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

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 403 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 403

  To amend the percentage of funds appropriated under title I of the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 required to be reserved 
         for outlying areas and the Secretary of the Interior.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 23, 2013

  Mr. Sablan introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the percentage of funds appropriated under title I of the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 required to be reserved 
         for outlying areas and the Secretary of the Interior.

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

SECTION 1. GRANTS FOR OUTLYING AREAS AND THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR.

    Section 1121(a) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
1965 (20 U.S.C. 6331(a)) is amended--
            (1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking ``a 
        total of 1 percent to provide assistance to'';
            (2) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``.5 percent to provide 
        assistance to'' before ``the outlying''; and
            (3) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``.75 percent to provide 
        assistance to'' before ``the Secretary''.
                                 <all>
```
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-10-00209-CV

In re Tony Cervantes

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM MILAM COUNTY

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

PER CURIAM

Tony Cervantes has filed a Motion for Leave of Court seeking to require the

district clerk of Milam County to provide him with certain documents in order to prepare his postconviction petition for writ of habeas corpus. Cervantes’s motion is essentially a petition for writ of

mandamus against the district clerk. As discussed by the San Antonio court of appeals, we lack 1

jurisdiction to provide the relief Cervantes requests:

Our mandamus jurisdiction is quite limited. By statutory grant, courts of appeals

have authority to issue writs of mandamus against a district court judge or

county court judge in the court of appeals district, and all writs necessary to

enforce its jurisdiction. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221(a), (b) (Vernon 1988).

Clearly, a district clerk is not a judge. Thus, in order for a district clerk to fall within

Cervantes entitles the document a Motion for Leave of Court, but the relief requested is 1

in the nature of a writ of mandamus issued against the district clerk. “In determining the nature of

a filing, we look to the substance of [the] document, not merely its title.” Hall v. Hubco, Inc.,

292 S.W.3d 22, 35 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, pet. denied) (citing Rush v. Barrios,

56 S.W.3d 88, 93 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, pet. denied)); see Surgitek, Bristol-Myers

Corp. v. Abel, 997 S.W.2d 598, 601 (Tex. 1999).
our jurisdictional reach, it must be shown that the issuance of the writ of mandamus

is necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. See Click v. Tyra, 867 S.W.2d 406, 407

(Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1993, orig. proceeding); see also Summit

Savings Ass’n v. Garcia, 727 S.W.2d 106, 107 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1987,

orig. proceeding). The relief Coronado seeks, the trial record for preparation of a

writ of habeas corpus to attack his felonyconvictions, does not affect our jurisdiction.

Courts of appeals have no jurisdiction over post-conviction writs of habeas corpus

in felony cases. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07, § 3 (Vernon Supp.

1998); Hoang v. State, 872 S.W.2d 694, 697 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993).

Post-conviction writs of habeas corpus are to be filed in the trial court in which

the conviction was obtained, made returnable to the Court of Criminal Appeals.

Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07, § 3 (Vernon Supp. 1998). Thus, because the

District Clerk’s alleged refusal to provide Coronado with a free copy of the record

does not affect our jurisdiction, the exercise of our mandamus authority is

inappropriate. See Click, 867 S.W.2d at 407.

In re Coronado, 980 S.W.2d 691, 692-93 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1998, orig. proceeding). The

San Antonio court’s reasoning applies with equal force to the relief Cervantes requests here. This

Court lacks jurisdiction to provide the relief he requests.

Cervantes’s Motion for Leave of Court is denied.

Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Pemberton and Waldrop

Filed: May 14, 2010

2
Exhibit 32(b)

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 accompanying Quarterly Report of Windstream Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the
period ending June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Brent K. Whittington, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, 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 operations of the Company.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                         
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                         
|/s/ Brent K. Whittington                                                 
|Brent K. Whittington Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer

August 8, 2008









A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Windstream Corporation and will be retained by Windstream Corporation and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
STATE of North Carolina v. Andrew Lee JEFFREYS, Defendant.

No. COA16-285

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: November 15, 2016

NO ERROR.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Consolidated Balance Sheet at December 31, 1998 and the Consolidated Statement
of Operations for the year ended December 31, 1998 and is qualified in its 
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000921112
<NAME> LIBERTY PROPERTY TRUST
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          14,391
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,391
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,054
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                29,782
<PP&E>                                       3,034,818
<DEPRECIATION>                                 213,143
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,933,371
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           38,479
<BONDS>                                      1,423,843
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    120,814
<COMMON>                                            66
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,146,156
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,933,371
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               387,093
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  108,345
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                83,454
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              78,617
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                116,677
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            116,677
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    97,615
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.60
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.59
        

</TABLE>
STATE v. Jimmy REID

105P17-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 3, 2017

Jimmy Reid, for Reid, Jimmy.

Joseph L. Hyde, Assistant Attorney General, J. Douglas Henderson, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 31st of March 2017 by Defendant for Notice of Appeal:

"Motion Dismissed Ex Mero Motu by order of the Court in conference, this the 3rd of May 2017."

Ervin, J. recused
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 on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2017 (the “Report”) of Hercules Capital, Inc. (the “Registrant”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Manuel A. Henriquez, the Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, certify, to the best of my knowledge, 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 Registrant. 

 

| Date: November 2, 2017 | By:    | /S/ MANUEL A. HENRIQUEZ

                                   |
|------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                   |   | Manuel A. Henriquez                                              |
|                   |   | Chairman, President, and                                         |
|                   |   | Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer) |
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1104/2006

of 18 July 2006         

amending Regulation (EC) No 831/2002 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 322/97 on Community Statistics, concerning access to confidential data for scientific purposes

(Text with EEA relevance)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 322/97 of 17 February 1997 on Community Statistics (1) and in particular Article 17(2) and Article 20(1) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Regulation (EC) No 831/2002 is amended as follows:

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following 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, 18 July 2006.

For the Commission

Joaquín ALMUNIA            

Member of the Commission

----

(1)OJ L 52, 22.2.1997, p. 1. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1882/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 284, 31.10.2003, p. 1).

(2)OJ L 133, 18.5.2002, p. 7.

(3)OJ L 63, 12.3.1999, p. 6. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1882/2003.

----
February 7, 1939

Ron. Charles T. Bannister Criminal DistrictAttorney Corsicana; Texas Dear Sir: OpinionNo. O-234 Ret Nerging Justice of Peace Pracinats and extending jurisdictionof justice preaincts fran'ons precinctto another. Your request for an opinion of the following questions "What is the proper proasdure in extending jurisdiotion of a Justice of Peaoe and Constable from one precinot to another precinct where Justice of Peace has 1 resigned?" Artiale 5, Sec. 18 of the Constitutionand Article 2351, subdivision 1, Revised Civil Statutes, require the Conmissioners'Court of each county to lay off the county into justioe precinctsnot less than four nor more than eight in number.

The ease, StateVS. Rigsby, 43 SW271, holds in sffeot that the Conrmissioners'

Court in the exercise of their powersmay merge two prsoinats into one or may re-defins the boundaries of the two precincts of a county, leaving the other precinctsunchanged.

The case,Hasti~gotal vs. Townsend CountyAttorney, 136 SN1143, holds among other thmgs that the Commissioners'Court has power to change the boundaries of a justice precinct at will.

The case of Brown VS. Meek, 96 SW(2d) 839, holds that *the Ccnmissigners' Court has power, when lawfully exercised,to pass order rs-distrioting oountv intonew justice of peace preoinots to become effective in the future and that the CommissionersI Cow+ has power to createnew justice precincts for the comenience of the people."

,Hon. CharlesT. Bannister - Page 2 (O-234)

Inview of the foregoingauthorities,youare respeotfully advised that it is the opinion of this Department that the Ccaamissionersl Court has the power and qukhority tomerge two justiosprecincts into one ormay rs-define the boundaries of tm precinctsof the county, leaving the other precinots unow@d and that this may be done at any time within the discretionof the Commissioners* Court and the only procedurepresoribad for merging tu, precincts into one or re-defining the boundaries of justioepreoinats is by proper order of the lkunissioners' Court duly entered of rsoold in theminutes of the Commissioners' Court, provided that thenumber of justicepreaincts shallnot be less than four nor more than sight in numpr in any county.

Trusting that the foregoiqg'ansrersyour inquiry,&kemain p / .* Very truly yours

APPROVED Gerald C. Mann A- GENERAL OF TEXW ATTORIiSY GENERAL OF TEXAS By s/Ardell lAlllialIs kdell ~lliams Assistant
#### Afghari U. BOLER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 5D03-2252.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

July 22, 2003.

Afghari U. Boler, Raiford, Pro Se.

No Appearance for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. *See Bartley v. State,*817 So.2d 1065 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).

THOMPSON, ORFINGER and MONACO, JJ., concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

LAMONT HARVEY,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 130 EAL 2015

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 17th day of August, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED.
STATE of North Carolina v. Robert Lewis BISHOP

No. 369P17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 5, 2018

Mark Montgomery, Attorney at Law, for Bishop, Robert Lewis.

Jennifer T. Harrod, Assistant Attorney General, Trey Robison, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 3rd of November 2017 by Defendant in *160this 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 5th of April 2018."
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Greater Dayton Regional Transit Auth. v. State Emp. Relations Bd., Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio7559.]

NOTICE This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to promptly notify the Reporter of De cisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published.

S LIP O PINION N O . 2016-O HIO -7559 G REATER D AYTON R EGIONAL T RANSIT A UTHORITY , A PPELLANT , v. S TATE E MPLOYMENT R ELATIONS B OARD ET AL ., A PPELLEES . [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Greater Dayton Regional Trans it Auth. v. State Emp. Relations Bd., Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-7559.] Appeal dismissed as having been improvidently accepted. (No. 2015-1205—Submitted August 17, 2016—Decided November 2, 2016.) A PPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 14AP-876, 2015-Ohio-2049.

__________________ {¶ 1} The cause is dismissed as having been improvidently accepted. O’C ONNOR , C.J., and P FEIFER , O’D ONNELL , L ANZINGER , and O’N EILL , JJ., concur. K ENNEDY and F RENCH , JJ., dissent.

_________________S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

2 Baker & Hostetler, L.L.P., Ronald G. Linville, Jennifer E. Edwards, and Jeremiah L. Ha rt, for appellant. Michael DeWine, Attorney General, Eric E. Murphy, State Solicitor, Michael J. Hendershot, Chief Deputy Solic itor, and Michael D. Allen and Lori Friedman, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee State Employment Relations Board. Jubelirer, Pass & Intrieri , P.C., and Joseph S. Pa ss; and Kalniz, Iorio & Feldstein Co., L.P.A., and Christine A. Reardon, for appellee Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1385. Fishel Hass Kim Albrecht, L.L.P., and Marc A. Fishel, urging reversal for amicus curiae Ohio Public Transit Association. Duckett Law Firm, L.L.C., and Douglas E. Duckett, urging reversal for amicus curiae Ohio Public Empl oyer Labor Relations Association.

_________________
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-6728
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RICKY JENNINGS BRAWLEY, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CR-90-394, CA-94-509-3-6-AK) Submitted: January 18, 1996 Decided: February 1, 1996 Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Keith Eric Golden, GOLDEN, MEIZLISH & ELWOOD CO., L.P.A., Columbus, Ohio, for Appellant. David Calhoun Stephens, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988) motion. We have reviewed the record and thedistrict court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Appellant's motion to convert this appeal to a formal briefing track and affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Brawley , No. CR-90-394; CA-94-509-3-6-AK (D.S.C. Apr. 20, 1995). 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
STATE of North Carolina v. Carlouse Latour ALLBROOKS

No. 440P17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 1, 2018

Ms. Melissa L. Trippe, Special Deputy Attorney General.

Mr. Alexander McC. Peters, Senior Deputy Attorney General, For State of North Carolina.

Mr. Gordon Widenhouse, Attorney at Law, Chapel Hill, For Allbrooks, Carlouse Latour.

Ms. Kimberly N. Callahan, Assistant Attorney General, For State of North Carolina.

Ms. Maureen Krueger, District Attorney, For State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 28th of December 2017 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 1st of March 2018."
Holly Energy Partners, L.P.
Computation of Ratio of Earnings
To Fixed Charges
 Six MonthsEnded
    
    
    Years Ended December 31,June 30, 2009
    
    
    2008
    
    
    2007
    
    
    2006
    
    
    2005
    
    
    2004Earnings:Net income
    
    $
    22,753
    
    
    $
    26,645
    
    
    $
    40,338
    
    
    $
    28,223
    
    
    $
    27,556
    
    
    $
    34,488Add total fixed charges (per below)
    
    
    11,532
    
    
    
    24,751
    
    
    
    15,125
    
    
    
    14,815
    
    
    
    11,324
    
    
    
    2,279Total earnings
    
    $
    34,285
    
    
    $
    51,396
    
    
    $
    55,463
    
    
    $
    43,038
    
    
    $
    38,880
    
    
    $
    36,767Fixed charges:Interest expense
    
    $
    9,807
    
    
    $
    21,763
    
    
    $
    13,289
    
    
    $
    13,056
    
    
    $
    9,633
    
    
    $
    697Capitalized interest
    
    
    661
    
    
    
    1,007
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Estimate of interest within rental expense(1)
    
    
    1,064
    
    
    
    1,981
    
    
    
    1,836
    
    
    
    1,759
    
    
    
    1,691
    
    
    
    1,582Total fixed charges
    
    $
    11,532
    
    
    $
    24,751
    
    
    $
    15,125
    
    
    $
    14,815
    
    
    $
    11,324
    
    
    $
    2,279Ratio of earnings to fixed charges
    
    
    2.97
    
    
    
    2.08
    
    
    
    3.67
    
    
    
    2.91
    
    
    
    3.43
    
    
    
    16.13
 
 (1)
    
    Represents 30% of the total operating lease rental expense which is that portion deemed to be
interest.
**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 October 31, 2017 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: December 7, 2017

 

*/s/ Paul Tidwell*

Paul Tidwell

Chief Executive Officer 

and Chief Financial Officer

----