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

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1183 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 1183

 Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that public debt 
 as a share of gross domestic product should be stabilized at not more 
                        than 60 percent by 2018.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 15, 2010

   Mr. Quigley (for himself and Mr. Cooper) submitted the following 
   resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that public debt 
 as a share of gross domestic product should be stabilized at not more 
                        than 60 percent by 2018.

Whereas the United States Government is on an unsustainable fiscal path;
Whereas public debt has never amounted to more than 120 percent of gross 
        domestic product (GDP), even in the years immediately following World 
        War II;
Whereas public debt is now projected to rise to more than twice the size of the 
        economy by 2035 and to more than three times the size of the economy by 
        2050;
Whereas the consequences of this unprecedented and unsustainable rise in the 
        public debt as a share of GDP will be tangible and severe;
Whereas a high public debt to GDP ratio crowds out private investment, redirects 
        Government revenues to non-productive debt service, weakens the dollar's 
        purchasing power, and slows economic growth and job creation;
Whereas a high public debt to GDP ratio undermines confidence in our economy and 
        threatens our ability to borrow in international markets;
Whereas the cost of inaction will ultimately be borne by ordinary American 
        taxpayers; and
Whereas it is within the power of Congress to enact budget reform that addresses 
        this looming debt crisis: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives 
that--
            (1) public debt as a share of gross domestic product should 
        be stabilized at not more than 60 percent by 2018; and
            (2) annual deficits as a share of gross domestic product 
        should be reduced to not more than three percent by 2018.
                                 <all>
```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Joshua James ROBERTS, Appellant.

No. 09-3514.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: May 28, 2010.

Filed: June 2, 2010.

John H. Lammers, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Sioux City, IA, for Appellee.

John Bishop, Cedar Rapids, IA, for Appellant.

Joshua James Roberts, Clarinda, IA, pro se.

Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Joshua Roberts was charged with conspiring to manufacture 5 grams or more of actual (pure) methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B) and 846. He pleaded guilty in accord with a written plea agreement, which contained an appeal waiver. The district court1 sentenced Roberts to 262 months in prison, the bottom of the advisory Guidelines range. On appeal, counsel has filed a brief under *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and seeks to withdraw.

We will enforce the appeal waiver in this case because Roberts’s appeal falls within the scope of the waiver, the record shows the requisite knowledge and voluntariness, and enforcing the appeal waiver would not constitute a miscarriage of justice. *See United States v. Andis,*333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir.2003) (en banc) (court should enforce appeal waiver and dismiss appeal where appeal falls within scope of waiver, both plea agreement and waiver were entered into knowingly and voluntarily, and no miscarriage of justice would result); *see also United States v. Estrada-Bahena,*201 F.3d 1070, 1071 (8th Cir.2000) (per curiam) (enforcing appeal waiver in *Anders*case).

Having independently reviewed the record under *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issue not covered by the waiver. Accordingly, we grant counsel leave to withdraw, and we dismiss this appeal.

1

. The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa.
#### Maureen Nolan, Appellant, v Jack Lechner et al., Respondents.

[874 NYS2d 107]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis B. York, J.), entered February 19, 2008, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint and denied plaintiffs cross motion to compel their acceptance of the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, defendant’s motion denied, the cross motion granted, and defendant directed to accept the complaint.

A party who has commenced an action by service of a summons without complaint and fails to serve a complaint within 20 days of a demand must demonstrate the merits of the action and a reasonable excuse for the delay in order to avoid dismissal (CPLR 3012 [d]; *Barasch v Micucci,*49 NY2d 594, 599 [1980]).

Plaintiff did satisfy these requirements. On May 1, 2007, defendants served a notice of appearance and demanded a complaint, which meant that plaintiff had 20 days in which to comply (CPLR 3012 [b]). On June 26, 36 days after expiration of the 20-day deadline, plaintiff served a copy of the verified complaint, attached as an exhibit to her cross motion to compel defendants’ late acceptance of the complaint *(see*CPLR 3012 [d]). Plaintiff’s counsel cited law office failure for the delay, claiming to have discovered on June 1 only defendants’ notice of appearance, but not their demand; also cited was the disabled plaintiffs physical difficulties in appearing at counsel’s office to sign the verification. This constituted a reasonable excuse for the delay *(see Wess v Olympia & York Realty Corp.,*201 AD2d 365 [1994]).

Plaintiff also submitted an affidavit of merit, sufficiently detailing the injuries she allegedly suffered as a result of defendants’ tortious acts. At no time did plaintiff evince an intent to abandon her claim, and defendants have not demonstrated prejudice by reason of the delay *(see Rose v Our Lady of Mercy Med. Ctr.,*268 AD2d 225 [2000]).

Dismissal of the action under these circumstances was an improvident exercise of the court’s discretion *(see Aquilar v Nassau Health Care Corp.,*40 AD3d 788 [2007]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Nardelli, DeGrasse and Freedman, JJ.
```

[Federal Register: April 21, 1997 (Volume 62, Number 76)]
[Notices]
[Page 19311]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr21ap97-45]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

TIME AND DATE: 2:00 p.m., Monday, May 12, 1997.

PLACE: 1155 21st St., N.W., Washington, D.C., 9th Fl. Conference Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Adjudicatory Matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.
Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 97-10347 Filed 4-17-97; 1:18 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```

----

**======== RETURN TO    INDEX ========**

----
| **-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| DOCUMENT: | **CL** | **26** |
|-----------|--------|--------|

|  | **The        Chicago Board Options Exchange** |
|--|------------------------------------------------|

| DATE: | 3/3/98 | FR        PAGE: | N/A | PAGES: | 3 |
|-------|--------|------------------|-----|--------|---|

|  | **-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** |
|--|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| **-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| DOCUMENT: | **CL** | **27** |
|-----------|--------|--------|

|  | **Futures        Industry Association** |
|--|------------------------------------------|

| DATE: | 3/5/98 | FR        PAGE: | N/A | PAGES: | 2 |
|-------|--------|------------------|-----|--------|---|

|  | **-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** |
|--|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| **-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| DOCUMENT: | **CL** | **28** |
|-----------|--------|--------|

|  | **Lind-Waldock & Company** |
|--|--------------------------------|

| DATE: | 3/12/98 | FR        PAGE: | N/A | PAGES: | 3 |
|-------|---------|------------------|-----|--------|---|

|  | **-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** |
|--|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

First
    Previous
Next
Last
AEGIS SEF | 2829 Technology Forest Boulevard, Suite 260 | The Woodlands, Texas 77381

Chapter 1150 

Natural Gas Index Swaps - TGT Zone 1 - Platts Gas Daily Platts Inside FERC 

DESCRIPTION 

A monthly cash settled swap based upon the mathematical result of subtracting the price 

published by Platts Inside FERC TGT Zone 1, for Floating Price B, from the average of the daily 

prices published by Platts Gas Daily TGT Zone 1, for Floating Price A. 

FLOATING PRICE A 

The Floating Price for each contract month will be equal to the arithmetic average of the Platts 

Gas Daily TGT Zone 1 published price for each calendar day of the corresponding contract 

month. 

FLOATING PRICE B 

The Floating Price for each contract month will be equal to the Platts Inside FERC TGT Zone 1 

published price for the corresponding contract month. 

CONTRACT UNIT AND VALUE 

The contract unit shall be MMBtus (million British thermal units). Each shall be valued as the 

contract quantity multiplied by the settlement price. 

LISTING CYCLE 

Up to 120 consecutive monthly contract periods. 

PRICES AND FLUCTUATIONS 

Prices shall be quoted in U.S. dollars and cents per MMBtu. The minimum price fluctuation 

shall be $0.001 per MMBtu. The minimum price increment will be $0.0001. There shall be no 

maximum price fluctuation. 

TERMINATION OF TRADING 

Posting of transactions shall cease on the last business day of the contract month. 

FINAL SETTLEMENT 

Delivery under the contract shall be by cash settlement. Final settlement, following 

termination of posting for a contract month, will be based on the Floating Price. The final 

settlement price will be the Floating Price calculated for each contract month.
No. 1.

#### Akron, Canton & Youngstown Ry. Co. et al. *v.*United States et al.

Argued October 14, 15, 1931.

Decided October 26, 1931.

*Mr. Leo P. Day,*with whom *Mr. Anthony P. Donadío*was on the brief, for appellants.

*Mr. J. Stanley*Payne,' with whom *Solicitor General Thacker, Assistant to the Attorney General O’Brian,*and *Messrs. Daniel W. Knowlton*and *E. M. Reidy*were on the brief, for the United States et al.

*Per Curiam:*

The Court is of the opinion that the Interstate Commerce Commission acted within its authority and that its order is supported by substantial evidence. The decree is affirmed. *Western Chemical Co.*v. *United States,*271 U. S. 268, 271; *Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co.*v. *United States,*274 U. S. 29, 33, 34; *Alabama*v. *United States,*283 U. S. 776, 779.
```

[Federal Register: December 28, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 248)]
[Notices]
[Page 72650]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr28de99-75]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

TIME AND DATE: 11 a.m., Friday, January 7, 2000.

PLACE: 1155 21st St., NW, Washington, DC, 9th Floor Conference Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Surveillance Matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.
Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 99-33753 Filed 12-23-99; 11:50 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```

----

**======== RETURN TO INDEX    ========**

----
No. 358.

#### Continental Illinois National Bank & Trust Co. *v.*Columbian National Life Insurance Co.

October 14, 1935.

*Messrs. William Beye, Harry I. Allen,*and *Leonard F. Martin*for petitioner.

*Messrs. Wm. P. Sidley*and *Frederick H. Nash*for respondent.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
ACCEPTED 04-15-00042-CV FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 1/30/2015 11:13:23 AM KEITH HOTTLE CLERK
```

[Federal Register: November 19, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 223)]
[Notices]
[Page 64248]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr19no98-48]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

TIME AND DATE: 11:00 a.m., Friday, December 11, 1998.

PLACE: 1155 21st St., N.W., Washington, D.C., 9th Floor Conference
Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Surveillance Matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Jean A. Webb. 202-418-5100.
Jean A. Webb.
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 98-31048 Filed 11-17-98; 2:26 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```

----

**======== RETURN TO INDEX    ========**

----
```

[Federal Register: August 16, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 157)]
[Notices]
[Page 48103]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr16au05-27]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

Agency Holding the Meeting: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

Time and Date: 10 a.m., Thursday, August 25, 2005.

Place: 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission
Conference Room.

Status: Closed.

Matters to be Considered: Rule Enforcement Review.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Jean A. Webb, (202) 418-5100.

Catherine D. Daniels,
Assistant Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 05-16289 Filed 8-12-05; 1:05 pm]

BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDG MENT

No. 04

- 16

- 00812

- CR

Gary ALVAREZ

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016CR4637B

Honorable Kevin M. O ’ Connell, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION

, JUSTICE CHAPA , AND JUSTICE RIOS

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED.

SIGNED February 8, 2017.

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa , Justice
Exhibit 10.5 (1 of 2)

DEGOLYER AND MACNAUGHTON

5001 SPRING VALLEY ROAD

SUITE 800 EAST

DALLAS, TEXAS 75244

April 29, 2016



Dr. José Antonio González Anaya

Director General

Petróleos Mexicanos

Avenida Marina Nacional No. 329

Torre Ejecutiva, Piso 44

Colonia Verónica Anzures

11300 Ciudad de México, México

Dear Dr.
González Anaya:

We hereby consent to the references to DeGolyer and MacNaughton as set forth under the headings
Presentation of Information Concerning Reserves, Item 4. Information on the Company  Business Overview  Exploration and Production  Reserves, and Item 19. Exhibits. Documents filed as exhibits to this
Form 20-F in the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Petróleos Mexicanos (PEMEX) for the year ended December 31, 2015 (the Form 20-F), and to the filing as Exhibit 10.6 to the Form 20-F of our third-party report dated April 29, 2016,
describing our review of the estimates of proved oil, marketable gas, sales gas, condensate, natural gas liquids (NGL), and oil equivalent reserves that PEMEX has represented are owned by the United Mexican States (México) as of January 1,
2016, for certain fields located in the Burgos area of México, which includes reserves that PEMEX has represented that it has the right to extract and sell. These estimates were prepared in accordance with the reserves definitions of Rules
4-10(a) (l)-(32) of Regulation S-X of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.



Very truly yours,LOGODeGOLYER and MacNAUGHTONTexas Registered Engineering Firm F-716




---

Exhibit 10.5 (2 of 2)

DEGOLYER AND MACNAUGHTON

5001 SPRING VALLEY ROAD

SUITE 800 EAST

DALLAS, TEXAS 75244

April 29, 2016



Dr. José Antonio González Anaya

Director General

Petróleos Mexicanos

Avenida Marina Nacional No. 329

Torre Ejecutiva, Piso 44

Colonia Verónica Anzures

11300 Ciudad de México, México

Dear Dr.
González Anaya:

We hereby consent to the references to DeGolyer and MacNaughton as set forth under the headings
Presentation of Information Concerning Reserves, Item 4. Information on the Company  Business Overview  Exploration and Production  Reserves, and Item 19. Exhibits. Documents filed as exhibits to this
Form 20-F in the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Petróleos Mexicanos (PEMEX) for the year ended December 31, 2015 (the Form 20-F), and to the filing as Exhibit 10.6 to the Form 20-F of our third-party report dated April 29, 2016,
describing our review of the estimates of proved oil, marketable gas, sales gas, condensate, natural gas liquids (NGL), and oil equivalent reserves that PEMEX has represented are owned by the United Mexican States (México) as of January 1,
2016, for certain fields located in the Veracruz area of México, which includes reserves that PEMEX has represented that it has the right to extract and sell. These estimates were prepared in accordance with the reserves definitions of Rules
4-10(a) (1)-(32) of Regulation S-X of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.



Very truly yours,LOGODeGOLYER and MacNAUGHTONTexas Registered Engineering Firm F-716
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-17-0000682 03-MAY-2018 12:58 PM
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 September 29, 2015

a0921

Order 

Clerk

September 29, 2015

150380(20)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 150380

COA: 322825

Wayne CC: 06-000456-FC

LEWIS HARRIS, Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s July 28, 2015 

order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously.
Exhibit 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Peter Wardle, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Protosource Corporation;

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

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

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

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

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures , as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

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

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

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
which could adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the small
business issuer's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the small business issuers internal
control over financial reporting..

March 30, 2007

/s/ PETER WARDLE
Peter Wardle
Chief Executive Officer