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

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4073 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4073

To amend the Real ID Act of 2005 to repeal provisions requiring uniform 
 State driver's licenses and State identification cards, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 21, 2014

  Mr. Daines introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
 Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and in addition to the 
Committee on the Judiciary, 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 amend the Real ID Act of 2005 to repeal provisions requiring uniform 
 State driver's licenses and State identification cards, 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. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Repeal ID Act of 2014''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF REQUIREMENTS FOR UNIFORM STATE DRIVER'S LICENSES AND 
              STATE IDENTIFICATION CARDS.

    (a) Repeal.--Title II of the Real ID Act of 2005 (49 U.S.C. 30301 
note) is repealed.
    (b) Conforming Amendments.--
            (1) Title 18, u.s.c.--Section 1028(a)(8) of title 18, 
        United States Code, is amended by striking ``false or actual 
        authentication features'' and inserting ``false identification 
        features''.
            (2) Intelligence reform and terrorism prevention act of 
        2004.--Section 7212 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism 
        Prevention Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-458) is amended to read 
        as if section 206 of the Real ID Act, as in effect on the date 
        of the enactment of that Act, were not enacted.
                                 <all>
```
STATE of North Carolina v. Mohammed N. JILANI.

No. 325P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Sept. 22, 2015.

Mohammed Nadder Jilani, for Jilani, Mohammed Nadder.

Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of N.C.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 21st of September 2015 in this matter for a writ of mandamus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Wake County:

> "Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 22nd of September 2015."
State v. Charles Everette Hinton

449P11-14

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 18, 2016

*791Charles E. Hinton, for Hinton, Charles Everette.

Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of N.C.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 11th of August 2016 by Defendant for Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 18th of August 2016."

Ervin, J. recused
NO. 12-08-00347-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

ROY E. ADDICKS, JR., § APPEAL FROM THE 369TH

APPELLANT 

V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT 

T.D.C.J.–OFFENDER TRANSPORTATION

DEPARTMENT, ET AL,

APPELLEES § ANDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS

______________________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This appeal is being dismissed for want of jurisdiction pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate

Procedure 42.3(a). The trial court’s judgment was signed on April 29, 2008. Under rule of

appellate procedure 26.1(b), the notice of appeal must be filed within ninety days after the

judgment is signed if any party timely files a motion to modify, correct, or reform the trial court’s

judgment. TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(a)(2). Appellant timely filed such a motion. Consequently, his

notice of appeal was due to have been filed on or before July 28, 2008. However, Appellant did

not file his notice of appeal until August 22, 2008. Moreover, he did not file a motion to extend

the time for filing the notice of appeal as permitted by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.3.

Because the notice of appeal was not filed on or before July 28, 2008, it was untimely, and this

court has no jurisdiction to consider the appeal.

On August 28, 2008, this court notified Appellant pursuant to Texas Rules of Appellate

Procedure 37.1 and 42.3 that his notice of appeal was untimely. The court further informed him

that unless the record was amended on or before September 8, 2008 to establish the jurisdiction of

this court, the appeal would be dismissed. Appellant responded, asserting that he could not file his

notice of appeal earlier because his objections to the trial court’s judgment had not been ruled on
2

by the trial court. The applicable rule of appellate procedure contains no such prerequisite to filing

a notice of appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(a)(2). 

Appellant’s notice of appeal was untimely filed, and this court is not authorized to extend

the time for perfecting an appeal except as provided by Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 26.1

and 26.3. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P.

42.3(a). All other pending motions are overruled as moot.

 JAMES T. WORTHEN 

 Chief Justice

Opinion delivered October 8, 2008.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(PUBLISH)
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Department of the Army; Corps of Engineers

# AGENCY:

Department of the Army, U.S. Army of Corps of Engineers, DoD.

# ACTION:

Notice of open meeting. 

# SUMMARY:

In Accordance with 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), announcement is made of the forthcoming meeting.

*Name of Committee:*                         Inland Waterways Users Board (Board).                    

*Date:*                         February 24, 2005.                    

*Location:*                         The Washington Court Hotel, 525 New Jersey Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20001-1527, (1-202-628-2100).                    

*Time:*                         Registration will begin at 8:30 a.m. and the meeting is scheduled to adjourn at 1 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         The Board will hear briefings on the status of both the funding for inland navigation projects and studies, and the Inland Waterways Trust Fund. The Board will also consider its priorities for the next fiscal year.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Norman T. Edwards, Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, CEMP-POD, 441 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20314-1000; Ph: 202-761-1934.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The meeting is open to the public. Any interested person may attend, appear before, or file statements with the committee at the time and in the manner permitted by the committee.

Brenda S. Bowen,

Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 05-1913 Filed 2-1-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3710-92-M
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 21 January 2009 – Korsch v OHIM (PharmaCheck)**

**(Case T-296/07)**

Community trade mark – Application for the Community word mark PharmaCheck – Absolute ground for refusal – Descriptive character – Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Restriction of the list of goods

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of goods (Council Regulation
No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 31, 41, 53)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 June 2007 (Case R 358/2007-4) concerning an application for registration of the word sign PharmaCheck as a Community trade mark. |

**Information relating to the case**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| Applicant for the Community trade mark: | Korsch AG |
| Community trade mark sought: | Word mark PharmaCheck for goods in Class 9 – Application No 5310214 |
| Decision of the examiner: | Registration refused |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Appeal dismissed |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Dismisses the action; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders Korsch AG to pay the costs. |
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4002 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4002

 To revoke the charter of incorporation of the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma 
         at the request of that tribe, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 5, 2014

Mr. Mullin (for himself, Mr. Cole, and Mr. Young of Alaska) introduced 
  the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural 
                               Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To revoke the charter of incorporation of the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma 
         at the request of that tribe, 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. REVOCATION OF CHARTER OF INCORPORATION.

    The request of the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma to surrender the charter 
of incorporation issued to that tribe and ratified by its members on 
June 1, 1940, pursuant to the Act of June 26, 1936 (25 U.S.C. 501 et 
seq.; commonly known as the ``Oklahoma Welfare Act''), is hereby 
accepted and that charter of incorporation is hereby revoked.
                                 <all>
```
See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“W hen denying relief, the court m ay hand down an opinion but 1

is not required to do so.”); TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and m em orandum opinions).

IN RE: BARRY DWAYNE MINNFEE
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-08-00442-CV

In re Healthy Innovations, Inc. and Kevin Serafini

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TRAVIS COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

The real party in interest, Bar Nothing Distributors, L.P., has filed an Unopposed

Motion to Abate requesting that this original proceeding be abated pending mediation of the

underlying dispute. We grant the motion to abate. We dismiss the motion to expedite consideration

of the motion to abate as moot.

This original proceeding is abated until further order of the Court. The parties must

file a letter reporting the status of this cause on or before November 10, 2008. Any party may file

a motion to reinstate at any time.

 

G. Alan Waldrop, Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Puryear and Waldrop

Abated

Filed: October 15, 2008
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

2008-1132 

1ST TECHNOLOGY LLC, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

RATIONAL ENTERPRISES LTDA. and RATIONAL POKER SCHOOL LIMITED, 

Defendants, 

and 

BODOG ENTERTAINMENT S.A., 

BODOG.NET, and BODOG.COM, 

Defendants-Appellants. 

Robert P. Greenspoon, Flachsbart & Greenspoon, LLC, of Chicago, Illinois, 

argued for plaintiff-appellee. With him on the brief was William W. Flachsbart. Of 

counsel on the brief were L. Kristopher Rath, Kevin M. Sutehall, and Michael K. Wall, 

Hutchison & Steffen, LLC, of Las Vegas, Nevada. 

Victor de Gyarfas, Foley & Lardner LLP, of Los Angeles, California, argued for 

defendants-appellants. With him on the brief were James D. Nguyen, of Los 

Angeles, California, and George E. Quillin, of Washington, DC. 

Appealed from: United States District Court for the District of Nevada 

Chief Judge Roger L. Hunt 
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

 2008-1132 

1ST TECHNOLOGY LLC, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

RATIONAL ENTERPRISES LTDA. and RATIONAL POKER SCHOOL LIMITED, 

 Defendants, 

and 

BODOG ENTERTAINMENT S.A., 

BODOG.NET, and BODOG.COM, 

 

Defendants-Appellants. 

 Judgment

ON APPEAL from the United States District Court for 

the District of Nevada 

in CASE NO(S). 2:06-CV-1110. 

This CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 

Per Curiam (MAYER, LINN and MOORE, Circuit Judges.) 

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36. 

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

DATED: October 8, 2008 / s / Jan Horbaly

 Jan Horbaly, Clerk
NO. 07-08-0153-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL A

SEPTEMBER 29, 2008

______________________________

MICHAEL GOFF, APPELLANT

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

_________________________________

FROM THE 78 DISTRICT COURT OF WICHITA COUNTY; TH

NO. 43,950-B; HON. ROY T. SPARKMAN, PRESIDING

_______________________________

Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

ORDER ON APPELLANT’S MOTION TO NON-SUIT OR DISMISS APPEAL

Before the Court is appellant’s motion to dismiss this appeal pursuant to rule 42.2

of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. Rule 42.2 states that at any time before the

appellate court’s decision, the appellate court may dismiss an appeal upon the appellant’s

motion. TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a). The appellant and his attorney must sign the written

motion to dismiss. Id. 
-2-

Upon review of appellant’s motion, all of the requirements of rule 42.2(a) have been

satisfied. The Court has considered appellant’s motion and concludes the motion should

be granted and the appeal dismissed.

Therefore, we dismiss this appeal. 

Mackey K. Hancock

Justice

Do not publish.
State of North Carolina v. Miguel Melo Nolasco

No. 198P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 8, 2016

Ann B. Petersen, Attorney at Law, Chapel Hill, for Nolasco, Miguel Melo.

James R. Glover, Attorney at Law, Chapel Hill.

Marc Bernstein, Special Deputy Attorney General, J. Douglas Henderson, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 23rd of May 2016 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of December 2016."
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 Quarterly Report of Innocap, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended April 30, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Paul Tidwell, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:  1. The Report fully complies with 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.   Date: January 4, 2013  /s/ Paul Tidwell Paul Tidwell Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 185 (Monday, September 26, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 56185]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-19099]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[CA-310-0777-XG]


Notice of Public Meeting: Northwest California Resource Advisory 
Council

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 
of 1976 (FLPMA), and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), 
the U. S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 
Northwest California Resource Advisory Council will meet as indicated 
below.

DATES: The meeting will be held Wednesday and Thursday, Oct. 19 and 20, 
2005, in Arcata, California. On Oct. 19, the council members convene at 
10 a.m. at the BLM Arcata Field Office, 1695 Heindon Rd., and depart 
immediately for a field tour of public lands managed by the Arcata 
Field Office. Members of the public are welcome on the tour, but they 
must provide their own transportation and lunch. On Oct. 20, the 
council convenes at 8 a.m. in the Conference Center of the Hotel 
Arcata, 708 Ninth St., Arcata. Time for public comment has been set 
aside for 1 p.m, Thursday, Oct. 20.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rich Burns, BLM Ukiah Field Office 
manager, (707) 468-4000; or BLM Public Affairs Officer Joseph J. 
Fontana, (530) 252-5332.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 12-member council advises the Secretary 
of the Interior, through the BLM, on a variety of planning and 
management issues associated with public land management in Northwest 
California. At this meeting, agenda topics will include the Ukiah 
Resource Management Plan, an update on the California Coastal National 
Monument Resource Management Plan, a status report on the proposed 
Sacramento River Bend National Recreation Area and a report on special 
recreation use permits. All meetings are open to the public. Members of 
the public may present written comments to the council. Each formal 
council meeting will have time allocated for public comments. Depending 
on the number of persons wishing to speak, and the time available, the 
time for individual comments may be limited. Members of the public are 
welcome on field tours, but they must provide their own transportation 
and lunch. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, 
such as sign language interpretation and other reasonable 
accommodations, should contact the BLM as provided above.

    Dated: Sept. 19, 2005.
Joseph J. Fontana,
Public Affairs Officer.
[FR Doc. 05-19099 Filed 9-23-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-40-P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-7467

REGINALD U. FULLARD,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

ROY COOPER; KENNETH LASSITER, Director of Prisons; MR. FIELDS, JR., 

Asst. Supt. at Facility,

 Respondents - Appellees.

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

Greensboro. Loretta C. Biggs, District Judge. (1:19-cv-01085-LCB-JLW)

Submitted: June 24, 2021 Decided: July 15, 2021

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, FLOYD, Circuit Judge, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Reginald U. Fullard, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Reginald U. Fullard seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the 

recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Fullard’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of 

appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this 

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment 

of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 

(2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must 

demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the petition 

states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 

134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Fullard has not made 

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the 

appeal. We deny Fullard’s motions entitled “petition-motion per 28 U.S.C. § 2242” and 

“motion for relief from constitutional error” and 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
----

Exhibit 32.1 

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

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of theundersigned officers of Yukon Gold Corporation, Inc. (the "Company"), doeshereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that: 

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSBfor the quarter ended July 31, 2007 (the "Form 10-QSB") of the Company fullycomplies with the requirement of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company. 

Dated: September 12, 2007 

/s/Paul A. Gorman                                                  Paul A. Gorman, CEO and President (Chief Executive Officer of Yukon Gold Corporation, Inc.) 

Dated: September 12, 2007 

/s/Rakesh Malhotra                                               Rakesh Malhotra, C.A., Chief Financial Officer (Chief Financial Officer of Yukon Gold Corporation, Inc.) 

A signed original of this written statement required bySection 906 has been provided to Yukon Gold Corporation, Inc. and will beretained by Yukon Gold Corporation, Inc. and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request. 

 

----