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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CR 01-604-PHX-EHC

)

Vidal Mungia-Mayorquin, ) DETENTION ORDER

)

Defendant. )

_________________________________)

On February 10, 2009, defendant Vidal Mungia-Mayorquin appeared before this

Court on a petition for revocation of supervised release. The Court considered the

information provided to the Court, and the arguments of counsel in determining whether the

defendant should be released on conditions set by the Court.

The Court finds that the defendant, having previously been convicted and placed on

supervised release, and having appeared before the Court in connection with a petition to

revoke his supervised release, has failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that

he is not likely to flee or pose a danger to the safety of the community if released pursuant

to Rule 46(d), and Rule 32.1(a)(6), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and 18 U.S.C.

§3143.

Case 2:01-cr-00604-EHC Document 37 Filed 02/11/09 Page 1 of 2
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant be detained pending further

proceedings. 

DATED this 10th day of February, 2009.

Case 2:01-cr-00604-EHC Document 37 Filed 02/11/09 Page 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 101 (Thursday, May 23, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 25918]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13011]



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


DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Working Group on Service Providers, Advisory Council on Employee 
Welfare and Pension Benefits Plans; Meeting

    Pursuant to the authority contained in section 512 of the Employee 
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1142, a 
public meeting of the Working Group on Service Providers of the 
Advisory Council on Employee Welfare and Pension Benefit Plans will be 
held on June 18, 1996, in Room N-3437 C&D, U.S. Department of Labor 
Building, Third and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20210.
    The purpose of the meeting, which will run from 9:30 a.m. to noon, 
is to begin taking testimony on the need to offer assistance to plans 
in determining how best to select and monitor service providers.
    Members of the public are encouraged to file a written statement 
pertaining to any topic concerning ERISA by submitting 20 copies on or 
before May 27, 1996 to Sharon Morrissey, Acting Executive Secretary, 
ERISA Advisory Council, U.S. Department of Labor, Suite N-5677, 200 
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20210. Individuals or 
representatives of organizations wishing to address the Working Group 
on Service Providers should forward their request to the Acting 
Executive Secretary or telephone (202) 219-8753. Oral presentations 
will be limited to 10 minutes, but an extended statement may be 
submitted for the record. Individuals with disabilities, who need 
special accommodations, should contact Sharon Morrissey by May 27, 
1996, at the address indicated in this notice.
    Organizations or individuals may also submit statements for the 
record without testifying. Twenty (20) copies of such statements should 
be sent to the Acting Executive Secretary of the Advisory Council at 
the above address. Papers will be accepted and included in the record 
of the meeting if received on or before May 27.

    Signed at Washington, DC this 20th day of May, 1996.
Olena Berg,
Assistant Secretary, Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-13011 Filed 5-22-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-29-M
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 22, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 25658]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12848]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Project No. 11572-000]


Roosevelt Water Conservation District; Notice of Application for 
Errata to Conduit Exemption

May 16, 1996.
    Take notice that the deadline date under the notice issued April 
29, 1996 (61 FR 19927, May 3, 1996) has been changed to August 2, 1996. 
The applicant's zip code should also be corrected to read ``85236.''
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-12848 Filed 5-22-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
EXHIBIT32

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO

18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Inconnection with the Annual Report of Calif Acquisitions, Inc. (the "Company")on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2003, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),I, Anthony N. DeMint, President and Chief Accounting Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

-  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or        15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; andThe information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material        respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the        Company.
/s/Anthony N.DeMint                            

AnthonyN. DeMint

Presidentand Chief Accounting Officer

February6, 2004
IV 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 351 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that a Federal statute 

requiring firearm registration would unduly burden the Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 22, 2009 

Mr. MINNICK submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that 

a Federal statute requiring firearm registration would 

unduly burden the Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms. 

Whereas the soldiers of the Continental Army and other patriots who fought to secure the independence of the 

United States did not do so using registered firearms; 

Whereas the right of the people to keep and bear arms, protected by the Second Amendment to the Constitution of 

the United States, is rooted in the principle of liberty, 

upon which the United States was founded; 

Whereas the Supreme Court has consistently upheld the right 

of the people to keep and bear arms, most recently in the 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 351 IH 

case of District of Columbia v. Heller (128 S.Ct. 2783 

(2008)); 

Whereas the right of the people to keep and bear arms has 

a history of robust legal protection, reflecting a consensus 

that certain bans on firearms are unconstitutional; 

Whereas firearm registration should be held to be an undue 

burden on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, 

consistent with the firm convictions to that effect of 

many of the people and the history of robust legal protection for the right; and 

Whereas H.R. 45 of the 111th Congress, if enacted, would 

unduly burden the right of the people to keep and bear 

arms by requiring firearm registration: Now, therefore, 

be it 

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep2 resentatives that a Federal statute requiring firearm reg3 istration, such as is proposed by H.R. 45 of the 111th 

4 Congress, would— 

5 (1) be contrary to the Constitution of the 

6 United States; 

7 (2) unduly burden the right of the people to 

8 keep and bear arms; and 

9 (3) stand in opposition to the founding prin10 ciples of the United States. 

Æ 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6608

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. DAMON EMANUEL ELLIOTT, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (8:97-cr-00053-PJM-1; 8:08-cv-03317-PJM)

Submitted: May 28, 2009 Decided: June 8, 2009

Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Damon Emanuel Elliott, Appellant Pro Se. Ronald Jay Tenpas, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Damon Emanuel Elliott seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as successive his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2008) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district

court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000);

Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Elliott has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and 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
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6445

VAN THORNTON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN WATSON,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior 

District Judge. (7:10-cv-00073-jct-mfu)

Submitted: June 17, 2010 Decided: June 28, 2010

Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Van Thornton, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Van Thornton seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record 

and conclude that Thornton has not made the requisite showing.*

 * Our conclusion that Thornton has not made the showing 

necessary to warrant issuance of a certificate of appealability 

is supported by the Supreme Court’s recent opinion in Holland v. 

Florida, No. 09-5327, slip op. (U.S. June 14, 2010).

 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave 
3

to proceed in forma pauperis, and 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
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Michael TODD, Appellant. Michael TODD, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Nos. 60803, 63484.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Jan. 25, 1994.

Robert E. Steele, Jr., St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Mary Moulton Bryan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before CRANDALL, P.J., and REINHARD and CRIST, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant, Michael Todd, appeals from his conviction, after a jury trial, of felony stealing. He was sentenced as a prior and persistent offender to imprisonment for seven years. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion on defendant’s direct appeal. The judgment of conviction is affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).

Defendant also appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion without an evidentiary hearing. The judgment of the trial court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous; no error of law appears. An opinion would have no precedential value. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5992 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 5992

   To amend the Federal Crop Insurance Act to modify eligibility for 
prevented planting insurance under certain drought conditions, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 19, 2023

  Mr. Harder of California (for himself and Mr. Mann) introduced the 
                             following bill

                            October 25, 2023

                Referred to the Committee on Agriculture

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Federal Crop Insurance Act to modify eligibility for 
prevented planting insurance under certain drought conditions, 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 ``Protecting Farmers from Drought Act 
of 2023''.

SEC. 2. ELIGIBILITY FOR PREVENTED PLANTING INSURANCE UNDER CERTAIN 
              DROUGHT CONDITIONS.

    Section 508A(c) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 
1508a(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
            ``(6) 1-in-5 rule for certain drought conditions.--
                    ``(A) Definitions.--In this paragraph:
                            ``(i) Covered county.--The term `covered 
                        county' means a county that experienced, in 
                        each of 3 consecutive years, extreme drought 
                        (D3 or worse intensity), as measured by, and 
                        indicated in a report of, the United States 
                        Drought Monitor, in any area of the county at 
                        any time during the normal planting period.
                            ``(ii) Covered rule.--The term `covered 
                        rule' means the eligibility requirement for 
                        prevented planting insurance, described in 
                        section 17(f)(8) of the most recent version of 
                        the Common Crop Insurance Policy Basic 
                        Provisions, under which planting of a crop must 
                        have occurred once in the 4 most recent crop 
                        years preceding the current crop year (commonly 
                        referred to as the `1 in 4 rule').
                    ``(B) 1-in-5 rule.--The covered rule shall be 
                modified for a covered county to require the planting 
                of a crop once in the 5 most recent crop years 
                preceding the current crop year.''.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT
23.2









Consent
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm




The Board
of Directors and Stockholders




Crown
Media Holdings, Inc.:




We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No.
333-37588) on Form S-8 of Crown Media Holdings, Inc. of our reports dated March
4, 2010, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Crown Media
Holdings, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2008 and 2009, and the
related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ deficit, and cash
flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2009,
and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of
December 31, 2009, which reports appear in the December 31, 2009 annual report
on Form 10-K of Crown Media Holdings, Inc.





Our
report dated March 4, 2010 contains an explanatory paragraph that states that
Crown Media Holdings, Inc. has significant short-term debt obligations that
raise substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern. The
consolidated financial statements do not include any adjustments that might
result from the outcome of that uncertainty.














KPMG
LLP




Denver,
Colorado




March 4,
2010
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**




**MMC
      ENERGY, INC.**


**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 MMC Energy, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
      10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Karl W. Miller,
      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.





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


November
                8, 2006/s/
                Karl W. MillerKarl
                W. MillerChief
                Executive Officer





The
      foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of
      the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is not being filed as part of this Report or
      as a
      separate disclosure document. 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.
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 98 (Monday, May 20, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25224-25225]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12555]



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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. Once the application has been accepted 
for processing, it will also be available for inspection at the offices 
of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views 
in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 
1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking 
company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the 
nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC 
Act, including whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company can 
``reasonably be expected to produce benefits to the public, such as 
greater convenience, increased competition, or gains in efficiency, 
that outweigh possible adverse effects, such as undue concentration of 
resources, decreased or unfair competition, conflicts of interests, or 
unsound banking practices'' (12 U.S.C.      1843). Any request for a 
hearing must be accompanied by a statement of the reasons a written 
presentation would not suffice in lieu of a hearing, identifying 
specifically any questions of fact that are in dispute, summarizing the 
evidence that would be presented at a hearing, and indicating how the 
party commenting would be aggrieved by approval of the proposal. Unless 
otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the 
United States.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank

[[Page 25225]]

indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than June 
14, 1996.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (Randall C. Sumner, Vice 
President) 411 Locust Street, St. Louis, Missouri 63166:
    1. Hometown Bancshares, Inc., New Albany, Indiana; to become a bank 
holding company by acquiring 100 percent of the voting shares of 
Hometown National Bank, New Albany, Indiana (a proposed de novo bank).

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 14, 1996.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 96-12555 Filed 5-17-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-F
**EXHIBIT32.2**

 

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

 

In connection with thequarterly report of New Skies Satellites Holdings Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Andrew M. Browne,Vice President and Director of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.              The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934, as amended; and

 

2.              The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 
|   | By:    | /s/ Andrew M. Browne                         |   |
|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |   | Andrew M. Browne                             |
|   |   | Vice President and Director                  |
|   |   | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) |

 

Date:      August 15, 2005

 

----
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Mark Allen PEER, Defendant/Appellant.

No. 67712.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.

Dec. 5, 1995.

Ron Trowbridge, Jefferson City, for appellant.

David C. Mobley, New London, for respondent.

Before AHRENS, P.J., and PUDLOWSKI and GRIMM, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

In this jury-tried case, defendant was found guilty of assault in the third degree in *671violation of § 565.070.1(4), RSMo 1986. The jury assessed punishment of one year in the county jañ and a fine. The trial court imposed the recommended sentence of one year imprisonment and it assessed a $1,000 fine.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).