alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Willie Allen STEWART, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 5D10-2065.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Aug. 16, 2011.

Derek B. Brett, of The Brett Law Firm, P.A., Orlando, and Jeffrey D. Deen, Regional Counsel, Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel, Fifth District, Altamonte Springs, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Douglas T. Squire, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. *See Westerheide v. State,*881 So.2d 93 (Fla.2002).

ORFINGER, C.J., GRIFFIN and COHEN, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 125 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 125

 To provide for a temporary increase in the number of Iraqi and Afghan 
   translators in the United States Armed Forces who may be provided 
                     status as special immigrants.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 4, 2007

 Mr. Fortenberry (for himself and Mr. Berman) introduced the following 
      bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide for a temporary increase in the number of Iraqi and Afghan 
   translators in the United States Armed Forces who may be provided 
                     status as special immigrants.

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

SECTION 1. TEMPORARY INCREASE IN NUMBER OF IRAQI AND AFGHAN TRANSLATORS 
              IN THE UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES WHO MAY BE PROVIDED 
              STATUS AS SPECIAL IMMIGRANTS.

    Section 1059(c)(1) of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163) is amended by inserting before 
the period at the end the following: ``(or 300 in the case of each of 
fiscal years 2007, 2008, and 2009)''.
                                 <all>
```
- 1

- COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS

MATTHEW FLOREZ AND LEXUS

BROWN

,

Appellant s ,

v.

PASCUAL Q. OLIBAS

,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 19

- 00 302

- C V

Appeal from the

143 rd District Court

of Reeves C ounty, Texas

(TC# 19

- 07

- 2 3056

- CVR )

O R D E R

James D. Lucas is listed as an attorney of record for a party in this appeal. County records

indicate that James D. Lucas currently serves as an associate judge for the 388th District Court of El Paso County.

The Texas Code of Judicial Conduct restricts an active judge's ability to engage in the practice of law. See Tex. Code Jud. Conduct, Canon 4(G), reprin ted in Tex. Gov't Code Ann., tit. 2, subtit. G, app. B (establishing that a judge shall not practice law except as permitted by statute or this Code); see also Canon 5(A)(2)(requiring a full

- time commissioner, master, magistrate, or

referee of a district c ourt to comply with all canons including Canon 4(G)); Canon 5(D)(stating that a part

- time commissioner, master, magistrate, or referree of a district court should not practice law "in any court subject to the appellate jurisdiction of the court which he or she serves . . . ")

As of this date, Judge Lucas has not filed a motion to withdraw or substitution in this

matter. See Tex.R.App.P. 6.5. The Court has attempted to ascertain whether Judge Lucas intends to continue his representation of the party in th is appeal and, if so, by what authority, but Judge Lucas' status as attorney in this matter remains unclear.

Therefore, to expedite a decision and for other good cause, the Court orders James D. Lucas to either (1) file a motion to withdraw as counsel or a motion to substitute counsel that- 2

- complies with Tex.R.App.P. 6.5, or, in the alternative, (2) provide this Court with a written explanation as to why Lucas may continue to serve as appellate counsel in this case while also serving as an associate judge of the 388th District Court

. The motion to withdraw or substitute must strictly adhere to each requirement of Tex.R.App.P. 6.5 or will not be deemed timely.

Judge Lucas' response to this Order is due no later than 15 days from this date.

I T IS SO ORDERED this 24 th day of June

, 202 1

.

PER CURIAM

Before Rodriguez , C.J., Palafox and A lley , JJ.
#### Nancy C. MORRIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WASTE MANAGEMENT OF VIRGINIA, INCORPORATED, d/b/a Waste Management of Hampton Roads, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 00-1750.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 29, 2000.

Decided Jan. 17, 2001.

Scott Meadows Reed, Preston & Reed, P.L.C., Virginia Beach, VA, for appellant. Lawrence P. Postol, Seyfarth Shaw, Washington, DC, for appellee.

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Nancy C. Morris filed suit against her former employer, Waste Management of *246Virginia, Inc., d/b/a Waste Management of Hampton Roads (“Employer”), alleging sexual discrimination, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and age discrimination, in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”). She now appeals the magistrate judge’s order enforcing a settlement agreement, releasing her discrimination claims, and dismissing the action.1

On appeal, Morris argues that the magistrate judge erred in finding that Morris knowingly and voluntarily waived and released her age discrimination claim and that the magistrate judge improperly concluded that an enforceable settlement agreement existed between the parties. We have reviewed the magistrate’s opinion and the submitted materials in light of Morris’ claims, and find no reversible error.2 Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the magistrate judge. *Morris v. Waste Mgmt. of Virginia,*95 F.Supp.2d 586 (E.D.Va.2000).3 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.

*AFFIRMED.*

1

. This case was decided by a magistrate judge upon consent of the parties under 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(c)(1) (West 1993 & Supp.2000).

2

. We note that Morris did not present her argument that the "General Release and Settlement Agreement” proposed by Employer violates the prohibition against the waiver of future claims contained in 29 U.S.C.A. § 626(f)(1)(C) (West 2000) to the district court. We therefore do not address this argument on appeal. *Muth v. United. States,*1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir.1993).

3

. Although the magistrate judge’s order is marked as filed on May 19, 2000, the district court’s records show that it was entered on the docket sheet on May 22, 2000. Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date that the order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as the effective date of the district court’s decision. *See Wilson v. Murray,*806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir.1986).
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended October 28, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date
hereof (the Report), I, David E. Ullman, 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 to the best of my
knowledge:

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

|                 |                        
|---------------- | -----------------------
|December 7, 2006 | /s/ DAVID E. ULLMAN    
|                 |                        
|                 | David E. Ullman        
|                 | Chief Financial Officer

---
#### Anthony Duane CUMMINGS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 5D10-567.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

May 20, 2011.

Rehearing Denied July 7, 2011.

James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Christopher S. Quarles, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kellie A. Nielan, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges his conviction based on an alleged speedy trial violation. He argues that his conviction was based on charges that arose from the same criminal episode as charges for which the speedy trial period had expired. We conclude that, although the charges all were related to illicit drugs, each involved distinct acts and distinct crimes. Therefore, they did not arise from the same criminal episode for speedy trial purposes. *See State v. Banks,*50 So.3d 730 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (defendant’s charges for dealing in stolen property and possession of firearm with altered serial number, though related to charge of burglary involving theft of firearms, not part of same criminal episode); *Clevenger v. State,*967 So.2d 1039, 1041 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (“Crimes are deemed to be part of the same criminal episode so as to trigger the running of the speedy trial period when they are based on substantially the same conduct, even though the conduct may give rise to different consequences.”); *State v. Hanna,*858 So.2d 1248, 1250 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (“[W]hen different crimes are involved, they are not deemed a part of the same criminal episode unless they are based on substantially the same acts.”).

AFFIRMED.

TORPY, LAWSON and COHEN, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 187 (Tuesday, September 28, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 59748]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-24125]


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

NEIGHBORHOOD REINVESTMENT CORPORATION


Special Board of Directors Meeting; Sunshine Act

Time and Date: 4 p.m., Monday, August 9, 2010.

Place: 1325 G Street, NW., Suite 800, Boardroom, Washington, DC 20005.

Status: Open.

Contact Person for More Information: Erica Hall, Assistant Corporate 
Secretary, (202) 220-2376; <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8eebe6efe2e2cee0f9a0e1fce9"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f7929f969b9bb79980d9988590">[email protected]</span></a>.

Agenda: 

I. Call to Order.
II. Appropriations Update.
III. NACA Update.
IV. AHCOA Update.
V. NUSA Update/Replacement Plan.
VI. Adjournment.

Erica Hall,
Assistant Corporate Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-24125 Filed 9-27-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7570-02-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
# News

## U.S. Air Force LogoUnited States Air Force

# Hagel promotes partnership at Aviation Detachment 

              - Published  Feb. 4, 2014
              -                             By Staff Sgt. Christopher Ruano                                                    
              - 52nd Fighter Wing Public Affairs

**POWIDZ AIR BASE, POLAND (AFNS) --  **
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel visited with U.S. and Polish airmen from the 52nd Operations Group Aviation Detachment here, Jan. 31. 

Hagel traveled to Poland to discuss U.S. and Polish partnerships and defense alliances across a range of global security issues. He also thanked them for their support in Afghanistan and expressed the importance of U.S. support for Poland's defense modernization.Hagel recognized the efforts of the U.S. and Polish service members working together in support of the Air Force Aviation Detachment."It's important that our two countries, working side by side in this effort, at this place, serve as an example," Hagel said. "It will continue being an expanding opportunity for more joint exercises and more opportunities to work together." Hagel stressed the importance of cooperation between Poland and America."What you're doing here is important for our two countries; it's important for NATO, it's important for freedom, and it is a significant symbol around the world," Hagel said. The Aviation Detachment's 10 Airmen shared their appreciation of Hagel's visit. The small team handles the full-spectrum detachment mission: to foster bilateral defense ties, enhance regional security and increase interoperability among NATO allies through combined training exercises with periodic rotational aircraft. "It's an honor to have the Secretary of Defense visiting," said Maj. Matthew Spears, the commander of the U.S. Aviation Detachment. "It demonstrates the importance of our mission and the importance of our partnerships here in Poland." The detachment was activated in November 2012, and marked the first enduring presence of U.S. military members on Polish soil. The Aviation Detatchment's presence in Poland makes it possible to host multiple allied Air Force elements and serve as a regional hub for air training and multi-national exercises. They also facilitate and enable combined U.S. and Polish training and exercises to increase air support to NATO.

HagelSecDEF
IA 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 78 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United 

States Code, of the rule submitted by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services within the Department of Health and Human Services 

relating to optional State plan case management services under the 

Medicaid Program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 13, 2008 

Mr. ELLISON (for himself, Mr. ALLEN, Ms. MCCOLLUM of Minnesota, Mr. 

OBERSTAR, Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota, Mr. RAMSTAD, and Mr. WALZ

of Minnesota) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of 

title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by 

the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services within 

the Department of Health and Human Services relating 

to optional State plan case management services under 

the Medicaid Program. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the Cen4 ters for Medicare & Medicaid Services within the Depart5 ment of Health and Human Services relating to optional 


smartinez on PRODPC61 with BILLS
2 

•HJ 78 IH 

1 State plan case management services under the Medicaid 

2 program (published at 72 Fed. Reg. 68077 (December 4, 

3 2007)), and such rule shall have no force or effect. 

Æ 


smartinez on PRODPC61 with BILLS
#### Mo. Pac. R’y Co. v. A. M. Rushin.

(No. 5492.)

Appeal from Robertson County.

L. J. Simmons, counsel for appellant.

No counsel appeared for appellee.

Opinion by

Will-son, J.

§ 317. *Parties; joint oiuners must sue jointly; case stated.*Under a through bill of lading’ appellee had shipped to him at Franklin, Texas, from Valdosta, Georgia, uliree hundred pear trees, a portion of the route over which said trees were transported being appellant’s line of railway. When shipped said trees were in good condition, but were in a damaged condi fcion when received by appellee, and he brought this suit to recover the alleged value of said trees, $300, alleging that when received by him they were totally worthless. He recovered judgment for $294 and costs. On the trial it appeared in evidence that appellee wTas not the sole owner of said trees,-but that one Scott owned an interest therein of one-half, and in the judgment which might be recovered in this suit. This being the case appellee could not maintain this suit alone and the court erred in rendering judgment for him. Scott, being a joint owner of the trees with appellee, was a necessary party to the suit, and unless made a party thereto, the suit should be dismissed.

§ 318. *Excessive judgment; damages which by reasonable care could have been prevented are not recoverable:*The judgment is excessive. It is shown by the evidence that the trees were not so injured as to be wholly worth*386less. They were received, by appellee December 26, .1885. In May, 1886, one-half of them were living. In March, 1887, forty or fifty of them were living. It was proved that by proper care and attention the one hundred and fifty trees which were living in May, 1886, might have been preserved, but that appellee made no effort to dispose of or to presei’ve them. It was his duty to protect himself from loss so far as he could do so, by the use of reasonable effort, and failing to do so, he was not entitled to recover for the damage he could thus have averted. [R. R. Co. v. Young, 60 Tex. 202; R’y Co. v. Smith, 63 Tex. 323; 2 W. Con. Rep. §§ 288, 813.]

June 22, 1887.

Reversed and remanded.
110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1047

AN ACT

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a 

study to determine the suitability and feasibility of designating the Soldiers’ Memorial Military Museum located 

in St. Louis, Missouri, as a unit of the National Park 

System.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 1047 EH

1 SECTION 1. NATIONAL PARK SERVICE STUDY REGARDING 

2 THE SOLDIERS’ MEMORIAL MILITARY MU3 SEUM. 

4 (a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds as follows: 

5 (1) The Soldiers’ Memorial is a tribute to all 

6 veterans located in the greater St. Louis area, in7 cluding Southern Illinois. 

8 (2) The current annual budget for the memorial 

9 is $185,000 and is paid for exclusively by the City 

10 of St. Louis. 

11 (3) In 1923, the City of St. Louis voted to 

12 spend $6,000,000 to purchase a memorial plaza and 

13 building dedicated to citizens of St. Louis who lost 

14 their lives in World War I. 

15 (4) The purchase of the 7 block site exhausted 

16 the funds and no money remained to construct a 

17 monument. 

18 (5) In 1933, Mayor Bernard F. Dickmann ap19 pealed to citizens and the city government to raise 

20 $1,000,000 to construct a memorial building and 

21 general improvement of the plaza area and the con22 struction of Soldiers’ Memorial began on October 

23 21, 1935. 

24 (6) On October 14, 1936, President Franklin 

25 D. Roosevelt officially dedicated the site. 
3

•HR 1047 EH

1 (7) On Memorial Day in 1938, Mayor 

2 Dickmann opened the building to the public. 

3 (b) STUDY.—The Secretary of the Interior shall carry 

4 out a study to determine the suitability and feasibility of 

5 designating the Soldiers’ Memorial Military Museum, lo6 cated at 1315 Chestnut, St. Louis, Missouri, as a unit 

7 of the National Park System. 

8 (c) STUDY PROCESS AND COMPLETION.—Section 

9 8(c) of Public Law 91–383 (16 U.S.C. 1a–5(c)) shall 

10 apply to the conduct and completion of the study required 

11 by this section. 

12 (d) REPORT.—The Secretary shall submit a report 

13 describing the results the study required by this section 

14 to the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of 

15 Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Nat16 ural Resources of the Senate. 

Passed the House of Representatives March 5, 

2007. 

Attest:

Clerk. 
110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1047

AN ACT

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conas a unit of the National Park System. Military Museum located in St. Louis, Missouri, sibility of designating the Soldiers’ Memorial duct a study to determine the suitability and fea-
**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 Quarterly Report of GlobeTel Communications Corp. (the
      "Company") on Form 10-Q for the three month period ended June 30, 2006 as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
      I, Timothy Huff, 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, that to my knowledge:





1.
      The
      Report fully complies with the requirement 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.





Timothy
      M. Huff


Chief
      Executive Officer


August
      14 th 2006
**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 Quarterly Report of Viewpoint Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), we, Jay S. Amato and William H. Mitchell, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, respectively, of the Company, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to our knowledge:

(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.

 

|                |   |      |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    |
|---------------------|--------|-----------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Dated: May 10, 2005 |   | By:  | /s/ JAY S. AMATO                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        |
|                |   |      |  

 

 

 

 

Jay S. AmatoPresident and Chief Executive Officer

 

 

 

 

 

Dated: May 10, 2005

 

By: 

/s/ WILLIAM H. MITCHELL

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

William H. MitchellChief Financial Officer

  |