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

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 48 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 48

  Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to establish the 
                      Committee on Indian Affairs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 9, 2009

 Mr. Rehberg submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                         the Committee on Rules

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to establish the 
                      Committee on Indian Affairs.

    Resolved,

SECTION 1. COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS.

    (a) Establishment.--Clause 1 of rule X of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives is amended--
            (1) by redesignating paragraphs (k) through (t) as 
        paragraphs (l) through (u); and
            (2) by inserting after paragraph (j) the following new 
        paragraph:
    ``(k) Committee on Indian Affairs.
            ``(1) Native Americans generally, including the care and 
        allotment of Native American lands and general and special 
        measures relating to claims that are paid out of Native 
        American funds.
            ``(2) Relations of the United States with Native Americans 
        and Native American tribes.''.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--Clause 1(l) of rule X of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives is amended--
            (1) by striking subparagraph (8) and redesignating 
        subparagraphs (9) through (19) as subparagraphs (8) through 
        (18); and
            (2) by striking subparagraph (20) and redesignating 
        subparagraph (21) as subparagraph (19).
                                 <all>
```
## CAUSE NO. 03-14-00698-CV

______________________ __________________
IN THE THIRD COURT OF A PPEALS IN AUSTIN, TEXAS

______________________ __________________

S HAMARK S MITH L IMITED P ARTNERSHIP , ET AL ., Appellants,

v.

M ARTIN L ONGORIA , Appellee.

______________________ __________________ On appeal from the 20th Judicial District Court of Milam County, Texas

______________________ __________________
FIRST UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EX TENSION OF TIME TO FILE REPLY BRIEF

______________________ __________________

Tracy J. Willi Texas Bar No. 00784633 Willi Law Firm, P.C. 9600 Escarpment Blvd., Suite 745, PMB 34 Austin, TX 78749-1983 Tel. (512) 288-3200 Fax (512) 288-3202 twilli@willi.com

ATTORNEY FOR SHAMARK SMITH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, SHARON D. MARCUS, AND PAUL J. SMITH ACCEPTED 03-14-00698-CV 5779003 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS 6/23/2015 8:56:42 AM JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK2 FIRST UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EX TENSION OF TIME TO FILE REPLY BRIEF
Shamark Smith Limited Partnership, Sharon D. Marcus, and Paul J. Smith

file this First Unopposed Motion for Extens ion of Time to File Appellants’ Reply

Brief.

The trial court in this case entere d judgment on August 15, 2014. The

Appellee’s Brief was filed on June 5, 2015. The Appellant s’ Reply Brief is due to

be filed on June 25, 2015. While there ha ve been previous extensions of time

granted, this is the first request for an extension of time to file the Appellants’

Reply Brief.

Due to intervening deadlines in other matters, there will not be sufficient

time to complete the Appellants’ Reply Brie f. Therefore, Appellants request that

the deadline for the Reply Brief be extended from June 25, 2015 to July 27, 2015

. This motion is filed not for delay but so that justice can be done.3 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Tracy J. Willi Tracy J. Willi Texas Bar No. 00784633 Willi Law Firm, P.C. 9600 Escarpment Blvd., Suite 745, PMB 34 Austin, TX 78749-1983 Tel. (512) 288-3200 Fax (512) 288-3202 twilli@willi.com

ATTORNEY FOR SHAMARK SMITH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, SHARON D. MARCUS, AND PAUL J. SMITH

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

I hereby certify that I conferred with opposin g counsel, James David Walker, and he is not opposed to this motion.

/s/ Tracy J. Willi Tracy J. Willi4 CERTIFICATE OF FI LING AND SERVICE

I hereby certify that this document was filed with Clerk of Court through the Court’s electronic filing system (“efs”) a nd served on all counsel of record by email on June 23, 2015 as follows:

James David Walker P.O. Box 41 Milano, Texas 76556 (512) 636-9520 (512) 455-7992 (fax) walker@2appeal.com

ATTORNEY FOR MART IN M. LONGORIA

/s/ Tracy J. Willi Tracy J. Willi
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

January 22, 2016 

# Order

Clerk January 22, 2016

151520 (5 7)(59 )

SHANNON BITTERMAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

SC: 151520

v COA: 319663

Saginaw CC: 20 13

- 019397

- CZ

CHERYL D. BOLF,

Defendant

- Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the C hief Justice , the motion of the Michigan Press Association to file

an amicus curiae brief is GRANTED. The amicus brief submitted on January 1 5

, 2016

, is accepted for filing

. On further order of the Chief Justice, the motion of the Michigan

Press Association to participate in oral argument by sharing five minutes of plaintiff

appellant’s allotted time for argument is GRANTED

.
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Marlyce Gala, 

Defendant. 

No. CR-17-08308-001-PCT-SPL 

ORDER 

 The defendant appeared in court with counsel. The defendant's probable cause 

hearing was waived, and the detention hearing was submitted on the record including a 

proffer by defense counsel. The Court finds probable cause to believe the defendant 

violated the terms of her supervised release as alleged in the petition. The Court further 

finds, pursuant to Rule 32.1(a)(6), that defendant has failed to show by clear and 

convincing evidence that she is not a flight risk or a danger. 

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the defendant shall be bound over for further 

proceedings on the petition to revoke her supervised release. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendant is detained as a flight risk and a 

danger, pending further revocation proceedings. 

 Dated this 29th day of May, 2019.
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 23

                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of our report dated March
17, 2003 except for Note 17, as to which the date is March 31, 2003, relating to
the consolidated financial statements of Q COMM International, Inc. and
Subsidiary as of December 31, 2002, and for the periods then ended, appearing in
the company's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2002,
in the Company's Registration Statements on Form S-8, SEC File No. 333-38362,
333-57502 and 333-43450.


/s/ PRITCHETT, SILER & HARDY, P.C.

Salt Lake City, Utah
March 28, 2003
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-2356

JOHN S. STRITZINGER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

BANK OF AMERICA; VERNON WRIGHT,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Columbia. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District 

Judge. (3:14-cv-02409-TLW)

Submitted: May 18, 2016 Decided: May 20, 2016

Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John S. Stritzinger, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

John S. Stritzinger appeals the district court’s order 

adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissing 

his complaint without prejudice for failing to comply with a 

court order.* On appeal, we confine our review to the issues 

raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). 

Because Stritzinger’s informal brief does not challenge the 

basis for the district court’s disposition, Stritzinger has 

forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. Accordingly, 

we grant Stritzinger leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny 

the motion to remand, and affirm the district court’s judgment. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

 * We conclude that Stritzinger timely filed his notice of 

appeal. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988).
H. Res. 471 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

June 3, 2009. 

Whereas on Monday, May 11, 2009, the Nation experienced 

a tragedy when a soldier at the combat stress clinic at 

Camp Liberty, Iraq, reportedly killed five innocent American servicemen, and wounded three others; 

Whereas the shooting resulted in the tragic loss of Navy 

Commander Charles K. Springle, Army Major Matthew 

P. Houseal, Army Sergeant Christian E. Bueno-Galdos, 

Army Specialist Jacob D. Barton, and Army Specialist 

Michael E. Yates; 

Whereas the lives of the victims were taken while they were 

bravely and honorably serving the United States on the 

front lines in Iraq; 

Whereas the combat stress clinic at Camp Liberty, Iraq, and 

similar clinics in theater and at home provide essential 

mental health services to the Nation’s servicemen and 

women; 

Whereas the Nation’s protracted military engagements in 

Iraq and Afghanistan call for increased attention to the 

mental health challenges faced by the courageous members of the Armed Forces; and 

Whereas honoring the Nation’s commitment to those who 

serve the Nation and their families means offering these 
2 

•HRES 471 EH 

heroic soldiers not only first class medical care for physical injuries, but also first class mental health services: 

Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

(1) expresses its heartfelt condolences to the families and friends of the victims of the May 11, 2009, 

shooting at the combat stress clinic at Camp Liberty, 

Iraq; 

(2) conveys its ongoing deep gratitude to the brave 

members of the Armed Forces who risk their lives in 

service of protecting the Nation; 

(3) recognizes the important work of the medical 

professionals and staff members, who provide essential 

mental health services to our servicemen and women, at 

Combat Stress Control Center in Camp Liberty, Iraq, 

and other clinics in theater and at home; and 

(4) commits to focus on the mental, in addition to 

the physical, well being of the Nation’s military servicemen and women, and veterans, and to support the policies, resources, and funding necessary to successfully 

combat the mental and physical healthcare challenges 

that they may confront. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
EXHIBIT 32.8



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER OF

UCFH II FINANCE, INC.

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In connection with the quarterly report of UCFH II Finance, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending July 3, 2005 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael J. Short, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



|(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.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated: August 15, 2005



By:

/s/ MICHAEL J. SHORTMichael J. ShortTreasurer (Principal Financial Officer)




37
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Howard James ELKINS, Appellant.

No. 65249.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Jan. 10, 1995.

Raymond L. Legg, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., David G. Brown, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before REINHARD, P.J., GARY M. GAERTNER and CRAHAN, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Howard James Elkins, appeals from a jury conviction of first degree burglary, RSMo § 569.160 (1986), for which appellant was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment; first degree assault, RSMo § 565.050 (1986), for which appellant was sentenced to 25 years’ imprisonment; and armed criminal action, RSMo § 571.015 (1986), for which appellant was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment, all terms to be served consecutively. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the legal file and find the actions of the circuit court are not clearly erroneous. As we further find an extended opinion would have no precedential value, we affirm the circuit court’s order pursuant to Rule 30.25(b). A memorandum solely for the use of the parties here involved has been provided explaining the reasons for our decision.
H. Res. 408 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

October 14, 2009. 

Whereas since 2001, nearly 2,000,000 active duty and reserve sailors, soldiers, airmen, Marines, and Coast Guard 

personnel have deployed in support of Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom; 

Whereas the more than 1,800,000 family members of regular 

component members of the Armed Forces and an additional 1,100,000 family members of reserve component 

members make significant sacrifices on behalf of the 

United States in support of their loved ones deployed 

overseas; 

Whereas the readiness of the United States Armed Forces is 

predicated on the ability of each member of the Army, 

Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Coast Guard to focus on 

their mission during deployments; 

Whereas the military necessity of long and often unpredictable deployments, frequent relocations, and infrequent 

family contact for members of the Armed Forces can be 

extremely challenging for members and their families; 

Whereas, in response to these sacrifices and challenges, family readiness volunteers from each branch of the Armed 

Forces have stepped forward to provide critical support 
2 

•HRES 408 EH 

during deployments to service members and their families; 

Whereas the family readiness volunteer programs in each 

service help commanding officers have a better understanding of the welfare of the families within his or her 

command during a deployment and allow families to be 

informed about the status of their loved ones’ unit overseas; 

Whereas family readiness volunteers consist of Army Family 

Readiness Volunteers, Navy Ombudsmen, Coast Guard 

Ombudsmen, Air Force Key Spouse Volunteers, and Marine Corps Key Volunteers; 

Whereas the thousands of family readiness volunteers are 

generally spouses of members of the Armed Forces who 

provide assistance to military families while also enduring 

the challenges of military life; 

Whereas these volunteers are motivated by the desire to improve the lives of other military families and to assist future generations; 

Whereas family readiness volunteers also connect the community with military families and local military installations, 

often leveraging donations and resources for military 

families; 

Whereas family readiness volunteers provide their services on 

a voluntary basis, with little public recognition and financial assistance, and often contribute their own resources 

to help other military families; and 

Whereas the outstanding performance of our service members 

is a testament to the great success of family readiness 

volunteers: Now, therefore, be it 
3 

•HRES 408 EH 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives recognizes 

and honors the family readiness volunteers of each branch of 

the Armed Forces who selflessly devote their time, talent, energy, and resources in service to the United States and commends family readiness volunteers for their dedicated contributions to the quality of life of members of the Armed 

Forces and their families. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
EXHIBIT
      32.2




Certificate
      of Chief Financial OfficerPursuant to Section 906 of
      the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002




In connection with the filing of the Annual Report of Oasys Mobile, Inc. 
(the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005, as
      filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), I, Donald T. Locke, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
      certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
      906
      of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15
      (d)
      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




2. The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial conditions and results of operations of the Company
      as
      of and for the periods presented in the Report.






Date:      
March
              31,
              2006
            /s/
              Donald T.
              LockeDonald T. LockeChief Financial
              Officer
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-41032 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JUAN MANUEL REYES-CRUZ, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. B-95-CR-191-1

- - - - - - - - - - December 10, 1997 Before BARKSDALE, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Juan Manuel Reyes-Cruz appeals from the denial of his motion to dismiss the charge of illegal-reentry of an alien following deportation that is pending against him. Reyes contends that the Double Jeopardy Clause bars further prosecution because our previous holding that the district court failed to ascertain a factual basis for the entry of Reyes’s guilty plea is tantamount to a holding that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction.No. 96-41032 -2- We have reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties and we find not reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for essentially the reasons relied upon by the district court. United States v. Reyes-Cruz , No. B-95-CR-191-1 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 9, 1996).
AFFIRMED.
#### Fredrick NELSON, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 18057.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, Division Two.

Nov. 6, 1992.

*883Ellen H. Plottman, Columbia, for mov-ant-appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Elizabeth L. Ziegler, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

MAUS, Judge.

Movant Fredrick Nelson, pursuant to a plea bargain, entered pleas of guilty to charges of burglary and stealing. In accordance with that plea bargain, he was sentenced to two consecutive terms of imprisonment for three years. The motion court denied movant an evidentiary hearing upon his Rule 24.035 motion and denied that motion. Movant states one point on appeal.

That point is that he pled facts which would establish ineffective assistance of counsel in that he pled “(A) Counsel failed to communicate with him from the time of the preliminary hearing until appellant was brought before the court to enter his plea” and “(B) Counsel failed to discuss appellant’s right to a presentence investigation and waived his right without his consent.”

A movant under Rule 24.035 is entitled to an evidentiary hearing only if he alleges facts, not conclusions, which, if established, would entitle movant to relief. *Green v. State,*812 S.W.2d 557 (Mo.App.1991). Further, the facts alleged must be sufficient to support a finding movant was prejudiced by the deficiencies alleged. *Recklein v. State,*813 S.W.2d 67 (Mo.App.1991). Moreover, even if those criteria are met, “if the motion and the files and record of the case conclusively show that the mov-ant is entitled to no relief, a hearing shall not be held.” Rule 24.035(g).

The transcript of the plea proceeding includes movant’s acknowledgment he had sufficient opportunity to discuss his case with his attorney and was satisfied with the services of that attorney. Mov-ant’s belated allegation to the contrary is conclusively refuted by the record.

That transcript also conclusively shows the plea was entered and the sentences were imposed in accordance with a plea bargain accepted by movant. The allegation counsel did not discuss a presentence investigation with movant and waived such an investigation, which action was necessary in order that the plea bargain be carried out, does not state facts constituting ineffective assistance of counsel or prejudice.

Movant’s point on appeal has no merit. The judgment of the motion court is affirmed.

MONTGOMERY, P.J., and FLANIGAN, J., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 102 (Friday, May 24, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 26170]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13069]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket Nos. ER96-1461-000 and EL96-49-000]


Cambridge Electric Light Company; Notice of Initiation of 
Proceeding and Refund Effective Date

May 20, 1996.
    Take notice that on May 17, 1996, the Commission issued an order in 
the above-indicated dockets initiating a proceeding in Docket No. EL96-
49-000 under section 206 of the Federal Power Act.
    The refund effective date in Docket No. EL96-49-000 will be 60 days 
after publication of this notice in the Federal Register.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-13069 Filed 5-23-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER OF

UNIVERSAL CITY FLORIDA HOLDING CO. I

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the quarterly report of Universal City Florida Holding Co. I (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending July 2, 2006 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), I, Michael J. Short, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



| | (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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: August 16, 2006



By:

/S/ MICHAEL J. SHORTMichael J. ShortPrincipal Financial Officer