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

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 970 

Expressing support for designation of June 30 as ‘‘National Corvette Day’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 7, 2008 

Mr. SHIMKUS (for himself, Mr. KILDEE, Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky, Mr. PUTNAM, Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania, and Mr. MCCAUL of Texas) submitted 

the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing support for designation of June 30 as ‘‘National 

Corvette Day’’. 

Whereas the Chevrolet Corvette is America’s first sports car; 

Whereas the first production Corvette rolled off a Flint, 

Michigan, assembly line on June 30, 1953; 

Whereas the Corvette is now manufactured in Bowling Green, 

Kentucky; 

Whereas the Corvette is the most widely respected production 

sports car in United States history; 

Whereas the Corvette is truly a symbol of American pride; 

Whereas General Motors is celebrating its 100th anniversary 

in 2008; and 


smartinez on PRODPC61 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 970 IH 

Whereas the 30th of June would be an appropriate day to 

designate as ‘‘National Corvette Day’’: Now, therefore, be 

it 

1 Resolved, That the United States House of Rep2 resentatives supports the designation of a ‘‘National Cor3 vette Day’’ to honor the Chevrolet Corvette. 

Æ 


smartinez on PRODPC61 with BILLS
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge Christine M. Arguello

Civil Action No. 11-cv-01731-CMA-MJW

AMANDA SULLIVAN, Individually, and as Personal Representative of

The Estate of Kiera Sullivan, a minor, deceased,

Plaintiff,

v.

DELTA ENTERPRISE, CORP.,

Defendant.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

Pursuant to and in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 and the Stipulation for

Dismissal With Prejudice (Doc. # 72) signed by the attorneys for the parties hereto, it is

ORDERED that this case and all claims asserted by Plaintiff Amanda Sullivan

against Defendant Delta enterprise, Corp. are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, each

party to pay her or its own attorneys’ fees and costs.

DATED: December 06 , 2012

BY THE COURT:

_______________________________

CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO

United States District Court Judge

Case 1:11-cv-01731-CMA-MJW Document 73 Filed 12/06/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NOS. WR-90,248-01 & WR-90,248-02

EX PARTE STEVEN MAJID HAMIDI, Applicant

ON APPLICATIONS FOR WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NOS. CR2014-014-001 & CR2014-015-001

IN THE 207TH DISTRICT COURT FROM COMAL COUNTY

YEARY, J., filed a dissenting opinion in which SLAUGHTER, J., joined.

DISSENTING OPINION

Applicant pled guilty to retaliation and aggravated robbery and was sentenced to 

thirty years’ imprisonment for each charge. Applicant filed these applications for writ of 

habeas corpus contending that his plea was involuntary because trial counsel allowed him 

to plead true to enhancement counts based upon foreign convictions that, at the time of the 

prosecution, were not available for use to enhance punishment according to the law 

applicable in the enhancement conviction’s jurisdiction. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 

11.07. Today, the Court remands this application to the trial court for further fact 

development, including a response from trial counsel, and a determination of whether the 
HAMIDI — 2

enhancement allegations were final and available for enhancement purposes under the law 

of the jurisdiction of conviction. 

It is my position that challenges to enhancement allegations are not ordinarily 

cognizable on post-conviction habeas corpus review. Hestand v. State, 587 S.W.3d 409, 

409–10 (Tex. Crim. App. 2019) (Yeary, J., dissenting); Rodriguez v. State, 578 S.W.3d 92, 

94 (Tex. Crim. App. 2019) (Yeary, J., dissenting); Ex parte Pointer, Nos. WR-84,786-01 

& -02, 2019 WL 6719996, at *3 (Tex. Crim. App. Dec. 11, 2019) (not designated for 

publication) (Yeary, J., concurring). As a result, I would not remand this cause but would 

simply deny relief. As I initially explained in Ex parte Pue: 

In my view, resolution of the issue that the Court addresses today—

which forum’s law will control the question of whether an out-of-state 

conviction is “final” for habitual-enhancement purposes—is purely advisory 

in the absence of a principled holding that a claim of improper enhancement 

is cognizable in a post-conviction collateral attack to begin with.

Ex parte Pue, 552 S.W.3d 226, 242–43 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018) (Yeary, J., dissenting).

The appropriate avenue for Applicant to be entitled to relief, in my view, would 

have been to object at trial and raise the issue on direct appeal, not to wait until the 

conviction was final to challenge the enhancements in a collateral attack. “The goal of 

preventing potentially unauthorized enhancements is not so critical to the proper 

functioning of the criminal justice system as to outweigh the State’s legitimate interest in 

the repose of its final convictions.” Id. at 243. Because I would simply deny relief to 

Applicant’s claim as not cognizable in post-conviction habeas corpus proceedings, I 

respectfully dissent.

FILED: April 14, 20121

DO NOT PUBLISH
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-01756-DME-MJW

MARCUS L. FREEMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

WOOLSTON, Vocational Instructor, and

LIKENS, Education Department,

Defendants.

MINUTE ORDER

Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe

It is hereby ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion to Reopen

Discovery for a Limited Purpose (Docket No. 251) is granted, finding good cause

shown. Discovery is reopened for the limited purpose of deposing the four witnesses

defendants identified as persons they will call to testify at trial (defendant Woolston,

defendant Likens, Lieutenant Kenneth Lincoln, and Dr. David Allred) and a further

deposition of the plaintiff (limited to three hours).

Date: August 5, 2013

Case 1:11-cv-01756-DME-MJW Document 255 Filed 08/05/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
## In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07 - 15 - 00036 - CR
DESIREE NICOLE ROMER O, APPELLANT

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE On Appeal from the 100th District Court Carson County, Texas Trial Court No. 4898, Honorable Stuart Messer, Presiding



### June 22 , 2015 ABATEMENT AND REMAND Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. Desiree Nicole Romero , appellant, appeals h er conviction for possession of marihuana . Appellant timely perfected h er appeal. The clerk’s record was filed on April 16, 2015 , while the reporter’s record was filed on April 21, 2015
. Appellant’s brief was due on May 21, 2015. No brief was filed. On J une 1, 2015 , appellant’s counsel was notified by letter that the brief was overdue and that unless appellant’s brief was filed on or before June 11 , 2015, the appeal would be abated. To date, no appellant’s brief has been filed.2

Accordingly, we abate this appeal and remand the cause to the 1 00 th District Court of Carson County (trial court) for further proceedings. Upon remand, the trial court shall determine the following: 1. whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal; 2. whether appellant is indigent; 3. whether appellant has been denied the effective assistance of counsel due to counsel’s failure to file a timely appellate brief. See Ex parte Briggs, 187 S.W.3d 458, 467 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (holding "a reasonably competent attorney -- regardless of whether he is retained or appointed -- must seek to advance his client's best defense in a reasonably competent manner"); and 4. why a timely appellate brief has not been filed on behalf of app ellant. The trial court is also directed to enter such orders necessary to address the aforementioned questions. So too shall it include its findings on those matters in a supplemental record and cause that record to be filed w ith this court by July 22 , 2015 . If it is determined that appellant is indigent and has been denied the effective assistance of counsel, the trial court may appoint him new counsel; the name, address, and phone number of any new counsel appointed shall be included in the aforementioned findings. Should further time be needed to perform these tasks, then same must be requested before July 22 , 2015
. It is so ordered. Per Curiam Do not publish.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge Robert E. Blackburn

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02405-REB

B.I. INCORPORATED, a Colorado corporation,

Plaintiff,

vs.

SATELLITE TRACKING OF PEOPLE, LLC, (a/k/a Stop, LLC), and

MICHELLE ENTERPRISES, LLC,

Defendants.

ORDER FOR BRIEFING ON MARKMAN ISSUES

Blackburn, J.

This matter is before the court sua sponte. In this action for alleged patent

infringement, the court recognizes the need first to construe the claims of the patent

before the case properly can proceed to resolution by summary judgment, trial, or

otherwise. Therefore, I establish the following briefing schedule to govern resolution of

these matters.

IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1. That no later than ninety days after the first answer or other response, e.g.,

motion to dismiss, etc., to the complaint is filed with the court by a defendant in this

case, the parties SHALL FILE a joint claim construction statement setting forth the

construction of claims and terms on which the parties agree and the construction of

claims and terms on which the parties disagree for the patent or patents at issue;

2. That absent further order of the court, the joint claim construction statement
2

SHALL BE LIMITED to fifteen (15) pages;

3. That the plaintiffs’ brief on claim construction SHALL BE FILED 30 days after

the joint claim construction statement is filed;

4. That the deadlines for filing a response brief and a reply brief, if any, SHALL

BE AS PRESCRIBED by D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1C.;

5. That absent further order of the court, the plaintiff’s brief on claim construction

and the defendants’ response briefs SHALL BE LIMITED to twenty (20) pages; 

6. That within ten (10) days after the reply brief is filed, the parties SHALL

CONVENE a telephonic motions’ hearing setting conference with the court’s

administrative assistant (303-335-2350) to set a time for a possible Markman hearing;

provided, furthermore, that plaintiff is responsible for initiating the call, which must

include representatives of all the parties with authority to schedule matters in this case;

7. That based on the parties’ submissions, the court will either rule on the

papers, order further briefing, convene a Markman hearing, appoint a special master, or

take such further action as the court in its discretion deems proper and necessary.

Dated September 14, 2011, at Denver, Colorado.

BY THE COURT:
#### PEOPLE’S FURNITURE CO., Inc., v. HARRIS.

No. 14089.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

June 27, 1932.

*879Frederick G. Veith, of New Orleans, for appellant.

Bolf I. Seeberg, of New Orleans, for ap-pellee.

JANVIEK, J.

Plaintiff sues for a balance of $299 claimed to be due for furniture sold and delivered to defendant. A writ of sequestration was obtained and the furniture seized by the constable.

Defendant has left the state of Louisiana and is now sojourning in Atlanta, Ga.; but, on his behalf, his wife resists payment, claiming that the account is incorrect.

' She testified that she had made certain payments which should have been credited on the fürniture account, but which,' through error, was entered on the books of plaintiff as payments on jewelry previously purchased.

She admitted that there was a balance due, but claimed that if the proper credit had been given the account would have been substantially reduced. This defense is in' the nature of a plea of payment and a plea of payment should be specially made. Since there was no such plea, her evidence in support thereof should have been excluded, since there was timely objection thereto. However, if the plea had been specially made, the burden of proving payment would have been on defendant, and the only evidence given in support of the defense is that of defendant’s wife, and it is most indefinite and uncertain.

The trial judge disregarded it, and we feel that he was correct.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.
#### In the Matter of Roger Holden, Petitioner, against William E. Boyland et al., Constituting the Tax Commission of the City of New York, Respondents.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County,

January 30, 1957.

*Malcolm B. Kahn*for petitioner.

*Peter Campbell Brown, Corporation Counsel (Morris Handel*and *Edith I. Spivach*of counsel), for respondents.

Aron Stetjer, J.

This is an article 78 proceeding to review a determination of the Tax Commission. The matter involves Local Law No. 118 for the year 1955 of the Local Laws of the City of New York. This law provides for abatement and exemption of real estate taxes where an improvement to eliminate dangerous conditions or replace inadequate sanitary facilities is made in a substandard multiple dwelling. It is not *704disputed that the petitioner made such an improvement and that he would be entitled to the benefits of the act. The sole question is when he becomes entitled to them. As regards exemption no question can exist because no increase in assessment on account of the improvement has been charged to petitioner. On abatement the local law (Administrative Code of City of New York, § J41-2.4, subd. c) says that taxes shall be abated and reduced by an amount equal to eight and one-third percent of the cost of the improvement for each year for a period of nine years “ commencing with the first tax bill after the completion of such alterations and improvements.” The alterations were completed March 8, 1956. All real estate tax bills are for fiscal years beginning January 25 and ending January 24 of the succeeding year, and represent the taxable status of the property during that period (New York City Charter, § 157). As the improvement was not completed on January 25,1956 the taxable status of the property cannot be affected by the improvement during the fiscal year commencing on that date. Petitioner concedes that the improvement is not reflected in any increase in the assessed value of the building for that period. The first bill on which the abatement could legally appear would be for the fiscal year beginning January 25, 1957. The application is prematurely brought and must be denied.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.4


                            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 Inland Resources Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Bill I.
Pennington, Chief Financial 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:

         (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 result of operations of the
Company.







/s/ Bill I. Pennington



Bill I. Pennington
Chief Financial Officer

March 31, 2003
II 

Calendar No. 132 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1301 

To preserve and protect the free choice of individual employees to form, 

join, or assist labor organizations, or to refrain from such activities. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 3, 2007 

Mr. DEMINT introduced the following bill; which was read the first time 

MAY 4, 2007 

Read the second time and placed on the calendar 

A BILL 

To preserve and protect the free choice of individual employees to form, join, or assist labor organizations, or to 

refrain from such activities. 

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 ‘‘National Right-to5 Work Act’’. 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMBILLS
2 

•S 1301 PCS

1 SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO THE NATIONAL LABOR RELA2 TIONS ACT. 

3 (a) RIGHTS OF EMPLOYEES.—Section 7 of the Na4 tional Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 157) is amended 

5 by striking ‘‘except to’’ and all that follows through ‘‘au6 thorized in section 8(a)(3)’’. 

7 (b) UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES.—Section 8 of the 

8 National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 158) is amend9 ed— 

10 (1) in subsection (a)(3), by striking ‘‘: Provided, 

11 That’’ and all that follows through ‘‘retaining mem12 bership’’; 

13 (2) in subsection (b)— 

14 (A) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘or to 

15 discriminate’’ and all that follows through ‘‘re16 taining membership’’; and 

17 (B) in paragraph (5), by striking ‘‘covered 

18 by an agreement authorized under subsection 

19 (a)(3) of this section’’; and 

20 (3) in subsection (f), by striking clause (2) and 

21 redesignating clauses (3) and (4) as clauses (2) and 

22 (3), respectively. 

23 SEC. 3. AMENDMENT TO THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT. 

24 Section 2 of the Railway Labor Act (45 U.S.C. 152) 

25 is amended by striking paragraph Eleven. 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMBILLS

hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMBILLS
Calendar No. 132 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1301 

A BILL 

To preserve and protect the free choice of indiganizations, or to refrain from such activities. vidual employees to form, join, or assist labor orMAY 4, 2007 

Read the second time and placed on the calendar 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMBILLS
#### PANCOAST PROPERTIES, Inc., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. Harold SHAPIRO et al., Appellees.

Supreme Court of Florida. Division B.

Feb. 9, 1955.

Rehearing Denied April 5, 1955.

PER CURIAM.

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

| January 13, 2011                |   |
|---------------------------------|--------|
|                            |   |
| /s/ David Lopez                 |   |
| David Lopez                     |   |
| Interim Chief Executive Officer |   |
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 192 (Thursday, October 2, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 57235]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-23140]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 33

[Docket No. FAA-2007-28501; Amendment No. 33-27]
RIN 2120-AJ05


Airworthiness Standards; Aircraft Engine Standards for 
Pressurized Engine Static Parts; Correction

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: This document corrects the amendment number to a final rule 
published in the Federal Register of Thursday, September 25, 2008, 
regarding requirements for pressurized engine static parts.

DATES: This amendment becomes effective November 24, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Mouzakis, Engine and Propeller 
Directorate Standards Staff, ANE-111, Federal Aviation Administration, 
12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, Massachusetts 01803-5299; 
telephone (781) 238-7114, fax (781) 238-7199, e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b9cdd0d4d6d5dcd6d797d4d6ccc3d8d2d0caf9dfd8d897ded6cf"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="9de9f4f0f2f1f8f2f3b3f0f2e8e7fcf6f4eeddfbfcfcb3faf2eb">[email protected]</span></a>.

Correction

0
In final rule Aircraft Engine Standards for Pressurized Engine Static 
Parts beginning on page 55435 in the Federal Register issue of 
Thursday, September 25, 2008, (73 FR 55435) make the following 
correction.
0
1. On page 55435, in the first column, beginning on the fourth line of 
the heading, ``Amendment No. 33-26'' is corrected to read ``Amendment 
No. 33-27.''

    Issued in Washington, DC on September 26, 2008.
Pamela Hamilton-Powell,
Director, Office of Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. E8-23140 Filed 10-1-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
EXHIBIT 32(i)

CERTIFICATION PURSUANTTO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT
TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002*



In connection with the Annual Report of
A.G. Edwards, Inc. (the Registrant) on Form 10-K for the period ended February 29, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 13, 2004 hereof (the Report), I, Robert L. Bagby, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:


|(1) |  | The 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 Registrant.
|--- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | A.G.
EDWARDS, INC.
| | ------------------

Date: May 13, 2004

| | By:   /s/
Robert L. BagbyRobert L. BagbyChairman
of the Board andChief Executive 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.
|- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Perry Wilson, Appellant.

[745 NYS2d 447]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Flaherty, J.), rendered December 14, 2000, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that his plea of guilty should be vacated on the ground that the Supreme Court failed to advise him at the time of his plea that he would be subject to an automatic and statutorily mandated five-year period of postrelease supervision following the completion of his determinate sentence (see Penal Law § 70.45 [1]). However, this claim is unpreserved for appellate review, as he did not seek to withdraw his plea before sentencing or move to vacate the judgment of conviction (see *People v Piediscalzo,*287 AD2d 582; *People v Gilchrist,*280 AD2d 488; *People v Naglieri,*262 AD2d 426, 427), and we decline to reach the issue in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. O’Brien, J.P., H. Miller, Schmidt and Cozier, JJ., concur.