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

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 419 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 419

              For the relief of Benchmark Rail Group, Inc.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 4, 1995

  Mr. Talent introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
              For the relief of Benchmark Rail Group, Inc.

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

SECTION 1. FINDING AND PURPOSE.

    (a) Finding.--The Congress finds that Benchmark Rail Group, Inc., 
of St. Louis, Missouri, satisfactorily performed emergency work after 
the Northridge earthquake, but has not been reimbursed as a result of a 
technicality under California State law.
    (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to fairly compensate 
Benchmark Rail Group, Inc., for the work for which, except for the 
technicality under California State law, it would otherwise have been 
paid under the provisions of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 
Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121).

SEC. 2. PAYMENT.

    (a) In General.--Not later than 30 days after the date of enactment 
of this Act, the director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency 
shall pay to Benchmark Rail Group, Inc., of St. Louis, Missouri, an 
amount equal to the total amount owed to Benchmark Rail Group, Inc., by 
the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the State of California to 
compensate Benchmark Rail Group, Inc., for the emergency work and 
services performed at the request of the Southern California Regional 
Rail Authority, to the extent that such work and services are otherwise 
eligible for reimbursement under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster and 
Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121). The payment shall be made 
from funds appropriated to implement such Act.
    (b) Deobligation of Funds.--The Federal Emergency Management Agency 
shall deobligate an equal amount to that obligated previously for 
payment to the State of California to cover the costs of work performed 
for the Southern California Regional Rail Authority by Benchmark Rail 
Group, Inc., after the Northridge earthquake which would have been 
eligible for reimbursement under such Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### William SMITH, Appellant, v. MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, Respondent.

No. 69898.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Sept. 24, 1996.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Oct. 29, 1996.

Anthony L. Anderson, Anderson & Preuss, Clayton, for appellant.

Alan J. Downs, Div. of Employment Security, St. Louis, for respondent, Div. of Employment Security.

Party Acting pro se, The Frick Co., St. Louis, for respondent, McDonnell Douglas Corp.

*909Before DOWD, P.J., and REINHARD and GARY M. GAERTNER, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, William Smith, appeals the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (“the Commission”) denying unemployment benefits. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the legal file and find the Commission’s decision is supported by competent and substantial evidence and no error of law appears. As we further find no jurisprudential purpose would be served by an extended opinion, we affirm the Commission’s ruling pursuant to 84.16(b). A memorandum explaining the reasons for our decision is attached solely for the use of the parties involved.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

CIVIL NO.09-12088

HON. PATRICK J. DUGGAN

MICHELLE HART,

Plaintiff(s),

-vCOUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC.,

Defendant(s).

 /

ORDER SETTING ASIDE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

At a session of said Court, held in the 

 United States Courthouse, in the City of

 Detroit, State of Michigan, on October 15, 2009.

 

 PRESENT: THE HONORABLE PATRICK J. DUGGAN

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

The Plaintiff having filed a return on summons indicating defendant has been 

served; therefore

IT IS ORDERED that the Court's Order to Show Cause as to why this case should

not be dismissed for failure to serve defendant be and the same is hereby SET ASIDE.

s/Patrick J. Duggan 

Patrick J. Duggan

United States District Judge

Dated: October 15, 2009

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record

on October 15, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Marilyn Orem 

Case Manager

2:09-cv-12088-PJD-DAS Doc # 7 Filed 10/15/09 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 29
EXHIBIT
31: Rule 13a-14(a) Certifications





I, Jianye
Wang, certify that:





1.  I
have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of China Jianye Fuel,
Inc.;




2.  Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading
with respect to the period covered by this  report;




3.   Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this  report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business
issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in
this  report;




4.  The
small business issuer’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the small business issuer and
have:




a)  Designed
such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision,  to ensure that
material information relating to the small business issuer, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this  report is being
prepared;




b)  Evaluated
the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and




c)
Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal
controls over financial reporting that occurred during the small business
issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal
quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’s internal
control over financial reporting; and




5.  The
small business issuer’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal controls over financial reporting, to the
small business issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of the small business
issuer’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):




a)  All
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely
to  adversely affect the small business issuer’s ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and




b)  Any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the small business issuer’s internal controls over
financial reporting.




Date: March
      13, 2008
            /s/ Jianye
      Wang


Jianye Wang, Chief Executive Officer


and Chief Financial Officer





*       *        *       *       *
2013 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

3-8-2013 

# U S A v . K e nd ale H ol lins

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ock e t N o . 12-1525

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2013

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2013 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min
. C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du

. R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" U SA v . Ke nd ale H o l l in s " (2013). 2013 D e cisio n s . P a pe r 1157. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2013/1157

### NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________ No. 12

- 1525

_____________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. KENDALE RAHMEL HOLLINS,

a/k/a BOO, Appellant

___________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (D.C. No. 3

- 11

- cr - 00002

- 001 ) District Judge: Honorable Kim R. Gibson

___________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

December 20, 2012 Before: McKEE, Chief Judge , SLOVITER, and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges

.
ORDER It appears th at the opinion filed on March 07 , 2013 contained a typographical error on page 6, marking subsection “B” as “D”. An amended opinion reflecting the correction will be issued forthwith.
For the Court,
Marcia M. Waldron, Clerk 

### Da ted: March 8, 2013
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

October 31, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

131596 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 131596 

 COA: 266318 

Muskegon CC: 94-037346-FH 

TODD BRYANT LEMIEUX,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 17, 2006 of the 

Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to 

meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

s1023 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

October 31, 2006 

 Clerk
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 448 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 448

To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the Public Health 
      Service Act with respect to myelogram-related arachnoiditis.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 9, 1995

Mr. Traficant introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                         Committee on Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the Public Health 
      Service Act with respect to myelogram-related arachnoiditis.

    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 ``Myelogram-Related Arachnoiditis 
Amendments of 1995''.

SEC. 2. ADULTERATED MYELOGRAMS.

    Section 501 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 
351) is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(j) If it is a myelogram involving the use of Pantopaque, 
Amipaque, Omipacque, or Isovue.''.

SEC. 3. MYELOGRAM-RELATED ARACHNOIDITIS; ACTIVITIES OF NATIONAL 
              INSTITUTE OF NEUROLOGICAL DISORDERS AND STROKE.

    Subpart 10 of part C of title IV of the Public Health Service Act 
(42 U.S.C. 285j et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following 
section:

                   ``myelogram-related arachnoiditis

    ``Sec. 459A. With respect to individuals who have undergone the 
diagnostic procedure known as a myelogram and who have subsequently 
developed cases of arachnoiditis, the Director of the Institute shall--
            ``(1) conduct or support a study to develop an estimate of 
        the number of such individuals in the United States;
            ``(2) conduct or support research to determine the extent 
        to which such cases are associated with the use of such 
        procedure; and
            ``(3) conduct or support research on treatments for such 
        cases in such individuals, including treatments to manage 
        pain.''.

                                 <all>
```
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein, 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.

 March 2, 2015

jam

Order 

Clerk

March 2, 2015

150713 

IN RE DILLARD

___________________________________

EDDIE L. DILLARD

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 150713

COA: 324421

CHIPPEWA CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE,

Defendant-Appellee.

___________________________________

On order of the Chief Justice, plaintiff-appellant having failed to pay the 

partial filing fee as required by the order of January 15, 2015, the Clerk of the Court is 

hereby directed to close this file.
#### People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bruce Thurman, Defendant-Appellant.

Gen. No. 50,306. (Abstract of Decision.)

First District, Second Division.

October 25, 1966.

Norman Nelson, Jr., of Chicago, for appellant; Daniel P. Ward, State’s Attorney of Cook County, of Chicago (Elmer C. Kissane and Lawrence Genesen, Assistant State’s Attorneys, of counsel), for appellee.

Opinion by PRESIDING JUSTICE BRYANT. Not to be published in full.
Exhibit 32.1





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 China Jianye Fuel, Inc.  (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Shubo Yu, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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, as amended; and





(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.





Date: May 16, 2011

/s/ Shubo YuName:  Shubo Yu

Title:  Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer)





This certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-Q pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.
#### UNITED STATES v. LEWIS COUNTY, IDAHO, et al.

No. 8561.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Jan. 27, 1938.

*237John A. Carver, U. S. Atty., and E. H. Casterlin and Frank Griffin, Asst. U. S. Attys., all of Boise, Idaho, and John L. Wheeler, Sp. Atty., Dept, of Justice, of Los Angeles, Cal., for the United States.

Thomas A. Madden, of Lewiston, Idaho, and G. C. Pennell, of Nez Perce, Idaho, for appellees.

Before DENMAN, STEPHENS, and HEALY, Circuit Judges.

HEALY, Circuit Judge.

This is a companion case to United States v. Nez Perce County et al., 95 F.2d 232, this day decided. A full discussion of the general factual situation and of the applicable statutes and authorities is contained in that opinion. For opinion of the trial court, see D.C., 16 F.Supp. 267.

Alice Mattuge, on whose behalf the United States brought suit to quiet title and for the recovery of taxes paid, is a full-blood Indian, an enrolled member of the Nez Perce Tribe. On June 13, 1895, a trust patent for her allotment was issued under thq terms of and containing the provisions found in the General Allotment Act of February 8, 1887. 24 Stat. 388. On November 30, 1919, patent in fee for these lands was issued to her. In 1920 the applicable trust period was by executive order extended for ten years, and the period was again extended in 1930. These orders made no exception of the allotment in question. The property covered by the fee patent was placed on the tax rolls of Lewis County in 1920 and taxes were paid by Alice Mattuge or on her behalf for that year and for subsequent years to and including 1925. Taxes for the years 1926 to 1930, inclusive, became and remain delinquent. In 1930, on application of the Indian, the Secretary of the Interior canceled her fee patent and restored her lands to the original trust status. The order of cancellation recites that the fee patent was issued without her application or consent. The judgment of the court denied recovery of the taxes paid, declared the Secretary’s order of cancellation to be subject to the lien of unpaid taxes assessed for the years 1926 to 1930, and adjudged that all taxes levied subsequent to the cancellation order are null and void.

Here, as in the Nez Perce County Case, the bill alleged and the answer denied that the fee patent of November 30, 1919, was issued to the Indian without her application or consent. The court made no finding on this issue. The Indian woman testified personally concerning the circumstances of her receipt of the patent and her subsequent conduct. This case requires the same treatment and is subject to the principles found controlling in United States v. Nez Perce County, supra.

The cause is remanded to the trial court with instructions to make a finding on the question of the consent of the Indian to the issuance of the fee patent. If it is found that there was no consent, judgment should be entered invalidating the lien of the county*for unpaid taxes and for the recovery of taxes paid, without interest there*238on, in accord with the views expressed by us in this opinion and in United States v. Nez Perce County, supra.
#### Andres LANDEROS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 08-95-00072-CR.

Court of Appeals of Texas, El Paso.

Oct. 24, 1996.

Rehearing Overruled Feb. 19, 1997.

*665Jamie E. Gandara, El Paso, for appellant.

Jamie E. Esparza, District Attorney, .El Paso, for State.

Before BARAJAS, C.J., and McCLURE and CHEW, JJ.

*OPINION*

McCLURE, Justice.

This is an appeal from a conviction for the offense of murder. A jury found the Appellant, Andres Landeros, guilty and sentenced him to twenty years’ confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice — Institutional Division. We affirm.

Landeros raises four points of error. He complains of two alleged charge errors, the trial court’s failure to suppress his confession, and the trial court’s failure to grant a mistrial based on alleged prosecutorial misconduct. The record reflects that Landeros testified at the punishment phase of the trial and admitted guilt. During the punishment phase, the following exchange occurred:

> Prosecutor: Sir, do you admit that on or about August 6th of 1993, that you did kill Jesus Alvidrez by running over him with an automobile? Do you admit that you’re guilty to this jury?

> Defense Counsel: Objection, Your Honor, the jury has considered the ease and rendered its verdict.

> Trial Court: That will be overruled.

> Landeros: Well, I know—

> Prosecutor: Sir, do you admit your guilt or not?

> Defense Counsel: Objection, Your Honor, I would ask that he be permitted to answer the question.

> Trial Court: The objection is overruled.

> Landeros: I admit it because the jury says that I’m guilty.

> Prosecutor: No, I asked you if you admit it, sir?

> Landeros: Yes, I admit it. I’m guilty.

If a defendant testifies at the punishment stage of the trial, and admits his guilt to the crime for which he has been found guilty, he has, for legal purposes, entered the equivalent of a plea of guilty. *DeGarmo v. State,*691 S.W.2d 657, 661 (Tex.Crim.App.), *cert. denied,*474 U.S. 973, 106 S.Ct. 337, 88 L.Ed.2d 322 (1985). By admitting guilt, the defendant waives all non-jurisdictional errors occurring at the guilt-innocence phase of the trial, including challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence. *DeGarmo,*691 S.W.2d at 661. The Court of Criminal Appeals recently confirmed the continuing viability of the *DeGarmo*doctrine in *McGlothlin v. State,*896 S.W.2d 183,186 (Tex.Crim.App.1995).

Applying the *DeGarmo*doctrine here, we conclude that Landeros has waived all of his asserted errors. Accordingly, we overrule Points of Error Nos. One, Two, Three, and Four and affirm the judgment of the trial court.