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

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5148 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 29, 2010 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

AN ACT 

To amend title 39, United States Code, to clarify the instances in which the term ‘‘census’’ may appear on mailable matter. 

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


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 5148 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. REQUIREMENT FOR MAIL BEARING THE TERM 

2 ‘‘CENSUS’’ ON THE ENVELOPE OR OUTSIDE 

3 COVER OR WRAPPER. 

4 (a) MATTER SOLICITING THE PURCHASE OF A PROD5 UCT OR SERVICE.—Section 3001(h) of title 39, United 

6 States Code, is amended— 

7 (1) in paragraph (1), by inserting ‘‘; or on 

8 which the term ‘census’ is visible through the enve9 lope or outside cover or wrapper’’ after ‘‘or which 

10 bears the term ‘census’ on the envelope or outside 

11 cover or wrapper’’; and 

12 (2) in paragraph (2), by inserting ‘‘or matter 

13 on which the term ‘census’ is visible through the en14 velope or outside cover or wrapper’’ after ‘‘In the 

15 case of matter bearing the term ‘census’ on the en16 velope or outside cover or wrapper’’. 

17 (b) MATTER SOLICITING INFORMATION OR CON18 TRIBUTION OF FUNDS.—Section 3001(i) of title 39, 

19 United States Code, is amended— 

20 (1) in paragraph (1), by inserting ‘‘; or on 

21 which the term ‘census’ is visible through the enve22 lope or outside cover or wrapper’’ after ‘‘or which 

23 bears the term ‘census’ on the envelope or outside 

24 cover or wrapper’’; and 

25 (2) in paragraph (2), by inserting ‘‘or matter 

26 on which the term ‘census’ is visible through the enVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:51 Apr 29, 2010 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H5148.RFS H5148

pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS
3 

HR 5148 RFS 

1 velope or outside cover or wrapper’’ after ‘‘In the 

2 case of matter bearing the term ‘census’ on the en3 velope or outside cover or wrapper’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives April 28, 2010. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. LARRY NELSON HEDRICK

No. 6926SC211

(Filed 30 April 1969)

Appeal by defendant from *Falls, J.,*30 September 1968 Schedule A Session, MeCKLENburg Superior Court.

Defendant was charged in a bill of indictment with three felony counts: (1) felonious breaking and entering, (2) felonious larceny of goods of a value of $1,675.50, and (3) feloniously receiving stolen goods of a value of $1,675.50.

Defendant, through his counsel in open court, tendered a plea of guilty to the felony of receiving stolen goods of a value of more than $200.00, knowing them to have been previously stolen. The plea was accepted by the State and approved by the presiding judge, and judgment of confinement was entered. Defendant gave notice of appeal.

*522
      *Robert Morgan, Attorney General, by Carlos W. Murray, Jr., Staff Attorney, for the State.*

*Alfred F. Welling, Jr., for the defendant.*

Brock, J.

This appeal presents the face of the record proper for review. Counsel for defendant candidly and appropriately states that his examination of the record discloses no error; with this appraisal we agree. The record on appeal shows that the Court was properly organized and had jurisdiction, the indictment was valid in form, defendant was represented by counsel, defendant entered a plea of guilty to the third count in the bill, and the sentence imposed is within authorized limits.

No error.

Campbell and Morris, JJ., concur.
#### MELVIN L. LUKINS & SONS, INC., Appellant, v. DEAN KAST, BASIL KAST, GARRISON 8 INTERNATIONAL CORP., a Washington Corporation, B. H. MORTON, VERA L. McMASTER, and ROBERT HODGES, Respondents.

No. 7484

February 26, 1975

532 P.2d 602

T. *David Horton,*of Battle Mountain, for Appellant.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

An order was entered by the trial court dismissing the defendants, Dean Kast, Basil Kast and Garrison 8, as parties to plaintiff’s action on the basis that plaintiff was barred due to a decision rendered in an earlier proceeding from relitigating certain issues against these defendants. Respondents have filed no answering brief.

Under these circumstances this court may regard such a failure as a confession of error and reverse the judgment as to appellant without consideration of the merits of the appeal. *117NRAP 31(c);1 see also, Paso Builders, Inc. v. Hebard, 83 Nev. 165, 426 P.2d 731 (1967); Toiyabe Supply Co. v. Arcade, 74 Nev. 314, 330 P.2d 121 (1958). In our view this is an appropriate case for application of this rule.

Judgment reversed and case remanded to the district court.

1

 NRAP 31(c) provides in part: “If a respondent fails to file his brief, he will not be heard at oral argument except by permission of the court. The failure of respondent to file a brief may be treated by the court as a confession of error and appropriate disposition of the appeal thereafter made.”
<PAGE>   1
                                                                EXHIBIT 23.1


                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


The Stockholders and Board of Directors
Compression Labs, Incorporated:


We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Nos.
2-92695, 2-96228, 33-09217, 33-17283, 33-24383, 33-32366, 33-40405, 33-61349,
33-70950, 33-70860, 33-79790 and 333-20613) on Form S-8 of Compression Labs,
Incorporated of our reports dated March 10, 1997, relating to the consolidated
balance sheets of Compression Labs, Incorporated as of December 31, 1996 and
1995, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders'
equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended
December 31, 1996, and the related schedule which reports appear in the 1996
annual report on Form 10-K of Compression Labs, Incorporated.



/s/  KMPG Peat Marwick LLP


San Jose, California
March 27, 1997
Motion to withdraw denied and Order filed March 10, 2022.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-21-00538-CV

____________

IN THE INTEREST OF C.U.D., S.L.D., A/K/A S.D., J.P.J.D., K.K.J.D., 

A.E.D., II, CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 308th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2018-37155

ORDER

Appellant A.E.D., the father of minors who are the subject of this appeal, is 

represented by court-appointed counsel on appeal, W. Leslie Shireman. On 

December 13, 2021, appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief stating the appeal is 

frivolous, under the authority of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). See In 

re D.E.S., 135 S.W.3d 326, 329–30 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no 

pet.) (applying Anders procedures to a parental termination case). On the same day, 

counsel filed a motion to withdraw as appellate counsel based on his Anders brief.
2

The Supreme Court of Texas has concluded that the right to counsel under 

Family Code § 107.013(a)(1) through the exhaustion of appeals under Family 

Code § 107.016(2)(B) encompasses all proceedings in the Supreme Court of 

Texas, including the filing of a petition for review. In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 

(Tex. 2016) (per curiam). Once appointed by the trial court, counsel should be 

permitted to withdraw only for good cause and on appropriate terms and 

conditions. Id. Mere dissatisfaction of counsel or client with each other is not good 

cause. Id. Nor is counsel’s belief that the client has no grounds to seek further 

review from the court of appeals’ decision. Id. Counsel’s obligation to the client 

still may be satisfied by filing an appellate brief meeting the standards set in 

Anders v. California and its progeny. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; In re P.M., 520 

S.W.3d at 28. However, counsel’s motion to withdraw in this court, in the absence 

of additional grounds for withdrawal, may be premature. In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 

27. If counsel for appellant has concluded there are no non-frivolous points to urge 

in a petition for review in the Supreme Court of Texas, then counsel may elect to

file in that court a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders

brief. See id. (stating that “[i]n this Court, appointed counsel’s obligations can be 

satisfied by filing a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders

brief”).

Because the only grounds counsel has identified for withdrawal do not

constitute good cause, we deny counsel’s motion to withdraw.

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Justices Wise, Jewell, and Poissant.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                  JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                        1,858,287
<SECURITIES>                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                 6,094,032
<ALLOWANCES>                  277,926
<INVENTORY>                   6,016,528
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              14,341,016
<PP&E>                        7,511,752
<DEPRECIATION>                6,113,123
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                20,516,028
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         5,230,527
<BONDS>                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>         0
<PREFERRED>                   3,025,318
<COMMON>                      74,327
<OTHER-SE>                    7,773,739
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  20,516,028
<SALES>                       37,048,510
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              37,048,510
<CGS>                         24,950,627
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 9,968,588
<OTHER-EXPENSES>              0
<LOSS-PROVISION>              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            451,466
<INCOME-PRETAX>               1,677,829
<INCOME-TAX>                  129,232
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           1,548,597
<DISCONTINUED>                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>               0
<CHANGES>                     0
<NET-INCOME>                  1,548,597
<EPS-PRIMARY>                 .16
<EPS-DILUTED>                 .15
        


</TABLE>
**Exhibit32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

 

 

I, Emanuel N. Hilario, Chief FinancialOfficer, in connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of McCormick andSchmick’s Seafood Restaurants, Inc. for the quarterly period ended September25, 2004 (the “Report”), hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1)              The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and

2)              The information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of McCormick & Schmick’s Seafood Restaurants,Inc.

 

 
| /s/ EMANUEL N. HILARIO                                 |   |
|--------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Emanuel N. Hilario                                     |   |
| Chief Financial Officer  and Vice President of Finance |   |
| Dated: November 5, 2004                                |   |

 

 

1

----
Exhibit 32.2

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

         In connection with the Annual Report of Global Gold Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year December 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Robert A. Garrison, the
President, Chief Financial Officer and Chief Operating 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 operations of the
Company.


Date: April 30, 2004                     /s/Robert A. Garrison
                                         Robert A. Garrison
                                         President, Chief Operating Officer
                                         and Chief Financial Officer
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 1755** 
In re: FLOYD JUNIOR POWELL, a/k/a Dick , Petitioner
.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus . ( 5:99

- cr - 00012

- RLV

- 6; 5:02

- cv - 00138

- RLV )

Submitted : November 3, 2014 Decided: November 21, 2014

Before NIEMEYER, KING, DUNCAN , Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion
. Floyd Junior Powell, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Floyd Junior Powell p etitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order compelling the district court to act on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion that was filed on November 4, 2002 . Our review of the docket reveals that the district court dismissed Powell’s § 225 5 motion on December 2, 2004, and we dismissed his appeal of the order on April 14, 2006. Accordingly, we de ny the mandamus petition . We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
Exhibit 32

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 on
Form 10-K as amended of TASER International, Inc. (the Company) for the year ending December 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Patrick W. Smith, 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 operations of the Company.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Patrick W. SmithPatrick W. SmithChief Executive Officer
November 15, 2012


In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K as amended of TASER International, Inc. (the Company)
for the year ending December 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Daniel M. Behrendt, Chief Financial 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 operations of the Company.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Daniel M. BehrendtDaniel M. BehrendtChief Financial Officer
November 15, 2012
<Page>
                                                               ARTHUR ANDERSEN



                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
                    -----------------------------------------


As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the use of our report
(and to all references to our Firm) included in or made a part of this
Registration Statement File No. 333-65507 for Hart Life Insurance Company
Separate Account One on Form N-4.

Hartford, Connecticut                           /s/ Arthur Andersen LLP
April 8, 2002
### MANDATE



## Court of Appeals

**First District of Texas**

NO. 01

- 15

- 00048

- CR

EUGENE JAMES MINGO, JR. , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

Appeal from the Criminal District Court of Jefferson County. (Tr. Ct. No. 14

- 19786).

TO THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT OF JEFFERSON COUNTY,

GREETINGS:

Before this Court, on the 9th day of June 2015, the case upon appeal to revise or to

reverse your judgment was determined. This Court made its order in these words:

This case is an appeal from the final jud gment signed by the trial court on October 16, 2014. After submitting the case on the appellate record and the arguments properly raised by the parties, the Court holds that the trial court’s judgment contains no reversible error. Accordingly, the Court

af firms the trial court’s judgment.

The Court orders that this decision be certified below

for observance.

Judgment rendered June 9, 2015.Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Bland, and Brown. Opinion delivered by Justice Bland.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court

in this behalf and in all things to have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

August 21 , 2015

Date CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE

CLERK OF THE COURT
QUEVEDO-WOOLF v. OVERHOLSER, et al.

361P18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 5, 2018

James P. Hoffman, Jr., Attorney at Law, for Overholser, Merry Eileen.

William W. Cameron, Attorney at Law, Salisbury.

Jessica S. Bullock, Carolyn J. Woodruff, Attorneys at Law, Greensboro, for Quevedo-Woolf, Celina.

Daniel Carter, for Carter, Daniel.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 5th of November 2018 by Plaintiff for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th of November 2018."
---

Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Xtra-Gold Resources
Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
I, JOHN CHARLES ROSS, Chief Financial Officer of our company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that:

| | (a) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of
      Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
  and                                    
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |     |                                                                                                                                                                  
| | (b) | the information contained in this Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.

|Date: May 12, 2011 | s/s John Charles
      Ross
|------------------ | ---------------------------
|                   |                            
|                   | By                         
|                   |                            

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

---
#### MAMIE D. WEINSTEIN, Appellant, *v.*IRVING WEINSTEIN, Respondent.

No. 3999

February 12, 1958.

321 P.2d 245

*Jones, Wiener and Jones*and *D. Francis Horsey,*of Las Vegas, for Appellant.

*Milton W. Keefer,*of Las Vegas, for Respondent.

*41OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

From decree of divorce this appeal is taken by the wife, defendant below. The sole error assigned is that the record does not support the finding of the trial court that the husband was domiciled in Clark County, Nevada, at the time suit was filed.

Appellant isolates certain portions of the husband’s testimony and contends that they demonstrate that he was without the necessary bona fide intent to make Nevada his home. This contention is without merit. Not only did the husband testify generally to having such intent, he also testified that at the time of trial he had been a resident of Nevada for about five and one half months and had been physically present in Nevada all of that time; that while he had come to Nevada with a divorce in mind, that had not been his sole purpose (note the holding in Walker v. Walker, 45 Nev. 105, 198 P. 438) ; that he suffered from arthritis and had been advised that the climate of southern Nevada would be helpful; that he had found it so and intended for reasons of health to continue his residence; that he had no property or interests elsewhere. Read in its entirety the testimony amply supports the finding of the trial court.

Appellant refers us to our decision in Plunkett v. Plunkett, 71 Nev. 159, 283 P.2d 225. That case is distinguishable upon the facts.

Affirmed.