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

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5743 

To provide the Secretary of Homeland Security with the authority to procure 

real property and accept in-kind donations. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 9, 2008 

Mr. BROUN of Georgia introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Homeland Security 

A BILL 

To provide the Secretary of Homeland Security with the 

authority to procure real property and accept in-kind 

donations. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Scientific Trans5 formations through Advancing Research (STAR) Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. AUTHORITY OF SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECU7 RITY TO PROCURE REAL PROPERTY AND AC8 CEPT IN-KIND DONATIONS. 

9 The Secretary of Homeland Security may accept and 

10 use donations of real property, personal property, laboraVerDate Aug 31 2005 03:30 Apr 11, 2008 Jkt 069200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H5743.IH H5743

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5743 IH

1 tory and office space, utility services, and infrastructure 

2 upgrades for the purpose of carrying out basic, applied, 

3 and advanced research, development, testing, evaluation, 

4 and related activities. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 10, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 05-10581

Summary Calendar

 

DONNELL LINTHECOME,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JOHN W. SNOW, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT

OF TREASURY,

Defendant-Appellee.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas 

(USDC No. 3:05-CV-27)

_________________________________________________________

Before REAVLEY, JOLLY and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Linthecome argues that the grievance procedure he selected did not require appeal

to the arbitrator, a step that is required for exhaustion of the administrative remedies. 

That same contention was raised in the prior appeal. He lost that appeal for failure to
2

exhaust administrative remedies, and now he offers no support for his contention that an

appeal to an arbitrator is not required or that anything has changed.

The jurisdiction of the court over the exhaustion issue was resolved in the prior

cases. Linthecome is estopped to raise it here.

AFFIRMED.
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3150 

To prohibit the Secretary of Transportation or the Administrator of the 

Federal Aviation Administration from conducting auctions, implementing 

congestion pricing, limiting airport operations, or charging certain use 

fees at airports. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 18, 2008 

Mr. SCHUMER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To prohibit the Secretary of Transportation or the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration from conducting auctions, implementing congestion pricing, limiting airport operations, or charging certain use fees 

at airports. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Access to Air Travel 

5 Act’’. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•S 3150 IS

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON FEDERALLY-IMPOSED AUCTIONS 

2 AND CONGESTION PRICING AT COMMERCIAL 

3 AIRPORTS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provi5 sion of law, the Secretary of Transportation and the Ad6 ministrator of the Federal Aviation Administration may 

7 not promulgate any regulation or take any action to regu8 late the scheduling of airline operations at any commercial 

9 airport in the United States if such regulation or action 

10 includes the Secretary or the Administrator— 

11 (1) auctioning rights or permission to conduct 

12 airline operations at such airport; 

13 (2) implementing peak-period pricing or an14 other form of congestion pricing at such airport; 

15 (3)(A) withdrawing the right or permission to 

16 conduct operations at such airport (except for a 

17 withdrawal for operational reasons or pursuant to 

18 the terms or conditions of such right or permission); 

19 or 

20 (B) requiring a carrier to transfer any such 

21 right or permission to another person; 

22 (4) charging a fee for the right or permission 

23 to use navigable airspace at such airport; or 

24 (5) requiring, or providing incentives or dis25 incentives to, airport proprietors to take any of the 

26 actions described in paragraphs (1) through (4). 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
3 

•S 3150 IS

1 (b) SAVINGS PROVISION.—Nothing in this Act may 

2 be construed to limit the ability of a State, a political sub3 division of a State, or a political authority of more than 

4 1 State that owns or operates a commercial airport from 

5 carrying out its proprietary powers and rights. 

Æ 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
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 ACI Telecentrics, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Rick N. Diamond, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, 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 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
                  operation of the Company.



Dated: /s/ June 2, 2003                              By: /s/ RICK N. DIAMOND
       -------------------                               -----------------------
                                                         Rick N. Diamond
                                                         Chief Executive Officer





                                       59
STATE v. BADDERS

No. COA06-603.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed March 20, 2007.

Certification Date April 9, 2007.

Appeal from Lee (05CRS54487, 05CRS54488).

Case Reported Without Published Opinion. Reversed.
EXHIBIT 23.1

The Board of Directors and Stockholders
On Command Corporation:

We
consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No. 333-33149) on Form S-8 of On Command Corporation (a majority-owned subsidiary of Ascent Entertainment Group, Inc.) of our
reports relating to the consolidated balance sheets of On Command Corporation and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2001 and 2000 and the related consolidated statements of operations, comprehensive
loss, stockholders' equity and cash flows for each of the years in the two-year period ended December 31, 2001, and the related schedule, which reports appear in the December 31, 2001, Annual
Report on Form 10-K of On Command Corporation.

KPMG
LLP

Denver,
Colorado
March 22, 2002

---
STATE v. BELCHER

No. COA06-982.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed June 5, 2007.

Certification Date June 25, 2007.

Appeal from Pitt (03CRS51105, 03CRS51106).

Cases reported without published opinion. No error.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM SEC FORM
10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-29-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-17-1998
<CASH>                                          81,863
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  100,056
<ALLOWANCES>                                     6,935
<INVENTORY>                                     17,609
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               193,008
<PP&E>                                         968,109
<DEPRECIATION>                                 261,896
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,038,337
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          137,830
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           902
<OTHER-SE>                                     466,199
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,038,337
<SALES>                                        109,664
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               384,869
<CGS>                                           94,970
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  348,181
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,321
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              14,871
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 23,741
<INCOME-TAX>                                     9,461
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             13,356
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (1,176)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    12,180
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.14
        


</TABLE>
Order filed May 24, 20 12

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________
NO. 14

- 12

- 00 458

- CV

____________ JEANIE TURNER, INDIVIDUALLY, AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF TRAVIS KELLY TURNER, INDIVIDUALLY, AND DEREK TURNER, INDIVIDUALLY , Appellant s

V.

CONTINENTAL AIRLINES, INC., THE CITY OF HOUSTON, JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC., WEBBER, LLC, POST, BUCKLEY, SCHUH & JERNIGAN, INC. (PBS&J) , Appellee s

On Appeal from Probate Court No. 2 Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 401,097



### O R D E R

This is an appeal from a judgment signed May 8, 2012 . The clerk ’ s record was filed May 17, 2012

.

Our review has determined that a relevant item has been omitted from the clerk's

record. See Tex. R. App . P. 34.5(c). The record does not contain the judgment signed May 8, 2012.2

The Harris County Clerk is directed to file a supplemental clerk ’ s record on or

before June 14 , 20 12 , containing the judgment signed May 8, 2012.

If the omitted item is not part of the case file, the district clerk is directed to file a supplemental clerk ’ s record containing a certified statement that the omitted item is not a part of the case file.

PER CURIAM
COLEMAN v. FIRST STAR, INC.

No. COA06-1445.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed July 3, 2007.

Certification Date July 23, 2007.

Appeal from the Mecklenburg (04CVS11192).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 76/2013Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 76/2013 of 25 January 2013 establishing the standard import values for determining            the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 76/2013                     

# of 25 January 2013

# establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural                           markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation)(1),                        

Having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application                           of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors(2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations,                              the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products                              and periods stipulated in Annex XVI, Part A thereto.

(2)The standard import value is calculated each working day, in accordance with Article 136(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU)                              No 543/2011, taking into account variable daily data. Therefore this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its                              publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

The standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to                     this Regulation.                  

# Article 2U.K.

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*.                  

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 25 January 2013.

*For the Commission, On behalf of the President*,                           

José Manuel Silva Rodríguez                            

*Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development*                            

## ANNEXU.K.Standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

1

OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.                           

2

OJ L 157, 15.6.2011, p. 1.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-7393

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ANGELO MARQUIS DRAPER,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (2:12-cr-00090-RGD-DEM-2; 2:15-

cv-00503-RGD)

Submitted: May 27, 2021 Decided: June 17, 2021

Before KING, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Angelo Marquis Draper, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Angelo Marquis Draper appeals the district court’s order construing his Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 60(b) motion as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and dismissing it without prejudice as 

successive.

*

 We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we 

affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Draper, Nos. 2:12-cr00090-RGD-DEM-2, 2:15-cv-00503-RGD (E.D. Va. July 14, 2020). 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.

AFFIRMED

* Draper also appealed the district court’s dismissal of his motion to reconsider for 

lack of jurisdiction. However, he abandoned any claims relative to that order by failing to 

raise them in his informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 

177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit 

rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATION FOUND ON 
PAGES 1 AND 2 OF THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE YEAR TO DATE, AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                             273
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,545
<ALLOWANCES>                                       356
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                13,524
<PP&E>                                           8,554
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,847
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  44,606
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,959
<BONDS>                                          9,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      24,130
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    44,606
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                47,999
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   34,897
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 348
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 12,754
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,456
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,298
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,298
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.45
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.37
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JAN-23-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-25-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUL-25-1999
<CASH>                                         18,590
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  49,695
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,173)
<INVENTORY>                                    392,760
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               459,872
<PP&E>                                         460,291
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (150,715)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 872,547
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          396,369
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       320
<OTHER-SE>                                     275,178
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   872,547
<SALES>                                        385,550
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               385,892
<CGS>                                          284,394
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  284,394
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               93,711
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             4,029
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                3,758
<INCOME-TAX>                                   1,493
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            2,265
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   2,265
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0.07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.07



</TABLE>
STATE of North Carolina v. Wayne Thomas JOHNSON.

No. 119P00-14.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 16, 2006.

Wayne Thomas Johnson, Pro Se.

Robert Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, Robert F. Johnson, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by defendant on the 6th day of November 2006 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Alamance County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 16th day of November 2006."
# L_2013077EN.01000101.xml

| 20.3.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 77/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 77/1

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 18 March 2013

establishing the position to be taken on behalf of the European Union within the International Grains Council with respect to the extension of the Grains Trade Convention 1995

(2013/138/EU)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 207 in conjunction with Article 218(9) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,

Whereas:

The Grains Trade Convention 1995 was concluded by Council Decision 96/88/EC (1) and was regularly extended for further periods of two years. That Convention was extended the last time by decision of the International Grains Council in June 2011 and remains in force until 30 June 2013. A further extension is in the interest of the Union. The Commission, which represents the Union within the International Grains Council, should therefore be authorised to vote in favour of such extension,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The position to be taken on behalf of the Union within the International Grains Council shall be to vote in favour of the extension of the Grains Trade Convention 1995 for a further period of up to two years.

The Commission is hereby authorised to express that position within the International Grains Council.

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 18 March 2013.

For the Council

The President

S. COVENEY

---

(1)  
  OJ L 21, 27.1.1996, p. 47.

1

---
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-20824 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JERSON OBED BRIZUELA-PAZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-00-CR-173-1

-------------------- April 12, 2001 Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Jerson Obed Brizuela-Paz appeals the 71-month sentence imposed following his plea of guilty to being found in the United States after deportation, a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He contends that the felony conviction that resulted in his increased sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) was an element of the offense that should have been charged in the indictment. Brizuela acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he seeks to preserve the issue forNo. 00-20824 -2- review in light of the decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000). Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres

. See Apprendi , 120 S. Ct. at 2362; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied , 121 S. Ct. 1214 (2001). Brizuela’s argument is foreclosed. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.