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

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 750 

To allow postal patrons to contribute to funding for gang prevention programs 

through the voluntary purchase of certain specially issued postage stamps. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 28, 2009 

Mr. BACA (for himself, Mr. MILLER of North Carolina, Mr. MEEKS of New 

York, Mr. MICHAUD, Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida, Mr. CAPUANO, 

Mrs. MCCARTHY of New York, Mr. HASTINGS of Florida, Mr. 

CUMMINGS, and Mr. WEINER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and in 

addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 

provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To allow postal patrons to contribute to funding for gang 

prevention programs through the voluntary purchase of 

certain specially issued postage stamps. 

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 ‘‘Stamp Out Gang Vio5 lence Act’’. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•HR 750 IH

1 SEC. 2. SPECIAL POSTAGE STAMP. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—In order to afford a convenient 

3 way for members of the public to contribute to funding 

4 for gang prevention programs, the United States Postal 

5 Service shall provide for a special postage stamp in accord6 ance with subsection (b). 

7 (b) TERMS AND CONDITIONS.—The issuance and sale 

8 of the stamp referred to in subsection (a) shall be gov9 erned by section 416 of title 39, United States Code, and 

10 regulations under such section, subject to the following: 

11 (1) DISPOSITION OF PROCEEDS.—All amounts 

12 becoming available from the sale of such stamp shall 

13 be transferred to the Gang Resistance Education 

14 and Training (G.R.E.A.T.) Program, administered 

15 by the Office of Justice Programs of the Depart16 ment of Justice, through payments which shall be 

17 made at least twice a year. 

18 (2) DURATION.—Such stamp shall be made 

19 available to the public for a period of at least 2 

20 years, beginning no later than 12 months after the 

21 date of the enactment of this Act. 

22 (3) LIMITATION.—Such stamp shall not be 

23 counted for purposes of applying any numerical limi24 tation under subsection (e)(1)(C) of such section. 

Æ 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas

March 29, 2019

No. 04

- 18

- 00849

- CV

Craig Erich HEILMANN

, Appellant

v.

Deanna Rae HEILMANN

, Appellee

From the 166th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2000

- CI

- 02542 Honorable Laura Salinas, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

The unopposed supplemental motion to extend time to hold hearing filed by Judge John Gabrie l is hereby GRANTED. Time is extended to May 8, 2019.

_____________________________ ____ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 29th day of March, 2019

.

__________________ _________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
| 1.   | This                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section                15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as                amended. |
|----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2.   | The                information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Company. |
|----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated:  February                6, 2008 | /s/                Ronald L. Rossetti  |
|---------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|
|                                              | Ronald                L. Rossetti      |
|                                              | Chief                Executive Officer |
Exhibit 4.2


 


Consent of Independent Registered
Public Accounting Firm


We have issued our
report dated December 10, 2019, with respect to the financial statement of Advisors Disciplined Trust 1973 contained in Amendment
No. 1 to the Registration Statement on Form S-6 (File No. 333-233746) and related Prospectus. We consent to the use of the aforementioned
report in the Registration Statement and Prospectus, and to the use of our name as it appears under the caption “Experts”.


 


/s/ Grant
Thornton LLP


 


Chicago, Illinois


December 10, 2019
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jeffrey Moore, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Goldstein, J.), rendered September 25, 1986, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony. By decision and order dated October 31, 1988, this court remitted the case to the Supreme Court, Kings County, to hear and report on whether an improper lineup affected the reliability of the in-court identification or whether the latter was supported by an independent source, and directed that the appeal be held in abeyance in the interim *(see, People v Moore,*143 AD2d 1056). The Supreme Court has now complied.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We agree with the hearing court which, upon remittal, found that GiGi Henriquez’s identification of the defendant had a source independent of the suggestive lineup *(see, People v Ballott,*20 NY2d 600). The evidence at the hearing demonstrated that Henriquez viewed the defendant’s face continuously from a distance of approximately three feet for a period of two to three minutes. The area in which the robbery took place was well lit and her description of the defendant given to the police shortly after the robbery was detailed *(see, People v Rodriquez,*137 AD2d 847; *People v Gantt,*136 AD2d 651).

We note that in light of this court’s previous determination that the lineup viewed by Henriquez was suggestive *(see, People v Moore,*143 AD2d 1056, *supra),*it was error for the court to allow Henriquez to testify to identifying the defendant from the lineup. However, we find that in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt, the error was harmless and does not warrant granting a new trial *(see, People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230).

*959We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be either academic in light of this court’s prior order *(see, People v Moore, supra),*or without merit. Mangano, J. P., Thompson, Brown and Sullivan, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATION**I, James C. Wilson, certify that:1.      I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of GameTech International, Inc.;2.      Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;3.      Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded 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 periodspresented in this report;4.      The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining 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 suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;     b)       Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport 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 recent fiscalquarter (the registrant’s fourth quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5.      The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent functions):     a)       All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize, and reportfinancial information; 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.Date: March 16, 2006     /S/ James C. Wilson     James C. Wilson  Chief Financial Officer
23
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-13-00452-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF M.G., M.G., AND K.G., CHILDREN, Appellant

From the 272nd District Court Brazos County, Texas Trial Court No. 001802-CV-272

ABATEMENT ORDER

The appellant’s brief is overdue in this a ppeal. The Clerk of the Court’s February

28, 2014 letter to appellant’s counsel states:

Our records indicate that the appella nt’s brief was due to be filed in this Court on or before February 18, 2014. To date, no brief has been filed. The Court directs that you prepare and file a brief in this Court within 14 days after the date of this letter.

Unless a brief or satisfactory response is received within 14 days, the Court will abate this cause to the trial court for a hearing to determine why a brief has not been filed on appe llant’s behalf and to assure that appellant is receiving effective assistance of counsel. See In re T.V. , 8 S.W.3d 448, 449-50 (Tex. App.—Waco 1999, order).

Because appellant’s brief was not filed within 14 days, we abate this appeal to the

trial court to conduct a hearing within 14 da ys to determine why a brief has not beenIn the Interest of M.G., M.G., and K.G., Children Page 2 filed on appellant’s behalf and to assure that appellant is receiving effective assistance

of counsel.

The supplemental clerk’s and reporter’s re cords, if any, are ordered to be filed

within 21 days of the date of this Order.

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Order issued and filed March 27, 2014 Do not publish
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of GoldSpring, Inc. (the Company) for
the year ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Robert T. Faber, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, to my best knowledge and belief, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (1)
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and(2)
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. /s/ ROBERT T. FABERRobert T. FaberPresident and Chief Executive Officer
 April 14, 2005
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 757 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 757

   To redesignate the Federal building and United States Courthouse 
 located at 200 East Wall Street in Midland, Texas, as the ``George H. 
 W. Bush and George W. Bush United States Courthouse and George Mahon 
                          Federal Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 28, 2009

 Mr. Conaway (for himself, Mr. Brady of Texas, Mr. Carter, Mr. Olson, 
  Mr. Marchant, Mr. Lucas, Mr. Kline of Minnesota, Mr. Boustany, Mr. 
    Cuellar, Mr. Rooney, Mr. Fleming, Mr. Harper, Ms. Granger, Mr. 
 Thornberry, Mr. Neugebauer, Mr. Poe of Texas, Mr. Hall of Texas, Mr. 
Walden, Mr. Hoekstra, Mr. Barrett of South Carolina, Mr. Culberson, Mr. 
Sessions, Mr. McCarthy of California, Mr. Burgess, Mr. Barton of Texas, 
  Mr. Hensarling, Mr. Price of Georgia, Mr. McCaul, Mr. Hinojosa, Mr. 
Gene Green of Texas, Mr. Reyes, Mr. Rodriguez, Mr. Ortiz, Mr. Gonzalez, 
 Mr. Smith of Texas, Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas, Mr. Gohmert, Mr. Paul, 
  Mr. Al Green of Texas, Mr. Edwards of Texas, and Ms. Jackson-Lee of 
    Texas) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To redesignate the Federal building and United States Courthouse 
 located at 200 East Wall Street in Midland, Texas, as the ``George H. 
 W. Bush and George W. Bush United States Courthouse and George Mahon 
                          Federal Building''.

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

SECTION 1. REDESIGNATION.

    The Federal building and United States Courthouse located at 200 
East Wall Street in Midland, Texas, known as the George Mahon Federal 
Building, shall be known and designated as the ``George H. W. Bush and 
George W. Bush United States Courthouse and George Mahon Federal 
Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the Federal building and United States 
Courthouse referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference 
to the ``George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush United States Courthouse 
and George Mahon Federal Building''.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 799 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 799

        For the relief of Francisco Rivera and Alfonso Calderon.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 3, 2009

  Mr. Filner introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
        For the relief of Francisco Rivera and Alfonso Calderon.

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

SECTION 1. COMPENSATION OF FRANCISCO RIVERA AND ALFONSO CALDERON.

    (a) Payment.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall pay, out of funds 
not otherwise appropriated, an appropriate amount to compensate 
Francisco Rivera and Alfonso Calderon for costs related to and damages 
arising from their arrest, prosecution, and incarceration in Mexico as 
described in Claim No. 05-608C filed in the United States Court of 
Federal Claims.
    (b) Satisfaction of Claims.--The payment under subsection (a) shall 
be in full satisfaction of all claims of Francisco Rivera and Alfonso 
Calderon against the United States in connection with the matter 
described in such subsection.
    (c) No Inference of Liability.--Nothing in this Act shall be 
construed as an inference of liability on the part of the United 
States.

SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON ATTORNEYS' AND AGENTS' FEES.

    (a) In General.--It shall be unlawful for an amount exceeding 10 
percent of the amount paid pursuant to section 1 to be paid to, or 
received by, any agent or attorney for any service rendered in 
connection with the payment under this Act.
    (b) Enforcement.--Any person who violates subsection (a) shall be 
guilty of an infraction and shall be fined under title 18, United 
States Code.
                                 <all>
```
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket Nos. MG98-8-002 and MG98-13-001]

Tuscarora Gas Transmission Company filed revised standards of conduct on April 18, 2001 in accordance with the Commission's March 19, 2001 Order. 94 FERC ¶ 61,325 (2001).

Tuscarora Gas Transmission Company states that it served copies of the filing on all parties in this proceeding.

                    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or protest in this proceeding with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 or 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 or 385.214). All such motions to intervene or protest should be filed on or before May 10, 2001. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection. This                           ( print page 21754)                        filing may also be viewed on the web at                     *http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm*                     (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at ­                    *http://www.ferc.fed.us/​efi/​doorbell.htm.*

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01-10739 Filed 4-30-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-14-00692-CV

In re Christus Santa Rosa Health System d/b/a 

Christus Santa Rosa Hospital - New Braunfels

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM COMAL COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

The petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

__________________________________________

Melissa Goodwin, Justice

Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Rose and Goodwin

Filed: November 13, 2014
(August 23, 1989)

#### Joseph B. Gagliardo, Appellant, v Lewis J. Colascione et al., Respondents.

In a proceeding to invalidate a petition designating Lewis Colascione and Robert Flotz as candidates in the Republican Party primary election to be held on September, 12, 1989, for the party position of Member of the Republican Party County Committee in the 95th Election District in the Town of Babylon, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (McCarthy, J.), entered August 18, 1989, which dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Suffolk County Board of Elections was not named as a party to this proceeding, and only one of the two Election Commissioners who comprise the Board was named as a party. The named Commissioner does not have the authority to unilaterally act for the Board, since, by statute, all Board actions require a majority vote of the Commissioners *(see,*Election Law § 3-212; *Matter of Conlin v Kisiel, 35*AD2d 423, *affd*28 NY2d 700; *Matter of Buhlmann v Wilson,*96 Misc 2d 616). The proceeding therefore was properly dismissed due to the petitioner’s failure to join as a necessary party the remaining Commissioner or the Board of Elections *(see,*CPLR 1001 [a]; *Matter of Oberle v Caracappa,*133 AD2d 241; *Matter of Curdo v Wolf,*133 AD2d 188; *Matter of Crowe [Board of Elections],*263 App Div 935).

In light of this determination, we need not reach the remaining issues raised. Lawrence, J. P., Rubin, Sullivan, Kooper and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.