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

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 696 

Acknowledging and congratulating Western Wyoming Community College in 

Southwest Wyoming on the occasion of its 50th anniversary of service 

to the students and citizens of the State of Wyoming. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 30, 2009 

Mrs. LUMMIS submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Education and Labor 

RESOLUTION 

Acknowledging and congratulating Western Wyoming Community College in Southwest Wyoming on the occasion 

of its 50th anniversary of service to the students and 

citizens of the State of Wyoming. 

Whereas Western Wyoming Community College was established in 1959 through the efforts of a citizens committee 

and a general election that formed the original district; 

Whereas the College began classes in Rock Springs High 

School, moved to the Reliance School, and then finally 

moved to its present College Drive location in Rock 

Springs in 1969; 

Whereas the College opened an extended campus in Green 

River in 1975; 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 696 IH 

Whereas these expansions were made possible in part by the 

Sweetwater County voters, who approved 3 general obligation bond issues, leading to the construction of Western’s current award-winning structure; 

Whereas the College’s service area now encompasses all of 

Southwestern Wyoming, including Sweetwater, Uinta, 

Carbon, Sublette, and Lincoln counties; 

Whereas the College has grown from serving 40 students during the fall semester of 1959 to currently serving over 

4,000 credit and 2,000 community education students 

each semester; 

Whereas the College adheres to its Guiding Principles: 

‘‘Learning is our Purpose’’, ‘‘Students are our Focus’’, 

‘‘Employees are our Most Important Resource’’, ‘‘The 

Community is our Partner’’, ‘‘Adapting to Change Defines our Future’’, and ‘‘Ethical Standards Guide our Actions’’; 

Whereas the College embodies these principles in its motto: 

‘‘A commitment to quality and success’’; 

Whereas the College is a valued partner with industry, education, and local business in its service area to provide 

transfer and technical education, workforce training, cultural and athletic activities, and community education 

courses; 

Whereas the College is the fifth of 7 comprehensive community colleges in Wyoming, and a vital part of Wyoming’s 

higher education system; 

Whereas the transfer agreement between Wyoming’s community colleges and the University of Wyoming creates a 

seamless transition for students wishing to continue their 

education; and 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
3 

•HRES 696 IH 

Whereas the fall of 2009 marks the 50th anniversary of the 

establishment of Western Wyoming Community College: 

Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives acknowl2 edges and congratulates Western Wyoming Community 

3 College in Southwest Wyoming on the occasion of its 50th 

4 anniversary of service to the students and citizens of the 

5 State of Wyoming. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22
- 6140

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,

v. MARCO BIRD , Defendant

– Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria

. Claude M. Hilton , Senior District Judge. ( 1:86−cr−00314−CMH−2 )

Submitted : January 13, 2023 Decided: April 18, 2023

Before AGEE, HARRIS, and QUATTLEBAUM , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

ON BRIEF: Jonathan P. Sheldon, SHELDON & FLOOD, PLC, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellant. Jessica D. Aber, United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, Jacqueline R. Bechara, Assis tant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-6140 Doc: 17 Filed: 04/18/2023 Pg: 1 of 32 PER CURIAM: Marco Bird appeals the district court’s order denying his petition for a writ of coram nobis. 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). Bird sought vacatur of his 1987 conviction for possession with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). He argued that his trial counsel mistakenly and unreasonably believed he was a Un ited States citizen and misadvised him as to the immigration consequences of his plea bargain. And this mistake, he argues, constituted ineffective assistance of counsel

— a fundamental error warranting coram nobis relief. A petitioner seeking a writ of c oram nobis must establish that (1) a more usual remedy , such as habeas corpus, is unavailable, (2) he has a valid basis for not attacking his conviction earlier, (3) the consequences of his conviction satisfy Article III’s case

- or controversy requirement, and (4) the error that is the basis for relief is “of the most
fundamental character.” Bereano v. United States , 706 F.3d 568, 576 (4th Cir. 2013) (quoting United States v. Akinsade , 686 F.3d 248, 252 (4th Cir. 2012) ) . The district court determined that Bi rd failed to satisfy requirements (2) and (4)

— namely, he did not show that he had a valid basis for not attacking his conviction earlier, nor did he establish a fundamental error in his conviction. In assessing a district court’s order denying a petition for writ of coram nobis, we review factual findings for clear error, questions of law de novo, and the court’s ultimate decision to deny the writ for abuse of discretion. United States v. Lesane , 40 F.4th 191, 196 (4th Cir. 2022)

. USCA4 Appeal: 22-6140 Doc: 17 Filed: 04/18/2023 Pg: 2 of 33 We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court did not err in denying relief. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materi als before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process

. AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 22-6140 Doc: 17 Filed: 04/18/2023 Pg: 3 of 3
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 114 (Wednesday, June 12, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 29763]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14796]



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


DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree Pursuant to the Clean Water 
Act

    In accordance with Departmental Policy, 28 CFR 50.7, notice is 
hereby given that a consent decree in United States of America v. Rueth 
Builders, Inc., Civ. No. 2:96-CV-66 (N.D. Ind.), was lodged with the 
United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana on 
March 8, 1996. The proposed decree concerns alleged violations of the 
Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1311, as a result of the discharge of 
dredged and fill materials onto approximately 0.40 acres of wetlands by 
Rueth Buildings, Inc., in Dyer, Lake County, Indiana.
    The Consent Decree provides for the payment of a $10,000.00 civil 
penalty to the United States and permanently enjoins Rueth Builders, 
Inc. from taking any actions, or causing others to take any actions, 
which result in the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters 
of the United States, as defined by the Clean Water Act and regulations 
promulgated thereunder, except as in compliance with an individual 
permit issued pursuant to 33 U.S.C. 1344(a), or with any applicable 
general permit issued by the United States Army Corps of Engineers.
    The Department of Justice will receive written comments relating to 
the consent decree for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of 
this notice. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney 
General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, United States 
Department of Justice, Attention: Steven E. Rusak, Trial Attorney, 
Environmental Defense Section, P.O. Box 23986, Washington, D.C. 20026-
3986, and should refer to United States of America v. Rueth Builders, 
Inc., DJ Reference No. 90-5-1-6-556.
    The proposed consent decree may be examined at the Offices of the 
United States Attorney for the Northern District of Indiana, 507 State 
Street, Fourth Floor, Hammond, Indiana 46320; the office of Greg 
Carlson, Wetlands Enforcement Officer, Wetlands Division, Wetlands and 
Watershed Section, Wetlands Regulatory Unit, Region V of the United 
States Environmental Protection Agency, 77 W. Jackson Boulevard, 16th 
Floor, Chicago, Illinois, 60604, (312) 886-0124, and at the Consent 
Decree Library, 1120 G Street, N.W., 4th Floor, Washington, D.C. 20005. 
In requesting a copy, please enclose a check in the amount of $2.75 for 
a copy of the consent decree with attachments.
Letitia J. Grishaw,
Chief, Environmental Defense Section, Environment and Natural Resources 
Division, United States Department of Justice.
[FR Doc. 96-14796 Filed 6-11-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-01-M
Exhibit 11.0

Calculation of Earnings per Share*



|                                                     |  |              |       |      |   |       |  |   |      
|---------------------------------------------------- |  | ------------ | ----- | ---- | - | ----- |  | - | -----
|                                                     |  | December 31,
|                                                     |  | 2006         |       | 2005 |   | 2004 
|Weighted Average Shares Outstanding                  |  |              | 4,086 |      |   | 4,063 |  |   | 4,045
|Common Stock Equivalents                             |  |              | 127   |      |   | 124   |  |   | 97   
|Average Common Shares and Equivalents, Fully Diluted |  |              | 4,213 |      |   | 4,187 |  |   | 4,141
|Net Income ($000)                                    |  | $            | 2,951 |      | $ | 2,981 |  | $ | 2,173
|Basic Earnings per Share                             |  | $            | 0.72  |      | $ | 0.73  |  | $ | 0.54 
|Diluted Earnings per Share                           |  | $            | 0.70  |      | $ | 0.71  |  | $ | 0.52 

---

|* | Adjusted to effect a four-for-three stock split in the form of a stock dividend issued on December 3, 2004.
|- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**Rule 1653. Commencement of A** **ction.**

An action shall be commenced by filing **a complaint**  with the prothonotary
**. [(a)**  **a complaint, or**

**(b) an agreement for an amicable action.]**  **The complaint**  **shall be**  **filed under**  **the same**  **docket number**  **as the**  **claim for**  **the mechanics’ lien.** 

**Note: To file a claim for a mechanics’ lien, see the Mechanics’**  **Lien Law of 1963, 49 P.S. §** **§1101 -** **1902 ,**  **as amended**
**.**

**Rule 1656. The Complaint.**  **(a)** The plaintiff shall set forth in the complaint (1) the name and address of each party to the action and **,** if the action is commenced by a subcontractor, the name and address of the contractor; (2) **[the court and number and]**  the date of the filing of the claim **[and a copy**  **thereof as an exhibit]** ; **and** (3) a demand for judgment. **(b) The**  **pla intiff**  **shall attach**  **a copy**  **o f**  **the claim**  **to the**  **complaint as**  **an exhibit.**  **Note: A**  **claim for**  **a mechanics’**  **lien and**  **the complaint**  **to**

**obtain judgment on the mechanics’ lien shall be filed under the same docket number.**  **See Rule 1653.**
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
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 July 25, 2011

p0718 

# Order

July 25, 2011

142856

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 142856 COA: 293069 Genesee CC: 08-023490-FC CORY CALEB SWANIGAN, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal th e February 24, 2011 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.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-7678

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. DUSHAWN LEVERT GARDNER, a/k/a Black, a/k/a Shawn, a/k/a Michael Archer, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (4:95-cr-00041-H-5)

Submitted: February 19, 2009 Decided: April 2, 2009

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dushawn Levert Gardner, Appellant Pro Se. Steve R. Matheny, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

Dushawn Levert Gardner seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2006) 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); Reid v. Angelone , 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). 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 Gardner 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
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 742 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 742

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                      December 1, 2009.
Whereas, on August 19, 2009, the Warner Robins Little League softball team from 
        Warner Robins, Georgia, defeated the Crawford Little League softball 
        team from Crawford, Texas, by a score of 14-2 to win the 2009 Little 
        League Softball World Series Championship in Portland, Oregon;
Whereas the 2009 Warner Robins Little League Softball World Championship team 
        consists of players Carson Carriker, Sierra Stella, Chelsea Whaley, 
        Caitlin Parker, Melissa Cox, Kelly Warner, Sabrina Doucette, Hanna 
        Livingston, Kaylee Albritton, Ashley Killebrew, Avery Lamb, and Sydney 
        Barker;
Whereas the 2009 Warner Robins Little League Softball World Championship team is 
        led by Manager Emily Whaley, Coach Roger Stella, Coach Patti Carriker, 
        and President Kenneth Hathaway;
Whereas with this title, the Warner Robins Little League becomes the first 
        little league to have won both a baseball and softball World Series 
        Championship;
Whereas the championship victory of the Warner Robins Little League softball 
        team sets an example of sportsmanship, dedication, and a ``never give 
        up'' spirit for men and women all across the country; and
Whereas the achievement of the Warner Robins Little League softball team is the 
        cause of enormous pride for the Nation, the State of Georgia, and the 
        city of Warner Robins: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) congratulates the Warner Robins Little League softball team from 
        Warner Robins, Georgia, on winning the 2009 Little League Softball World 
        Series Championship; and
            (2) respectfully requests that the Clerk of the House transmit an 
        enrolled copy of this resolution to the City of Warner Robins and each 
        player, manager, and coach of the Warner Robins Little League softball 
        team.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

LAMAR WASHINGTON

PETITION OF: K. WESLEY MISHOE, 

ESQUIRE

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 124 MM 2023

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 9

th day of February, 2024, in consideration of the Application to 

Withdraw as Counsel, this matter is REMANDED to the Court of Common Pleas of 

Dauphin County to adjudicate the withdrawal request, as well as any related questions, 

including whether Lamar Washington should be appointed counsel or granted leave to 

proceed pro se on allocatur review. 

The Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County is DIRECTED to enter its order 

on remand within 90 days and to promptly inform this Court of its disposition.
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 4 (Friday, January 5, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 412]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-150]



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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management
[WY-920-06-1320-00-P]


Powder River Regional Coal Team Activities: Announcement of 
Postponement of January 10, 1996 Public Meeting

AGENCY: Department of Interior, Wyoming.

ACTION: Notice of postponement of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Chairman of the Powder River Regional Coal Team (RCT) 
announces that the meeting scheduled for Wednesday, January 10, 1996 
has been postponed due to the current Federal budget impasse.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alan Pierson, Wyoming State Office, 
Attn. (922), P.O. Box 1828, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82003: telephone (307) 
775-6001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Regional Coal Team meeting will be 
rescheduled for later this spring. Public notification will include a 
Federal Register Notice, paid legal notices in the Montana Billings 
Gazette and the Wyoming Casper Star Tribune; and BLM news releases.
    A copy of the new RCT Charter can be obtained after the partial 
government shutdown is resolved from either the Wyoming State Office; 
Attn 922; P.O. Box 1828; Cheyenne, WY 82003; or the Montana State 
Office; P.O. Box 36800; Billings, Mt 59107.
Alan L. Kesterke,
Associate State Director, Wyoming.
[FR Doc. 96-150 Filed 1-4-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-22-P
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                           AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report On Form 10-QSB of 51143,
Inc. for the quarter ending April 30, 2005, I, Scott Raleigh, Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of 51143, Inc. hereby certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:

     1.   Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending April
          30, 2005, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for
          the quarter ending April 30, 2005, fairly presents, in all material
          respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
          51143, Inc.

Dated:  June 14, 2005

51143, INC.

By: /s/ Scott Raleigh
-------------------------------------
Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

LA TISHA RAY WINKLER, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

FILED 

JUN ' ' 20\2 

U S District & Bankruptcy 

~~~~~~ t~r the District of Columbia 

v. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Civil Action No. 12 0951 

SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 

Defendant. 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

This matter comes before the court on review of plaintiffs' applications to proceed in forma 

pauperis and pro se civil complaint. The Court will grant the applications, and dismiss the 

complaint. 

The Court has reviewed plaintiffs complaint, keeping in mind that complaints filed by pro 

se litigants are held to less stringent standards than those applied to formal pleadings drafted by 

lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519,520 (1972). Even prose litigants, however, must 

comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 237,239 

(D.D.C. 1987). Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a complaint 

contain a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court's jurisdiction depends, a 

short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and a demand 

for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). The purpose of the minimum 

standard of Rule 8 is to give fair notice to the defendants of the claim being asserted, sufficient to 

prepare a responsive answer, to prepare an adequate defense and to determine whether the doctrine 

of res judicata applies. Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497,498 (D.D.C. 1977). 

1 
The complaint is so incoherently written that the Court cannot discern a viable claim within 

this Court's subject matter jurisdiction or a basis for exercising personal jurisdiction over the 

named defendant or a clear statement showing plaintiffs' entitlement to the relief they seek. 

Accordingly, the Court will dismiss the complaint without prejudice. An Order consistent with 

this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately. 

DATE: 6/ sf('~, United States District Judge 

2
**Exhibit
      32.2**





**Certification****of Principal Financial Officer**


**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 Vision Acquisition III, Inc. (the
      "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended December 31, 2007 as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
      David Berger, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant
      to
      ss. 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.


/s/
                  David BergerDavid
                  Berger
                Principal
                  Financial Officer
                February
                  12, 2008