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

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4935 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4935

To allow regional directors of the Federal Emergency Management Agency 
to extend temporarily the Provisional Accredited Levee period if a good 
 faith effort to upgrade a levee to the accredited level is being made.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 24, 2010

  Mr. Tiahrt introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To allow regional directors of the Federal Emergency Management Agency 
to extend temporarily the Provisional Accredited Levee period if a good 
 faith effort to upgrade a levee to the accredited level is being made.

    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 ``PAL Extension Act''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF PROVISIONAL ACCREDITED LEVEE PERIOD.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding title 44 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations or any procedural memorandum issued by the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency, a regional director of such Agency may 
extend the Provisional Accredited Levee period in accordance with 
subsection (b).
    (b) Good Faith Effort.--
            (1) In general.--A regional director of the Federal 
        Emergency Management Agency may extend, for a period not to 
        exceed 24 months from the date of the expiration of the 
        original Provisional Accredited Levee (referred to in this Act 
        as ``PAL)'' period of 24 months, such PAL period if such 
        director determines that the community, levee owner, or 
        individual responsible for upgrading the levee has applied for 
        a waiver and is making a good faith effort as defined in 
        paragraph (2) to complete such upgrade to the accredited level.
            (2) Good faith effort defined.--For purposes of this Act, 
        the term ``good faith effort'' means a community, levee owner, 
        or individual responsible for upgrading the levee provides 
        evidence to the regional director that it--
                    (A) has adequate funds available to upgrade such 
                levee; and
                    (B) has a contract with a qualified private 
                contractor or an appropriate Federal agency to verify 
                the certification of the levee.

SEC. 3. NO MAPPING DURING EXTENSION PERIOD.

    After a community, levee owner, or individual responsible applies 
for a waiver and during any extension period granted, the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency shall suspend any mapping activities in the 
area surrounding the levee.
                                 <all>
```
STATE v. Gabriel A. FERRARI

277P18-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 5, 2018

Gabriel Adrian Ferrari, for Gabriel A. Ferrari.

Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, Todd Williams, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 12th of October 2018 by Defendant to Strike Notice/Letter:

*177"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th of December 2018."
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-7488
In Re: ALVIN JUSTIN "BUDDY" HUGGINS, Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-97-152-4-H, CA-97-32-4-H, CR-95-51) Submitted: December 16, 1997 Decided: January 9, 1998 Before HAMILTON, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alvin Justin "Buddy" Huggins, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Alvin Justin "Buddy" Huggins filed this petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to compel the district court to review his motion challenging his conviction under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). The district court declined to address Huggins' § 2255 motion prior to the resolution of his direct appeal which is still pending in this court. To obtain mandamus relief, a petitioner bears the heavy burden of showing that he has no other adequate avenues of relief and that his right to the relief sought is clear and indisputable. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court , 490 U.S. 296, 308-09 (1989). Huggins alleges that his inability to obtain adequate trial transcripts has precluded him from perfecting a direct appeal of his conviction. We find that Huggins has adequate procedures available to him in the appellate process to address the alleged inadequacies of the transcripts of his trial. See Fed. R. App. P. 10(c); United States v. Wilson , 16 F.3d 1027, 1031 (9thCir. 1994). Accordingly, we deny the mandamus petition. 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.

PETITION DENIED
#### Dean KINNEY; David Hall, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Bobby WEAVER, Etc.; et al., Defendants, J.B. Smith, Smith County Sheriff; Smith County Texas; W.A. “Bill” Young, Tyler Police Chief; City of Tyler, Texas; East Texas Police Chief's Association; Bobby Weaver, Gregg County Sheriff; Bob Green, Harrison County Sheriff; Gregg County Texas; Harrison County Texas Ronnie Moore, Kilgore Director of Public Safety; Charles “Chuck” Williams, City of Marshall Police Chief; Ted Gibson, Nacogdoches Police Chief; City of Kilgore, Texas; City of Marshall, Texas; City of Nacogdoches, Texas, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 00-40557.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

July 9, 2003.

Curtis B. Stuckey, Alex Arthur Castet-ter, Stuckey, Garrigan & Castetter, Nac-ogdoches, TX, Leslie Stephen Mendelsohn, Les Mendelsohn & Associates, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintffs-Appellees.

Gregory Duane Smith, Herschel Tracy Crawford, Ramey & Flock, Tyler TX, for Defendants-Appellants.

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC

(Opinion July 31, 2002, 5th Cir., 2002, 301 F.3d 253)

Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, JONES, SMITH, WIENER, BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, BENAVIDES, STEWART, DENNIS, CLEMENT and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

*433BY THE COURT:

A member of the Court in active service having requested a poll on the petition for rehearing en banc and a majority of the judges in active service having voted in favor of granting a rehearing en banc,

IT IS ORDERED that this cause shall be reheard by the court en banc with oral argument on a date hereafter to be fixed. The Clerk will specify a briefing schedule for the filing of supplemental briefs.
Exhibit 32.2

Certification

I, Naj Allana, certify, pursuant to Rule 13(a)-14(b) or Rule 15(d)-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, that (i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of MMR Information Systems, Inc. for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2009 fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (ii) the information contained in such
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of MMR Information
Systems, Inc.

|              
|--------------
|/s/ Naj Allana
|Name:         
|Title:        
|Date:         

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and is not being "filed" as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure document for purposes of Section
18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), or otherwise subject to liability under that section. This
certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the
Exchange Act except to the extent that this Exhibit 32.1 is expressly and specifically incorporated by reference in any such filing.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the
Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

LAURA CARSNER,

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§ 

No. 08-11-00326-CR

Appeal from the

171st District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 20090D05416)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was error in the 

judgment. We therefore reverse the trial court’s judgment and remand the cause for new trial, in 

accordance with the opinion of the Court. This decision shall be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2013.

GUADALUPE RIVERA, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, J., and Larsen, J. (Senior Judge)

Larsen, J. (Senior Judge), sitting by assignment
#### STATE ex rel. Michael BROWN v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2002-KH-2122.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Aug. 29, 2003.

In re Brown, Michael;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. H, Nos. 89-5090, 83-2738; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 02-KH-682.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.3; *State ex rel. Melinie v. State,*93-1380 (La.1/12/96), 665 So.2d 1172; cf. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4(D).
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 6666

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. ELIZABETH MARIE RUSHING , Defendant

- Appellant

.

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

. Frank D. Whi t ney, Chief District Judge. ( 3:00

- cr
- 00008

- FDW

- 7 )

Submitted : September 28, 2017 Decided: October 3, 2017

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Elizabeth Marie Rushing

- Floyd, Appellant Pro Se. Gill Paul Beck, Sr., Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina; William A. Brafford, Jonathan Henry Ferry, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Tiffany Mallory Moore, Jennifer A. Youngs, Assistant United States Attorneys, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Elizabeth Rushing appeals the district court’s order denying her motion fo r modification of sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Rushing , No. 3:00

- cr
- 00008

- FDW

- 7 (W.D.N.C. Dec. 21, 2016). 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
#### Efrain CAMPA-FABELA, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 03-1149.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: July 31, 2003.

Filed: Aug. 19, 2003.

David R. Rhein, Des Moines, IA, for appellant.

Before WOLLMAN, FAGG, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Efrain Campa-Fabela was found guilty by a jury of illegally reentering the United States and possessing with intent to distribute methamphetamine, and we affirmed his conviction and 180-month sentence. *See United States v. Campa-Fabela,*210 F.3d 837, 841 (8th Cir.2000). The United States Supreme Court denied Campa-Fabela’s petition for a writ of certiorari on April 30, 2001, *see Campa-Fabela v. United States,*532 U.S. 1010, 121 S.Ct. 1739, 149 L.Ed.2d 662 (2001), and denied his petition for rehearing on June 18, 2001, *see Campa-Fabela v. United States,*533 U.S. 925, 121 S.Ct. 2541, 150 L.Ed.2d 710 (2001). Campa-Fabela filed a pro se 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion on June 10, 2002. The district court1 dismissed the motion as untimely, but granted a certificate of appealability on the timeliness issue. On appeal, counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief arguing that because Campa-Fabela’s conviction was not final until the Supreme Court denied his petition for rehearing, his section 2255 motion was timely filed.

Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), a section 2255 motion must be filed within one year of “the date on which the judgment of conviction becomes final.” *See*28 U.S.C. § 2255. The one-year limit began to run here on April 30, 2001, the date on which Campa-Fabela’s petition for a writ *994of certiorari was denied. Thus, the June 2002 motion was untimely. *See Kreutzer v. Bowersox,*231 F.3d 460, 461-62 (8th Cir.2000) (addressing 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition). We find persuasive the reasoning of the courts that have specifically addressed the rehearing issue in the AEDPA context, relying on Supreme Court Rule 16.3 (order of denial not suspended pending disposition of petition for rehearing except by order of Court or Justice). *See United States v. Segers,*271 F.3d 181, 184-86 (4th Cir.2001), *cert. denied,*535 U.S. 943, 122 S.Ct. 1331, 152 L.Ed.2d 237 (2002); *Horton v. United States,*244 F.3d 546, 550-51 (7th Cir.2001); *United States v. Thomas,*203 F.3d 350, 356 (5th Cir.2000); *United States v. Willis,*202 F.3d 1279, 1280-81 (10th Cir.2000).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

1

. The Honorable Harold D. Vietor, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa.
#### Ex parte Alfred ALLEN. (In re Alfred Allen v. State of Alabama).

1012141.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Nov. 1, 2002.

Gregory M. Varner, Ashland, for petitioner.

Submitted on petitioner’s brief only.

LYONS, Justice.

WRIT DENIED.

MOORE, C.J., and HOUSTON, SEE, BROWN, HARWOOD, WOODALL, and STUART, JJ., concur.

JOHNSTONE, J., dissents.

JOHNSTONE, Justice

(dissenting).

While this petition for a writ of certiora-ri does not comply with Rule 39, Ala. R.App. P., Judge Cobb’s detailed dissent from the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals, *Allen v. State,*850 So.2d 375 (Ala.Crim.App.2002) (Cobb, J., dissenting), supplies us with all of the facts and law necessary to a probably meritorious showing that the Court of Criminal Appeals has disregarded the caselaw requirements for constructive possession. Therefore, I would grant the petition to review the record on this issue.
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. LAWRENCE E. DAVIS

No. 753SC610

(Filed 5 November 1975)

Narcotics § 4.5— possession of amphetamines — instructions on possession proper

The trial court in a prosecution for possession of amphetamines properly instructed the jury on the law of possession arising from the evidence.

On *certiorari*to review proceedings before *Fountain, Judge.*Judgment entered 3 June 1974 in Superior Court, Craven County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 24 October 1975.

Defendant was found guilty of possession of less than 100 tablets of amphetamine and judgment imposing a sentence of imprisonment was entered.

*Attorney General Edmisten, by Special Deputy Attorney General John R. B. Matthis, for the State.*

*Reginald L. Frazier, for defendant appellant.*

VAUGHN, Judge.

The tablets were found in the pocket of a coat defendant was wearing at the time of his arrest. In support of his only assignment of error he contends that the judge did not properly instruct the jury on “the law of possession arising from the evidence.” The argument is groundless. Among other instructions the judge advised the jury:

> “If the defendant had any amphetamine tablets in his pocket with his knowledge and consent that would constitute possession. If he had any in his pocket without his knowledge and consent, it would not constitute possession. So, it is a question of fact for you to determine.”

We find no prejudicial error in defendant’s trial.

No error.

Judges Britt and Arnold concur.
EX-4.1



 Exhibit 4.1 

 
 




 
 INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE This
Certifies that is the record holder of COUNTERSIGNED AND REGISTERED: AMERICAN STOCK TRANSFER & TRUST COMPANY, LLC (Brooklyn, NY) TRANSFER AGENT AND REGISTRAR BY AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE CUSIP 03874P 10 1 SEE REVERSE FOR CERTAIN DEFINITIONS
transferable on the books of the Corporation by the holder hereof in person or by duly authorized attorney upon surrender of this certificate properly endorsed. This certificate is not valid until countersigned by the Transfer Agent and registered
by the Registrar. WITNESS the facsimile signatures of the Corporation’s duly authorized officers. Dated: ATI FULLY PAID AND NONASSESSABLE SHARES OF COMMON STOCK, $0.001 PAR VALUE, OF Aratana Therapeutics, Inc. President and Chief Executive
Officer Chief Financial Officer Aratana Therapeutics, Inc. ARATANA T H E R A P E U T I C S SPECIMEN 







 



 
 FOR VALUE RECEIVED, hereby sell, assign and transfer unto The following abbreviations,
when used in the inscription on the face of this certificate, shall be construed as though they were written out in full according to applicable laws or regulations: TEN COM TEN ENT JT TEN – as tenants in common – as tenants by the
entireties – as joint tenants with right of survivorship and not as tenants in common (PLEASE PRINT OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND ADDRESS, INCLUDING POSTAL ZIP CODE, OF ASSIGNEE) Shares Attorney of the common stock represented by the within
Certificate, and do hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE to transfer the said stock on the books of the within named Corporation with full power of substitution in the
premises. Dated Signature(s) Guaranteed THE SIGNATURE(S) MUST BE GUARANTEED BY AN ELIGIBLE GUARANTOR INSTITUTION (BANKS, STOCKBROKERS, SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS AND CREDIT UNIONS WITH MEMBERSHIP IN AN APPROVED SIGNATURE GUARANTEE MEDALLION
PROGRAM), PURSUANT TO S.E.C. RULE 17Ad-15. Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list. NOTICE: X X UNIF GIFT MIN ACT – Custodian (Cust) (Minor) under Uniform Gifts to Minors Act (State) THE SIGNATURE(S) TO THIS
ASSIGNMENT MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE NAME(S) AS WRITTEN UPON THE FACE OF THE CERTIFICATE, IN EVERY PARTICULAR, WITHOUT ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT OR ANY CHANGE WHATEVER.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 190 (Monday, October 3, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 57602]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-19674]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention


Final Effect of Designation of a Class of Employees for Addition 
to the Special Exposure Cohort

AGENCY: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of 
Health and Human Services (HHS).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) gives notice 
concerning the final effect of the HHS decision to designate a class of 
employees at the Y-12 facility, in Oak Ridge, Tennessee as an addition 
to the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) under the Energy Employees 
Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000. On August 25, 
2005, as provided for under 42 U.S.C. 7384q(b), the Secretary of HHS 
designated the following class of employees as an addition to the SEC:

    Department of Energy (DOE) employees or DOE contractor or 
subcontractor employees who worked in uranium enrichment operations 
or other radiological activities at the Y-12 facility in Oak Ridge, 
Tennessee from March 1943 through December 1947 and who were 
employed for a number of work days aggregating at least 250 work 
days, either solely under this employment or in combination with 
work days of employment occurring within the parameters (excluding 
aggregate work day requirements) established for other classes of 
employees included in the SEC.

    This designation became effective on September 24, 2005, as 
provided for under 42 U.S.C. 7384l(14)(C). Hence, beginning on 
September 24, 2005, members of this class of employees, defined as 
reported in this notice, became members of the Special Exposure Cohort.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Larry Elliott, Director, Office of 
Compensation Analysis and Support, National Institute for Occupational 
Safety and Health, 4676 Columbia Parkway, MS C-46, Cincinnati, OH 
45226, Telephone 513-533-6800 (this is not a toll-free number). 
Information requests can also be submitted by e-mail to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#eca3afadbfacafa8afc2aba3ba"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="67282426342724232449202831">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: September 26, 2005.
John Howard,
Director, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
[FR Doc. 05-19674 Filed 9-30-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-19-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
STATE of North Carolina v. Wendell Curtis OWENBY

No. 384P18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 5, 2018

Edward Eldred, Attorney at Law, Wendell Curtis Owenby, for Owenby, Wendell Curtis.

Teresa M. Postell, Assistant Attorney General, Sarah Kirkman, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 1st of November 2018 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 5th of December 2018."