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

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 5 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating 

to limitations on the amounts of contributions and expenditures that 

may be made in connection with campaigns for election to public office. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 4, 2007 

Ms. KAPTUR introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to 

the Committee on the Judiciary 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United 

States relating to limitations on the amounts of contributions and expenditures that may be made in connection 

with campaigns for election to public office. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives 

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all 

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 

7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
2 

•HJ 5 IH 

1 States within seven years after the date of its submission 

2 for ratification: 

3 ‘‘ARTICLE — 

4 ‘‘SECTION 1. Congress shall have power to set limits 

5 on the amount of contributions that may be accepted by, 

6 and the amount of expenditures that may be made by, in 

7 support of, or in opposition to, a candidate for nomination 

8 for election to, or for election to, Federal office. 

9 ‘‘SECTION 2. A State shall have power to set limits 

10 on the amount of contributions that may be accepted by, 

11 and the amount of expenditures that may be made by, in 

12 support of, or in opposition to, a candidate for nomination 

13 for election to, or for election to, State or local office. 

14 ‘‘SECTION 3. Congress shall have power to implement 

15 and enforce this article by appropriate legislation.’’. 

Æ 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
IA 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 16 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal 

the sixteenth article of amendment. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 17, 2007 

Mr. KING of Iowa introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United 

States to repeal the sixteenth article of amendment. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives 

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all 

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 

7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several 

8 States within seven years after the date of its submission 

9 for ratification: 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with BILLS
2 

•HJ 16 IH 

1 ‘‘ARTICLE— 

2 ‘‘The sixteenth article of amendment to the Constitu3 tion of the United States is hereby repealed.’’. 

Æ 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with BILLS
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 77 (Wednesday, May 10, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H4788]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Owens] is recognized for 5 minutes.

  [Mr. OWENS addressed the House. His remarks will appear hereafter in 
the Extensions of Remarks.]

                          ____________________
```
**EXHIBIT 31.4**

** **

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Cameron W. George, certify that:

 

1.                                      I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Sanchez Energy Corporation (the “registrant”); and

 

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

 
| Date:   April 29, 2019 | /s/   Cameron W. George                                |
|-----------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------|
|                        | Cameron   W. George                                    |
|                        | Executive   Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
|                        | (Principal   Financial Officer)                        |

 

----
News United States Air Force
 Acting Secretary of the Air Force takes the controls during NASIC visitPublished Sept. 1, 2013
                        
                        By Staff Sgt. Veronica A. Pierce
                        
                        
                        National Air and Space Intelligence Center Public Affairs
                **WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE, Ohio (AFNS) --**
                During an orientation visit to the National Air and Space Intelligence Center here, Acting Secretary of the Air Force Eric Fanning praised the personnel at the center and the enduring quality of their work in the midst of budget constraints.
"It's thrilling for me to get to see what (these military and civilian Airmen) do, and to visit them," Fanning said. "It is amazing that we are able to recruit such talent and that we're able to retain it even as we go through all the uncertainties of the budget environment." 
Col. Aaron Prupas, the NASIC commander, hosted Fanning and Ohio Rep. Mike Turner and briefed them on the center's capabilities during a familiarization tour Aug. 28here. NASIC members had the opportunity to showcase their work by briefing Fanning on current intelligence products. Each briefing pieced together the in-depth explanation of NASIC's overall mission to create integrated predictive intelligence.

During the tour, the controls for a high-fidelity threat aircraft model were turned over to Fanning during a "flight" on the center's simulator. His "copilot" was an analyst from the Air and Cyberspace Intelligence Group, Aircraft Dynamic Flight, where the simulator is located.SecAF 



NASIC 



Wright-Patterson AFB 



Ohio 



Eric Fannin
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-19-00109-CV

ALFRED LEE STONE,

Appellant

v.

CPT. J. YOUNG CORRECTIONAL OFFICER, 

INDIVIDUALLY AND SEVERALLY,

Appellee

From the 12th District Court

Walker County, Texas

Trial Court No. 1829026

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Alfred Lee Stone appealed an adverse judgment rendered against him on March 

8, 2019. Stone has now filed a motion to dismiss his appeal. The motion is granted, and 

this proceeding is dismissed. TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1).

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice
Stone v. Young Page 2

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Neill

Dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed July 17, 2019

[CV06]
#### TOWNSHIP OF PRINCETON v. ANTHONY R. GAYLORD.

January 23, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 21.1

                               BEA SYSTEMS, INC.

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

<TABLE>
<S>    <C>

1.   BEA Systems (FSC), Inc., Barbados

2.   BEA International, Cayman Islands

3.   BEA Systems, Ltd., Canada

4.   BEA Systems Limitada, Brazil

5.   BEA Systems SA de CV, Mexico

6.   BEA Systems Europe GmbH, Germany

7.   BEA Systems Europe Ltd., United Kingdom

8.   BEA Systems Italia S.P.A.

9.   BEA Systems Spain S.A.

10.  BEA Systems Europe N.V., Belgium

11.  BEA Systems Pty Ltd., South Africa

12.  BEA Systems AB, Sweden

13.  BEA Systems, Ltd., United Kingdom

14.  BEA Systems OY, Finland

15.  BEA Systems S.A., France

16.  BEA Systems (Switzerland) Ltd., Switzerland

17.  BEA Systems Japan Ltd., Japan

18.  BEA Systems Korea, Korea

19.  BEA Systems Pty Ltd., Australia

20.  BEA Systems HK Ltd., Hong Kong

21.  BEA Systems Holland B.V., Netherlands

22.  BEA WebXpress, LLC

23.  Avitek Inc.

24.  The Theory Center, Inc.

25.  Technology Resource Group

26.  BEA Systems Holding A, Inc.

27.  BEA Systems Holding B, Inc.

28.  BEA Systems Distribution B.V., Netherlands

29.  BEA Systems Netherlands B.V.

30.  BEA Cayman Holding I

31.  BEA Cayman Holding II

32.  BEA Cayman Holding III

33.  BEA Systems (Ontario), Inc.

34.  BEA Systems (Nova Scotia) Company

35.  The Object People Limited

36.  The Object People GmbH

37.  1395135 Ontario Inc.


</TABLE>
#### A. W. & E. P. Clegg v. County of Galveston.

(No. 1161, Op. Book No. 3, p. 56.)

Appeal from Galveston County.

Opinion by

Ector, P. J.

§ 58. *Limitation; tax levied and assessed not “ an account.”*A tax when levied and assessed is not a suit founded on “anaccount” in the sense in which those terms are used in our statute of limitation, and is therefore not barred in two years.

§ 59. *Tax may be collected by suit.*Taxes assessed upon property may be collected by suit, as well as in the manner provided by statute. [Clegg v. The State, 42 Tex. 605; Texas Banking & Insurance Co. v. The State, 42 Tex. 636.]

§ 60. *jEvidence; tax rolls.*A consolidated assessment roll for the year 1811, made up under the directions of the *28justices of the peace of Galveston county, as required by instructions of the comptroller, and coming from the proper repository thereof, was held to be competent evidence in a suit to recover taxes shown thereby to be due; although said roll did not appear to be certified as required by the instructions of the comptroller. [1 Greenl. Ev. secs. 484, 485.]

June 11, 1879.

§ 61. *Evidence; delinquent lists.*Suits against delinquent tax-payers are not required' to be bro ight upon a delinquent list. The requirements of the statute regulating the manner in which lists of delinquent tax-payers shall be made out and reported to the comptroller are merely directory, and the facts to be established by such lists may be proved by other appropriate and satisfactory evidence. [Clegg v. The State, 42 Tex. 605.]

§ 62. *Road and bridge tax is a county tax.*The road and bridge tax authorized and provided for by sec. 46, art. 12, of the constitution of 1869, and § 5, act of April 22, 1871, is a county and not a state tax.

§ 63. *Term of court; continuance of.*When a court is organized and opened for a regular term, the term continues until it is ended, by an order of final adjournment, or until the time prescribed by law for its continuance has expired; and the sessions or sittings of the court during the term are entirely within the discretion and control of the court. [Labadie v. Dean, 47 Tex. 100.]

Affirmed.
UN PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 2342

In re: VAN WILLIAM SAVAGE, II , Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus

. ( 1:13

- cr - 00484

- CCE

- 1 ; 1:16

- cv - 00622

- CCE

- LPA )

Submitted : April 12, 2018 Decided: April 27, 2018

Before WILKINSON , FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

. Van William Savage, II , Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Van William Savage, II, petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the magistrate judge has unduly delayed acting on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. He seeks an order from this court directing the magistrate judge to act. Our review of the d istrict court’s docket reveals that the magistrate judge recently issued a recommendatio n that Savage ’s § 2255 motion be denied. Accordingly, because the magistrate judge has acted
in Savage ’s case, we deny the mandamus petition as moot. We grant leave t o proceed in forma pauperis. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 4282** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. YOALIANG GAO , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria

. James C. Cacheris , Senior District Judge. ( 1:14

- cr - 00218

- JCC

- 1 )

Submitted : November 17, 2015 Decided: November 19, 2015

Before SHEDD , DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Mark Bodner, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellant. Jennifer Gimbert Ballantyne , OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY , Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Yoaliang G ao appeals his conviction for possession of 15 or more counterfeit or unauthorized access devices and his 30

- month sentence. Gao’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious issues for appeal and acknowledging Gao’s waiver of appellate rights but questioning the application of Sentencing Guidelines enhancement s for lo ss amount and for abusing a position of trust. Gao did not file a pro se supplemental brief despite notice of his rig ht to do so. The Government has moved to dismiss the appeal as barred by the appellate waiver included in Gao’s plea agreement. Pursuant to a plea agreement, a defendant may waive his appellate rights under 18 U.S.C. § 3742 (2012). United States v. Archi e , 771 F.3d 217, 221 (4th Cir. 2014), cert. denied , 135 S. Ct. 1579 (2015). A waiver will preclude an appeal of “a specific issue if . . . the waiver is valid and the issue being appealed is within the scope of the waiver.” Id. A defendant’s waiver is v alid if he agreed to it “knowingly and intelligently.” United States v. Manigan , 592 F.3d 621, 627 (4th Cir. 2010). Whether a defendant validly waived his right to appeal is a question of law that we review de novo. United States v. Copeland , 707 F.3d 5 22, 528 (4th Cir. 2013).3 Upon review of the plea agreement and the transcript of the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing, we conclude that Gao knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal his conviction and any
sentence within the statutory maximum . Th e sentencing claim s raised on appeal clearly fall within the scope of this broad waiver. Therefore, we grant the motion to dismiss and dismiss
Gao’s appeal. We have reviewed the entire record in accordance with Anders and have found no meritorious issues for appeal outside the scope of the waiver. This court requires that counsel inform Gao , in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Gao requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Gao. We dispens e with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

February 28, 2020

No. 04

- 20

- 00108

- CR

Genene JONES

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 399th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017CR5730

Honorable Frank J. Castro, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

A Trial Court’s Certification of Defendant’s Right of Appeal has been filed in this appeal

in which the trial court ju dge certifies that the underlying criminal case “is a plea

- bargain case,

and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” We, therefore, ORDER the trial court clerk to file a

clerk’s record within ten days from the date of this order containing the following doc uments:

1. All pre

- trial orders and the related pre

- trial motions;

2. The Court Admonishments, the Waiver, Consent to Stipulation of Testimony

and Stipulations, and all other documents relating to the defendant’s plea bargain;

3. The judgment;

4. All post

-

judgment motions and orders;

5. The notice of appeal;

6. The Trial Court’s Certification of Defendant’s Right of Appeal; and

7. The criminal docket sheet.All other appell ate deadlines are suspended pending further order of this court. The clerk

of this court is ORDERED to send a copy of this order to the attorneys of record, the trial court

clerk, and the court reporter(s) responsible for preparing the reporter’s record in this appeal.

_________________________________ Irene Rios , Justice

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

court on this 28th day of February, 2020

.

___________________________________ M ichael A. C ruz

, Clerk of Court
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 83 (Thursday, May 18, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H5236]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                   BUDGET DEBATE IS ABOUT REAL PEOPLE

  (Mr. BONIOR asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute.)
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, this debate comes down to one simple 
question: Do you think we should be cutting Medicare, Medicaid, and 
Social Security in order to pay for tax breaks for the privileged few 
in our society?
  I can tell you one thing--Margaret Leslie doesn't think so.
  I have a picture here of Margaret. She is a senior citizen who lives 
in my district.
  During World War II, she was known as ``Margie the Riveter.''
  She helped build the B-29's that helped the Allies defeat Hitler in 
the Second World War. Today, she lives on Social Security.
  After paying for her rent, her medicine, her Medicare and MediGap 
premiums, she is left with about $130 each month to pay for food, bill, 
and everything else.
  Mr. Speaker, this budget before us today will take $240 out of 
Margaret's pocket because of cuts in Social Security.
  And over the next 7 years--it will force her to pay an additional 
$3,500 for Medicare.
  Not to cut the deficit. Not to balance the budget. But to pay for tax 
breaks for the wealthiest few in our society.
  Mr. Speaker, we need to defeat this budget.
  

                          ____________________
```
Exhibit 32

Certification Furnished 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 on Form 10-K of Gulf Island Fabrication, Inc. (the Company) for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, who are the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, that:



| |  |  | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | - |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company for
the period covered by the Report.
| | - |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



By:

/S/    KERRY J.
CHAUVINKerry J. ChauvinChief Executive OfficerFebruary 28, 2011By:

/S/    ROBIN A.
SEIBERTRobin A. SeibertChief Financial OfficerFebruary 28, 2011


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Gulf Island Fabrication, Inc. and will
be retained by Gulf Island Fabrication, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
IA 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 19 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to establish 

English as the official language of the United States. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 18, 2007 

Mr. TANCREDO introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United 

States to establish English as the official language of 

the United States. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives 

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all 

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 

7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several 

8 States within seven years after the date of its submission 

9 for ratification: 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•HJ 19 IH 

1 ‘‘ARTICLE— 

2 ‘‘SECTION 1. The English language shall be the offi3 cial language of the United States. As the official lan4 guage, the English language shall be used for all public 

5 acts including every order, resolution, vote, and election, 

6 and for all records and judicial proceedings of the Govern7 ment of the United States and the governments of the sev8 eral States. 

9 ‘‘SECTION 2. The Congress and the States shall en10 force this article by appropriate legislation.’’. 

Æ 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 83 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. J. RES. 83

    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
 providing that the Constitution does not preclude a penalty of death, 
including when it is imposed for the rape of a child under 16 years of 
                                  age.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 8, 2008

 Mr. Broun of Georgia introduced the following joint resolution; which 
             was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
 providing that the Constitution does not preclude a penalty of death, 
including when it is imposed for the rape of a child under 16 years of 
                                  age.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled   (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

                              ``Article --

    ``The death penalty is permitted under the Constitution and does 
not constitute cruel and unusual punishment, including when the death 
penalty is imposed for the rape of a child under sixteen years old.''.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 80 (Monday, May 15, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H4918]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                        MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

  A message from the Senate by Mr. Lundregan, one of its clerks, 
announced that the Senate had passed without amendment a concurrent 
resolution of the House of the following title:

       H. Con. Res. 64. Concurrent resolution authorizing the 1995 
     Special Olympics Torch Relay to the run through the Capitol 
     Grounds.
     

                          ____________________
```