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

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 55 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 H. R. 55

           To protect the voting rights of homeless citizens.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 4, 1995

  Mr. Lewis of Georgia (for himself, Mr. Frank of Massachusetts, Mr. 
      Conyers, Mr. Owens, Ms. Pelosi, Ms. Norton, Mr. Kennedy of 
   Massachusetts, Mr. Moran, Mr. Oberstar, Mr. Mfume, Mr. Flake, Mr. 
    Ackerman, Mr. Romero-Barcelo, Mr. Towns, Mr. Hall of Ohio, Mr. 
  Gonzalez, and Mr. Mineta) introduced the following bill; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
           To protect the voting rights of homeless citizens.

    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 ``Voting Rights of Homeless Citizens 
Act of 1995''.

SEC. 2. VOTING RIGHTS OF HOMELESS CITIZENS.

    No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, 
practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or 
political subdivision to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of 
the United States to vote because that citizen resides at or in a 
nontraditional abode.

SEC. 3. ENFORCEMENT.

    The Attorney General may commence in the name of the United States 
a civil action (including an action against a State or political 
subdivision) or an aggrieved citizen may institute a proceeding under 
this Act, for injunctive relief against a violation of section 2.

SEC. 4. RELATIONSHIP TO VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 1965.

    This Act shall not be construed to impair any right guaranteed by 
the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1973 et seq.).

SEC. 5. DEFINITIONS.

    As used in this Act, the term ``nontraditional abode'' includes--
            (1) a supervised publicly or privately operated shelter 
        designed to provide temporary living accommodations (including 
        welfare hotels, congregate shelters, and transitional housing 
        for the mentally ill); and
            (2) a public or private place not designated for, or 
        ordinarily used as, regular sleeping accommodation for human 
        beings.

SEC. 6. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    This Act applies with respect to elections taking place after 
December 31, 1995.

                                 <all>
```
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

NELSON SOSA

- GUARDADO, AKA Jose

Oscar Hernandez

- Salomon,

Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 16

- 72403

Agency No. A200

- 964

- 186

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 12, 2022 * *

Before: SCHROEDER, R. NELSON, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

Nelson Sosa

- Guardado, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se

for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his

appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum

and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. W e

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

JUL 20 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 16

- 72403

dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

In his opening brief, Sosa

- Guardado does not raise, and therefore waives,

any challenge to the dispositive grounds relied on by the agency in denying his

claims for asylum and withholding of removal. See Lopez

- Vasquez v. Holder , 706

F.3d 1072, 1079

- 80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifical ly raised and argued in an

opening brief are waived).

We do not reach Sosa

- Guardado ’s contentions concerning the cognizability

of his proposed particular social group because the agency did not deny relief on

this ground

. See Najmabadi v. Holder , 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010) (the

court’s review is limited to the actual grounds relied upon by the BIA).

To the extent Sosa

- Guardado contends the agency violated his right to due

process, we reject his contentions as unsupported by the record.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
(173 La. 389)

#### CASTELL LAND & HARBOR CO. et al. v. BUSHONG et al.

No. 31112.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 30, 1931.

Joseph W. Carroll, Henry G. McCall, Azzo J. Plough, and Delvaille H, Theard, ail of New Orleans, for appellant Charles J. Theard, trustee in bankruptcy.

John D. Miller, of New Orleans, for appel-lee Isaac N. Bushong.

On Motion to Dismiss Appeal

BRUNOT, J.

The motion to dismiss alleges that the transcript is incomplete. This was one of the grounds relied upon by mover in his motion to dismiss the appeal in Castell Land & Harbor Co., Inc., et al. v. Isaac N. Bushong et al. (No. 31033 of *the*docket of this court) 137 So. 71, which was overruled March 2, 1931. In that matter we said: “It appears that a part of the record consisted of the record and judgment in another suit. This record and judgment was inadvertently omitted, by the clerk who prepared the original transcript in the case. When the clerk’s attention was called .to the matter the omitted record and judgment was promptly transcribed and filed in •fhis court, and, considering the clerk’s certificate appended to the supplement to the original transcript, we must assume that appellants are not chargeable with, laches in the preparation of the original transcript.”

In the present transcript the clerk certifies that the record consists of the four pages shown therein and the transcript in No. 31033 of the docket of this court, filed January 2, 1931. At the time the clerk’s certificate was attached to this transcript, the transcript in No. 31033 had not been completed by the inclusion therein of the record and judgment which had been inadvertently omitted from the original transcript in that case, and, for that reason, mover contends that the record is insufficient to permit the court to pass on this appeal.

The appeal is by the trustee in bankruptcy of Castell Land & Harbor Company, Inc., and as the record in No. 31033 is now complete and before the eourt, and the issues which this appeal presents must be determined in -the judgment to he hereafter rendered in No. 31033, no substantial right can be affected by maintaining the appeal. As a matter of fact, the rights of all parties will be conserved thereby. This motion presents an exceptional situation, and, for the reasons stated, it is overruled.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

               CERTIFICATION BY THE PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER OF
                          SIGMATRON INTERNATIONAL, INC.
              PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14(B) UNDER THE EXCHANGE ACT AND
         SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

     I, Linda K. Blake, am Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer of
SigmaTron International, Inc. (the "Company").

     This certification is being furnished pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act") and 18 U.S.C.
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in
connection with the filing of the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
year ended April 30, 2007 (the "Report").

     I hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge:

     (a) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
     15(d) of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78 m(a) or 78o(d)); and

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

Date: July 24, 2007


                                        /s/ Linda K. Blake
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Linda K. Blake
                                        Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and
                                        Treasurer of SigmaTron International,
                                        Inc.
#### Denver & R. G. R’y Co. v. Henderson. Same v. Zastrow.

*Appeal from County Court, Fremont County.*

Mr. J. M. Waldron, for appellant.

Mr. O. E. Waldo, for appellees.

Per Curiam.

These cases, like that of *Denver & R. G. R'y Co. v. Henderson, ante,*p. 1, are actions for damages for the killing of stock by the appellant company’s trains. The leading questions of law involved are precisely the same as those considered and determined in the case mentioned. It is therefore unnecessary to repeat a discussion of them. Ti’eating the proceedings as actions at common law, plaintiffs, we think, offered sufficient evidence on the question of negligence to warrant submitting the causes to the jury.

*5In the *Henderson Case*the proofs of the plaintiff tended to show that the cow, at the time of the accident, was lying between the rails; that from the engine, going west, she could have been seen five hundred yards, and going east, from one hundred to two hundred yards; that she was probably struck by the west-bound train ; and that a passenger train, running at the usual speed, could at that point be stopped within one hundred feet of the spot where the signal to stop was given.

In the *Zastrow Case*the evidence of plaintiff tended to show that the colt killed was struck by the train going west; that it ran along the track, before being struck, for about fifty yards; that it could have been seen by a person on the train five or six hundred yards from the place where it appeared to have received the injury; that for a distance of fifty to one hundred yards on each side of the track there were no obstacles to obstruct the view ; and that, at the place where this animal was struck, a passenger train, running at the regular rate of speed, could also be stopped within one hundred feet of the spot where the signal was given.

In view of the foregoing testimony, there being nothing to contradict or rebut the same, we think both cases were properly submitted to the jury, and shall decline to set aside the verdicts.

The judgments in both are affirmed.

*Affirmed.*
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-14-00734-CR

Joshua James Ozuna

v.

The State of Texas

On Appeal from the

County Court at Law of Kerr County, Texas

Trial Cause No. CR14-0258

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

September 17, 2015
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

YOLANDE MARIE HERBERT, Case No. 09-12314

Plaintiff, Gerald E. Rosen

United States District Judge

vs.

Michael Hluchaniuk

DANNIE RAY BAKER, et al., United States Magistrate Judge

Defendants.

 /

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Contempt is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the deposition of Attorney Kellie HowardGoudy shall go forward. The Plaintiff has satisfied the requirements of Federal Rule

Civil Procedure 26(b)(3)(A) in having the deposition conducted. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Attorney Kellie Howard-Goudy owns a valid

work product privilege regarding her mental impressions, conclusions, opinions and

legal theories.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff owns “fact” work product and it is

appropriate for Plaintiff’s counsel to ask questions of the deponent regarding the facts

2:09-cv-12314-GER-MJH Doc # 24 Filed 09/04/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 397
2

surrounding the stipulation and order of dismissal.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the deposition of Attorney Kellie HowardGoudy take place at a neutral site agreed upon between the parties.

s/Michael Hluchaniuk 

Date: September 4, 2009 Michael Hluchaniuk

United States Magistrate Judge

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on September 4, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing paper

with the Clerk of the Court using the ECF system, which will send electronic

notification to the following: Jeffrey G. Collins and Gina U. Puzzuoli, and I certify

that I have mailed by United States Postal Service the paper to the following nonECF participant(s): Dannie Ray Baker, # 698162, SAGINAW CORRECTIONAL

FACILITY, 9625 Pierce Road, Freeland, MI 48623.

s/James P. Peltier 

Courtroom Deputy Clerk

U.S. District Court

600 Church Street

Flint, MI 48502

(810) 341-7850

pete_peltier@mied.uscourts.gov

2:09-cv-12314-GER-MJH Doc # 24 Filed 09/04/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 398
*175 La.*206

#### KRUSE v. KRUSE.

No. 31332.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 20, 1932.

N. H. Polmer, of New Orleans, for appellant.

Weiss, Yarrut & Stich, of New Orleans, for appellee.

BRUNOT, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff decreeing a separation “a mensa et thoro” between the spouses.

The litigants were married in 1920. This suit for a separation from bed and board was filed October 10, 1930. During the ten years they lived together as man and wife, three children, the issue of the marriage, were born. The eldest was 9 years of age and the youngest 5 years of age when this suit was filed. The plaintiff prayed for a judgment of separation from bed and board, for the permanent care and custody of the minor children, for an inventory of the community, and for an injunction restraining the sale of the community property pending the determination of the- suit.

Following the joining of issue, by answer, a rule was served upon the defendant to show cause why he should not be condemned to pay alimony to the plaintiff in rule, “pendente lite.” The rule was heard and made absolute, and the judgment thereon fixed the amount of alimony to be paid under it at $60 per month, payable in two equal installments, on the 1st and 15th of each month. The case was heard on the merits, and judgment was rendered thereon as prayed for in the petition. The appeal is only from that part of the judgment decreeing a separation from bed and board.

The suit is based upon alleged abuse, cruel treatment, physical violence, and fear. The trial judge found the allegations of the petition were amply sustained by a clear preponderance of the evidence. We have read the testimony, and concur in his findings of fact.

Where the case rests solely upon questions of fact, appellate courts will not disturb the trial judge’s rulings thereon unless it appears that they were clearly erroneous. This rule is too well recognized to require citation.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment appealed from is affirmed, at appellant’s cost.
* After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is

unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record. See F ED

. R. A PP

. P.

34(a)(2). 

# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted January 20, 2011 *

Decided January 25, 2011

Before

RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge

TERENCE T. EVANS

, Circuit Judge

DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge

No. 10

‐ 2517

SABEEL CAUDLE EL,

Plaintiff

‐ Appellant,

v.

LAKE COUNTY SHERIFFS, et al.,

Defendants

‐ Appellees. Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Northern District of Illinois,

Eastern Division.

No. 08 C 6534

Amy J. St. Eve,

Judge

.

O R D E R

Sabeel Caudle El sued the Lake County sheriffs and other county officials under

42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging, among other things, that the conditions of his pretrial confinement

violated his constitutional rights. After dismissing several claims at the pleading stage, the

court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants on the remaining claims. NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1No. 10

‐ 2517 Page 2

Caudle El devotes the bulk of his appellate brief to arguing about exhaustion of

administrative remedies, an issue wholly irrelevant to the district court’s disposition of the

case. He also enumerates a list of “issues on appeal,” some of which merely restate the

claims he raised in the district court, but fails to develop an argument for any of these

contentions or supply them with legal authority. A litigant in this court, however, must

supply “an argument consisting of more than a generalized assertion of error, with citations

to supporting authority.” Haxhiu v. Mukasey

, 519 F.3d 685, 691 (7th Cir. 2008) (quoting

Anderson v. Hardman

, 241 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir. 2001)); see also Fed. R. A PP

. P. 28(a)(9)(A).

And although we construe pro se filings liberally, even litigants proceeding without the

benefit of counsel must articulate some reason for disturbing the district court ʹ s judgment.

See Anderson

, 241 F.3d at 545. Caudle El does not challenge the district court ʹ s reasoning: in

fact, it is impossible to discern any argument at all.

DISMISSED.
Exhibit 32.2  CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002   I, Darren J. Holm, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Animal Cloning Sciences, Inc., Inc. on Form 10-KSB for the six months ended June 30, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-KSB fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Animal Cloning Sciences, Inc., Inc.  Date: April 3, 2008  /s/ Darren J. Holm Darren J. Holm Chief Financial Officer
Order entered July 17, 2018

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-17-00719-CV

JOSE HERNANDEZ, Appellant

V.

SUN CRANE AND HOIST, INC., JLB PARTNERS, L.P., JLB BUILDERS, L.L.C., 

AUGER DRILLING, INC., AND D'AMBRA CONSRUCTION CORPORATION,

Appellees

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-15-00715-D

ORDER

It appears from the record before us that we may not have jurisdiction over this appeal as 

no final judgment seems to have been signed. See Martinek Grain & Bins, Inc. v. Bulldog 

Farms, Inc., 366 S.W.3d 800, 804 (Tex. App—Dallas 2012, no pet.) (appellate court generally 

has jurisdiction only over appeals from final judgments that dispose of all parties and claims in 

record). The trial court’s docket sheet reflects appellant’s live pleading was his third amended 

petition. That petition appears to name as defendants Sun Crane and Hoist, Inc., JLB Partners, 

L.P., JLB Builders, L.L.C., Auger Drilling, Inc., and D’Ambra Construction Corporation. The 

docket sheet further reflects all defendants were served, and all but Auger answered. No 

counter-claims appear to have been filed. 
The clerk’s record includes a copy of the summary judgment dismissing all of appellant’s 

claims against JLB Partners and JLB Builders. Although not included in the record, the docket 

sheet reflects Sun Crane was dismissed by order of November 3, 2016 and an order on 

D’Ambra’s motion for summary judgment was signed May 22, 2017. However, no order 

appears to have been signed disposing of appellant’s claims against Auger. 

So that the Court can establish its jurisdiction, we ORDER appellant to have filed, no 

later than August 16, 2018, a supplemental clerk’s record containing a copy of any order 

disposing of his claims against Auger. The supplemental clerk’s record shall also include a copy 

of the order on D’Ambra’s summary judgment motion. 

We DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to send a copy of this order to the Honorable Ken 

Tapscott, Presiding Judge of County Court at Law No.4, and the parties.

To allow the trial court an opportunity to sign any necessary orders on any remaining 

claims and parties, we ABATE the appeal until August 16, 2018. If the requested supplemental 

clerk’s record is not timely filed, the appeal may be dismissed without further notice. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 42.3(a).

/s/ DAVID L. BRIDGES 

PRESIDING JUSTICE
**Exhibit 21**

 

List of Subsidiaries

 
| **Subsidiary**                            | ** ** | **Jurisdiction of Incorporation** |
|-------------------------------------------|------------|-----------------------------------|
|                                      |       |                              |
| National Wireless Holdings Inc.           |       | Delaware                          |
|                                      |       |                              |
| Anagram International Communications Ltd. |       | Delaware                          |
|                                      |       |                              |
| Electronic Network Systems, Inc.     |       | Delaware                          |
|                                      |       |                              |
| NW Media, LLC                             |       | Delaware                          |

 

----
EXHIBIT 32.2









CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002






Asher Zwebner, Chief Financial Officer and Director of Suspect Detection Systems, Inc. (the “Registrant”), certifies, under the standards set forth and solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Registrant for the quarter ended September 30, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in that Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.









Date: November 15, 2010

By: /s/ Asher ZwebnerName: Asher Zwebner

Title: Chief Financial Officer and Director

(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)












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

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 474

To repeal provisions of the Clean Air Act dealing with acid rain.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 11, 1995

Mr. DELAY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Commerce

A BILL

To repeal provisions of the Clean Air Act dealing with acid

rain.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. REPEAL OF CLEAN AIR ACT PROVISIONS RE4 LATING TO ACID RAIN.

5 Title IV of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 and

6 following), relating to acid deposition control, is hereby

7 repealed.

Æ