alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 1,498.

#### MAYO, Respondent, *v.*HUGHES, Administratrix, Appellant.

*Appeal from. District Court, Silver Boiv County; William Clancy, Judge.*

On motion to dismiss appeal.

Decided Januaray 2, 1903.

*Messrs. Donlan <& Forestell, and Messrs. McBride & McBride,*for Appellant.

*Messrs. Kirie & Clinton,*for Respondent.

Per Curiam.

The appeal herein is hereby dismissed in accordance with the stipulation on file herein.
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE

.

IN THE 

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS

D IVISION O NE

STATE OF ARIZONA , Respondent ,

v. ANTHONY LOZANO

- SOLIS , Petitioner

. No. 1 CA

- CR 16

- 0477 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2004

- 015263

- 001 The Honorable Crane McClennen , Judge , Retired REVIEW GRANTED; RELI EF DENIED

COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix By Gerald R. Grant Counsel for Respondent Anthony Lozano

- Solis , Florence Petitioner

MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Michael J. Brown, Judge Jennifer B. Campbell and Chief Judge Samuel A. Thumma delivered the decision of the Court. FILED 11-7-2017STATE v. LOZANO

- SOLIS Decision of the Court

2 PER CURIAM : ¶1 Petitioner Anthony Lozano

- Solis seeks review of the superior court's order denying his petition for post

- conviction relief, filed pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1. This is petitioner's third successive petition. ¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court will not disturb a superior court's ruling on a p etition for post

- conviction relief. State v. Gutierrez , 229 Ariz. 573, 577, ¶ 19 (2012). It is petitioner's burden to show that the superior court abused its discretion by denying the petition for post

- conviction relief. See State v. Poblete , 227 Ariz. 537, ¶ 1 (App. 2011) (petitioner has burden of establishing abuse of discretion on review). ¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matter, the superior court's order denying the petition for post

- conviction relief, and the petition for review. We find that p etitioner has not established an abuse of discretion. ¶4 For the foregoing reasons, we grant review and deny relief.
No. 1,713.

#### FINLEN, Appellant, *v.*HEINZE et al., Respondents.

*Appeal from District Court, Silver Bow County.*

Application for an injunction pending the appeal.

Submitted August 29, 1901.

Decided August 29, 1901.

Pee Oueiam.

— It is ordered that all the affidavits filed in this causey the originals of which are on file in case No. 7,980 *545of the District Court of Silver Bow County, be and the same are hereby stricken from the files, and it is further ordered that the application for an injunction pending the appeal be and the same is hereby denied without prejudice

*Messrs. Forbis & Evans,*and *Mr. J. K. MacDonald,*for Appellant.

(Mr. Justice Pigott concurs in the order striking out the affidavit in support of the motion for a. new trial, but dissents from the order denying the injunction, pending the appeal from the judgment)

Order entered February 10, 1902.

Per Curiam.

— Upon application of the appellant this appeal is dismissed without; prejudice to another appeal.
Rel: June 7, 2024

STATE OF ALABAMA -- JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

THE SUPREME COURT OCTOBER TERM, 2023-2024

SC-2024-0117 Johnny Mayo and Sabrino Mayo v. Merical Realty, LLC (Appeal from Madison Circuit Court: CV-23-901129). SELLERS, Justice. AFFIRMED. NO OPINION. See Rule 53(a)(1) and (a)(2)(E), Ala. R. App. P. Parker, C.J., and Wise, Stewart, and Cook, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 185 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 185

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To establish a Chief Agricultural Negotiator in the Office of the 
                  United States Trade Representative.

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

SECTION 1. CHIEF AGRICULTURAL NEGOTIATOR.

    (a) Establishment of a Position.--There is established the position 
of Chief Agricultural Negotiator in the Office of the United States 
Trade Representative. The Chief Agricultural Negotiator shall be 
appointed by the President, with the rank of Ambassador, by and with 
the advice and consent of the Senate.
    (b) Functions.--The primary function of the Chief Agricultural 
Negotiator shall be to conduct trade negotiations and to enforce trade 
agreements relating to U.S. agricultural products and services. The 
Chief Agricultural Negotiator shall be a vigorous advocate on behalf of 
U.S. agricultural interests. The Chief Agricultural Negotiator shall 
perform such other functions as the United States Trade Representative 
may direct.
    (c) Compensation.--The Chief Agricultural Negotiator shall be paid 
at the highest rate of basic pay payable to a member of the Senior 
Executive Service.

            Passed the Senate November 3, 1999.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
106th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                 S. 185

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

   To establish a Chief Agricultural Negotiator in the Office of the 
                  United States Trade Representative.
```
# Lame Duck Sessions (1940-Present)

**

----

When Congress is in session after a November election and before the beginning of the new Congress, it is known as a "lame-duck session." Prior to the adoption of the Twentieth Amendment to the Constitution (1933), new Congresses convened in December of odd-numbered years, allowing the post-election Congress to meet and pass legislation for more than a year. The 1933 Amendment changed the convening date for a new Congress to January 3 of odd-numbered years, shortening the time between an election and the beginning of the next Congress to just two months. Since that time, Congress has met in lame-duck session to conclude urgent or unfinished business.

For more information on lame duck sessions, see Lame Duck Sessions of Congress, 1935-2016 (74th-114th Congresses) (pdf). 

Note: All pro forma sessions held during these lame duck sessions are included in the date ranges on this table.

        -  Bills, Acts, & Laws 
        -  Nominations 
        -  Treaties 
        -  Votes 
        -  Floor Proceedings 
        -  Rules & Procedure 
        -  Landmark Legislation 
        -  Sessions of Congress 
        -  Senate Archives 
        -  Public Disclosure 

### Related Links 

Dates of Sessions of Congress

New Senators, 2001-present
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 238 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 238

 To amend title 10, United States Code, to increase the grade provided 
         for the heads of the nurse corps of the Armed Forces.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 19, 1999

  Mr. Inouye introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
              referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 10, United States Code, to increase the grade provided 
         for the heads of the nurse corps of the Armed Forces.

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

SECTION 1. INCREASED GRADE FOR HEADS OF NURSE CORPS.

    (a) Army.--Section 3069(b) of title 10, United States Code, is 
amended by striking out ``brigadier general'' in the second sentence 
and inserting in lieu thereof ``major general''.
    (b) Navy.--The first sentence of section 5150(c) of such title is 
amended--
            (1) by inserting ``rear admiral (upper half) in the case of 
        an officer in the Nurse Corps or'' after ``for promotion to the 
        grade of''; and
            (2) by inserting ``in the case of an officer in the Medical 
        Service Corps'' after ``rear admiral (lower half)''.
    (c) Air Force.--Section 8069(b) of such title is amended by 
striking out ``brigadier general'' in the second sentence and inserting 
in lieu thereof ``major general''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                       2,431,387
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  935,760
<ALLOWANCES>                                   130,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,592,381
<PP&E>                                       1,391,827
<DEPRECIATION>                                 287,717
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,835,688
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          783,107
<BONDS>                                        605,700
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         8,756
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,609,742
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,835,688
<SALES>                                      8,722,514
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             8,722,514
<CGS>                                        4,017,490
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,017,490
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             7,884,642
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              19,590
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (2,925,808)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   793,684
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (2,132,124)
<DISCONTINUED>                              (4,550,622)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (6,682,746)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.83)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.83)
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2372 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

  2d Session
                                S. 2372

    To suspend temporarily the duty on Cibacron Brilliant Blue FN-G.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 6, 2000

   Mr. Helms introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To suspend temporarily the duty on Cibacron Brilliant Blue FN-G.

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

SECTION 1. TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF DUTY ON CIBACRON BRILLIANT BLUE FN-
              G.

    Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of 
the United States is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the 
following new heading:

      

``    9902.32.15     4,11-            Free              No change         No change         On or before 12/
                     Triphenodioxazi                                                         31/2002          ''
                     nedisulfonic                                                                              .
                     acid, 6, 13-
                     dichloro-3, 10-
                     bis[[2-[[-[[4-
                     fluoro-6-[(2-
                     sulfophenyl)
                     amino] - 1,3,5-
                     triazin-2-yl]
                     amino] propyl]
                     amino]-lithium
                     sodium salt
                     (CAS No. 163062-
                     28-0) (provided
                     for in
                     subheading
                     3204.16.30)....

SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendment made by this Act applies with respect to goods 
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after the 
15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-4179

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JOSEPH ARDELL WHALEY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief

District Judge. (CR-97-22)

Submitted: September 15, 1998 Decided: October 7, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINS, and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dean R. Davis, Wilmington, North Carolina, for Appellant. Janice

McKenzie Cole, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Assistant

United States Attorney, Jane J. Jackson, Assistant United States

Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* The Government’s argument that Whaley’s notice of appeal was

untimely filed is without merit. Because the last day of the appeal

period fell on a Sunday, Whaley’s notice of appeal was properly

filed the next day. See Fed. R. App. P. 26(a).

2

PER CURIAM:

Joseph Ardell Whaley pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy

to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (1994). Whaley was subsequently sentenced to 46 months’ imprisonment and an ensuing fiveyear term of supervised release. In his plea agreement, Whaley

agreed to waive his right to appeal whatever sentence the district

court imposed including any issues that relate to the establishment

of the Guideline range. On appeal, Whaley alleges that his sentence

was unjustifiably harsh compared to the probationary sentence received by his co-defendant who allegedly had a greater involvement

in the drug conspiracy. He maintains that this disproportionate

sentence is due primarily to the Government’s failure to provide

him an adequate opportunity to furnish substantial assistance so

that he, like his co-defendant, could have also received a downward

departure. He was, however, interviewed by a government agent and

had the opportunity to provide information. We dismiss Whaley’s

appeal.*

During the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing, the court questioned

Whaley about the waiver provision contained in the plea agreement,

and Whaley stated that he understood the provision. A defendant may
3

waive his statutory right to appeal his sentence if the waiver is

knowing and voluntary. See United States v. Marin, 961 F.2d 493,

496 (4th Cir. 1992). For a waiver to be knowing and voluntary, the

district court should specifically question the defendant about the

waiver provision before accepting his plea. Whether the waiver is

effective is a legal question reviewed de novo. See id. Based on

Whaley’s statements at the plea colloquy, we find that the waiver

was made knowingly and voluntarily.

We therefore dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2019 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2019

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
                    For the relief of Malia Miller.

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR MALIA MILLER.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of section 
201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Malia Miller shall be 
eligible for issuance of an immigrant visa or for adjustment of status 
to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence upon 
filing an application for issuance of an immigrant visa under section 
204 of such Act or for adjustment of status to lawful permanent 
resident.
    (b) Adjustment of Status.--If Malia Miller enters the United States 
before the filing deadline specified in subsection (c), she shall be 
considered to have entered and remained lawfully and shall, if 
otherwise eligible, be eligible for adjustment of status under section 
245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act as of the date of enactment 
of this Act.
    (c) Deadline for Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsections (a) 
and (b) shall apply only if the application for issuance of an 
immigrant visa or the application for adjustment of status are filed 
with appropriate fees within 2 years after the date of enactment of 
this Act.
    (d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Number.--Upon the granting of an 
immigrant visa or permanent residence to Malia Miller, the Secretary of 
State shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by one, during the 
current or next following fiscal year, the total number of immigrant 
visas that are made available to natives of the country of the alien's 
birth under section 203(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act or, 
if applicable, the total number of immigrant visas that are made 
available to natives of the country of the alien's birth under section 
202(e) of such Act.

            Passed the Senate September 28 (legislative day, September 
      22), 2000.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
106th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 2019

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

                    For the relief of Malia Miller.
```
EXHIBIT 31.2
               CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
         Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

     I, John Ray Rask, certify that:

     (1)  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Office
Managers, Inc., (the "Company");

     (2)  Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any
untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact
necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under
which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this quarterly report;

     (3)  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in
all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and
cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this
quarterly report;

     (4)  The Company's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the Company and have:

          (a)  designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure
     that material information relating to the Company is made known to us

EXHIBIT 32

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


     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Office Managers, Inc.,on
Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, John M. Hickey, Chief Executive Officer and John Ray Rask,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of
     operations of the Company.



Date: August 13, 2003              By: /S/ John M. Hickey
                                   ----------------------------------
                                   John M. Hickey, Chief Executive Officer

Date: August 13, 2003              By: /S/ John Ray Rask
                                   ----------------------------------
                                   John Ray Rask, Chief Financial Officer
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 09**  **- 8128** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. KIMPEST GERARD BROWN, a/k/a Akeem Brown, a/k/a Sam Green, a/k/a Kevin Brown , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appe al from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria
. Leonie M. Brinkema , District Judge. ( 1:01

- cr - 00169

- LMB

- 1 )

Submitted : M arch 16, 2010 Decided: March 23, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DAVIS , Circuit Ju dges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Kimpest Gerard Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Kimberly Riley Pedersen, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit
.2 PER CURIAM: Kimpest Gerard Brown appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006), and denying his motion for appointment of counsel. We have reviewed the record and find no

revers ible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Brown , No. 1:01

- cr 00169

- LMB

- 1 (E.D. Va. Nov. 12, 2009). 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