alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order entered June 6 , 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 12 - 00299 - CR No. 05 - 12 - 00300 - CR COURTNI MICHELLE SCHULZ , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3

Dallas Cou nty, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . F10 - 00501 - J , F11 - 00342 - J



### O RDER On April 12, 2013, we ordered the trial court to file a supplemental record containing an order modifying the conditions of community supervision setting out the amount of restitution as ag reed by the parties. To date, we have not received the order modifying the conditions of community supervision. Accordingly, we ORDER the Honorable Gracie Lewis, Presiding Judge of the Criminal District Court No. 3, to file a supplemental record , within F IFTEEN DAYS from the date of this order , that contains an order modifying the conditions of community supervision setting out the amount of restitution as agreed by the parties.

/s/ DAVID L. BRIDGES JUSTICE
#### People *v.*Decker.

*(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.*

July 18, 1890.)

1. Fisheries—-Dragging Oysters—Evidence.

Where it is shown that defendant sailed over an oyster-bed with his rakes overboard, and that they were such as would disturb the oysters planted there, it is sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction under Penal Code N. T. § 640, subd. 8, providing for the punishment of any one who unlawfully disturbs or interferes with the oysters of another.

8. Same—Immaterial Error.

The admission of expert testimony to show that defendant’s rakes were such as would disturb planted oysters is not prejudicial to defendant when he himself admits that his rakes, if overboard when he was sailing over the bed, would have disturbed the oysters.

Appeal from court of sessions, Richmond county.

Howard H. Decker was convicted of sailing over the oyster-bed of Peter McDonald, with his rakes down, and disturbing the oysters, and sentenced to .pay a fine pf $100, under Penal Code 2>T. T. § 640, subd. 8, providing for the punishment of any person who unlawfully takes or carries away, or interferes with, or disturbs by any means, the oysters of another, legally planted in the bed of any river, etc.

Argued before Barnard, P. J., and Pratt and Dykman, JJ.

*W. J. Powers,*for appellant. *T. W. Fitzgerald,*Dist. Atty., for the People.

Pratt, J.

The defendant was convicted under subdivision 8, § 640, of the Penal Code. It was proved beyond all question that the lines upon the defendant’s rakes were about 14 fathoms in length, and if the rakes were overboard at the time he sailed over the ground in question they would disturb the oysters planted there. The ease only involves a question of fact, and that is whether the rakes were overboard at the time charged. The defendant denies the charge, but two apparently disinterested witnesses, Polwarth and La Forge, testify to the contrary, and the jury believed the latter. The defendant also excepted to the evidence of witnesses skilled in the business, who testified that rakes rigged in the manner described in the evidence would disturb oysters. This testimony was immaterial, as the defendant himself testified that his rakes would go to the bottom, and disturb oysters if any were there. This admission justified a conviction in case the jury found he had his rakes overboard at the time, so that the defendant could not have been prejudiced by the admission of that testimony.

The defendant also claims that inasmuch as no witness saw an oyster disturbed, a case was not made; but we must assume that to have taken place which in the nature of things must have been the result of the defendant’s acts. If the construction of the defendant is put upon the statute, no conviction could ever be had under the statute. The statute was passed to prevent just such acts as were committed by the defendant, to-w’it, sailing over ground planted with oysters, and that defendant dragged his rakes for a long distance over it, and that such acts must necessarily disturb the oysters. This proof, taken altogether, we think, made out a case. Judgment affirmed. All concur.
Exhibit 32.1



Certification of Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002



I, Corey S. Goodman, hereby certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



(i) the Annual Report of Renovis, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d),
as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



(ii) 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 Renovis, Inc.



By:

/s/    Corey S. GoodmanName: Corey S. Goodman Title: President and Chief
Executive Officer




Dated: March 30, 2004
**EXHIBIT 99.1**

** **

**Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002**

 

 

Pursuant to Section 906of the Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act of 2002 (18U.S.C Section 1350, as adopted) Ronald B. Cooper, the Chairman and principalfinancial officer of ImproveNet, Inc. (the “Company”) and Christopher A.Kendall, the Controller and principal accounting officer of the company, eachhereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:

 

1.               TheCompany’s Quarterly Report on From 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30,2002 to the which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 99.1 (the “PeriodicReport”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

2.               Theinformation contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of quarter coveredby the Periodic Report and the results of operations of the Company for thatquarter.

 

 

 

Dated:  November 15, 2002

 

 

 
|                                         |
|----------------------------------------------|
| /s/ Ronald B. Cooper                         |
| Ronald B. Cooper                             |
| Chairman and principal  financial officer    |
|                                         |
|                                         |
|                                         |
|                                         |
|                                         |
| /s/ Christopher A.  Kendall                  |
| Christopher A. Kendall                       |
| Controller and  principal accounting officer |
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           1,027
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 5,591
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                          0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           2,496
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             2,497
<LOANS>                                         19,993
<ALLOWANCE>                                        247
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  32,029
<DEPOSITS>                                      25,224
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                230
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             8
<OTHER-SE>                                       6,568
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  32,029
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                    738
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                   69
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   238
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 1,045
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                 472
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  10
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                              563
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      102
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                    554
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     40
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                          40
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        25
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .03
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                     7.8
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   145
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  247
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
#### Elias Colon et al., Respondents, v Joel Teichner, Appellant, et al., Defendant.

Appeal by the defendant Joel Teichner from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated May 15,1985.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements, for reasons stated by Justice Monteleone at the Supreme Court, Kings County. Niehoff, J. P., Weinstein, Rubin and Kooper, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2533 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2533

To amend the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1990 and 
  1991 relating to local guard contracts abroad under the diplomatic 
               security program, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 21, 2015

Ms. Frankel of Florida (for herself and Mr. Weber of Texas) introduced 
  the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign 
                                Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1990 and 
  1991 relating to local guard contracts abroad under the diplomatic 
               security program, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. LOCAL GUARD CONTRACTS ABROAD UNDER DIPLOMATIC SECURITY 
              PROGRAM.

    (a) In General.--Section 136(c)(3) of the Foreign Relations 
Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991 (22 U.S.C. 4864(c)(3)) is 
amended to read as follows:
            ``(3) in evaluating proposals for such contracts, award 
        contracts to technically acceptable firms offering the lowest 
        evaluated price, except that--
                    ``(A) the Secretary may award contracts on the 
                basis of best value (as determined by a cost-technical 
                tradeoff analysis); and
                    ``(B) proposals received from United States persons 
                and qualified United States joint venture persons shall 
                be evaluated by reducing the bid price by 10 
                percent;''.
    (b) Report.--Not later than one year after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State shall submit to the 
Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee on 
Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives a report that 
includes--
            (1) an explanation of the implementation of paragraph (3) 
        of section 136(c) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, 
        Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991, as amended by subsection (a) of 
        this section; and
            (2) for each instance in which an award is made pursuant to 
        subparagraph (A) of such paragraph (3), as so amended, a 
        written justification and approval, providing the basis for 
        such award and an explanation of the inability to satisfy the 
        needs of the Department of State by technically acceptable, 
        lowest price evaluation award.
                                 <all>
```
PROMISSORY
NOTE

    


    
      	
              $10,000

            	
              September
      1, 2009

            
	 
      	
              Las
      Vegas, Nevada

            


    

    


    Omega
Water Corp., a Nevada corporation (“Maker”), hereby promises to pay to the order
of Lee A. Giannopoulos (“Holder”) the sum of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000)
together with interest thereon at the rate of twelve percent (12%) per annum on
any unpaid balance, upon demand by Holder. Alternatively, at its sole
discretion, the Holder may elect, at any time, to convert all, or a portion, of
this debt together with any interest thereon into shares of common stock of the
Maker at a rate of $0.10 per share.   If not paid or converted at
the demand of Holder or its assigns, all principal shall become immediately due
and payable.  Maker shall pay upon demand any and all expenses,
including reasonable attorney fees, incurred or paid by Holder of this Note
without suit or action in attempting to collect funds due under this
Note.  In the event an action is instituted to enforce or interpret
any of the terms of this Note including but not limited to any action or
participation by Maker in, or in connection with, a case or proceeding under the
Bankruptcy Code or any successor statute, the prevailing party shall be entitled
to recover all expenses reasonably incurred at, before and after trial and on
appeal or review, whether or not taxable as costs, including, without
limitation, attorney fees, witness fees (expert and otherwise), deposition
costs, copying charges and other expenses.

    


    This Note
shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the state of
Nevada without regard to conflict of law principles.

    


    OMEGA
WATER CORP.

    


    
      
        
          	
                  By:

                	 
      	/s/
      Aris Giannopoulos
	 
      	 
      	
                  Name:  Aris
      Giannopoulos

                
	 
      	 
      	
                  Title:  President
      and Chief Executive
Officer
EXHIBIT B 

Case 4:23-cv-01892-JST Document 115-2 Filed 02/27/24 Page 1 of 2
Ahmed v. DHS Status Report

Report: February 11, 2024 Report Date

Data extracted on : January 31, 2024

Date Range: July 1, 2023 - January 28, 2024

Reporting Requirement Data

(i) Total class members whose parole expired before extension while I-589 is pending and whose asylum 

applications remained pending when their initial term of parole expired 5,047

(ii) Total class members whose parole was extended before expiration 25,560

(iii) Total class members whose parole will expire before the next status report (Apr 11, 2024) 37

5) The reporting date range starts when USCIS began extending parole and adjudicating re-parole applications in July 2023.

Table Notes:

Special Group Code: OAW

1) This report reflects the most up to date data available at the time the database is queried.

2) Counts may differ from those reported in previous periods due to system updates and post-adjudicative outcomes.

3) This report includes I-589 Applicants who meet the definition in Section 2502(a)(1)(A) of the Extending Government Funding and 

Delivering Emergency Assistance Act, Pub. L. No. 117-43, 135 Stat. 344 (2021)

4) Extended before expiration means the parole was extended or a re-parole application was approved before the original parole 

authorization expired.

Form: I-589

Parameters:

Data Source: Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 

Office of Performance and Quality (OPQ), GLOBAL case tracking system

Case 4:23-cv-01892-JST Document 115-2 Filed 02/27/24 Page 2 of 2
#### Julie D. BLUM, Plaintiff-Appellant v. NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY, also known as NSA; Office of the Director of National Intelligence, also known as ODNI, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 10-50542.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

May 9, 2011.

Chad Flores, Esq., Beck, Redden & Sec-rest, L.L.P., Houston, TX, pro se.

Julie D. Blum, Austin, TX, pro se.

Benjamin Seth Kingsley, Esq., Thomas Mark Bondy, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Daniel M. Castillo, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Austin, TX, for DefendantsAppellees.

Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

*359PER CURIAM: *

Plaintiff-Appellant Julie Blum appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of National Security Agency and Office of the Director of National Intelligence. We have reviewed the briefs, the record, and the applicable law as further explicated by able counsel for the parties at oral argument. In light of this review we affirm the summary judgment for essentially the reasons and reasoning given by the district court.

AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2607 

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

7802 37th Avenue in Jackson Heights, New York, as the ‘‘Jeanne 

and Jules Manford Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 2, 2015 

Mr. CROWLEY (for himself, Ms. CLARKE of New York, Mr. ENGEL, Mr. HIGGINS, Mr. ISRAEL, Mr. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York, Mr. 

MEEKS, Ms. MENG, Mr. NADLER, Mr. RANGEL, Mr. SERRANO, Ms. 

SLAUGHTER, Mr. TONKO, Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York, and 

Ms. VELA ́ZQUEZ) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 7802 37th Avenue in Jackson Heights, New 

York, as the ‘‘Jeanne and Jules Manford Post Office 

Building’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. JEANNE AND JULES MANFORD POST OFFICE 

4 BUILDING. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

6 Postal Service located at 7802 37th Avenue in Jackson 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2607 IH

1 Heights, New York, shall be known and designated as the 

2 ‘‘Jeanne and Jules Manford Post Office Building’’. 

3 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg4 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

5 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

6 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Jeanne and Jules 

7 Manford Post Office Building’’. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 31.02**CERTIFICATION**I, Gregory T. Donovan, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Trust; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in lightof the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respectto the period covered by this quarterly report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this quarterly report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter (the Registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonable likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.       By: /s/ Gregory T. Donovan          Gregory T. Donovan    Senior Vice President ofAccounting and Finance    Campbell & Company, Inc.    Managing Operator    The Campbell Fund Trust    May 15, 2007  
E-3
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5706 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.5706

                      One Hundred Eleventh Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
             the fifth day of January, two thousand and ten

                                 An Act

 
  To designate the building occupied by the Government Printing Office 
located at 31451 East United Avenue in Pueblo, Colorado, as the ``Frank 
              Evans Government Printing Office Building''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.
    The building occupied by the Government Printing Office located at 
31451 East United Avenue in Pueblo, Colorado, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Frank Evans Government Printing Office Building'' 
during the period in which the building is occupied by the Government 
Printing Office.
SEC. 2. REFERENCES.
    With respect to the period in which the building referred to in 
section 1 is occupied by the Government Printing Office, any reference 
in a law, map, regulation, document, record, or other paper of the 
United States to that building shall be deemed to be a reference to the 
``Frank Evans Government Printing Office Building''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```