alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Albert Morris v. Wells Fargo Bank

Appellate case number: 01

- 19

- 00610

- CV

Trial court case number: 15

- DCV

- 221475

Trial court: 434th District Court of Fort Bend County

Appellant’s motion to recall the mandate issued in this appeal is DENIED.

Judge’s signature:

___

/s/Sar ah B. Landau

____________________________________

Acting for the Court

Panel consists of Justices Lloyd

, Goodman, and Landau

Date:

__ December 15, 2020

____
Gilbert POSTELLE, petitioner, v. Mike CARPENTER, Interim Warden.

No. 18-8583.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 3, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 1729

AN ACT

To designate the Federal facility located at 1301

Emmet Street in Charlottesville, Virginia, as the‘‘Pamela B. Gwin Hall’’.

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 1729

AN ACT

To designate the Federal facility located at 1301 Emmet

Street in Charlottesville, Virginia, as the ‘‘Pamela B.

Gwin Hall’’.

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

•HR 1729 EH

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF PAMELA B. GWIN HALL.

2 The Federal facility located at 1301 Emmet Street

3 in Charlottesville, Virginia, shall be known and designated

4 as the ‘‘Pamela B. Gwin Hall’’.

5 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

6 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

7 paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal

8 building referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be

9 a reference to the ‘‘Pamela B. Gwin Hall’’.

Passed the House of Representatives May 3, 2000.

Attest:

Clerk.
# Úradný vestník C 57/2022

| | ISSN 1977-1037 |
| --- | --- |
| Úradný vestník
  Európskej únie | C 57 |
| | |
| Slovenské vydanie | Informácie a oznámenia | Ročník 653. februára 2022 |

ISSN 1977-1037

Úradný vestník

Európskej únie

C 57

Slovenské vydanie

Informácie a oznámenia

Ročník 653. februára 2022

---

| Obsah | Strana |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Informácie |
| | INFORMÁCIE INŠTITÚCIÍ, ORGÁNOV, ÚRADOV A AGENTÚR EURÓPSKEJ ÚNIE |
| | Európska komisia |
| 2022/C 57/01 | Výmenný kurz eura — 2. februára 2022 | 1 |

Obsah

Strana

IV   Informácie

INFORMÁCIE INŠTITÚCIÍ, ORGÁNOV, ÚRADOV A AGENTÚR EURÓPSKEJ ÚNIE

Európska komisia

2022/C 57/01

Výmenný kurz eura — 2. februára 2022

1

---

| SK | |
| --- | --- |

SK

---

IV Informácie

INFORMÁCIE INŠTITÚCIÍ, ORGÁNOV, ÚRADOV A AGENTÚR EURÓPSKEJ ÚNIE

Európska komisia

| 3.2.2022 | SK | Úradný vestník Európskej únie | C 57/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.2.2022

SK

Úradný vestník Európskej únie

C 57/1

---

Výmenný kurz eura (1)

2. februára 2022

(2022/C 57/01)

1 euro =

| | Mena | Výmenný kurz |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | Americký dolár | 1,1323 |
| JPY | Japonský jen | 129,37 |
| DKK | Dánska koruna | 7,4383 |
| GBP | Britská libra | 0,83395 |
| SEK | Švédska koruna | 10,3850 |
| CHF | Švajčiarsky frank | 1,0399 |
| ISK | Islandská koruna | 143,20 |
| NOK | Nórska koruna | 9,9228 |
| BGN | Bulharský lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Česká koruna | 24,298 |
| HUF | Maďarský forint | 354,45 |
| PLN | Poľský zlotý | 4,5449 |
| RON | Rumunský lei | 4,9463 |
| TRY | Turecká líra | 15,3011 |
| AUD | Austrálsky dolár | 1,5828 |
| CAD | Kanadský dolár | 1,4330 |
| HKD | Hongkongský dolár | 8,8245 |
| NZD | Novozélandský dolár | 1,7010 |
| SGD | Singapurský dolár | 1,5254 |
| KRW | Juhokórejský won | 1 359,23 |
| ZAR | Juhoafrický rand | 17,3459 |
| CNY | Čínsky juan | 7,2026 |
| HRK | Chorvátska kuna | 7,5260 |
| IDR | Indonézska rupia | 16 243,98 |
| MYR | Malajzijský ringgit | 4,7392 |
| PHP | Filipínske peso | 57,785 |
| RUB | Ruský rubeľ | 85,8150 |
| THB | Thajský baht | 37,575 |
| BRL | Brazílsky real | 5,9677 |
| MXN | Mexické peso | 23,2134 |
| INR | Indická rupia | 84,6130 |

Mena

Výmenný kurz

USD

Americký dolár

1,1323

JPY

Japonský jen

129,37

DKK

Dánska koruna

7,4383

GBP

Britská libra

0,83395

SEK

Švédska koruna

10,3850

CHF

Švajčiarsky frank

1,0399

ISK

Islandská koruna

143,20

NOK

Nórska koruna

9,9228

BGN

Bulharský lev

1,9558

CZK

Česká koruna

24,298

HUF

Maďarský forint

354,45

PLN

Poľský zlotý

4,5449

RON

Rumunský lei

4,9463

TRY

Turecká líra

15,3011

AUD

Austrálsky dolár

1,5828

CAD

Kanadský dolár

1,4330

HKD

Hongkongský dolár

8,8245

NZD

Novozélandský dolár

1,7010

SGD

Singapurský dolár

1,5254

KRW

Juhokórejský won

1 359,23

ZAR

Juhoafrický rand

17,3459

CNY

Čínsky juan

7,2026

HRK

Chorvátska kuna

7,5260

IDR

Indonézska rupia

16 243,98

MYR

Malajzijský ringgit

4,7392

PHP

Filipínske peso

57,785

RUB

Ruský rubeľ

85,8150

THB

Thajský baht

37,575

BRL

Brazílsky real

5,9677

MXN

Mexické peso

23,2134

INR

Indická rupia

84,6130

---

(1)  Zdroj: referenčný výmenný kurz publikovaný ECB.

---
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1669

To provide that an annual pay adjustment for Members of Congress may

not exceed the cost-of-living adjustment in benefits under title II of

the Social Security Act for that year.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 4, 1999

Mr. GOSS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Government Reform, and in addition to the Committee on House Administration, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker,

in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

A BILL

To provide that an annual pay adjustment for Members

of Congress may not exceed the cost-of-living adjustment

in benefits under title II of the Social Security Act

for that year.

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

3 SECTION 1. LIMITATION.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 601(a) of the Legislative

5 Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 31) is amended by

6 adding at the end the following:
2

•HR 1669 IH

1 ‘‘(3)(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of this

2 subsection, rates of pay for positions referred to in para3 graph (1) may not be increased, as a result of an adjust4 ment scheduled to take effect under paragraph (2) in a

5 year, by a percentage greater than the maximum percent6 age allowable for such year.

7 ‘‘(B) For purposes of subparagraph (A), the max8 imum percentage allowable for a year is the percentage

9 by which benefits under title II of the Social Security Act

10 are increased (if at all) effective December 1st of the pre11 ceding year—

12 ‘‘(i) as a result of a determination under section

13 215(i) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 415(i)); or

14 ‘‘(ii) pursuant to a law providing a general ben15 efit increase under such title.’’.

16 (b) APPLICABILITY.—The amendment made by this

17 section shall apply with respect to any pay adjustment

18 under section 601(a)(2) of the Legislative Reorganization

19 Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 31(2)) scheduled to take effect after

20 December 31, 2000.

Æ
Rufus SPEARMAN, petitioner, v. Mary PARSON, et al.

No. 18-8538.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 20, 2019.

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

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                            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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Northern Border
Partners, L.P. (the "Partnership") for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2004
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), Jerry L. Peters, as Chief Financial and Accounting Officer of the
Partnership, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      (1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
            section 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 results of operations
            of the Partnership.

Dated: August 6, 2004                   /s/ Jerry L. Peters
                                      ------------------------------------------
                                      Jerry L. Peters
                                      Chief Financial and Accounting Officer

This certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and
not for any other purpose.
John WHALEY, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-8504.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 22, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 18-1162

Filed June 5, 2019

STATE OF IOWA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

ROOSEVELT JERRY SMITH SR.,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Cheryl E. Traum, 

District Associate Judge.

Roosevelt Jerry Smith Sr. appeals his sentence for driving while barred as 

a habitual offender. AFFIRMED.

Thomas Hurd of Greenberg & Hurd, LLP, Des Moines, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Genevieve Reinkoester, Assistant 

Attorney General, for appellee.

Considered by Potterfield, P.J., Doyle, J., and Carr, S.J.*

*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 (2019).
2

CARR, Senior Judge.

Roosevelt Jerry Smith Sr. appeals his sentence. He entered into a plea 

agreement with the State wherein he agreed to plead guilty to driving while barred 

as a habitual offender. See Iowa Code §§ 321.555, .561 (2017). The State in turn 

agreed to “recommend a fine of [$2000] and 365 days incarceration with all but 60 

days suspended.” The court accepted his plea. On June 27, 2018, the court 

sentenced him to 365 days incarceration with all but sixty days suspended, 

imposed a $1000 fine, and placed him on one year of unsupervised probation. He 

appeals.

For sentences within the statutory limits, our review is for an abuse of 

discretion. State v. Gordon, 921 N.W.2d 19, 24 (Iowa 2018). “We will find an 

abuse of discretion when ‘the district court exercises its discretion on grounds or 

for reasons that were clearly untenable or unreasonable.’” Id. (quoting State v. 

Thompson, 856 N.W.2d 915, 918 (Iowa 2014)). 

Smith acknowledges his sentence is within the statutory limits. 

Nevertheless, he argues the district court abused its discretion by sentencing him 

to incarceration instead of supervised probation. Sentences “are cloaked with a 

strong presumption in their favor,” and he has not overcome this presumption. 

State v. Loyd, 530 N.W.2d 708, 713 (Iowa 1995). The court sentenced him to 

exactly the disposition contemplated by the plea agreement, except (1) the court 

reduced the agreed fine from $2000 to $1000, and (2) the court placed him on 

unsupervised probation, a topic on which the agreement is silent. Iowa Code 

section 907.3(3) provides, “the court may suspend the sentence and place the 

defendant on probation upon such terms and conditions as it may require.” The 
3

term of probation is consistent with, and likely required by, the statute. The court 

indicated its reasons for the sentence are “[t]he nature and circumstances of the 

offense” and his “criminal history.” We find no abuse in the court’s exercise of 

discretion in sentencing. Therefore, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1596 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1596

  To amend the Public Health Service Act to provide, with respect to 
 research on breast cancer, for the increased involvement of advocates 
          in decisionmaking at the National Cancer Institute.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 28, 1999

 Mrs. Lowey (for herself and Mrs. McCarthy of New York) introduced the 
    following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Public Health Service Act to provide, with respect to 
 research on breast cancer, for the increased involvement of advocates 
          in decisionmaking at the National Cancer Institute.

    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 ``Consumer Involvement in Breast 
Cancer Research Act''.

SEC. 2. INCREASED INVOLVEMENT OF ADVOCATES IN DECISION MAKING REGARDING 
              RESEARCH ON BREAST CANCER.

    Section 417(c) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 285a-
6(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following paragraph:
            ``(3) Involvement of advocates in decisionmaking.--
                    ``(A) The Director of the Institute shall, to the 
                extent practicable, provide for the increased 
                involvement (relative to fiscal year 1999) of advocates 
                in decisionmaking at the Institute regarding research 
                on breast cancer.
                    ``(B) For purposes of this paragraph, the term 
                `advocate' means an individual who is accountable to, 
                represents, and reports back to organizations that 
                represent those affected by breast cancer.
                    ``(C) The Director of the Institute shall prepare a 
                report on the manner in which subparagraph (A) has been 
                carried out. The report shall be included in the first 
                report under section 407 that the Director submits 
                after the expiration of the one-year period beginning 
                on the date of the enactment of the Consumer 
                Involvement in Breast Cancer Research Act.''.
                                 <all>
```
(LOGO) Pricewaterhouse Coopers

Pricewaterhouse Coopers LLP
Bank of America Corporate Center
100 N. Tryon Street
Suite 5400
Charlotte NC 28202
Telephone (704)344 7500


REPORT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

February 28, 2000

To the Board of Directors and Shareholder of Bank of America, N.A.

We have examined management's assertion about compliance by BA Mortgage, LLC and
the Mortgage  division of Bank of America,  N.A.(collectively,  the  "Company"),
which together comprise an operating division of Bank of America, N.A., with the
minimum servicing standards (the "Standards") identified in the Mortgage Bankers
Association of America's Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers
("USAP")  as of and for  the  year  ended  December  31,  1999  included  in the
accompanying  management assertion,  attached hereto as Exhibit I. Management is
responsible for the Company's compliance with the Standards.  Our responsibility
is  to  express  an  opinion  on  management's  assertion  about  the  Company's
compliance based on our examination.

Our  examination  was  made in  accordance  with  standards  established  by the
American  Institute of Certified Public Accountants and,  accordingly,  included
examining,  on a test basis,  evidence about the Company's  compliance  with the
Standards and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the
circumstances.  We believe that our examination  provides a reasonable basis for
our  opinion.  Our  examination  does not provide a legal  determination  on the
Company's compliance with the Standards.

In our opinion,  management's  assertion that, except as indicated in Exhibit I,
the Company  complied with the  aforementioned  Standards as of and for the year
ended December 31,1999 is fairly stated, in all material respects.

Pricewaterhouse Coopers LLP
Min KWON, petitioner, v. ERIE INSURANCE.

No. 18-5335.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Virginia 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 Aquatic Cellulose International Corporation
      (the "Company") on Form 10KSB for the period ending May 31, 2005 as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
      Sheridan Westgarde Chief Executive Officer of the Company certify, pursuant
      to
      18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act
      of 2002, that, to the best of the undersigned’s knowledge and
      belief:





(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.





/s/
                Sheridan Westgarde
              Sheridan
                Westgarde
              Chief
                Executive Officer
              October
                28, 2005
ARMANDO C. IBARRA
CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
(A Professional Corporation)


Armando C. Ibarra, C.P.A.
Members of the California Society of
Armando Ibarra, Jr., C.P.A.
Certified Public Accounts



March 19, 2000


Shaw International, Inc.
6025 South Eaton Lane
Littleton, Colorado, USA 80123



Re: Shaw International, Inc.



This is to confirm that we consent to the use of our December 31, 2000 audited
financial statements of Shaw International, Inc. in your required SEC filings
including the 10K report.



Sincerely,



ARMANDO IBARRA
--------------
ARMANDO IBARRA, C.P.A.
350 E. Street, Chula Vista, CA 91910
Tel: (619) 422-1348
Fax: (619) 422-1465
Darrell J. HARPER, petitioner, v. Jim CROW.

No. 17-9538.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied, and petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit dismissed. See Rule 39.8. As petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court's process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and petition submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See *Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals,*506 U.S. 1, 113 S.Ct. 397, 121 L.Ed.2d 305 (1992)*(per curiam)* .
```
 
 
CRUDE OIL, LIGHT SWEET - ICE FUTURES EUROPE                          Code-067411
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 02/15/11          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 1,000 BARRELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:      620,916
COMMITMENTS
  53,651   12,512  137,024  402,911  451,638  593,587  601,175   27,329   19,741

CHANGES FROM 02/08/11 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:       -806)
  -5,082   -4,076    5,375    1,426   -3,660    1,719   -2,361   -2,525    1,555

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
     8.6      2.0     22.1     64.9     72.7     95.6     96.8      4.4      3.2

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      131)
      38       19       48       65       67      122      118
```

----

Updated February 18, 2011
Christopher M. HOLMES, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-5183.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

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

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 23-0735

CHRISTIAN MICHAEL SMITH,

Petitioner and Appellant, 

v. 

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Respondent and Appellee.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30-day extension of time, 

and good cause appearing therefor,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee is granted an extension of time 

to and including May 22, 2024, within which to prepare, file, and serve its 

response brief.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 16 2024

04/16/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0735
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-6610

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

NATHANIEL GRAHAM, a/k/a Nasty,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, 

at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, Chief District Judge. (3:12-cr-00188-FDW-DSC-13; 

3:17-cv-00260-FDW)

Submitted: August 16, 2018 Decided: August 21, 2018

Before WYNN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Nathaniel Graham, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Nathaniel Graham seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 

28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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) (2012). 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 (2000); see Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (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 motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a 

constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Graham 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 this court and argument 

would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

A.D. Cross, Jr., * From the County Court at Law

of Taylor County,

Trial Court No. 1-997-17.

Vs. No. 11-18-00326-CR * November 19, 2020

The State of Texas, * Memorandum Opinion by Wright, S.C.J. 

(Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Stretcher, J., and Wright, S.C.J., 

sitting by assignment)

(Willson, J., not participating)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is no 

error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, 

the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.