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

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4018 

To provide that the amount of time that an elderly offender must serve 

before being eligible for placement in home detention is to be reduced 

by the amount of good time credits earned by the prisoner, and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 25, 2019 

Mr. DEUTCH introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To provide that the amount of time that an elderly offender 

must serve before being eligible for placement in home 

detention is to be reduced by the amount of good time 

credits earned by the prisoner, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CREDITS FOR CERTAIN ELDERLY NONVIOLENT 

4 OFFENDERS. 

5 Section 231(g)(5)(A)(ii) of the Second Chance Act of 

6 2007 (34 U.S.C. 60541(g)(5)(A)(ii)) is amended by strik7 ing ‘‘to which the offender was sentenced’’ and inserting 

8 ‘‘reduced by any credit toward the service of the prisoner’s 


khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4018 IH

1 sentence awarded under section 3624(b) of title 18, 

2 United States Code’’. 

Æ 


khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
Peter Antonio TUBENS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-9686.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
Helen FERGUSON, petitioner, v. Gettel ACURA.

No. 17-7774.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 23, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6642

DIVINE SCIENTIFIC ALLAH,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

B. HARDY, L.P.N. Nurse; J. RHODES, Sergeant,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District

Judge. (CA-97-477-AM)

Submitted: January 21, 1999 Decided: February 5, 1999

Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Divine Scientific Allah, Appellant Pro Se. Carlyle Randolph

Wimbish, III, SANDS, ANDERSON, MARKS & MILLER, Richmond, Virginia,

for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* The order from which Allah appeals was filed on April 8,

1998, and entered on the district court’s docket on April 9, 1998,

in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 58 and 79(a). See Wilson v.

Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).

2

PER CURIAM:

Divine Scientific Allah appeals the district court’s order

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the

reasoning of the district court. See Allah v. Hardy, No. CA-97-

477-AM (E.D. Va. Apr. 9, 1998).* 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.

AFFIRMED
**Order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 18 May 2010 – Abertis Infraestructuras v Commission**

**(Case T-200/09)**

Action for annulment – Concentrations – Decision to close the procedure initiated under Article 21(4) of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 – Period within which proceedings must be brought – Starting point – Inadmissibility

Actions for annulment – Time-limits – Point from which time starts to run – Measure not notified to the applicant (Art. 230, fifth para., EC) (see paras 47, 63)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | APPLICATION to annul the Commission’s decision of 13 August 2008 to close the procedure initiated under Article 21(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ 2004 L 24, p. 1), in relation to a concentration transaction between the applicant and Autostrade SpA (Case COMP/M.4388 – Abertis/Autostrade). |

**Operative part**

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Abertis Infraestructuras, SA is ordered to pay the costs. |
Darrell BRYAN, petitioner, v. KENTUCKY.

No. 17-8020.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 23, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Kentucky denied.
Burton Kenneth LANDMAN, petitioner, v. Robert DOOLEY, Warden, et al.

No. 17-5172.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
Gerald HOWARD, petitioner, v. David DAVEY, Warden.

No. 15-9570.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Erwin LeJON-TWIN EL, petitioner, v. Joe MARINO, et al.

No. 17-8573.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 4, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

May 22, 2024

No. 04

- 24

- 00238

- C R

IN RE Christopher

- Jarvis PAYNE, Relator

Original Proceeding 1

ORDER

On April 1, 2024, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus. After considering the

petition , the court concludes relator is not entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, the petition

for writ of mandamus is DENIED

. See T EX

. R. A PP . P. 52.8(a).

It is so ORDERED on May 22 , 2024.

_____________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 22nd day of May, 2024

.

_____________________________ Luz Estrada , Chief Deputy Clerk

1 This pr oceeding arises out of Cause No. 2021CR2249 and Cause No. 2022CR6932, both styled State of Texas v.

Christoher

- Jarvis Payne and both pending in the 379th Criminal District Court , Bexar County, Texas , the Honorable

Ron Rangel presiding.
In Re McCarthy BARNES, Jr., petitioner.

No. 16-1510.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of mandamus denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                      JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                        SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                1,031,378
<SECURITIES>                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                         3,566,034
<ALLOWANCES>                                  0
<INVENTORY>                                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                      4,680,395
<PP&E>                                  412,174
<DEPRECIATION>                          199,461
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                        4,979,761
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                 2,659,945
<BONDS>                                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                   0
<COMMON>                                  4,826
<OTHER-SE>                            2,314,990
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>          4,979,761
<SALES>                              20,661,584
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                     20,661,584
<CGS>                                18,650,104
<TOTAL-COSTS>                        18,650,104
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                      1,753,592
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         304,869
<INCOME-TAX>                            148,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     156,869
<DISCONTINUED>                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                            156,869
<EPS-PRIMARY>                               .03
<EPS-DILUTED>                               .03
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 21.1

GSI GROUP INC. SUBSIDIARIES



|                                                        |  |                       
|------------------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------
|Subsidiary                                              |  | Place of Incorporation
|GSI Group Corporation                                   |  | Michigan              
|GSI Group Japan Corporation                             |  | Japan                 
|GSI Group Singapore Pte. Ltd.                           |  | Singapore             
|GSI Limited Holdings Corporation                        |  | New Brunswick, Canada 
|GSI Group GmbH                                          |  | Germany               
|GSI Limited Holdings II Corporation                     |  | New Brunswick, Canada 
|GSI Group Limited UK                                    |  | United Kingdom        
|GSI Lumonics SARL                                       |  | France                
|Westwind Air Bearings Limited UK                        |  | United Kingdom        
|GSI Group Precision Technologies (Suzhou) Co., Ltd.     |  | China                 
|General Scanning Securities Corporation                 |  | Massachusetts         
|MicroE Systems Corp.                                    |  | Delaware              
|MES International Inc.                                  |  | Delaware              
|GSI Lumonics Asia Pacific Ltd.                          |  | Hong Kong             
|Excel Technology, Inc.                                  |  | Delaware              
|Cambridge Technology, Inc.                              |  | Massachusetts         
|The Optical Corporation                                 |  | California            
|Control Laser Corporation (d/b/a Baublys Control Laser) |  | Florida               
|Synrad, Inc.                                            |  | Washington            
|Continuum Electro-Optics, Inc.                          |  | Delaware              
|Photo Research, Inc.                                    |  | Delaware              
|Quantronix Corporation                                  |  | Delaware              
|Excel Laser Technology                                  |  | India                 
|Excel Technology Asia Sdn. Bhd                          |  | Malaysia              
|Excel Technology Europe GmbH                            |  | Germany               
|Excel Technology Lanka (Pvt.) Ltd.                      |  | Sri Lanka             
|Excel Technology Japan Holding Co., Ltd.                |  | Japan                 
|D. (Green Electronics), Ltd.                            |  | United Kingdom        
|Excel Technology Italy Srl                              |  | Italy                 
|Baublys Control Laser GmbH                              |  | Germany               
|Excel Technology France S.A.S.                          |  | France                
|Excel Technology Japan K.K.                             |  | Japan
H. Res. 167 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

October 6, 2009. 

Whereas each year, States across the Nation formally proclaim September as Campus Fire Safety Month; 

Whereas since January 2000, at least 129 people including 

students, parents, and children, have died in student 

housing fires, many of which were preventable; 

Whereas over 80 percent of these deaths have occurred in offcampus occupancies; 

Whereas a majority of the students across the Nation live in 

off-campus occupancies; 

Whereas a number of fatal fires have occurred in buildings 

where the fire safety systems have been compromised or 

disabled by the occupants; 

Whereas it is recognized that automatic fire alarm systems 

provide the necessary early warning to occupants and the 

fire department of a fire so that appropriate action can 

be taken; 

Whereas it is recognized that automatic fire sprinkler systems 

are a highly effective method of controlling or extinguishing a fire in its early stages, protecting the lives of 

a building’s occupants; 
2 

•HRES 167 EH 

Whereas many students are living in off-campus occupancies, 

Greek housing, and residence halls that are not adequately protected with automatic fire sprinkler systems 

and automatic fire alarm systems; 

Whereas it is recognized that fire safety education is an effective method of reducing the occurrence of fires and reducing the resulting loss of life and property damage; 

Whereas students are not routinely receiving effective fire 

safety education throughout their entire college career; 

Whereas it is vital to educate the future generations of our 

Nation about the importance of fire safety behavior so 

that these behaviors can help to ensure their safety during their college years and beyond; and 

Whereas by developing a generation of firesafe adults, future 

loss of life from fires can be significantly reduced: Now, 

therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

(1) supports the goals and ideals of Campus Fire 

Safety Month; 

(2) encourages administrators and municipalities 

across the country to provide educational programs to all 

students during September and throughout the school 

year; and 

(3) encourages administrators and municipalities to 

evaluate the level of fire safety being provided in both 

on- and off-campus student housing and take the necessary steps to ensure firesafe living environments 

through fire safety education, installation of fire sup-
3 

•HRES 167 EH 

pression and detection systems, and the development and 

enforcement of applicable codes relating to fire safety. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
Maria JORDAN, petitioner, v. DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, et al.

No. 17-843.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 23, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
# C_2010148EN.01005106.xml

| 5.6.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 148/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.6.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/51

---

Order of the General Court of 12 April 2010 — Aecops v Commission

(Case T-256/09) (1)

1

2010/C 148/88

Language of the case: Portuguese

Language of the case: Portuguese

The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 220, 12.9.2009.

1

---
Umesh KAUSHAL v. INDIANA.

No. 17-1356.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 28, 2018.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals of Indiana, Fourth District, for further consideration in light of *Jae Lee v. United States,* 582 U.S. ----, 137 S.Ct. 1958, 198 L.Ed.2d 476 (2017).

Justice ALITO, with whom Justice THOMAS joins, dissenting.

The Court grants, vacates, and remands this case in light of *Jae Lee v. United States,* 582 U.S. ----, 137 S.Ct. 1958, 198 L.Ed.2d 476 (2017). But *Lee* was handed down on June 23, 2017-almost a month before the Indiana Court of Appeals issued its decision in this case. Moreover, petitioner admits that he cited and advanced arguments based on *Lee* in both his petition for rehearing before the Indiana Court of Appeals and his petition for transfer to the Indiana Supreme Court. Reply Brief 3. I would accordingly deny the petition for the reasons stated in Justice Scalia's dissenting opinion in *Webster v. Cooper,*558 U.S. 1039, 1040, 130 S.Ct. 456, 175 L.Ed.2d 506 (2009).
BWP MEDIA USA, INCORPORATED, dba Pacific Coast News, et al., petitioners, v. T & S SOFTWARE ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED.

No. 17-122.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

May 14, 2019

N o. 04

- 18

- 00481

- CR

Dorothy A. HOLLOWAY,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017CR0541

Honorable Sid L. Harle, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

The Appellant ’ s Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief is hereby GRAN TED. The

appellant ’ s br ief is due on May 20, 2019

. No f u r ther extensions.

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 14th day of May, 2019

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
YTB International, Inc.


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


     In connection with the accompanying Report of YTB International, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2005 (the "Report"), I,
Michael Y. Brent, Director and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby
certify that to my knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) as
applicable of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as amended; and

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

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.



Date: 08/25/2005



/s/ Michael Y. Brent
    Director and Chief Executive Officer


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

[Signature]
Lewellyn Terrell VAUGHT, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-8391.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 29, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, Attorney General, petitioner, v. Juan Jose MIRANDA-GODINEZ.

No. 16-398.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 14, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Exhibit 3.1

CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT

OF RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION

OF

BORLAND SOFTWARE CORPORATION

BORLAND SOFTWARE
CORPORATION, a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the Delaware
General Corporation Law ("DGCL") of the State of Delaware (the "Corporation"), DOES
HEREBY CERTIFY THAT:

FIRST: The Board
of Directors of the Corporation approved and adopted the following resolution
setting forth this Amendment on April 3, 2001, declaring its advisability and
calling for submission of such Amendment to the stockholders of the Corporation
for approval at the Corporations 2001 Annual Meeting of Stockholders:

| | RESOLVED,
that Article Third Section (a) of the Restated Certificate of Incorporation of the
Corporation be amended in its entirety so that, as amended, said Article shall read as
follows:
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | THIRD
(a): This corporation is authorized to issue two (2) classes of stock to be designated,
respectively, preferred stock and common stock. The total number of
shares which the corporation is authorized to issue is two hundred and one million
(201,000,000) shares. One million (1,000,000) shares shall be preferred stock, with a par
value of One Cent ($.01) per share, and two hundred million (200,000,000) shares shall be
Common Stock, with a par value of One Cent ($.01) per share.
| | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SECOND: The
amendment was duly adopted in accordance with the provisions of Section 242 of
the DGCL of the State of Delaware. Stockholders holding a majority of the
outstanding shares entitled to vote on the amendment approved the filing of such
Amendment on May 31, 2001.

IN WITNESS
WHEREOF, said Borland Software Corporation has caused this certificate to be
executed in its corporate name this June 1, 2001.

| | By:/s/ Dale L. Fuller                       
| | --------------------------------------------
| | Name: Dale L. Fuller                        
| | Title: President and Chief Executive Officer
David Martin LOCKE, petitioner, v. Julie L. JONES, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.

No. 16-9677.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION

The undersigned hereby certifies, for the purposes of section 1350 of
chapter 63 of title 18 of the United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his capacity as an officer of Texas Capital Bancshares, Inc. (Texas Capital), that, to his knowledge, the
Annual Report of Texas Capital on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2011, 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 and results of operation of Texas Capital. This written statement is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to such Form 10-K. A signed original of this
statement has been provided to Texas Capital and will be retained by Texas Capital and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



|                                                                    
|--------------------------------------------------------------------
|/S/ George F. Jones, Jr.                                            
|George F. Jones, Jr. Chief
Executive Officer Date: February 23, 2012
Junior Jose HERRERA, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-8782.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 4, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.3

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

         I, Karl R. Wyss, as Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
of Thermadyne Mfg. LLC (the "Company") certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my
knowledge:

         (1) the accompanying Form 10-Q report for the period ending June 30,
2002 as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report")
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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

Dated:  August 14, 2002

                                       /s/  KARL R. WYSS
                                       --------------------------------
                                       Karl R. Wyss
                                       Chairman of the Board and Chief
                                       Executive Officer of the Company