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

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1961

To amend the Food Security Act of 1985 to expand the number of acres

authorized for inclusion in the conservation reserve.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

NOVEMBER 18, 1999

Mr. JOHNSON (for himself, Mr. KERREY, and Mr. WELLSTONE) introduced

the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee

on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

A BILL

To amend the Food Security Act of 1985 to expand the

number of acres authorized for inclusion in the conservation reserve.

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

3 SECTION 1. INCREASE IN AUTHORIZED MAXIMUM ENROLL4 MENT IN CONSERVATION RESERVE.

5 Section 1231(d) of the Food Security Act of 1985

6 (16 U.S.C. 3831(d)) is amended by striking ‘‘36,400,000

7 acres’’ and inserting ‘‘45,000,000 acres’’.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       1,108,442
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               429,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                  6,090,352
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                       3,380,443
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                         3,380,443
<LOANS>                                     11,591,768
<ALLOWANCE>                                    172,590
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              19,826,494
<DEPOSITS>                                  15,844,210
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            423,716
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  3,544,858
<COMMON>                                     1,839,532
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,798,004)
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              19,826,494
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                434,879
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              217,498
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               156,643
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               809,020
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             374,652
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             374,652
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          434,368
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  172,590
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              1,478,566
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,164,446)
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                 (1,164,446)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,164,446)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (6.74)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    .023
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                     0
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              172,590
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        172,590





</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

DARIUS MCDOWELL,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 363 EAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 16th day of April, 2024

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.

Justice McCaffery did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.
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.                  

###### Export-Import Bank of the U.S.

          - [Public Notice 2010-0010]

# AGENCY:

Export-Import Bank of the U.S.

# ACTION:

Submission for OMB Review and Comments Request.

*Form Title:*                     Application for Letter of Credit Insurance Policy.                

# SUMMARY:

The Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank), as a part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal Agencies to comment on the proposed information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

The Application for Letter of Credit Insurance Policy will be used by entities involved in the export of US goods and services.

Our customers will be able to submit this form on paper or electronically. The information collected will provide information needed to determine compliance and creditworthiness for transaction requests submitted to the Export Import Bank under its long term guarantee and direct loan programs.

# DATES:

Comments should be received on or before July 16, 2010 to be assured of consideration.

# ADDRESSES:

                        Comments may be submitted electronically on                         *http://www.regulations.gov*                         or by mail to Michele Kuester, Export Import Bank of the United States, 811 Vermont Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20571.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

*Titles and Form Number:*                     EIB 92-34 Application for Letter of Credit Insurance Policy.                 

*OMB Number:*                     3048-0009.                

*Type of Review:*                     Regular.                

*Need and Use:*                     The information collected will provide information needed to determine compliance and creditworthiness for transaction requests submitted to the Export Import Bank under its long term guarantee and direct loan programs.                

Sharon A. Whitt,

Agency Clearance Officer.

[FR Doc. 2010-11668 Filed 5-14-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6690-01-P
v150341_10-43 -- Converted by SECPublisher 2.1.1.8, created by BCL Technologies Inc., for SEC Filing


     

    Exhibit
10.43
Opinion issued October 4, 2012

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-12-00645-CR

———————————

GLEN DUHON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Criminal Court at Law No. 5

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1759440

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Glen Duhon, has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. The 

motion complies with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2(a). See TEX. R.

APP. P. 42.2(a). We have not issued a decision in the appeal.
2

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(f). We 

dismiss any pending motions as moot.

We direct the Clerk to issue the mandate within 10 days of the date of this 

opinion. See TEX. R. APP. P. 18.1.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Massengale, and Brown.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
# Cloture Motions

**

----

        -  Bills, Acts, & Laws 
        -  Nominations 
        -  Treaties 
        -  Votes 
        -  Floor Proceedings 
        -  Rules & Procedure 
        -  Landmark Legislation 
        -  Sessions of Congress 
        -  Senate Archives 
        -  Public Disclosure
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

<PAGE>



                                  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 Roaming Messenger, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2005 (the "Report") I,
Jonathan Lei, Chief Executive Officer, President, and Chief Financial Officer of
the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18USC ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief:

         (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\ Jonathan Lei
------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Lei, Chief Executive Officer, President, and
Chief Financial Officer

         This  certification  accompanies  the Report pursuant to Section 906 of
the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by
the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JACK DOWELL, Defendant - Appellant. No. 16-1423 (D.C. Nos. 1:07-CV-02002-RPM and 1:01-CR-00395-RPM-3) (D. Colo.)

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY *

Before GORSUCH, BALDOCK, and McHUGH , Circuit Judges.

Pro se Petitioner Jack Dowell was convicted by a federal jury in the early 2000s of destroying government property by fire in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 844(f)(1), and of forcibly interfering with th e Internal Revenue Service in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2 and 26 U.S.C. § 7212(a). We affirmed his convictions and sentence. See United States v. Dowell , 430 F.3d 1100 (10th Cir. 2005). Mr. Do well then moved unde r 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. The district court denied the motion, and we declined to issue a certifi cate of appealability (COA).

* This order is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Federal Rule Appellate Pr ocedure 32.1 and 10th Circuit Rule 32.1. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### January 23, 2017
Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court2 Mr. Dowell next filed a series of motions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), asking the district court to set aside its order denying his § 22 55 motion, to appoint counsel, and to hold an evid entiary hearing. The district court denied each motion. And we declined to issue a COA each time he a ppealed. Mr. Dowell now seeks review of the district court’s denial of his most-recent Rule 60(b) motion, in which he makes the same arguments that we have already rejected. We do so again here without further discussion. See United States v. Dowell , 604 F. App’x 702, 704 n.1 (10th Cir. 2015) (unpublished) (cautioning “[Mr.] Dowell that future frivol ous appeals on this matter may result in summary disposition without discussion or an or der requiring him to show cause to avoid appellate filing restrictions or sanctions”). We DENY Mr. Dowell’s application for a COA, DENY his motion to proceed in forma pauperis as moot, and DISMISS his appeal. Entered for the Court
Carolyn B. McHugh Circuit Judge
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains certain summary financial information extracted from the
Company's financial statements and notes thereto and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.  The Company files an
unclassified balance sheet, certain line items are not applicable.  All values
except share amounts are in thousands.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         116,191
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  490,455
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          63,477
<DEPRECIATION>                                  39,212
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 927,854
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                         75,497
<COMMON>                                         5,345
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        860
<OTHER-SE>                                      62,792
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   906,398
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,475,616
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,438,718
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                29,818
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,569
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,194
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,338
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,856
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,856
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.36
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.30
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Thomas B. Selfridge, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of The Chalone Wine Group,
Ltd.;

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
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

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

   a)  Designed  such  disclosure  controls  and  procedures,   or  caused  such
   disclosure  controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,  to
   ensure that material  information  relating to the registrant,  including its
   consolidated  subsidiaries,  is  made  known  to us by  others  within  those
   entities,  particularly  during the period in which this quarterly  report is
   being prepared;

   b) Evaluated the  effectiveness of the registrant's  disclosure  controls and
   procedures   and  presented  in  this  report  our   conclusions   about  the
   effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
   period covered by this report based on such evaluation. and;

   c) Disclosed in this report any change in the  registrant's  internal control
   over financial  reporting that occurred during the  registrant's  most recent
   fiscal  quarter that has  materially  affected,  or is  reasonably  likely to
   materially   affect,   the  registrant's   internal  control  over  financial
   reporting; and


ersons performing the equivalent functions):

   a) All  significant  deficiencies  and material  weaknesses  in the design or
   operation of internal  control over financial  reporting which are reasonably
   likely to  adversely  affect the  registrant's  ability  to record,  process,
   summarize and report financial information; and

   b) Any fraud,  whether or not  material,  that  involves  management or other
   employees who have a significant  role in the  registrant's  internal control
   over financial reporting.


Dated:  May 14, 2004


                                   /s/ THOMAS B. SELFRIDGE
                                 --------------------------------------------
                                 Thomas B. Selfridge
                                 President and Chief Executive Officer
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-73,625-02

EX PARTE MICHAEL BLAKE BOURNE, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. W11038-2 IN THE 355TH DISTRICT COURT

FROM HOOD COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of aggravated

assault and sentenced to twenty-eight years’ imprisonment. The Second Court of Appeals dismissed

his appeal. Bourne v. State, No. 02-09-00138-CR (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2009, no pet.).

In a single ground, Applicant contends that he was denied his right to an appeal. We

remanded this application to the trial court for findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial

court concluded that Applicant was denied his right to an appeal. We agree. Applicant is entitled

to the opportunity to file an out-of-time appeal of the judgment of conviction in cause number
2

CR11038 from the 355th District Court of Hood County. Applicant is ordered returned to that time

at which he may give a written notice of appeal so that he may then, with the aid of counsel, obtain

a meaningful appeal. Within ten days of the issuance of this opinion, the trial court shall determine

whether Applicant is indigent. If Applicant is indigent and wishes to be represented by counsel, the

trial court shall immediately appoint an attorney to represent Applicant on direct appeal. All time

limits shall be calculated as if the sentence had been imposed on the date on which the mandate of

this Court issues. We hold that, should Applicant desire to prosecute an appeal, he must take

affirmative steps to file a written notice of appeal in the trial court within 30 days after the mandate

of this Court issues.

Copies of this opinion shall be sent to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Correctional

Institutions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division. 

Delivered: March 12, 2014

Do not publish
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-60355

Summary Calendar

ANTHONY J. SANTANGELO, JR., Co-Executor of the Estate of Natalie 

Santangelo, Deceased; JUNE LENOIR, Co-Executor of the Estate of Natalie 

Santangelo, Deceased, 

 Plaintiffs - Appellants

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Defendant - Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:12-CV-71

Before REAVLEY, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

In this tax dispute, the appellants challenge the district court’s 

determination that certain stock proceeds were received in 2006 under the 

“constructive receipt” doctrine. We have considered the briefs, the record on 

appeal, and all relevant law, and we conclude that the district court’s judgment 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 29, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 14-60355 Document: 00512883627 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/29/2014
No. 14-60355

should be affirmed essentially for the reasons articulated in the court’s opinion 

on summary judgment. We agree with the district court that the appellants 

have not shown a “substantial limitation” on receipt of the stock proceeds when 

they first became available in 2006.

AFFIRMED.

2

 Case: 14-60355 Document: 00512883627 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/29/2014
UNITED STATES SENATE

116TH CONGRESS, 2 ND SESSION

TARGET ADJOURNMENT DATE: DECEMBER 18, 2020 RED = IN SESSION

JOHN THUNE

MAJORITY WHIP

DICK DURBIN

DEMOCRATIC WHIP

2020 TENTATIVE SCHEDULE

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 

JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER

OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER

S M T W T F S

S M T W T F S

8 9 10 11 12 13 14

22 23 24 25 26 27 28

29 30 31 

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S

S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S

19 20 21 22 23 24 25

26 27 28 29 30 

12 13 14 15 16 17 18

1 2 3 4 

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 

23 24 25 26 27 28 29 

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 

1 

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 

27 28 29 30 

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 

1 2 3 4 5 

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 

27 28 29 30 31 

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 

1 2 3 4 5 

8 9 10 11 12 13 14

22 23 24 25 26 27 28

29 30 

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 

25 26 27 28 29 30 31 

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 

1 2 3 

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 

19 20 21 22 23 24 25

26 27 28 29 30 31 

12 13 14 15 16 17 18

1 2 3 4 

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

30 31

3 4 5 6 7 8 9

APRIL MAY JUNE

S M T W T F S S M T W T F S

17 18 19 20 21 22 23

24 25 26 27 28 29 30

10 11 12 13 14 15 16

1 2 

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 

28 29 30 

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

31

1 2 3 4 

12 13 14 15 16 17 18

19 20 21 22 23 24 25

26 27 28 29 30 31

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 

S M T W T F S

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

16 17 18 19 20 21 22

23 24 25 26 27 28 29

 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

 1

**February recess subject to Senate floor activity

JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH

S M T W T F S

**January session days subject to Senate floor 

activity
#### Joseph Briskman, Appellant, v. John H. Eckhardt, Respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

All concurred.