alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order filed April 25, 2022 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-21-00553-CV

____________

MICHAEL MARONEY AND ANN MARONEY, Appellant

V.

MARICA KOCH, Appellee

On Appeal from the 149th District Court

Brazoria County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 92530-CV

O R D E R

The clerk’s record was filed October 14, 2021. Our review has determined 

that a relevant item has been omitted from the clerk's record. See Tex. R. App. P.

34.5(c). The record does not contain (1) The defendant’s strike list and (2) The 

venire panel information forms.

The Brazoria County District Clerk is directed to file a supplemental clerk’s 

record on or before May 5, 2022, containing (1) The defendant’s strike list and (2) 

The venire panel information forms.

If the omitted item is not part of the case file, the district clerk is directed to 

file a supplemental clerk’s record containing a certified statement that the omitted 

item is not a part of the case file.

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Justices Wise, Poissant, Wilson.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

November 19, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2895

Price Pump Company:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn
Exhibit 32.1




SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER




I, M. Farooq Kathwari, hereby certify that the June 30, 2011 Annual Report on Form 10-K as filed by Ethan Allen Interiors Inc. (the "Company"), which contains the Company's financial statements, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that information contained in such Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Chairman, President and/s/ M. Farooq Kathwari
Chief Executive Officer(M. Farooq Kathwari)







August 18, 2011
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 8 (Thursday, January 12, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 3005]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-725]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES


President's Committee on the Arts and the Humanities; Notice of 
Meeting

    The 31st meeting of the President's Committee on the Arts and the 
Humanities will take place on Wednesday, January 25, 1995 at the Nancy 
Hanks Center, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, in Washington, D.C. The plenary 
meeting will be convened at 2 p.m. in room M-09. This meeting will 
feature a discussion of the private sector's ability to supplement 
existing government funding for the arts and the humanities. Committee 
members and guest speakers will discuss the current state of 
philanthropy and recent reports on declining or stagnant rates of 
corporate support for the arts. If time permits, the Committee may hear 
a discussion of current issues affecting institutions in the 
humanities. Working groups, to discuss specific topics to be addressed 
by the Committee during 1995, will meet in the morning beginning at 9 
a.m. in locations to be determined. At present no guest speakers are 
confirmed and the agenda for the plenary session is subject to 
revision. For information about the agenda, please contact the 
President's Committee staff at the address or phone number below.
    The President's Committee on the Arts and the Humanities was 
created by Executive Order in 1982 to advise the President, the two 
Endowments, and the IMS on measures to encourage private sector support 
for the nation's cultural institutions and to promote public 
understanding of the arts and the humanities.
    Public attendance is encouraged, but seating is limited in meeting 
rooms and it is suggested that individuals wishing to attend notify the 
staff of the President's Committee in advance. For further information, 
please call the President's Committee at (202) 682-5409 or write to the 
Committee at 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 526; Washington, 
D.C. 20506.

    Dated: January 6, 1995.
Yvonne M. Sabine,
Director, Council and Panel Operations, National Endowment for the 
Arts.
[FR Doc. 95-725 Filed 1-11-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7537-01-M
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk April 28, 2009

l0420 

# Order

April 28, 2009

137978

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 137978 COA: 272019 Washtenaw CC: 05-001976-FC KARRIE CALVIN MUNLIN, JR., Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the November 13, 2008 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
1

The Honorable Stephen Limbaugh, United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3596

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Felton Gooseberry, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: January 6, 2006

Filed: January 20, 2006

___________

Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Felton Gooseberry appeals the sentence the district court1

 imposed after he

pleaded guilty to distributing cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1),

(b)(1)(B)(iii). His counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Gooseberry has filed a pro se supplemental brief,

arguing that his sentence should be vacated under Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S.

296 (2004).
-2-

We enforce the broad appeal waiver included in Gooseberry’s written plea

agreement: the district court conducted a proper Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure

11 colloquy and discussed the appeal waiver with Gooseberry, who affirmed that his

plea was voluntary and that he understood the plea agreement and the waiver; this

appeal falls within the scope of the waiver; and no injustice would result. See United

States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir.) (en banc) (court should enforce

appeal waiver and dismiss appeal where it falls within scope of waiver, both plea

agreement and waiver were entered into knowingly and voluntarily, and no

miscarriage of justice would result; one important way district court can ensure plea

agreement and appeal waiver are knowing and voluntary is to properly question

defendant about decision to enter agreement and to waive right to appeal), cert.

denied, 540 U.S. 997 (2003). The waiver also covered any issues under United States

v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). See United States v. Reeves, 410 F.3d 1031, 1034-35

(8th Cir.) (right to appeal under Booker is among rights waived by broad appeal

waiver, even if defendant did not anticipate Booker ruling), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct.

469 (2005).

Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75,

80 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues not covered by the waiver.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. 

______________________________
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3965 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3965

  To provide that broker-dealers who provide research services to an 
investment manager and receive payments from certain accounts is not an 
              investment adviser, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 30, 2022

   Mr. Moran introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
    referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To provide that broker-dealers who provide research services to an 
investment manager and receive payments from certain accounts is not an 
              investment adviser, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Increasing Access to Adviser 
Information Act''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF INVESTMENT ADVISER.

    Section 202(a)(11) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (15 
U.S.C. 80b-2(a)(11)) is amended by striking ``or (H)'' and inserting 
``(H) any broker or dealer who provides research services to an 
investment manager and accepts payment for those services from the 
investment manager's own money, from a research payment account funded 
with money from a client of the investment manager, or a combination 
thereof, provided that the payment method of the investment manager is 
subject to, either directly or by contractual obligation, the Directive 
2014/65/EU of the European Parliament, the Council of 15 May 2014 on 
markets in financial instruments and amending Directive 2002/92/EC and 
Directive 2011/61/EU, as implemented by the European Union member 
states, or any other law from any foreign jurisdiction that is 
substantially similar to that directive and the implementing rules and 
regulations of that directive; or (I)''.
                                 <all>
```
**EXHIBIT 99.1**

 

**PressRelease**

 

**For MoreInformation, Call: Cynthia Davis  (312) 827-8553**

 
|   | For Immediate Release |
|--------|-----------------------|
|   | 11/9/04               |
|        |                       |  |

 

 

**EASTERN AMERICAN NATURAL GAS TRUST DECLARESQUARTERLY DIVIDEND**

 

Charleston, WestVirginia, November 9, 2004 — EASTERN AMERICAN NATURAL GAS TRUST (NYSE-NGT)today announced that its estimated distributable income for the quarter ended September 30,2004 is $.4829 per Depositary Unit. Based on the amount of distributable income for the quarter, the Trustanticipates that it will make a cash distribution on or before December 15,2004 of $.4829 per Depositary Unit to holders of record as of the close ofbusiness on November 30, 2004.

 

EasternAmerican Natural Gas Trust is a grantor trust, which presently holds net profitinterests in approximately 672 producing gas wells located in West Virginia andPennsylvania.

 
| # |   | # |   | # |
|---|--------|---|--------|---|

 

Forfurther information, contact:

CynthiaDavis, (312) 827-8553

TheBank of New York, as Successor Trustee

 

----
EXHBIT
23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED

PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by
reference of our report dated April 13, 2005 which appears in the annual report on Form
10-KSB of Ener1, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2004, into the following
Registration Statements: (1) S-8 filed 2-6-04 (File No. 333-112581); (2) S-8 filed 2-6-04
(File No. 333-112583); (3) SB-2 filed 4-7-04 (File No. 333-112837); and (4) SB-2 filed
4-23-04 (File No. 333-114786).

| |  | KAUFMAN, ROSSIN & CO., P.A.BY: /S/ KAUFMAN, ROSSIN & CO., P.A.
KAUFMAN, ROSSIN & CO., P.A.Miami, Florida
April 14, 2005
| |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 398 

To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to clarify that utility line 

technicians qualify as emergency response providers. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 23, 2021 

Mr. KENNEDY introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to clarify 

that utility line technicians qualify as emergency response providers. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Linemen Legacy Act’’. 

5 SEC. 2. EMERGENCY RESPONSE PROVIDERS. 

6 Section 2(6) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 

7 (6 U.S.C. 101(6)) is amended— 

8 (1) by striking ‘‘includes Federal’’ and inserting 

9 ‘‘includes— 

10 ‘‘(A) Federal’’; 

2 

•S 398 IS

1 (2) by striking the period at the end and insert2 ing ‘‘; and’’; and 

3 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

4 ‘‘(B) utility line technicians responding to 

5 a major disaster or an emergency declared by 

6 the President under section 501 of the Robert 

7 T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency As8 sistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5191).’’. 

Æ
#### In the Matter of Halbert Turner, Petitioner, v Thomas A. Coughlin, III, as Commissioner of the Department of Correctional Services, et al., Respondents.

Weiss, J.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Washington County) to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

On August 6, 1988, petitioner was served with a misbehavior report charging participation in, or urging participation in, *782a July 31, 1988 prison disturbance at Great Meadow Correctional Facility in Washington County. Specifically, petitioner was alleged to have personally and actively recruited other inmates to participate in a mess hall disturbance.

Petitioner argues that the determination of guilt is not • supported by substantial evidence. A review of the record, including material validly held confidential and unavailable to petitioner *(see, Matter of Freeman v Coughlin,*138 AD2d 824, 825-826; *Matter of Gibson v LeFevre,*133 AD2d 978, 979-980), shows that the credible evidence presented satisfied the standard set by *People ex rel. Vega v Smith*(66 NY2d 130, 139) and *300 Gramatan Ave. Assocs. v State Div. of Human Rights*(45 NY2d 176, 180).

Petitioner further contends that several procedural errors warrant annulment. We disagree. We find that making specific reference to the disturbance and designating the time and location of petitioner’s recruiting activities as the afternoon recreation periods of July 30 and 31, 1988 satisfied the procedural requirements of notice of time and place *(see, Matter of Lahey v Kelly,*71 NY2d 135, 144). It was not necessary that the notice itemize in evidentiary detail all aspects of the case against petitioner. Equally without merit are the contentions made by petitioner of inadequate employee assistance and denial of witnesses. The employee assistant interviewed petitioner, and the single witness petitioner identified was called and testified at the hearing. The records sought by petitioner were confidential statements and unavailable. In sum, petitioner was not denied meaningful employee assistance *(see, Matter of Serrano v Coughlin,*152 AD2d 790). Moreover, contrary to petitioner’s claim the hearing was timely commenced within seven days of the misbehavior report, and while its completion was delayed beyond 14 days *(see,*7 NYCRR 251-5.1) valid reasons existed for the delay, i.e., awaiting the return from vacation of the employee witness sought by petitioner.

Finally, the record fails to support petitioner’s argument that the nature of questioning of witnesses by the Hearing Officer demonstrated his bias.

Determination confirmed, and petition dismissed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Weiss, Yesawich, Jr., and Mercure, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4254 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4254

  To amend the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 to clarify a provision 
     relating to certain contents of registrations under that Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                 May 18 (legislative day, May 17), 2022

   Mr. Grassley (for himself, Mr. Peters, Mr. Sasse, Mr. Durbin, Mr. 
  Cornyn, Ms. Hassan, and Ms. Sinema) introduced the following bill; 
which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 to clarify a provision 
     relating to certain contents of registrations under that Act.

    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 ``Disclosing Foreign Influence in 
Lobbying Act''.

SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION OF CONTENTS OF REGISTRATION.

    Section 4(b) of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 
1603(b)) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (6), by striking ``and'' at the end; and
            (2) in paragraph (7), by striking ``the offense.'' and 
        inserting the following: ``the offense; and
            ``(8) notwithstanding paragraph (4), the name and address 
        of each government of a foreign country (including any agency 
        or subdivision of a foreign government, such as a regional or 
        municipal unit of government) and foreign political party, 
        other than the client, that participates in the direction, 
        planning, supervision, or control of any lobbying activities of 
        the registrant.''.
                                 <all>
```
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, February 26, 2021. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, February 26, 2021 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A21I0130. BRAD KENNEDY v. THE STATE.
Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.
LC NUMBERS: 20DR0140
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

November 19, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2958

Price Pump Company:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 51 (Thursday, March 16, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14305-14306]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-6542]



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


NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Special Emphasis Panel in Systemic Reform; Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting:

    Name: Special Emphasis Panel in Systemic Reform (#1765).
    Dates and Times: April 3-4, 1995 from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Place: Marriott Hotel, 1221 22nd Street, Washington, DC.
    Type of Meeting: Closed.
    Contact Person: Dr. Richard J. Anderson, Senior Project 
Director, Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research, 
Office of Systemic Reform, Room 875, National Science Foundation, 
4201 Wilson Blvd. Arlington, VA 22230, Tel: (703) 306-1683.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations 
concerning proposals submitted to the NSF EPSCoR program for 
financial support.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate Experimental Systemic Initiative 
proposals as part of the selection process for awards.
    Reason for Closing: The proposals being reviewed include 
information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including 
technical information, financial data, such as salaries; and 
personal information concerning individuals associated with the 
proposals. These matters are within exemptions (4) and (6) of 5 
U.S.C. 552b(c), the Government in the Sunshine Act.

    [[Page 14306]] Dated: March 13, 1995.
M. Rebecca Winkler,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 95-6542 Filed 3-15-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M