alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## NO. 12-09-00214-CV IN THE COUR T OF APP EALS TWELFTH COURT OF APP EALS D ISTR ICT

TYLER, TEX AS

JU LI A MAR IE M CN EAL , § APP EAL FRO

M T HE APPELLANT V . § CO UN TY CO UR T AT

LAW NAPOLEAN MCNEA L, APP ELL EE § SMI TH CO UN TY, T EXAS MEMORA NDUM OPIN ION PER CU RIAM Th is a pp e a l is be ing dis mis se d f or fa ilu re to c omp ly wi th th e Te xa s Ru le s o f A pp e lla te Procedur e. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 42.3. Pursuant to rule 32.1, Appellant’s docketing statement wa s due to have been f

iled at the time the appea l w as perf ecte d, i.e., July 13, 2009. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 32.1. On July 13, 2009, this court notified Appellant that she should file a docketing stateme nt within ten days if she ha d not alrea dy don e s o . On t h e s am e date , by separ ate letter , this court notified Appellant that the f iling fee wa s due on or be fore July 23, 2009. Beca use Appe llant did not f i l e t h e d o cketing st atement a s reque sted in our July 13, 2009 letter, this court issued a

second notice advising Appellant that the docketing statement wa s past due. The notice also advised Appellant that the fil ing fee in the appe al was due to have be en paid on or befor e July 23, 2009 but ha d not been r ece ived. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 5. The notice further provided tha t un le ss t he do c ke tin g sta te me nt a nd fe e we re fi le d o n o r b e fo re Au gu st 3 , 2 00 9, the a pp e a l w ou ld be pre sented for dismiss al in a ccor dance with T exas Rule of Appellate Procedur e 42.3. The da te for filing the docketing statement and the fil ing fee has passed, and Appellant has not complied with the court’s r equest. Bec ause A ppellant has fa iled, afte r notice, to c omply with rul es 5 and 32.1, the a pp e a l is dismiss ed

. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 42.3(c)

.2

Opinion delivere d August 19, 2009. Pane l co ns i s t ed of

W or t hen , C. J. , Gri

f f i t h, J. , an d Hoyl e, J.

(PUBLISH)
**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 on Form 10-Q of McLeodUSAIncorporated (the “Company”) for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2005 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, G. Kenneth Burckhardt, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, herebycertify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

 

(1) The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

 

(2) The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ G. Kenneth Burckhardt      |   |
|--------------------------------|--------|
| Name: G. Kenneth Burckhardt    |
| Title: Chief Financial Officer |
| Date: August 9, 2005           |

 

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.  A signed original of this written statementrequired by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retainedby the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                       2,146,021
<SECURITIES>                                 7,882,673
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,696,393
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (563,143)
<INVENTORY>                                  3,188,521
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            14,497,261
<PP&E>                                       6,170,880
<DEPRECIATION>                             (2,815,025)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              18,504,327
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,473,725
<BONDS>                                        173,606
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          4
<COMMON>                                       119,192
<OTHER-SE>                                  15,737,799
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                18,504,327
<SALES>                                      1,042,227
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,042,227
<CGS>                                          699,608
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  699,608
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,160,323
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              13,055
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,765,021)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,765,021)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,765,021)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.245)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.245)
        

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lasco Lavaun HURT, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 85-3058.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted March 4, 1986.

Decided Jan. 20, 1987.

*708Robert C. Weaver, Asst. U.S. Atty., Portland, Or., for plaintiff-appellee.

John S. Ransom, Ransom, Blackman & Simson, Portland, Or., for defendant-appellant.

Before FLETCHER, ALARCON, and WIGGINS, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

The court’s opinion in this case filed July 25, 1986, and which appears in 795 F.2d at 765 is amended as follows:

> 1. Add the following on page 773, prior to the paragraph beginning with headnote [11]:

> Hurt asserts that we must reverse this matter because the description of the items to be seized was “very similar” to the warrant found invalid in our decision in *United States v. Hale,*784 F.2d 1465 (9th Cir.1986). We disagree. *Hale*is clearly distinguishable. In *Hale,*we concluded that a warrant describing the items to be seized as “obscene, lewd, lascivious, or indecent” is “too general to support the seizure of material that was, at the time of the seizure, arguably protected by the first amendment.” *Id.*at 1469.

> The warrant in the matter before us particularly described the material to be seized. The officers were specifically commanded to search for material “depicting minors (that is, persons under the age of 16) engaged in sexually explicit activity” as required by the fourth amendment. This language sufficiently circumscribed the officers’ discretion at the time of the seizure. *See Lo-Ji Sales, Inc. v. New York,*442 U.S. 319, 325-26, 99 S.Ct. 2319, 2324, 60 L.Ed.2d 920 (1979). The words used in the warrant to describe the material sought need no expert training or experience to clarify and limit their meaning. Any rational adult person can recognize sexually explicit *conduct*engaged in by children under the age of 16 when he sees it. Furthermore, the facts show that when asked where he kept his pornography, Hurt directed the officers to the closet in his bedroom.

The panel as constituted above has voted to deny the petition for rehearing and to reject the suggestion for rehearing en banc.

The full court has been advised of the suggestion for rehearing en banc, and no judge of the court has requested a vote on the suggestion for rehearing en banc. Fed.R.App.P. 35(b).

The petition for rehearing is denied and the suggestion for rehearing en banc is rejected.
News United States Air Force
 Airmen can access behavioral health services in primary care clinicsPublished May 12, 2015
                        
                        By Air Force Surgeon General Public Affairs
                **FALLS CHURCH, Va. (AFNS) --**
                Airmen, veterans and family members seeking care for a variety of mental health and medical conditions have direct access to care from their primary care clinic.   
The support is available through the Air Force's Behavioral Health Optimization Program (BHOP), a consultation service within primary care designed to target any issue affecting a person's overall health and optimal functioning.  According to Maj. Mathew Nielsen, BHOP chief for the Air Force Medical Operations Agency, BHOP services are not considered mental health treatment, but rather short-term care focused on healthy coping strategies, communication skills and behavioral change.
"Mental health treatment is a specialty service, and BHOP is a consultation service," Nielsen said. "It is similar to when a primary care manager refers a patient to a cardiologist, orthopedist, dermatologist or other specialists when needed."
Nielsen said Air Force data shows that nine out of 10 patients can be effectively treated within BHOP by licensed social workers and psychologists and never receive a referral to a mental health clinic.
"Research has demonstrated that BHOP is a very effective model and we are seeing a lot of patients in primary care," he said. "Patients are getting better and they report being highly satisfied with these services."
Before seeking care from the on base mental health clinic or a community Tri-Care mental health provider, Nielsen recommends first seeking assistance from your military treatment facility's internal behavioral health consultant (IBHC).  Last year, he said, nearly 35,000 Air Force beneficiaries benefited from seeing the IBHC at least once. Brief consultation is now available for a variety of topics, such as sleeping better, managing anxiety and worry, weight loss management, coping with chronic illness, pain and stressors, tobacco cessation, improving mood and chronic pain. 
"Integrated primary care behavioral health consultation is a premium service for our beneficiaries," Nielsen said. "Most health care systems in the United States do not have these services available." 
For more information on BHOP services, or to make an appointment, contact your primary care clinic or ask your PCM for an introduction.medical 



Behavioral Health Optimization Program 



BHOP 



health care 



health 



Air Force Medical Service Related Links
        Behavioral health consultation now available in primary care clinics
                                May 21, 2014
                                Airmen, dependents and veterans now have access to behavioral health services through their primary care manager, or PCM, at any military treatment facility, Air Force Medical Operations Agency officials report.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)
     In connection with the accompanying Annual Report of Brigham ExplorationCompany (the “Company”) on Form 10-K, for the period ended December 31, 2003(the “Report”), I, Ben M. Brigham, Chief Executive Officer, President andChairman of the Board of the Company, hereby certify that:
(1)     The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
(2)     The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany. Dated: March 26, 2004 /s/ Ben M. BrighamBen M. BrighamChief Executive Officer
#### Jeffrey H. VAN POYCK, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D10-2115.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 2, 2011.

Jeffrey H. Van Poyck, in proper person.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before RAMIREZ, C.J., and GERSTEN and LAGOA, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal of an order denying a “Petition Seeking Compensation for Wrongful Incarceration.” The trial court dismissed the petition stating that Jeffrey H. Van Poyck had to initiate the application process for compensation with the Department of Legal Affairs pursuant to section 961.06(2). Thus, the petition was filed in the wrong jurisdiction. However, before such a petition may be filed, the petitioner must first establish that he was a “wrongfully incarcerated person” by filing a petition “with the original sentencing court” pursuant to section 961.03. Although the caption of the petition improperly delineated the relief sought, in the “wherefore” clause, Van Poyck properly requested a finding of whether he was a “wrongfully incarcerated person.” We therefore reverse and remand for the trial court to make such a determination.

Reversed and remanded.
#### STATE ex rel. Stephon JAMES v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2010-KH-2651.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 4, 2011.

In re James, Stephon; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial *919Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. J, Nos. 343846, 394007; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KW 1362.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; *State ex rel. Glover v. State,*93-2330 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189; *State v. Parker,*98-0256 (La.5/8/98), 711 So.2d 694; La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.3; *State ex rel. Melinie v. State,*93-1380 (La.1/12/96), 665 So.2d 1172.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1505 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1505

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To designate the United States courthouse located at 131 East 4th 
   Street in Davenport, Iowa, as the ``James A. Leach United States 
                             Courthouse''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The United States courthouse located at 131 East 4th Street in 
Davenport, Iowa, shall be known and designated as the ``James A. Leach 
United States Courthouse''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the United States courthouse referred to 
in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``James A. Leach 
United States Courthouse''.

            Passed the House of Representatives May 15, 2007.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
110th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 1505

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

   To designate the United States courthouse located at 131 East 4th 
   Street in Davenport, Iowa, as the ``James A. Leach United States 
                             Courthouse''.
```
Exhibit 23.1

LOGO

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-112947) and Form S-3 (No. 333-139895) of Bay Banks of Virginia, Inc. and
Subsidiaries of our report, dated March 24, 2008, relating to the audit of the consolidated financial statements, included in and incorporated by reference in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Bay Banks of Virginia, Inc. and Subsidiaries for
the year ended December 31, 2007.



|                    
|--------------------
|LOGO                
|                    
|Winchester, Virginia
|March 28, 2008      



55
News United States Air Force
 August issue of Airman magazine now availablePublished Aug. 1, 2016
                **FORT GEORGE G. MEADE, Md. (AFNS) --**
                The August issue of Airman magazine is now available to download and is viewable through a web browser. 
In this month’s issue of Airman magazine, we take a look at the U-2 mission and what happens while a pilot is 13 miles high in the stratosphere. 
Also included in the U-2 discussion is how pilots are able to eat through a pressurized suit that has no flip down visor. 
Lastly, we sift through the sand with explosive ordnance disposal technicians and discuss the inherent risks that these brave Airmen have and continue to face on a daily basis to save the lives of others. 
You can download the August issue of Airman magazine on your tablet here:
- Apple version
- Android version
To read this issue on a PC/Mac, click here.
For more stories, visit Airman Online, the website for the official magazine of the U.S. Air Force.Airman magazine
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

               SUBSIDIARIES OF SUMMIT PROPERTIES PARTNERSHIP, L.P.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
NAME OF SUBSIDIARY                                    STATE OF ORGANIZATION
------------------                                    ---------------------
<S>                                                   <C>
Summit Management Company                                   Maryland
Summit Apartment Builders, Inc.                              Florida
Home Ownership Made Easy, LLC                               Delaware
Stony Point/Summit, LLC                                  North Carolina
Summit/Belmont Limited Partnership                          Virginia
Henderson/McGuire Partners (Limited Partnership)            Delaware
McGregor/McGuire, LLC                                    North Carolina
Sand Lake Joint Venture                                      Florida
Portofino Place, Ltd.                                        Florida
Foxcroft East Associates                                 North Carolina
Summit Stonefield, LLC                                    Pennsylvania
Summit Southwest, L.P.                                      Delaware
Summit Valley Brook, LLC                                    Delaware
Summit Shiloh, LLC                                           Georgia
Summit Sweetwater, LLC                                       Georgia
Summit Grandview, LLC                                    North Carolina
Summit Grand Parc, LLC                                      Delaware
Summit Roosevelt, LLC                                       Delaware
PAPEC Silo Creek, LLC                                       Delaware
Summit Brickellview, LLC                                    Delaware
</TABLE>
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 18

- 00204

- CV

$785 IN U.S. CURRENC Y , Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

From the 40th District Court Ellis County, Texas Trial Court No. 98056

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant presented a notice of appeal regarding a trial court order or judgment
signed on May 25, 2018. By letter dated July 27, 2018, the Clerk of this Court notified
Appellant that the docketing statement was past due and must be filed within 21 days
from the date of the letter. No docketing statement was received and filed.
Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(b).
Absent a specific exemption, the Clerk of the Court must collect filing fees at the
time a document is presented for filing. T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 12.1(b); Appendix to T EX

. R. A PP

.$785 in U.S . Currency v. State Page 2

P ., Order Regarding Fees ( Amended Aug. 28, 2007, eff. Sept. 1, 2007). S ee also T EX

. R. A PP

.

P . 5; 10 TH T EX

. A PP

. (W ACO ) L OC

. R. 5; T EX

. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN . § 51.207(b); § 51.941(a) (West
2005); and § 51.208 (West Supp. 2011). Under these circumstances, we suspend the rule

and order t he Clerk to write off all unpaid filing fees in this case. T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 2. The

write

- off of the fees from the accounts receivable of the Court in no way eliminates or
reduces the fees owed by appellants

.

AL SCOGGINS Justice

Before Ch ief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Appeal dismissed Opinion delivered and filed September 12, 2018 [CV06]
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 93 (Thursday, June 8, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H5701]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                   URGING CONGRESS TO SHOW RESTRAINT

  (Mrs. MEEK of Florida asked and was given permission to address the 
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I stand here today to urge 
restraint on the part of the Congress on both sides of the aisle, both 
Republicans and Democrats, to understand when they begin to dismantle 
the only health care program for the poor that we have in this country, 
that they should take some pause before doing that.
  I think the American public needs to know not what is going on here 
in Washington and the bills and the resolutions, but they need to know 
what is not there.
  The Republicans want to cut Medicaid by $170 billion, and I listened 
this morning and I heard some greedy Governors, particularly Governors 
from Republican States, who want to have all the money dumped in one 
pile so they can use it as they see fit. And I guarantee you it will 
not all be used for the purposes for which it is intended.
  They show little concern about the impact of these proposals on 
children, the elderly, and the severely disabled. They are concerned 
about management and about how they can use this money to make their 
coffers stronger. They like to cut dollars, but they do not like to 
create alternatives.
  I have heard no alternatives to Medicaid since I have been here.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge restraint on the part of the Congress to think 
about the poor and the underserved.

                          ____________________
```
News United States Air Force
 2016 promotion cycle study reference CDCs now available onlinePublished Oct. 1, 2015
                        
                        By Air Education and Training Command Public Affairs
                **JOINT BASE SAN ANTONIO-RANDOLPH, Texas (AFNS) --**
                The 2016 promotion cycle Weighted Airman Promotion System (WAPS) study reference Career Development Courses (CDCs) are now available on the WAPS Online Reference Library Database.
During the 2015 cycle, 257 promotion tests were administered in support of WAPS and the U.S. Air Force senior NCO promotion system.
"Today's Air Force continues to ensure promotion tests are fair, valid, credible, and relevant," said Dwayne Hafer, from the Air Education and Training Command Airman Advancement Division. "So far this year, 124,254 Airmen have tested for promotion. We anticipate similar numbers for the upcoming 2016 testing cycle which begins in December." 
The 2016 promotion cycle Enlisted Promotions References and Requirements Catalog, the source listing all study sources for both WAPS and U.S. Air Force Supervisory Exam examinees, is available online to .mil users at the Airman Advancement Division website. All supporting WAPS CDCs are available at eWORLD.2016 promotion cycle 



testing 



WAPS 



CDCs