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

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2397 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2397

   To increase the rates of pay under the General Schedule and other 
statutory pay systems and for prevailing rate employees by 3.3 percent, 
                        and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 22, 2014

Mr. Schatz (for himself and Mr. Cardin) introduced the following bill; 
which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To increase the rates of pay under the General Schedule and other 
statutory pay systems and for prevailing rate employees by 3.3 percent, 
                        and for other purposes.

    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 ``Federal Adjustment of Income Rates 
Act of 2014'' or the ``FAIR Act''.

SEC. 2. ADJUSTMENT TO RATES OF PAY.

    (a) Statutory Pay Systems.--The adjustment in rates of basic pay 
for employees under the statutory pay systems (as defined in section 
5302 of title 5, United States Code) that takes effect in fiscal year 
2015 under section 5303 of title 5, United States Code, shall be an 
increase of 3.3 percent, and such adjustments shall be effective as of 
the first day of the first applicable pay period beginning on or after 
January 1, 2015.
    (b) Prevailing Rate Employees.--The adjustment in rates of basic 
pay for the statutory pay systems that take place in fiscal year 2015 
under sections 5344 and 5348 of title 5, United States Code, shall be 
equal to the percentage adjustment received by employees in the same 
location whose rates of basic pay are adjusted pursuant to the 
statutory pay systems under subsection (a) of this section and 5304 of 
title 5, United States Code. Prevailing rate employees at locations 
where there are no employees whose pay is increased pursuant to 
sections 5303 and 5304 of title 5 and prevailing rate employees 
described in section 5343(a)(5) of title 5, United States Code, shall 
be considered to be located in the pay locality designated as ``Rest of 
US'' pursuant to section 5304 of title 5, United States Code, for 
purposes of this subsection.
                                 <all>
```
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



Each of the undersigned, in his capacity as an officer of REMEC, Inc. (the
Registrant), hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|1. | The quarterly report of the Registrant on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 29, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Thomas H. WaechterThomas H. WaechterPresident and Chief Executive Officer/s/ Winston E. HickmanWinston E. HickmanChief Financial and Accounting Officer




Date: September 12, 2005
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

February 27, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 128037(76) Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 128037 

 COA: 250140 
 Wayne CC: 02-011058-01 

FREDDY KATO-HARRIS LOVE, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court's order of 

August 30, 2005 is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the 

order was entered erroneously. 

d0221 

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. 

February 27, 2006 

Clerk
#### MARCIA SCHWARTZ v. GEORGE ROTHMAN AND PHYLLIS ROTHMAN.

Nov. 20, 1979.

Petition for certification denied.
News United States Air Force
 Department of the Air Force selects six candidate locations for US Space Command HeadquartersPublished Nov. 19, 2020
                        
                        By Secretary of the Air Force Public Affairs
                **WASHINGTON (AFNS)  --**
                The Department of the Air Force, on behalf of the Office of Secretary of Defense, has selected six candidate locations for the U.S. Space Command Headquarters.The six locations include **Kirtland Air Force Base**, New Mexico, **Offutt AFB**, Nebraska, **Patrick AFB**, Florida, **Peterson AFB**, Colorado, Port San Antonio, Texas, and Redstone Army Airfield, Alabama.Self-nominated communities from across 24 states were evaluated as potential locations for hosting the headquarters. The Department of the Air Force evaluated each location and will now conduct both virtual and on-site visits at each candidate location to assess which location is best suited to host the U.S. Space Command Headquarters. This assessment will be based on factors related to mission, infrastructure capacity, community support, and costs to the Department of Defense.The Department of the Air Force anticipates selecting the preferred location for U.S. Space Command Headquarters in early 2021.In the interim, Peterson AFB will remain the provisional location for U.S. Space Command Headquarters until a permanent location is selected and facilities are ready to support the mission.AFWN 



USAF 



AF 



Air Force 



DAF 



Department of the Air Force 



U.S. Space Command 



Kirtland AFB 



Offutt AFB 



Patrick AFB 



Peterson AFB 



Port San Antonio 



Redstone Army Airfield 



space force
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-11016

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

VICENTE ALEJANDRO PEREZ-MOLINA, also known as Vincente Perez, 

also known as Alex Molina,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:17-CR-6-1

Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Vicente Alejandro 

Perez-Molina has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in 

accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States 

v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Perez-Molina has filed a response. 

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 17, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-11016 Document: 00514476297 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/17/2018
No. 17-11016

2

reflected therein, as well as Perez-Molina’s response. We concur with counsel’s 

assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. 

Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is 

excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 

See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 17-11016 Document: 00514476297 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/17/2018
NUMBER 13-12-00403-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

DWAYNE PORTER, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 347th District Court 

of Nueces County, Texas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Garza and Vela

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Dwayne Porter, attempts to appeal his conviction for burglary of a 

habitation. The trial court has certified that this Ais a plea-bargain case, and the 

defendant has NO right of appeal.@ See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2).
2

On June 21, 2012, this Court notified appellant=s counsel of the trial court=s 

certification and ordered counsel to: (1) review the record; (2) determine whether 

appellant has a right to appeal; and (3) forward to this Court, by letter, counsel=s findings 

as to whether appellant has a right to appeal, or, alternatively, advise this Court as to the 

existence of any amended certification.

On July 23, 2012, counsel filed a letter brief with this Court. Counsel=s response 

does not establish that the certification currently on file with this Court is incorrect or that 

appellant otherwise has a right to appeal. 

The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provide that an appeal must be 

dismissed if the trial court=s certification does not show that the defendant has the right of 

appeal. TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d); see TEX. R. APP. P. 37.1, 44.3, 44.4. Accordingly, this 

appeal is DISMISSED. 

PER CURIAM

Do not publish. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the

2nd day of August, 2012.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-40049 Summary Calendar

ARTURO MELO MEDINA, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus JANIE COCKRELL, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION, Respondent-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 5:00-CV-141

-------------------- June 6, 2002 Before JONES, SMITH, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * Arturo Melo Medina, Texas prisoner # 743972, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 application for a writ of habeas corpus as barred by the one-year statute of limitations set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). He argues that his state habeas applications were delivered to and accepted by the court clerk on July 6, 1999, and thus filed on that date evenNo. 01-40049 -2- though they were not stamped filed until July 12, 1999. Thus, he argues that the time period for filing his federal habeas application was tolled until his state habeas applications were denied on April 19, 2000. He further argues that he tendered his federal application to prison authorities for mailing on April 19, 2000, making that application timely under Spotville v. Cain , 149 F.3d 374, 378 (5th Cir. 1998). Medina stated under penalty of perjury in his federal habeas application that he placed his petition in the prison mailing system on April 19, 2000. Respondent has supplemented the record on appeal with the prison mail log which reflects that the only mail Medina sent to the district court between April 10, 2000, and May 20, 2000, was tendered for filing on May 18, 2000. The petition was received by the court on May 22, 2000. Although there is a conflict in the evidence, a remand is unnecessary if all the evidence is documentary and the appellate court can pass upon the facts as well as the trial court. In the Matter of Legel, Braswell Gov’t Sec. Corp. , 648 F.2d 321, 326 n.8 (5th Cir. Unit B 1981). Because we hold that his federal habeas application was not tendered to prison authorities for mailing on April 19, 2000, his federal application was untimely filed. Accordingly, the district court’s dismissal of Medina’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 application is AFFIRMED.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Russell Aaron Hester v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-18-00764-CR

Trial court case number: 17-CR-2105

Trial court: 10th District Court of Galveston County

The State’s brief was originally due on November 26, 2018. The Court granted two 

extensions until February 27, 2019. When the Court granted the last extension, the Court warned 

that no further extensions would be granted. 

On February 27, 2019, the State requested a third extension. The motion for extension is 

denied. The State’s brief is due on or before March 8, 2019. No extensions will be granted. 

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: __/s/ Justice Richard Hightower_______________

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: _March 5, 2019__
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2997 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the exclusion 

for employer-provided dependent care assistance. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 10, 2014 

Mr. BURR (for himself and Mrs. GILLIBRAND) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase 

the exclusion for employer-provided dependent care assistance. 

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 ‘‘Child and Dependent 

5 Care FSA Enhancement Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. INCREASE IN EXCLUSION FOR EMPLOYER-PRO7 VIDED DEPENDENT CARE ASSISTANCE. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subparagraph (A) of section 

9 129(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating 

10 to dependent care assistance programs) is amended by 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2997 IS

1 striking ‘‘$5,000 ($2,500’’ and inserting ‘‘$7,500 (half 

2 such dollar amount’’. 

3 (b) INFLATION ADJUSTMENT.—Paragraph (2) of sec4 tion 129(a) of such Code is amended by redesignating sub5 paragraph (C) as subparagraph (D) and by inserting after 

6 subparagraph (B) the following new subparagraph: 

7 ‘‘(C) INFLATION ADJUSTMENT.—In the 

8 case of any taxable year beginning in a calendar 

9 year after 2015, the $7,500 amount in subpara10 graph (A) shall be increased by an amount 

11 equal to— 

12 ‘‘(i) such dollar amount, multiplied by 

13 ‘‘(ii) the cost-of-living adjustment de14 termined under section 1(f)(3) for the cal15 endar year in which the taxable year be16 gins, determined by substituting ‘calendar 

17 year 2014’ for ‘calendar year 1992’ in sub18 paragraph (B) thereof. 

19 Any increase determined under the preceding 

20 sentence shall be rounded to the nearest mul21 tiple of $100.’’. 

22 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

23 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

24 December 31, 2014. 

Æ 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
---

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED CHARTERED
ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration
Statement No. 333-181981 on Form S-8 and to the use of our report dated March 7,
2013 relating to the consolidated financial statements of Tahoe Resources Inc.
(which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory
paragraph relating to the consolidated financial statements as at and for the
year ended December 31, 2011 being audited by another auditor) appearing in this
Annual Report on Form 40-F of Tahoe Resources Inc. for the year ended December
31, 2012.

/s/ Deloitte LLP

Independent Registered Chartered Accountants Vancouver,
Canada March 7, 2013

---
<PAGE>

                                                                         Page 14


                                                                    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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Brunswick Bancorp and subsidiaries
(the "company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31,2006 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I
Thomas Fornale, 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, 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 result of operations of
          the company.


Date: 04/25/06                          Thomas Fornale
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Thomas Fornale
                                        Chief Financial Officer
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. BENJAMIN T. SCOTT.

Feb. 11, 1980.

Petition for certification denied.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 74 (Friday, May 5, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S6226]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                                PROGRAM

  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, 
cloture was filed on the new substitute amendment and, therefore, 
unless an agreement can be reached regarding substantial second-degree 
amendments to the substitute, there will be a cloture vote at 4 p.m. 
Monday.
  If an agreement is reached on the second-degree amendments, cloture 
would be postponed until Tuesday, and the votes, 4 p.m. on Monday, 
would be on or in relation to those second-degree amendments.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________
```
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. DOROTHY LEIGHTON.

Jan. 14, 1980.

Petition for certification denied.
Exhibit 10.15


 


ADDENDUM No. 3


 

	 	To the Charter Party Hull No. S4010
tbn “MSC Athens” dated 28th January 2011
  	 



 


It has been mutually agreed between


 


Messrs JODIE SHIPPING CO., of Liberia, as Owners


 


and


 


Messrs MSC - MEDITERRANEAN SHIPPING COMPANY S.A., of Geneva,
as Charterers


 


that:


 


Clause 36 second para is hereby deleted and replaced as follows:


 


“Charterers to take over and pay for bunkers on delivery
according to the purchase prices of bunkers ex shipyard and Owners to take over and pay for bunkers on redelivery according to
Platt’s Oilgram Bunkers wire mean prices at the port of redelivery or at the nearest port valid the date of redelivery”.


 


All other terms, conditions and exceptions of the Charter Party
and Addenda thereto to remain in force, unaltered.


 


	The Owners	 	The Charterers
	 	 	 
	 	 	/s/
	/s/	 	MSC MEDITERRANEAN SHIPPING COMPANY CO S.A.
	K. V. Konstantakopoulos

Director	 	 
	 	 	 
	28th March 2013.
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 19

- 00121

- CR

S ERGIO A LBERTO R ICO

, Appellant

V

.

T HE S TATE OF T EXAS §

§

§

§

§ On Appeal from Criminal District

Court No. 1

of Tarrant County (1556089D)

June 13, 2019

Per Curiam

(nfp)

JUD GMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that the

appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

PER CURIAM
FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL 

COMMITTEE; DSCC, AKA 

Democratic Senatorial Campaign 

Committee; THE ARIZONA 

DEMOCRATIC PARTY,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

MICHELE REAGAN, in her official 

capacity as Secretary of State of 

Arizona; MARK BRNOVICH, Attorney 

General, in his official capacity as 

Arizona Attorney General,

Defendants-Appellees,

THE ARIZONA REPUBLICAN PARTY;

BILL GATES, Councilman; SUZANNE 

KLAPP, Councilwoman; DEBBIE 

LESKO, Sen.; TONY RIVERO, Rep.,

Intervenor-Defendants-Appellees.

No. 18-15845

D.C. No.

2:16-cv-01065-

DLR

ORDER

Filed January 2, 2019
2 DNC V. REAGAN

ORDER

THOMAS, Chief Judge:

Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused active judges, 

it is ordered that this case be reheard en banc pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 35(a) and Circuit 

Rule 35-3. The three-judge panel disposition in this case 

shall not be cited as precedent by or to any court of the Ninth 

Circuit.

Judge McKeown did not participate in the deliberations 

or vote in this case.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

May 17, 2021

No. 04

- 20

- 00543

- CR

Lavelle SIMPSON

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 437th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County , Texas

Trial Court No. 2018CR10237

Honorable Lori I. Valenzuela , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellant’s court

- appointed counsel has filed a brief and a motion to withdraw pursuant

to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he asserts there are no meritorious issues to raise on appeal. Counsel certifies he has served copies of the brief and the motion on appellant

, has informed appellant of his right to review the record and file his own brief

, and has explained to appellant the procedure for obtaining the record. See Nichols v. State , 954 S.W.2d 83, 85 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State , 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 1996, no pet.). However, counsel does not certify he has provided appellant with a form motion for requesting the appellate record as required by Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313, 319

- 20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (“ Appointed counsel should include in his letter to the appellant a form motion for [ pro s e access to the appellate record] , lacking only the appellant's signature and the date, and inform the appellant that, in order to effectuate his right to review the appellate record pro se, should he choose to invoke it, he must sign and date the motion and send it on to the court of appeals within ten days of the date of the letter from appellate counsel. Counsel should make sure to supply the appellant with the mailing address for the relevant court of appeals.”).

W e, therefore, ORDER counsel to provide appellant with a form motion for requesting the appellate record and to file in this court, on or before May 28, 2021

, a certification sta ting he has provided appellant with a form motion requesting the appellate record

. See id

._________________________________ Irene Rios , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 17th day of May, 2021

.

___________________________________ M ichael A. C ruz
, Clerk of Court