ascione, J.), entered on February 22, 1984, unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements, for the reasons stated by Ascione, J., at Special Term. *(See also, Becker v Huss Co.,*43 NY2d 527.)

Concur — Sandler, J. P., Asch, Bloom and Kassal, JJ.