alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1231

AN ACT

To direct the Secretary of Agriculture to convey

certain National Forest lands to Elko County,Nevada, for continued use as a cemetery.
106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1231

AN ACT

To direct the Secretary of Agriculture to convey certain

National Forest lands to Elko County, Nevada, for continued use as a cemetery.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 1231 EH

1 SECTION 1. CONVEYANCE OF NATIONAL FOREST LANDS TO

2 ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA, FOR USE AS CEME3 TERY.

4 (a) REQUIREMENT TO CONVEY.—The Secretary of

5 Agriculture shall convey, without consideration, to Elko

6 County, Nevada, all right, title, and interest of the United

7 States in and to the real property described in subsection

8 (b).

9 (b) DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY.—

10 (1) IN GENERAL.—The property referred to in

11 subsection (a) consists of: (A) a parcel of National

12 Forest lands (including any improvements thereon)

13 in Elko County, Nevada, known as Jarbidge Ceme14 tery, consisting of approximately 2 acres within the

following described lands: NE1⁄4 SW1⁄4 NW1 15 ⁄4, S. 9

16 T. 46 N, R. 58 E., MDB&M, which shall be used

17 as a cemetary; and (B) the existing bridge over the

18 Jarbidge River that provides access to that parcel,

19 and the road from the bridge to the parcel as de20 picted on the map entitled ‘Elko County Road and

21 Bridge Conveyance’ dated July 27, 1999.

22 (2) SURVEY.—The exact acreage and legal de23 scription of the property to be conveyed under sub24 section (a) shall be determined by a survey satisfac25 tory to the Secretary. As a condition of any convey26 ance under this section, the Secretary shall require
3

•HR 1231 EH

1 that the cost of the survey shall be borne by the

2 County.

3 (c) ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS.—The

4 Secretary may require such additional terms and condi5 tions with respect to the conveyance under subsection (a)

6 as the Secretary considers appropriate to protect the inter7 ests of the United States, except that the Secretary may

8 not retain for the United States any reversionary interest

9 in property conveyed under this section.

Passed the House of Representatives September 21,

1999.

Attest:

Clerk.
Michael Keith HENLEY, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-7931.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 25, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
Javier SOLIS, petitioner, v. Julie L. JONES, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.

No. 18-7416.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 18, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
William P. BRINGMAN, petitioner, v. Kyle JOHNSON, et al.

No. 17-1587.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
Dewey HYLOR, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-7113.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 25, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
EXHIBIT 99.1

                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 of Rad Source Technologies, Inc. on Form
10-KSB for the period ending September 30, 2002, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Randol Kirk, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Report
fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.

/s/ RANDOL KIRK                                     January 8, 2003
---------------------------------                   ----------------------------
Randol Kirk,                                        Date
Chief Executive Officer




                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 of Rad Source Technologies, Inc. on Form
10-KSB for the period ending September 30, 2002, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, William Hartman,
Chief Financial Officerer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.
1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.

/s/ WILLIAM HARTMAN                                 January 8, 2003
---------------------------------                   ----------------------------
William Hartman,                                    Date
Chief Financial Officer
Marcos CASTANEDA, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-7818.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 18, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
Lauro Abel GRIMALDO, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-9179.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Exhibit 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       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 of Wigwam Development Inc., (the "Company")
on amended Form 10-KSB for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Steven
Grauer, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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; and

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

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
17th day of October 2003.


/s/ Steven Grauer
---------------------------
Chief Financial Officer
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04

- 20

- 00380

- CV

IN RE W.W.
Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

PER CURIAM
Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Liza A. Rodriguez , Justice

Delivered and Filed: August 5, 2020

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On January 27, 2020, R elator filed a petition for writ of mandamus. Relator also filed a
motion for stay of the underlying proceedings pending final resolution of the petit ion for writ of
mandamus, which this court granted on July 28, 2020. The real party in interest filed a response.
After considering the petition
, the response , and the record, this court concludes R elator 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). The stay imposed on July 28 , 2020 is lifted.

PER CURIAM

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2010

- CI

- 17241 , styled In the Interest of W.W., a Child , pending in the 73rd Judicial District Court
, Bexar County, Texas . T he Honorable Mary Lou Alvarez signed the temporary orders at issue in this original proceeding.
Danny FABRICANT, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-9304.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
John Wessley GLEASON, petitioner, v. CALIFORNIA.

No. 17-9103.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, Sixth Appellate District denied.
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 of Dominos Pizza, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended January 2, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, David A. Brandon, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, 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, 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  |  |                         |  | 
| |  |  |  | ----------------------- |  | 
| |  |  |  | /s/ David A. Brandon    |  | 
| |  |  |  | David A. Brandon        |  | 
| |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer |  | 



Dated: March 10, 2005
Exhibit 23.2 CONSENT OF THE INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM To the Board
of Directors and Shareholders
DAG Media, Inc. We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements of DAG
Media, Inc. on Forms S-8 (#333-82374 and #333-127424) of our report dated March
13, 2008, on the consolidated balance sheet of Dag Media, Inc. and Subsidiaries
as of December 31, 2007, and the related consolidated statements of operations,
shareholders equity and cash flows for the year then ended, and the adjustment
to the 2006 financial statements to retrospectively apply the change in
accounting for discontinued operations of Shopila Corporation, as described in
Note 10, as appearing in the annual report on Form 10-KSB of DAG Media, Inc.
for the year ended December 31, 2007. By: /s/ Hoberman Miller Steven  & Lesser P.C. Hoberman Miller Steven & Lesser P.C March 13, 2008New York, New York
```
 
 
CRUDE OIL, LIGHT SWEET - ICE FUTURES EUROPE                          Code-067411
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 04/27/10          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 1,000 BARRELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:      529,380
COMMITMENTS
  33,328   13,116  116,953  358,421  379,544  508,701  509,612   20,679   19,768

CHANGES FROM 04/20/10 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:     27,453)
  -4,329   -3,785   16,386   14,851   15,124   26,908   27,725      545     -272

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
     6.3      2.5     22.1     67.7     71.7     96.1     96.3      3.9      3.7

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      113)
      23       19       37       60       64      103      104
```

----

Updated April 30, 2010
<PAGE>

                                                                 Exhibit 10.12.4

October 15, 1998

Richard J. Padulo
1650 Brooks Avenue
Rochester, NY 14624

Re:  Stock Rights Agreement
     ----------------------

Dear Dick:

The purpose of this letter is to formalize our understanding concerning certain
restrictions on your ownership and/or transfer of PaeTec Corp. stock pursuant to
your Stock Rights Agreement dated July 17, 1998. In particular, this letter
confirms that those restrictions will be relaxed as described below, effective
upon the third anniversary of your employment with PaeTec Communications, Inc.

As we have previously discussed, your decision to join PaeTec was based, in
part, on a mutual understanding concerning the nature and length of your
employment. Specifically, it was understood that following your third full year
of employment with PaeTec you would be entitled to reduce your status at PaeTec
to part-time employment (i.e., no more than twenty hours per week) or to assist
PaeTec on a consulting basis for no more than twenty hours per week, without
adversely affecting any "vesting" rights in your PaeTec stock. This letter
formalizes our understanding that a reduction of your employment status in the
manner indicated above will not be deemed to be a voluntary separation from the
company pursuant to Section 3(a) of the Stock Rights Agreement and therefore
will not trigger the "Purchase Option" described in Section 3. Instead, your
Stock Rights Agreement will continue in full force and effect just as if you
were continuing on as a full-time employee, and the Purchase Option will not
take effect until such time as it is triggered by some other event described in
the Stock Rights Agreement. If no such triggering event occurs, the Purchase
Option will still fully expire, as indicated in the Agreement, on the fourth
anniversary of your employment with PaeTec Communications, Inc.

I trust that this letter accurately summarizes our understanding with regard to
your Stock Rights Agreement and our mutual expectations of your employment with
PaeTec.  If so, please indicate your agreement with the terms of this letter by
countersigning below and returning this letter to me at your earliest
convenience.

Very truly yours,

PaeTec Corp. and PaeTec Communications, Inc.

/s/ Arunas A. Chesonis
----------------------------
Arunas A. Chesonis
President


Agreed as of this ____ day of 1/12, 1999

/s/ Richard J. Padulo
----------------------------
Richard J. Padulo
Burnett GODBEE, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-9151.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 25, 2019.

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

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1186 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1186

 To direct the Secretary of the Army to include primary flood damages 
avoided as benefits for cost-benefit analyses for Federal nonstructural 
        flood damage reduction projects, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 18, 1999

Mr. Blumenaur (for himself and Mr. Gilchrest) introduced the following 
    bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and 
                             Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To direct the Secretary of the Army to include primary flood damages 
avoided as benefits for cost-benefit analyses for Federal nonstructural 
        flood damage reduction projects, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. BENEFIT OF PRIMARY FLOOD DAMAGES AVOIDED INCLUDED IN COST-
              BENEFIT ANALYSIS.

    Section 308 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (33 
U.S.C. 2318) is amended--
            (1) in the heading to subsection (a) by striking ``Benefit-
        Cost Analysis'' and inserting ``Elements Excluded From Cost-
        Benefit Analysis'';
            (2) by redesignating subsections (b) through (e) as 
        subsections (c) through (f), respectively;
            (3) by inserting after subsection (a) the following:
    ``(b) Elements Included in Cost-Benefit Analysis.--The Secretary 
shall include primary flood damages avoided in the benefit base for 
justifying Federal nonstructural flood damage reduction projects.''; 
and
            (4) in the first sentence of subsection (e) (as 
        redesignated by paragraph (2)), by striking ``(b)'' and 
        inserting ``(d)''.

SEC. 2. COST SHARING.

    Section 103(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 
U.S.C. 2213(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following: ``At any 
time during construction of the project, if the Secretary determines 
that the costs of lands, easements, rights-of-way, dredged material 
disposal areas, and relocations in combination with other costs 
contributed by the non-Federal interests will exceed 35 percent, any 
additional costs for the project, but not to exceed 65 percent of the 
total costs of the project, shall be a Federal responsibility which 
shall be contributed during construction as part of the Federal 
proportionate share.''.

SEC. 3. REEVALUATION OF FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS.

    At the request of a non-Federal interest for a flood control 
project, the Secretary of the Army shall conduct a reevaluation of a 
previously authorized project to consider nonstructural alternatives in 
light of the amendments made by sections (1) and (2).
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1628
SARA E. PARKER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus HOMESTEAD STUDIO SUITES HOTEL, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CA-05-69-5) Submitted: August 18, 2005 Decided: August 23, 2005 Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sara E. Parker, Appellant Pro Se. Brian David Darer, PARKER, POE, ADAMS & BERNSTEIN, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Sara E. Parker appeals the district court’s order dismissing her housing discrimination action based on res judicata. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. SeeParker v. Homestead Studio Suites Hotel , No. CA-05-69-5 (E.D.N.C. May 13, 2005). 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
Antione CHAMBERS, aka Sealed Defendant 1, aka Twizzie, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-7184.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 19, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1357 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1357

  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the maximum 
 amount which may be contributed annually to an individual retirement 
    plan to $5,000 and to increase the maximum amount which may be 
 contributed annually to an education individual retirement account to 
                                $2,000.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 25, 1999

  Mr. Souder (for himself, Mr. Frost, Mr. Fossella, Mrs. Emerson, Mr. 
Shows, Mr. Forbes, Mr. Paul, Mr. Wynn, Mr. Hostettler, Mr. Nethercutt, 
    Mr. Burr of North Carolina, and Mr. Gary Miller of California) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the maximum 
 amount which may be contributed annually to an individual retirement 
    plan to $5,000 and to increase the maximum amount which may be 
 contributed annually to an education individual retirement account to 
                                $2,000.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Retirement and Education Assets 
Power Act''.

SEC. 2. INCREASE IN MAXIMUM ANNUAL CONTRIBUTION TO INDIVIDUAL 
              RETIREMENT PLAN.

    (a) In General.--Subparagraph (A) of section 219(b)(1) of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to maximum amount of deduction) 
is amended by striking ``$2,000'' and inserting ``$5,000''.
    (b) Conforming Amendments.--Subsections (a)(1), (b), (j), and 
(p)(8) of section 408 of such Code are each amended by striking 
``$2,000'' each place it appears and inserting ``$5,000''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 1999.

SEC. 3. INCREASE IN MAXIMUM ANNUAL CONTRIBUTION TO EDUCATION INDIVIDUAL 
              RETIREMENT ACCOUNT.

    (a) In General.--Section 530(b)(1)(A)(iii) of the Internal Revenue 
Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``$500'' and inserting ``$2,000''.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 4973(e)(1)(A) of such Code is 
amended by striking ``$500'' and inserting ``$2,000''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 1999.
                                 <all>
```
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-10796

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

LUANN FREEMAN,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:98-CR-8-1

- - - - - - - - - -

April 15, 1999

Before JONES, SMITH, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Luann Freeman appeals the sentence imposed following her

conviction for misapplication of bank funds, making false

entries, and mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 656, 1005,

and 1341. She argues that the district court erred in imposing a

two-level vulnerable-victim enhancement, pursuant to U.S.S.G. 

§ 3A1.1(b), and a two-level enhancement for abuse of a position

of trust, pursuant to § 3B1.3.
No. 98-10796

-2-

We have reviewed the record and the briefs submitted by the

parties and conclude that the district court did not err in

assessing either enhancement. See United States v. Robinson, 119

F.3d 1205, 1218 (5th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 1104

(1998)(upholding vulnerable-victim enhancement); United States v.

Fisher, 7 F.3d 69, 70 (5th Cir. 1993)(upholding enhancement for

abuse of a position of trust). 

AFFIRMED.
Jose DIAZ, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-6606.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

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