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

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1653 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 1653

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                    September 23, 2010.
    Resolved,
    Section 1.  (a) Each of the bills and the amendment of the Senate specified 
in subsection (b)--
            (1) in the opinion of this House, contravenes the first clause of 
        the seventh section of the first article of the Constitution of the 
        United States and is an infringement of the privileges of this House; 
        and
            (2) shall be respectfully returned to the Senate with a message 
        communicating this resolution.
    (b) The bills and amendment of the Senate specified in this subsection are 
as follows:
            (1) The Senate amendment to H.R. 5875.
            (2) S. 951.
            (3) S. 1023.
            (4) S. 2799.
            (5) S. 3162.
            (6) S. 3187.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT GIFFORD ROY THOMPSON, Petitioner,

v. No. 96-1477 U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A40-385-845) Submitted: March 31, 1997 Decided: April 24, 1997 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________ Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL Curtis Leroy Solomon, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Frank W. Hunger, Assistant Attorney General, David M. McConnell, AssistantDirector, John Andre, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

_________________________________________________________________Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________ OPINION
PER CURIAM: Gifford Roy Thompson petitions this Court for review of the final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge's order. We deny Thompson's petition. Despite two ex tensions of time in which to file applications seeking relief from deportation with the Immigration Judge (IJ), Thompson failed to timely file original copies of his applications and supporting materials. He also failed to file fee receipts or waivers with any of his application materials. Thompson does not contest his failure to filetimely originals, he only asserts that the Immigration Judge's dismissal of his applications for lack of prosecution amounted to aviolation of procedural due process given that he filed timely copies of these documents. Immigration regulations require that all "[a]pplications and petition forms must be submitted in the original." 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(4) (1996). These regulations also require that a fee receipt or waiver accompany any application or document requiring payment of a fee. 8 C.F.R. § 3.31(b) (1996). Thompson failed to comply with these requirements and thus his applications were not properly filed with the IJ. This failure to properly file within the appropriate time period effectively waives his opportunity to file. 8 C.F.R.§ 3.31(c) (1996). The administrative record reveals that Thompson was clearly told what applications and documents he needed to file with the IJ. He was also given two extensions of time in which to file these documents. Accordingly, we find that he had a full and fair opportunity to file his applications. We thus find no procedural due process violation in the
2Immigration Judge's dismissal of his applications for lack ofprosecution or the Board's decision dismi ssing his appeal on this same basis. We therefore deny his petition for review.
PETITION DENIED 3
Ronald B. SMITH, Applicant, v. ALABAMA.

No. 16A545.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 8, 2016.

**ORDER**

CLARENCE THOMAS, Associate Justice.

UPON CONSIDERATION of the application of counsel for the applicant,

IT IS ORDERED that execution of the sentence of death is hereby stayed pending further order of the undersigned or of the Court.
# 736-IS ELECTRONIC RECORD COA # 12-13-00260-CR OFFENSE: 21.1 Oscar Hernandez v. The State of 

## STYLE: Texas COUNTY: Cherokee COA DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED TRIAL COURT: 2nd District Court 

### DATE: 5/29/2015 

### Publish: NO TC CASE #: 17,690



### IN THE COURTOF CRIMINALAPPEALS Oscar Hernandez v. The State of STYLE: Texas 

# PRO 5E Petition FORDISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS: DATE: JUDGE: 

# ilfollffcr CCA#: 

# 736-/5* CCADisposition: DATE: JUDGE: SIGNED: PUBLISH:
REHEARING IN CCA IS: JUDGE: 

### PC:_ DNP:

MOTION FOR


### ELECTRONIC RECORD
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.2
MAXLINEAR, INC.
5966 La Place Court, Suite 100
Carlsbad, CA 92008






February 11, 2016




To: Connie Kwong 
Re: Promotion




Dear Connie,


You are an important member of our Maxlinear global team and we value your skills and efforts in making us a strong competitor in our industry. We would like to congratulate you on your promotion to Corporate Controller and Principal Accounting Officer with a salary increase to $190,000 annually. In this position will be considered a "section 16" officer of the company. Your annual discretionary bonus 2016 will be targeted at 30% of base salary. These changes will be effective February 15, 2016.


In addition, we have requested that the board approve a grant of 10,000 RSUs at the next board meeting February 2016. This equity related compensation will be subject to the terms and conditions of the 2010 Equity Incentive Plan and the form of agreement approved by the Board.


Subject to Participant's continuing to be a Service Provider (as defined in the 2010 Equity Incentive Plan) through each applicable vesting date, the Restricted Stock Units subject to the Award will vest as follows: 1/16th of the Restricted Stock Units will vest on February 20, 2016, and 1/16th of the Restricted Stock Units subject will vest on each February 20, May 20, August 20, and November 20 thereafter, such that the Award will be fully vested on August 20, 2019. The Company generally structures RSU vesting to ensure that the vesting dates occur during an open trading window under the Company's Insider Trading Policy. However, the Company cannot provide any assurance that the trading window will be open when RSUs vest as the Company may close the trading window at any time if it determines appropriate. In addition, the grant of equity awards and subsequent vesting will not confer any additional right to continued vesting or employment or modify in any way the "at will" status of the employment relationship.


Official RSU documents will be sent to you under separate cover in the weeks to come. Congratulations and thank you for your hard work!


Sincerely,






Adam Spice
Chief Financial Officer




Employee  Acknowledgment




I have read and acknowledge by my signature below that I understand the contents of this notice.




_________________________
<PAGE>

                                   EXHIBIT 23

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-45902 and 333-83942) of AmeriGas Partners, L.P.
of our report dated November 15, 2002, except as to the conversion of
subordinated partnership units described in Note 17 which is as of December 16,
2002, relating to the financial statements and financial statement schedules,
and our reports relating to AmeriGas Finance Corp., AmeriGas Eagle Finance Corp.
and AP Eagle Finance Corp. dated November 15, 2002, which appear in this Form
10-K.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
December 23, 2002
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 32.1*

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                                 18 U.S.C. 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned officer of Cognex Corporation (the "Company") hereby certifies
that the Company's quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended
April 3, 2005 (the "Report"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof, fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

Date: May 6, 2005

                                          /s/ Robert J. Shillman
                                          ----------------------
                                          Robert J. Shillman
                                          President, Chief Executive Officer and
                                          Chairman of the Board of Directors
                                          (principal executive officer)

* This certification shall not be deemed "filed" for purposes of Section 18 of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or otherwise subject to the liability of
that section, nor shall it be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any
filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
IV 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1548 

Condemning the recent violence against members of the media in the 

Philippines. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 21, 2010 

Mr. ROYCE submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Foreign Affairs 

RESOLUTION 

Condemning the recent violence against members of the 

media in the Philippines. 

Whereas according to the Committee to Protect Journalists, 

‘‘sixty-five journalists have been murdered in the Philippines in the past two decades, a death toll trailing only 

Iraq.’’; 

Whereas, on the morning of November 23, 2009, 30 journalists and 2 media support workers were ambushed and 

murdered by more than 100 heavily armed militiamen as 

they accompanied a group to file candidacy papers for 

Esmael Mangudadatu in what would become known as 

the Maguindanao Massacre; 

Whereas the primary suspects in the Maguindanao Massacre 

have not been convicted of a crime, and additional suspects remain at large; 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 1548 IH 

Whereas, over the past 2 decades, Philippine authorities have 

obtained convictions in only 5 murder cases involving 

journalists; 

Whereas, on June 14, 2010, Desiderio Camangyan of Sunrise 

FM, located in the southern Philippines, was shot and 

killed onstage while hosting a singing contest; 

Whereas, on June 15, 2010, Joselito Agustin, a broadcaster 

with DZJC Aksyon Radyo, located in the northern Philippines, was ambushed and shot dead by 2 gunmen as he 

was returning home from work; 

Whereas the reporters who were killed were known for their 

commentaries on corruption, illegal logging, and other political issues of interest in the Philippines; 

Whereas the Committee to Protect Journalists finds that the 

culture of impunity that exists in the Philippines is unseen in any other peacetime democracy; and 

Whereas a free press is a hallmark of free societies and is 

a vital tool in combating corruption: Now, therefore, be 

it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) condemns the recent violence against mem3 bers of the media in the Philippines; 

4 (2) expresses its condolences to the families of 

5 Joselito Agustin, Desiderio Camangyan, and others 

6 who have been victims of violence against the media; 

7 and 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HRES 1548 IH 

1 (3) calls on the Government of the Philippines 

2 to fully investigate the murders of Joselito Agustin 

3 and Desiderio Camangyan. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit
32








CERTIFICATION





Each of
the undersigned hereby certifies in his capacity as an officer of Community
Financial Corporation (the "Company") that the quarterly report of the Company
on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2009 fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of such period and
the results of operations of the Company for such period.





Date:
      February 12, 2010
            
            /s/ P. Douglas RichardP.
      Douglas Richard
              President
      and Chief Executive Officer/s/ R. Jerry GilesR.
      Jerry Giles
              Chief
      Financial Officer
              (Duly
      Authorized Officer)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary consolidated financial information extracted from
the financial statements of Globalstar Telecommunications Limited for the
year ended December 31, 1998 and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<CIK> 0001037927
<NAME> GLOBALSTAR L.P.
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          56,739
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   28,500
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               236,288
<PP&E>                                       2,374,288
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,968
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,670,025
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          401,190
<BONDS>                                      1,396,175
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       602,401
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,670,025
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               146,684 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (129,543)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (129,543)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (151,740)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (2.69)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.69)
        

</TABLE>
#### William Maurice RYANS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Sid HARKELROAD, Superintendent, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 11-7415.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Feb. 9, 2012.

Decided: Feb. 14, 2012.

William Maurice Ryans, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

William Maurice Ryans seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2258(c)(1)(A) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Ryans has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
#### Rafael Antonio MONGE, also known as Rafael Antonio Navarrette Monge, Petitioner v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 10-60007

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 22, 2010.

Jesus A. Macias, Houston, TX, for Petitioner.

Gladys Marta Steffens Guzman, Esq., Tangerlia Cox, Trish A. Maskew, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before REAVLEY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Rafael Antonio Monge, a native and citizen of El Salvador, was charged with being *880removable as an alien not lawfully admitted or paroled and as an alien convicted of a controlled substance offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i). Monge admitted the allegations and conceded removability on the charges. The Immigration Judge found Monge removable and denied his application for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture. The Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed Monge’s appeal. Monge now petitions this court for review.

Monge argues that his documentary and testimonial evidence showed that he was entitled to withholding of removal. Monge does not renew his challenge to the denial of protection under the Convention Against Torture. Therefore, the claim is abandoned. *See Soadjede v. Ashcroft,*324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir.2003).

The respondent contends that this court lacks jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C) to review Monge’s claim regarding the finding that he was ineligible for withholding of removal.

Monge was found removable for having been convicted of a controlled substance offense as set forth in § 1227(a) (2)(B) (i). When an alien is removable under § 1227(a) (2) (B) (i), this court lacks jurisdiction to review the final order of removal. § 1252(a)(2)(C); *Flores-Garza v. INS,*328 F.3d 797, 801-02 (5th Cir.2003). However, this court retains jurisdiction over constitutional claims and questions of law. § 1252(a)(2)(D); *Moreira v. Mukasey,*509 F.3d 709, 711 n. 1 (5th Cir.2007).

Monge does not raise any constitutional claims or questions of law. Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to review the final order of removal. *See Alwan v. Ashcroft,*388 F.3d 507, 515 (5th Cir.2004). The petition for review is DISMISSED.

*

 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.
EXHIBIT 99.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, J. Jeffrey Meder, Chief Executive Officer of Cost-U-Less, Inc. (the
"Registrant"), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      (1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Registrant, to which this
      certification is attached as an exhibit (the "Report"), fully complies
      with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
      1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and

      (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      the Registrant.

Dated: May 12, 2003                                 /s/ J. Jeffrey Meder
                                                    ----------------------------
                                                    J. Jeffrey Meder
                                                    Chief Executive Officer
Jose Antonio RIVERA-MARTINEZ, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6296.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 31, 2016.

*414Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
#### LOCAL 344 LEATHER GOODS, PLASTICS & NOVELTY WORKERS’ UNION AFL-CIO, Plaintiffs, v. The SINGER COMPANY PIECEWORK CONTROL SYSTEMS, Defendant.

No. 79 C 2208.

United States District Court, N. D. Illinois, E. D.

Oct. 26, 1979.

William F. Lennon, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiffs.

Ronald S. Sheldon, Lederer, Reich, Sheldon & Connelly, Chicago, Ill., for defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

ASPEN, District Judge:

On October 15, 1979, this Court granted the plaintiff union’s motion for summary judgment to compel arbitration of a dispute concerning a mid-term wage increase, 478 F.Supp. 441. Defendant Singer Company now has moved for a stay of this order pending appeal. Since an order to compel arbitration is mandatory injunctive relief, the grant of a stay of such an order is within the discretion of the Court rather than a right of the moving party. Fed.R. Civ.Pro. 62(c). In determining whether to grant a stay under Rule 62(c), this Court must consider (1) the likelihood of the moving party succeeding on the merits of the appeal; (2) whether the moving party will suffer irreparable harm if the stay is denied; (3) the harm suffered by the opposing party if the stay is granted; and (4) the effect of a stay on the public interest. *United States v. Articles of Food & Drug,*441 F.Supp. 772, 774 (E.D.Wis.1977).

Upon a review of these factors, the Court concludes that the issuance of a stay would be appropriate in this case. The fact that this action involves unsettled questions *425of federal labor law militates in favor a granting a stay. *See Armstrong v. O’Connell,*416 F.Supp. 1325, 1330 (E.D.Wis.1976). Moreover, failure of this Court to grant a stay may render the issues in this case moot and thereby preclude appeal. On the other hand, the plaintiff will suffer little appreciable harm if the stay is granted. As both parties indicated in open court, the obligation to arbitrate this dispute would continue to exist even after the expiration of the present collective bargaining agreement. *See also Camden Industries Company v. Carpenters Local Union No. 1688,*246 F.Supp. 259, 260 (D.N.H.1965). Thus, even if an appellate decision upholding this Court’s order of October 15 were not issued until after the present collective bargaining agreement expires, the defendant employer still would be required to arbitrate the wage dispute. Finally, the public interest would not be adversely affected by the issuance of a stay.

Accordingly, this Court grants the defendant’s motion to stay the October 15 order, subject to the following terms. The defendant without delay must seek review of this Court’s October 15 order. At no time shall the defendant seek any continuance, postponement, or enlargement of time in which to prosecute its appeal or present its arguments. If the Court determines that defendant has failed to comply with these terms, the stay will be vacated and the October 15 order will be given full effect. It is so ordered.