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

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1711 

To amend title 49, United States Code, with respect to employee protective 

arrangements, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 26, 2015 

Mr. MEADOWS (for himself, Mr. SALMON, Mr. BYRNE, Mr. CRAWFORD, Mr. 

FARENTHOLD, Mr. GOODLATTE, Mr. GOSAR, Mr. MULVANEY, Mr. 

PEARCE, Mr. ROUZER, Mr. YOHO, and Ms. JENKINS of Kansas) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend title 49, United States Code, with respect to 

employee protective arrangements, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Federal Transit Mod5 ernization Act of 2015’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EMPLOYEE PROTECTIVE ARRANGEMENTS. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 5333 of title 49, United 

8 States Code, is amended— 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1711 IH

1 (1) by striking ‘‘(a) PREVAILING WAGES RE2 QUIREMENT.—’’; and 

3 (2) by striking subsection (b). 

4 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.— 

5 (1) FORMULA GRANTS FOR RURAL AREAS.— 

6 Section 5311(i) of title 49, United States Code, is 

7 repealed. 

8 (2) ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS.—Section 

9 5334(a)(1) of title 49, United States Code, is 

10 amended by striking ‘‘(except terms the Secretary of 

11 Labor prescribes under section 5333(b) of this 

12 title)’’. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### ICON HEALTH AND FITNESS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. The NAUTILUS GROUP, INC. (formerly known as Direct Focus, Inc.) and Nautilus/Schwinn Fitness Group, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 2006-1467.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

June 19, 2007.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the parties’ joint motion to remand this case to the United States District Court for the District of Utah, in district court case no. 02-CV-0109, for further proceedings,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

*988(1) The motion is granted.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>     5
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                  MAY-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                    DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                          $        98
<SECURITIES>                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                         1,414
<ALLOWANCES>                              0
<INVENTORY>                               0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          0
<PP&E>                                    0
<DEPRECIATION>                            0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                        1,512
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   155
<BONDS>                               1,291
<COMMON>                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<OTHER-SE>                               66
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>          1,512
<SALES>                                   0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          0
<CGS>                                     0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           0
<INCOME-TAX>                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                              0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                          0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                          0.00
        

</TABLE>
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 20

- 60366 Summary Calendar

**Jose De Jesus Vargas Barajas,** also known as **Alberto Vargas** 

**- Barajas,**  also known as **Jesus Vargas**

**- Barajas,** 

Petitioner **,**

**v**

**. Merrick Garland,**  U.S. Attorney General **,** Respondent

**.**

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A201 067 704

Before **Barksdale, Costa,** and **Engelhardt,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** * Jose De Jesus Vargas Barajas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ’ (BIA) dismissing his appeal of an Immigration Judge’s denial of asylum and cancellation of removal

. Our

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  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 cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED January 5, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 20-60366 Document: 00516155637 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/05/2022No. 20

- 60366

2 court has jurisdiction to review petitions challenging B IA decisions if filed within “ 30 days after the date of the final order of removal”

. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (requirements for review of orders of removal)

. The BIA issued its decision on 13 March 2020 , but our court did not receive the petition for review until 7 May 2020. Barajas acknowledged the filing was not timely and points to the carrier as the proble m. But, “filing is not timely unless the clerk receives the papers within the time fixed for filing”.
F ED

. R. A PP

. P . 25(a)(2)(A) (emphasis added) ; see Navarro

- Miranda v. Ashcroft , 330 F.3d 672, 676 (5th Cir. 2003) (holding petition for review mailed wit hin 30

- day period but received after expiration of period was untimely and court lacked jurisdiction).

**DISMISSED**

. Case: 20-60366 Document: 00516155637 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/05/2022
Exhibit 32.1

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS

I,
Barney A. Richmond, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to my
knowledge, the Quarterly Report of eCom eCom.com, Inc. on
Form 10-Q for the period ended August 31, 2008, (i) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and (ii) that the information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of eCom
eCom.com, Inc.



|                         |  |                              
|------------------------ |  | -----------------------------
|Date:
September 10, 2010 |  | /S/    BARNEY
A.
RICHMOND    
|                         |  | Barney A. Richmond           
|                         |  | Chief Executive Officer      
|                         |  | (Principal Executive Officer)

I, Richard C. Turner, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SectionSection 1350,
that, to my knowledge, the Quarterly Report of eCom eCom.com, Inc. on
Form 10-Q for the period ended August 31, 2008, (i) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and (ii) that the information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of eCom
eCom.com, Inc.



|                         |  |                              
|------------------------ |  | -----------------------------
|Date:
September 10, 2010 |  | /S/    RICHARD
C.
TURNER     
|                         |  | Richard C. Turner            
|                         |  | Chief Financial Officer      
|                         |  | (Principal Financial Officer)
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ronald Horowitz, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Leone, J.), rendered November 26, 1984, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no meritorious issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631; *cf. People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606). Thompson, J. P., Niehoff, Weinstein and Spatt, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Clinton Panton, Jr., Appellant.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no meritorious issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631; *cf. People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606). Mollen, P. J., Bracken, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                      73,949,262
<SECURITIES>                                17,271,125
<RECEIVABLES>                            1,501,905,402
<ALLOWANCES>                               148,077,933
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                      10,726,806
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,584,202
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           1,469,206,126
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       347,033
<OTHER-SE>                                 307,291,247
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             1,469,206,126
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           207,874,992
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            79,529,549
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            18,263,091
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          32,371,384
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             77,710,968
<INCOME-TAX>                                29,530,168
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         48,180,800
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                48,180,800
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.51
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.35
        

</TABLE>
From: Clerk, Appeals-1

To: coa4notices

Subject: Mandate Receipt Acknowledgement - Case No. 04-14-00911-CR [ DATE 5/4/2015 ]

Date: Tuesday, May 5, 2015 8:03:58 AM

Jamie L. Osio

Appeals/Writ Clerk 1

Office of Donna Kay McKinney

Bexar County District Clerk

101 W. Nueva, Ste. 217

San Antonio, TX 78205

Office: (210)335-3141

Appeals1.Clerk@bexar.org

RE: Case No. 04-14-00911-CR [ DATE 5/4/2015 ]

Pursuant to Rule 51.2(a)(1) T.R.A.P., I hereby acknowledge receipt of the mandate of the

Fourth Court of Appeals via this email response.
## NO. 12

- 1 3

- 00 29 6

- C V

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

IN RE: §

ELIZABETH THURMAN

, § ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

RELATOR §

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

On September 25, 2013, Relator, Elizabeth Thurman, filed a petition for writ of habeas

corpus in which she alleges that she is being unlawfully confined in the Cherokee County Jail

pursuant to a void contempt order. Based upon the grounds stated in her petition, she seeks to be

released from custody.

In an original habeas proceeding, the relator has the burden to provide this court with a

record sufficient to establish her right to habeas corpus relief. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.3(k)(1),

52.7(a); Walker v. Packer , 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). Here, however,

Thurman has failed to provide us with a record that is sufficient to support her claims. 1

Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of habeas corpus.

Opinion delivered October 31 , 2013.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(PUBLISH)

1 On the date the petition was filed, the court sent Thurman a letter notifying her of the deficiencies.

## COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

OCTOBER 31 , 2013

NO. 12

- 13

- 0029 6

- CV

IN RE: ELIZABETH THURMAN

, RELATOR



### O RIGINAL 

### P ROCEEDING

ON THIS DAY came to be heard the petition for writ of habeas corpus filed

by Relator, ELIZABETH THURMAN , who is the Respondent i n Cause No. 2012

- 01

- 0001,

styled “In the Interest of Hannah Dianne Thurman, Allissa Mae Thurman, and Kyle Wain

Thurman, Children,” pending on the docket of the County Court at Law of Cherokee County,

Texas. Said petition for writ of habeas corpus having b een filed herein on September 25, 2013,

and the same having been duly considered, because it is the opinion of this court that a writ of

habeas corpus should not issue, it is therefore CONSIDERED, ADJUDGED and ORDERED that

the said petition for writ of hab eas corpus be, and the same is here by denied

.

By per curiam opinion

. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle , J.
#### Virginia L. Gunnarson, Respondent, v State of New York, Appellant.

*643The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action *(see, Matter of Aho,*39 NY2d 241, 248). The issues raised on appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment (CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).

In a personal injury action, when the defendant appeals from an interlocutory judgment on liability, and the trial on assessment of damages is stayed pending appeal, interest will accrue pursuant to CPLR 5002 on any final judgment against the defendant from the date of the interlocutory judgment *(Trimboli v Scarpaci Funeral Home,*37 AD2d 386, 388-389, *affd*30 NY2d 687). Thus, we find that the Court of Claims properly granted the claimant’s motion to correct the interest award in the judgment entered December 27, 1983, to reflect that interest was to accrue from the date of the interlocutory judgment, namely, April 6, 1982. Insofar as the Third Department’s decision in *Brock v State of New York*(77 AD2d 670) seems to create an exception to the general rule set forth in *Trimboli*when the defendant who appeals from the interlocutory judgment is the State, we decline to follow it *(cf. Mountain View Coach Lines v Storms,*102 AD2d 663, 665).

We have considered the defendant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Lazer, J. P., Niehoff, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>




                                  EXHIBIT 32-1

                            CERTIFICATION OF OFFICERS
                          OF US GLOBAL NANOSPACE, INC.
                            PURSUANT TO 18 USCss.1350

         Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsection
(a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) each of
the undersigned officers of US Global Nanospace, Inc. (the "Company") does
hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:

                  (a) The amendment to the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB/A for
the quarter ended September 30, 2004 of the Company fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) or 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and

                  (b) Information contained in the Form 10-QSB/A fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.

Dated:  June 1, 2005

/s/ John Robinson
-------------------------------------
John Robinson,
Chief Executive Officer

/s/ Julie Seaman
-------------------------------------
Julie Seaman,
Chief Financial Officer
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

SHARON LYNN FLEMING, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D17-2975

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

________________________________ )

Opinion filed April 20, 2018.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lee

County; Bruce E. Kyle, Judge.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender,

and Megan Olson, Assistant Public

Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General,

Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

NORTHCUTT, CRENSHAW, and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 172 

To designate the United States courthouse located at 501 East Court Street 

in Jackson, Mississippi, as the ‘‘R. Jess Brown United States Courthouse’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 6, 2015 

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To designate the United States courthouse located at 501 

East Court Street in Jackson, Mississippi, as the ‘‘R. 

Jess Brown United States Courthouse’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

4 The United States courthouse located at 501 East 

5 Court Street in Jackson, Mississippi, shall be known and 

6 designated as the ‘‘R. Jess Brown United States Court7 house’’. 

8 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

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

10 paper, or other record of the United States to the United 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 172 IH

1 States courthouse referred to in section 1 shall be deemed 

2 to be a reference to the ‘‘R. Jess Brown United States 

3 Courthouse’’. 

Æ 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 166 (Tuesday, August 31, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 48767]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-18763]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES


Advisory Committee on Appellate Rules; Meeting of the Judicial 
Conference

AGENCY: Judicial Conference of the United States.

ACTION: Advisory Committee on Appellate Rules; revised notice of open 
meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Advisory Committee on Appellate Rules will hold a virtual 
meeting on October 7, 2021 rather than meeting in person. The meeting 
is open to the public. When a meeting is held virtually, members of the 
public may join by telephone or video conference to observe but not 
participate. An agenda and supporting materials will be posted at least 
7 days in advance of the meeting at: http://www.uscourts.gov/rules-policies/records-and-archives-rules-committees/agenda-books. The 
announcement for this meeting was previously published in the Federal 
Register on June 28, 2021.

DATES: October 7, 2021, 10 a.m. (Eastern).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Myers, Esq., Acting Chief 
Counsel, Rules Committee Staff, Administrative Office of the U.S. 
Courts, Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building, One Columbus 
Circle NE, Suite 7-300, Washington, DC 20544, Phone (202) 502-1820, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a6f4d3cac3d5e5c9cbcbcfd2d2c3c3f9f5c3c5d4c3d2c7d4dfe6c7c988d3d5c5c9d3d4d2d588c1c9d0"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e8ba9d848d9bab878585819c9c8d8db7bb8d8b9a8d9c899a91a88987c69d9b8b879d9a9c9bc68f879e">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Authority: 28 U.S.C. 2073.)

    Dated: August 26, 2021.
Shelly L. Cox,
Management Analyst, Rules Committee Staff.
[FR Doc. 2021-18763 Filed 8-30-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 2210-55-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04

- 14

- 00757

- CV

IN RE David M. GARZA

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Delivered and Filed: December 3, 2014

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On October 29, 2014

, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus. The court has

considered relator’s petition for writ of mandamus and is of the opinion that relator is not entitled

to the relief sought. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P

.

52.8(a).

PER CURIAM

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2013

- CI

- 19608, styled David Garza v. Dennis Gutzman, et al. , pending in

the 407th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Barbara Hanson Nellermoe presiding.
Exhibit 32.2





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








I, Mitchell K. Dauerman, Chief Financial Officer of The Ultimate Software Group, Inc., hereby certify to the best of my knowledge and belief that this Annual Report on Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and that the information contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of The Ultimate Software Group, Inc.




/s/ Mitchell K. Dauerman


Mitchell K. Dauerman


Chief Financial Officer




(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)




Date:           March 1, 2011


75
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          31,154
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  272,920
<ALLOWANCES>                                     6,632
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               317,605
<PP&E>                                          58,589
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,104,552
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          167,168
<BONDS>                                        497,322
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           339
<OTHER-SE>                                     422,081
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,104,552
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               249,101
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  161,241
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                64,420
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,104
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 16,919
<INCOME-TAX>                                     7,106
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              9,813
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     9,813
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.30
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.30
        

</TABLE>