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

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 740 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.740

                       One Hundred Fourth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

         Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
   the third day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-six

                                 An Act

 
To confer jurisdiction on the United States Court of Federal Claims with 
        respect to land claims of Pueblo of Isleta Indian Tribe.

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

SECTION 1. JURISDICTION.

    Notwithstanding sections 2401 and 2501 of title 28, United States 
Code, and section 12 of the Act of August 13, 1946 (60 Stat. 1052), or 
any other law which would interpose or support a defense of 
untimeliness, jurisdiction is hereby conferred upon the United States 
Court of Federal Claims to hear, determine, and render judgment on any 
claim by Pueblo of Isleta Indian Tribe of New Mexico against the United 
States with respect to any lands or interests therein the State of New 
Mexico or any adjoining State held by aboriginal title or otherwise 
which were acquired from the tribe without payment of adequate 
compensation by the United States. As a matter of adequate 
compensation, the United States Claims Court may award interest at a 
rate of five percent per year to accrue from the date on which such 
lands or interests therein were acquired from the tribe by the United 
States. Such jurisdiction is conferred only with respect to claims 
accruing on or before August 13, 1946, and all such claims must be 
filed within three years after the date of enactment of this Act. Such 
jurisdiction is conferred notwithstanding any failure of the tribe to 
exhaust any available administrative remedy.

SEC. 2. CERTAIN DEFENSES NOT APPLICABLE.

    Any award made to any Indian tribe other than the Pueblo of Isleta 
Indian Tribe of New Mexico before, on, or after the date of the 
enactment of this Act under any judgment of the Indian Claims 
Commission or any other authority with respect to any lands that are 
the subject of a claim submitted by the tribe under section 1 shall not 
be considered a defense, estoppel, or set-off to such claim, and shall 
not otherwise affect the entitlement to, or amount of, any relief with 
respect to such claim.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7762
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MARCELLUS DERRELL BECKETT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-94-682, CA-96-1797-2-8) Submitted: March 24, 1998 Decided: April 3, 1998 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marcellus Derrell Beckett, Appellant Pro Se. Sean Kittrell, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* In addition to the facts discussed by the district court, the record overwhelmingly reveals that Appellant physically carried his drugs, drug distribution paraphernalia, and weapon. See United States v. Mitchell , 104 F.3d 649, 653-54 (4th Cir. 1997). 2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal substantially on the reasoning of the district court. * United States v. Beckett , Nos. CR-94-682; CA-96-1797-2-8 (D.S.C. Oct. 28, 1996). 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
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 12-1035

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff-Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Edward Roach, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Defendant-Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: April 16, 2012

Filed: May 30, 2012

___________

Before MELLOY, ARNOLD, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges

___________

PER CURIAM.

Edward Roach pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). Roach now argues only that his conviction and

resulting incarceration violate his Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. 

"To the extent [Roach] brings a facial challenge to § 922(g), his arguments are

foreclosed by our circuit precedent." United States v. Aiello, 452 F. App'x 699, 700

(8th Cir. 2012); see also District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 626–27 (2008)

("[N]othing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions

on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the
carrying of firearms in sensitive placessuch asschools and government buildings, or

laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.").

We affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 1

______________________________

The Honorable Catherine D. Perry, Chief Judge, United States District Court

1

for the Eastern District of Missouri.

-2-
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Transportation

###### Federal Aviation Administration 

# AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. 

# ACTION:

Notice of RTCA Special Committee 209, EUROCAE WG-49 Joint Plenary Session ATCRBS/Mode S Transponder MOPS Maintenance. 

# SUMMARY:

The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a meeting of RTCA Special Committee 209, ATCRBS/Mode S Transponder MOPS Maintenance. 

# DATES:

The meeting will be held August. 20-21, 2008, from 9 a.m.-5 p.m. 

# ADDRESSES:

RTCA Inc., 1828 L Street, NW., Suite 805, Washington, DC 20036. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        RTCA Secretariat, 1828 L Street, NW., Suite 805, Washington, DC 20036-5133; telephone (202) 833-9339; fax (202) 833-9434; Web site                         *http://www.rtca.org;*                         (2) Secretary Contact: Gary Furr; telephone (609) 485-4254, e-mail                         *gary.ctr.furr@faa.gov.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Pursuant to section 10(a) (2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice is hereby given for a Special Committee 209 meeting. The agenda will include: 

August 20-21: 
    - Co-Chairs,Welcome, Introductions and Remarks
    - Review and Approval of the Agenda (SC-209-WPO9-01)
    - Review and Approval of the Minutes from SC-209; Plenary Meeting #8 (SC-209-WP09-02)
    - Closing Plenary Session (Date, Place and Time of Future Meetings, Discussion of Agenda topic for Next Meeting(s), Other Business, Adjourn).

                    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in the “                    **FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT**                    ” section. Members of the public may present a written statement to the committee at any time.                 

Issued in Washington, DC, July 23, 2008. 

Francisco  C. Estrada, 

RTCA Advisory Committee.

[FR Doc. E8-18643 Filed 8-12-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
#### Higgin Manufacturing Company, Appellant, v. Walter L. Fleischman and Jessie E. Fleischman, Respondents. Higgin Manufacturing Company, Plaintiff, *884v. Walter L. Fleischman, Defendant.

Motions granted, without costs. Present — Woodward, Jenks, Gaynor and Miller, JJ.
Order entered June 14, 2021

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05
- 21
- 00183
- CV IN THE INTEREST OF L.J.H., A CHILD On Appeal from the 354th Judicial District Court

Hunt Co unty, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 85395

O RDER
We REINSTATE this appeal which we abated to allow the trial court an opportunity to conduct a hearing to determine if the clerk’s and reporter’s records

are complete

. Specifically, the trial court was to det ermine (1) whether documents from trial court cause number 80,406, which was consolidated into the under l ying

cause , were properly transferred at the time of consolidation; (2) whether hearings were held on December 4, 2017, Septe m ber 28, 2018, February 5, 2019, July 8, 2019, October 29, 2019, December 2, 2019, March 2, 2020, August 2, 2020 , and as referenced in volume seven of the reporter’s record; and, (3) if hearings were held on any of those dates and/or as referenced in volume 7, whether a record was madeand the name of the reporter who took the record. The trial court held the hearing

on June 4, 2021 and filed written findings of fact and conclusions of law. In relevant part, the trial court found that documents from trial court cause number 80,406 were not originally consolidated into the underlying cause but have been since, and a supplemental clerk’s record containing those documents has been filed. The trial court also found hearings were held on December 4, 2017, September 28, 2018, February 5 , 2019, July 8, 2019, October 29, 2019, March 2, 2020, and August 4, 2020, but no testimony was taken at those hearings and appellant was not requesting that a record of those hearings be filed

. We ADOPT the trial court’s fin dings . As th e appellate recor d is complete ,
we ORDER appellant to file his brief no later than July 6, 2021

.

/s/ BONNIE LEE GOLDSTEIN JUSTICE
104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 715

AN ACT

To amend the Central Bering Sea Fisheries Enforcement

Act of 1992 to prohibit fishing in the Central Sea of

Okhotsk by vessels and nationals of the United States.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Sea of Okhotsk Fish5 eries Enforcement Act of 1995’’.
2

HR 715 EH

1 SEC. 2. FISHING PROHIBITION.

2 The Central Bering Sea Fisheries Enforcement Act

3 of 1992 (16 U.S.C. 1823 note) is amended—

4 (1) in section 302, by inserting ‘‘and the

5 Central Sea of Okhotsk’’ after ‘‘Central Bering

6 Sea’’; and

7 (2) in section 306—

8 (A) by redesignating paragraphs (2), (3),

9 (4), (5), and (6) in order as paragraphs (3),

10 (4), (5), (6), and (7); and

11 (B) by inserting after paragraph (1) the

12 following:

13 ‘‘(2) CENTRAL SEA OF OKHOTSK.—The term

14 ‘Central Sea of Okhotsk’ means the central Sea of

15 Okhotsk area which is more than two hundred nau16 tical miles seaward of the baseline from which the

17 breadth of the territorial sea of the Russian Federa18 tion is measured.’’.

Passed the House of Representatives March 14,

1995.

Attest:

Clerk.

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 715

AN ACT

To amend the Central Bering Sea Fisheries Enof the United States. Central Sea of Okhotsk by vessels and nationals forcement Act of 1992 to prohibit fishing in the
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 Annual Report of The Pantry, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ending September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Peter J. Sodini, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge, that:



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



/S/    PETER J.
SODINIPeter J. SodiniChief Executive OfficerDate: December 14, 2004




This
Certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section
18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and shall not be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, whether made before or
after the date of this Report, irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other documents 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 the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
<PAGE>










                                EXHIBIT (15)(b)
<PAGE>
                                                                 EXHIBIT (15)(b)



November 12, 2001


Consumers Energy Company:

     We are aware that Consumers Energy Company has incorporated by reference in
its Registration Statements No. 333-62500 and No. 333-76347 its Form 10-Q for
the quarter ended September 30, 2001, which includes our report dated October
31, 2001 covering the unaudited interim financial information contained therein.
Pursuant to Regulation C of the Securities Act of 1933, that report is not
considered a part of the registration statement prepared or certified by our
firm or a report prepared or certified by our firm within the meaning of
Sections 7 and 11 of the Act.


Very truly yours,



/s/ Arthur Andersen LLP
-----------------------
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                      15,669,898
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                8,390,755
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,158,000
<INVENTORY>                                  5,344,531
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            34,679,271
<PP&E>                                      15,263,632
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,755,600
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              95,763,694
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       36,960,933
<BONDS>                                     39,476,074
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        1,868,027
<PREFERRED>                                  9,272,508
<COMMON>                                         9,681
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,431,004
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                95,763,694
<SALES>                                     50,891,221
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            52,250,371
<CGS>                                       26,277,645
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               41,269,612
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,471,238
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           5,486,835
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (23,935,068)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   195,872
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (24,130,940)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                579,354
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (24,710,294)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (3.36)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (3.36)


</TABLE>
NO. 12-23-00062-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

ERIC DWAYNE PAULK, 

APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

§

§

§

APPEAL FROM THE 2ND 

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

CHEROKEE COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Appellant, Eric Dwayne Paulk, filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. The motion is 

signed by Appellant and his counsel. No decision has been delivered in the appeal.

Accordingly, Appellant’s motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeal is dismissed. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 42.2(a).

Opinion delivered May 31, 2023. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

MAY 31, 2023

NO. 12-23-00062-CR

ERIC DWAYNE PAULK,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

Appeal from the 2nd District Court

of Cherokee County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 22265)

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the motion of the Appellant to dismiss 

the appeal herein, and the same being considered, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and 

DECREED by this Court that the motion to dismiss be granted and the appeal be dismissed, and 

that the decision be certified to the court below for observance.

By per curiam opinion. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.
#### Maynard N. Clement, as State Commissioner of Excise of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Margaret E. Bero and American Surety Company of New York, Appellants.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concurred, except Kellogg and Sewell, JJ., dissenting.
#### Mendel Gottesman and David S. Gottesman, Appellants, v. Barrett Manufacturing Company, Respondent.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Ho opinion.
#### Eva M. Barker v. Charles B. Barker.

Motion denied.
#### In the Matter of William H. Flitner.

Respondent disbarred. Settle order on notice.
* 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. 04-40009

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

EZEQUIEL CABRERA-CASTILLO,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. L-03-CR-1381-ALL

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

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PICKERING, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Ezequiel CabreraCastillo concedes that the arguments raised are foreclosed by

circuit precedent but seeks to preserve them for further review. 

The Government has moved for summary affirmance in lieu of filing

an appellee’s brief. The motion is GRANTED, and the judgment of

the district court is AFFIRMED.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 18, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
#### Ex Parte Fred A. Meadows

No. 25589.

October 31, 1951.

Petitioner represented himself.

*George P. Blackburn,*State’s Attorney, Austin, for the state.

MORRISON, Judge.

This is an original application for a writ of habeas corpus brought by relator Fred A. Meadows, seeking his release from the Texas Prison System.

The record shows that relator was on March 14, 1945, in Cause No. 15875, in the district court of Jefferson County, sentenced to serve a term of not less than two nor more than ten years. Relator was given credit by the trial court for time spent in jail so that such sentence began to run on August 17, 1944.

On the same day, to wit, March 14, 1945, in Cause No. 15869, in the same court, relator was sentenced to serve a term of not less than two nor more than ten years. This sentence contains the following order:

> “And it appearing to the Court that the defendant was convicted and sentenced in Cause No. 15875, for a term of ten years, it is the further order of the Court that the sentence in this cause be suspended until sentence in Cause No. 15875 ceases to operate.”

In Ex parte Collier, No. 25,605, decided October 17, 1951, (Page 377, this volume), we recently had an occasion to discuss our prior opinions dealing with this subject to which reference is here made.

*418Having concluded that the above order is sufficient to cumulate the sentences, the relief prayed for is denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 664 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 664

   To amend chapter 5122 of title 42, United States Code, to ensure 
     Federal disaster assistance eligibility for certain nonprofit 
                              facilities.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 24, 1995

 Mr. Pallone introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend chapter 5122 of title 42, United States Code, to ensure 
     Federal disaster assistance eligibility for certain nonprofit 
                              facilities.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That paragraph 9 of 
section 5122 of title 42, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
after ``the general public'' the following: ``(including publicly 
accessible coastal facilities which have previously received Federal 
disaster aid)''.
                                 <all>
```