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

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 85 

Amending the Code of Official Conduct in the Rules of the House of Representatives to strengthen the reporting requirements for Members who 

request earmarks. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 26, 2009 

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

Committee on Standards of Official Conduct 

RESOLUTION 

Amending the Code of Official Conduct in the Rules of 

the House of Representatives to strengthen the reporting 

requirements for Members who request earmarks. 

1 Resolved, That clause 17(a) of rule XXIII (the Code 

2 of Official Conduct) is amended by adding at the end the 

3 following new sentence: 

4 ‘‘A campaign contribution in excess of a de minimis 

5 amount to a Member, Delegate, or Resident Com6 missioner made by or on behalf of any political, for 

7 profit, or nonprofit entity, made by or on behalf of 

8 any employee or person affiliated with any such enti9 ty, made by or on behalf of any political action comVerDate Nov 24 2008 02:13 Jan 27, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\HR85.IH HR85

jbell on PRODPC61 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 85 IH 

1 mittee established by, administered by, or affiliated 

2 with any such entity, by or on behalf of any reg3 istered lobbyist for any such entity, or by or on be4 half of any political action committee established by, 

5 administered by, or affiliated with any registered 

6 lobbyist for any such entity during the current or 

7 previous session of Congress shall be treated as a fi8 nancial interest of that Member, Delegate, or Resi9 dent Commissioner, as applicable, for purposes of 

10 this clause.’’. 

Æ 


jbell on PRODPC61 with BILLS
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-40525 (Summary Calendar)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

EDGAR ANTONIO SANTIAGO-MARTINEZ, also known as Edgar Martinez, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (USDC No. M-93-CR-178-02)

- - - - - - - - - - September 26, 1996 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Edgar Antonio Santiago-Martinez appeals his guilty plea
conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distri bute marijuana and his sentence. He argues that the district court
violated Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in the taking of his guilty plea, and
that the district co urt failed to make the necessary reasonable2

foreseeability finding in determining the quantity of marijuana for
which he was responsible. We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. United States v. Johnson , 1 F.3d 296, 298 (5th Cir. 1993) (en banc); United States v. Mergerson , 4 F.3d 337, 345 (5th Cir. 1993), cert. denied , 510 U.S. 1198 (1994).

AFFIRMED.
STEVEN LAURIE HARTER

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 14

- 5696

_____________________________/

Opinion filed January 7, 2016.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County

. Edward P. Nickinson, III , Judge

.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Pamela D. Presnell, Assistant Public

Defender, Tallahassee , for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Samuel Steinberg, Assistant Attorney

General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS

, C .J., WOLF and THOMAS, J J

. , CONCUR.
**EXHIBIT 95**

 

** Mine Safety Disclosure**

 

Thefollowing information relates to the three months ended June 30, 2012. The Company was issued no citations under section 104 ofthe Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977. No orders were issued under section 104(b) or 107(a), no citations or orderswere issued under section 104(d) and there were no violations under section 110(b)(2). There were no mine-related fatalities.No written notice from the Mine Safety and Health Administration of a pattern of violations or the potential to have such a patterwas received. There were no pending legal actions before the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission.
---

Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Terry Fitzgerald, hereby 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Dussault Apparel
      Inc. for the period ended April 30, 2008 (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 Dussault Apparel Inc.                                                                   

Dated: June 20, 2008

| | /s/
      Terry Fitzgerald           
| | -------------------------------------
| | Terry Fitzgerald                     
| | President and Chief Executive Officer
| | (Principal Executive Officer)        
| | Dussault Apparel Inc.                

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Dussault Apparel
Inc. and will be retained by Dussault Apparel Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
---

Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Post Effective
  Amendment no 1. to the Registration Statement on Form S-3, No. 333-138521 and
  the Registration Statements on form S-8, No. 333-126958 and No.333-140042 of
  our reports dated August 27, 2009, relating to the consolidated financial statements
  of Net 1 UEPS Technologies, Inc. and subsidiaries and the effectiveness of the
  Company’s internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this
  Annual Report on Form 10-K of Net 1 UEPS Technologies, Inc. for the year ended
  June 30, 2009.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche (South Africa)

DELOITTE & TOUCHE (SOUTH AFRICA)

Johannesburg, Republic of South Africa August 27, 2009

---
#### Charles W. EMMONS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 57617.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

June 5, 1990.

Lew A. Kollias, Raymond L. Legg, Columbia, for appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Breck K. Burgess, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing. Movant did not file his Rule 24.035 motion within ninety days of his delivery to the department of corrections. Rule 24.-035(b). The motion court dismissed mov-ant’s motion as untimely. *Id.*The time limits under Rule 24.035(b) are valid, reasonable and mandatory. *Day v. State,*770 S.W.2d 692, 695(1] (Mo. banc 1989). Rule 24.035 does not operate as an unconstitutional suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. *White v. State,*779 S.W.2d 571, 573(4] (Mo. banc 1989). The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous. 24.035(j). An extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We affirm. Rule 84.16(b).
Case 4:17-cr-01658-JGZ-DTF Document 10 Filed 11/03/17 Page 1 of 3
Case 4:17-cr-01658-JGZ-DTF Document 10 Filed 11/03/17 Page 2 of 3
Case 4:17-cr-01658-JGZ-DTF Document 10 Filed 11/03/17 Page 3 of 3
WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CR 01-00707-PHX-PGR

)

Joseph Victor Sylvie, ) DETENTION ORDER

)

Defendant. )

_____________________________________________)

 On January 18, 2011 defendant Joseph Victor Sylvie 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),

Case 2:01-cr-00707-PGR Document 54 Filed 01/19/11 Page 1 of 2
and Rule 32.1(a)(6), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and 18 U.S.C. §3143.

 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant be detained pending further proceedings.

 DATED this 18th day of January, 2011.

Case 2:01-cr-00707-PGR Document 54 Filed 01/19/11 Page 2 of 2
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**CERTIFICATIONOF 10-K REPORT**

**OF**

**CROWNMEDIA HOLDINGS, INC.**

**FORTHE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2006**

# 1.               The undersigned is the Chief FinancialOfficer of Crown Media Holdings, Inc. (“Crown Media Holdings”).  This Certification is made pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.  ThisCertification accompanies the 10-K Report of Crown Media Holdings for theyear ended December 31, 2006.

# 2.               I certify that such 10-K Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such 10-KReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of Crown Media Holdings.

This Certification isexecuted as of March 8, 2007.
|   | /s/ Brian C. Stewart                       |   |
|--------|--------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Brian C. Stewart, Executive Vice President |
|   | and Chief Financial Officer                |

 

----
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A19D0012. CRYSTAL FOFANA v. SOULEYMANE FOFANA.

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered

that it be hereby GRANTED. The Appellant shall 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.

The Motion to Strike filed by the Applicant is hereby DENIED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

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.

August 14, 2018

08/14/2018
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Cindi Tanner, an individual,

Plaintiff,

v.

Maricopa County Community College 

District, a political subdivision of Arizona; 

Maria Wise, an individual and in her 

official capacity; Vivian MirandaStrawbridge, an individual and in her 

official capacity,

Defendants.

NO. CV-18-00377-PHX-SPL

ORDER FOR PARTIAL DISMISSAL 

WITH PREJUDICE OF WAGE 

CLAIMS

Upon stipulation of all parties,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED dismissing with prejudice, each party to bear their 

own attorney’s fees and costs, Plaintiff’s claims as an employee for wages, and related 

damages, attorney’s fees and/or costs, during her employment with Defendant Maricopa 

County Community College District and specifically the Fourth Claim for Relief of the 

Complaint 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court shall enter this as a final 

order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) as there is no just reason for delay 

of entry of this Order. 

Case 2:18-cv-00377-SPL Document 23-1 Filed 04/16/18 Page 1 of 2
2

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

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on April 16, 2018, I electronically filed the attached document 

using ECF for filing and transmitted the document through ECF to the following 

registered ECF users:

Israel G. Torres

James E. Barton, II

Saman Golestan

TORRES LAW GROUP, PLLC

2239 W. Baseline Rd.

Tempe, AZ 85283

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

/s/ Kimberly Kershner

5136201.1

109883.022

Case 2:18-cv-00377-SPL Document 23-1 Filed 04/16/18 Page 2 of 2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-4712

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

SHAPRIA CHAPMAN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Malcolm J. Howard,

District Judge. (CR-03-20-HO)

Submitted: April 15, 2004 Decided: April 20, 2004

Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Randolph M. Lee, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anne

Margaret Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Shapria Chapman pled guilty to one count of

being a felon in possession of a firearm and one count of

possessing a firearm with an obliterated serial number, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 922(k) and 924 (2000). He was

sentenced to thirty months in prison.

Chapman’s appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) raising two issues

regarding Chapman’s sentence: (1) whether the district court

properly increased his offense level by four because of the number

of firearms involved in Chapman’s conduct; and (2) whether the

district court erroneously enhanced Chapman’s offense level by two

for being a manager of criminal conduct. The Government has

elected not to file a brief. Chapman was notified of his right to

file a pro se supplemental brief and has not done so.

We have independently reviewed the entire record in this

case, including the issues raised by counsel, and, in accordance

with Anders, have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We

therefore affirm Chapman’s convictions and sentence. This court

requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right

to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further

review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but

counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then

counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from
- 3 -

representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof

was served on the client. We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-30750

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JERMAINE D STARKS

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 3:06-CR-167-1

Before BENAVIDES, PRADO, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Jermaine D. Starks has moved for

leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967). Starks has not filed a response. Our independent review

of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal.

Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

July 14, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-30750

2

excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
Exhibit 12.1**CERTIFICATION**I, Liu Shao Yong, certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of China Southern Airlines CompanyLimited;2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this annual report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this annualreport;4. The company’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the company and have:(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;(b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financialreporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability offinancial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance withgenerally accepted accounting principles;(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the company’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this annual report based on such evaluation;and(d) Disclosed in this annual report any change in the company’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the period covered by this annual report that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the company’s internal control overfinancial reporting.5. The company’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation, to the company’s auditors and the audit committee of the company’s board of directors(or persons performing the equivalent function);(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrols over financial reporting, which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the company’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the company’s internal controls over financial reporting.     Date:June 30, 2006By: /s/ Liu Shao Yong       Name: Liu Shao Yong   Title: Chairman of the Board of Directors
H. Res. 879 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

June 17, 2010. 

Whereas the National Education Association has designated 

November 14 through November 20, 2010, as the 89th 

annual observance of American Education Week; 

Whereas public schools are the backbone of the Nation’s democracy, providing young people with the tools they need 

to maintain the Nation’s precious values of freedom, civility, and equality; 

Whereas by equipping young people in the United States with 

both practical skills and broader intellectual abilities, 

public schools give them hope for, and access to, a productive future; 

Whereas people working in the field of public education, be 

they teachers, higher education faculty and staff, 

custodians, substitute educators, bus drivers, clerical 

workers, food service professionals, workers in skilled 

trades, health and student service workers, security 

guards, technical employees, or librarians, work tirelessly 

to serve children and communities throughout the Nation 

with care and professionalism; and 

Whereas public schools are community linchpins, bringing together adults, children, educators, volunteers, business 
2 

•HRES 879 EH 

leaders, and elected officials in a common enterprise: 

Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

(1) supports the goals and ideals of American Education Week; and 

(2) encourages the people of the United States to 

observe National Education Week by reflecting on the 

positive impact of all those who work together to educate 

children. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 113 (Tuesday, June 11, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29545-29546]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14673]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP96-260-000]


Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company; Notice of Proposed Changes 
in FERC Gas Tariff

June 5, 1996.
    Take notice that on May 31, 1996, Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line 
Company (Panhandle) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, 
First Revised Volume No. 1, the tariff sheets listed on Appendix A 
attached to the filing, proposed to be effective July 1, 1996.
    Panhandle states that the purpose of this filing is to recover 
additional Miscellaneous Stranded Costs pursuant to Section 18.14 of 
the General Terms and Conditions of Panhandle's tariff. Specifically, 
this filing will implement Panhandle's recovery of $1,869,027 of 
certain Miscellaneous Stranded Costs, including interest from the date 
the costs were incurred to the date of filing and including a levelized 
interest component applicable for the three year period the rates 
encompassed herein are anticipated to be in effect.
    Panhandle states that copies of this filing are being served on all 
affected customers and applicable state regulatory agencies.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest this filing should 
file a motion

[[Page 29546]]

to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 
888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with 
Sections 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. 
All such motions or protests must be filed as provided in Section 
154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by 
the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but 
will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any 
person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. 
Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available 
for public inspection in the Public Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-14673 Filed 6-10-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M