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

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 822 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

  1st Session
                                H. R. 822

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              July 9, 1997

   Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
    To facilitate a land exchange involving private land within the 
  exterior boundaries of Wenatchee National Forest in Chelan County, 
                              Washington.

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

SECTION 1. BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT, WENATCHEE NATIONAL FOREST, WASHINGTON.

    The boundary of the Wenatchee National Forest in Chelan County, 
Washington, is hereby adjusted to exclude section 1 of Township 23 
North, Range 19 East, Willamette Meridian.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 8, 1997.

            Attest:

                                                ROBIN H. CARLE,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-19-00105-CR

Jackie Lett, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE 33RD DISTRICT COURT OF BURNET COUNTY

NO. 48548, THE HONORABLE J. ALLAN GARRETT, JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

The mandate in this cause issued by this Court on November 10, 2020, is hereby

withdrawn.

It is so ordered July 1, 2021.

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Baker and Triana

Do Not Publish
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          11,256
<SECURITIES>                                   103,049
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,405
<ALLOWANCES>                                       425
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                76,011
<PP&E>                                         146,873
<DEPRECIATION>                                  14,190
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 263,266
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           27,228
<BONDS>                                        156,981
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           47,849
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            18
<OTHER-SE>                                      30,952
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   263,266
<SALES>                                         19,886
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                19,886
<CGS>                                           18,989
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   43,579
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,188
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (29,749)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (29,749)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (29,749)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (1.84)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (1.84)


</TABLE>
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Anthony Noel,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Crane Medical Transportation Company 

LLC,

Defendant.

No. CV-16-00047-TUC-FRZ

ORDER 

Plaintiff filed a Motion requesting that this action be dismissed pursuant to Rule 

41(a)(2). (Doc. 19). Defendant has not filed any counterclaims in this action, nor has it 

opposed the pending motion. (See Dkt.). In the interest of judicial resources and 

efficiency, Plaintiff’s motion is granted. (See Doc. 19 (acknowledging any further 

litigation in this matter is “futile” and “would waste judicial and parties’ resources”); see 

also, Romoland Sch. Dist. v. Inland Empire Energy Ctr., LLC, 548 F.3d 738, 748 (9th 

Cir. 2008) (accepting similar rationale adjudicating a Rule 41(a)(2) motion as “entirely 

legitimate”)). 

. . . 

. . . 

. . . 

. . . 

. . . 

. . . 

Case 4:16-cv-00047-FRZ Document 22 Filed 06/17/16 Page 1 of 2
- 2 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s RULE 41(a)(2) Motion For 

Voluntary Dismissal (Doc. 19) is GRANTED and this action is dismissed without 

prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.

Dated this 16th day of June, 2016.

Case 4:16-cv-00047-FRZ Document 22 Filed 06/17/16 Page 2 of 2
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 22, 2014

No. 04-14-00427-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF J.M.O., A Child,

From the 288th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013-PA-01766

Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The Appellee’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief is GRANTED. The 

appellee’s brief is due on October 15, 2014. Because this is an accelerated appeal from the trial 

court’s termination of appellant’s parental rights, no further extensions of time will be 

considered.

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

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

court on this 22nd day of September, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
#### John E. Newman *v.*Nathaniel Wickliffe, Exor., &c.

APPEAL EROM NELSON CIRCUIT COURT.

January 9, 1872.

Response to Petition por Rehearing by

Judge Pryor:

The record in the case of Newman vs. Wickliffe Executor was carefully considered by this court, and we are now unable to perceive what the original suit of Wickliffe Exor. vs. Grigsby has to do with the present controversy except for the purpose of showing that in the last named suit the rule against Newman to pay the money into court was issued. The appellees on the *522trial of this case offered to read parts of the record in the case of Wickliffe Exor. vs. Grigsby, and the appellant Newman objected, and the parties agreeing *“that the question before the court was not to determine to whom the money in controversy would ultimately belong, the court sustained the objection.”*

*Newman, James, for appellant.*

*Muir & Wiclcliffe, for appellees.*

Grigsby, as receiver took possession of this money and failed to account for it when ordered by the court to pay it over, the appellant Newman was his surety, and this court after considering fully the grounds relied on for a rehearing must overrule the petition. The statute of limitation is no bar to the proceeding for the reasons set forth in the opinion delivered. The appellant by the judgment of the court is required to pay the money over to the commissioner Linthicun in order that he may pay it out to the parties entitled. If Wickliffe is dead, it cannot effect the rights of the appellant; all he is required to do is to pay the money into court, or to the commissioner as directed by the judgment. The parties who are litigating in regard to this money are making no complaint, and if they were the judgment is right and proper.
#### Marion Lewis et al. *v.*Reuben C. Ratliffe.

Trespass — Original Trespasser — Conversion *by*Another — Damages — Joint Liability.

The party who receives property wrongfully taken by another and converts same to his own use is not a joint trespasser, and is therefore not responsible, for damages, as an original trespasser.

APPEAL EROM MORGAN CIRCUIT COURT.

April 11, 1871.

Opinion oe the Court by

Judge Hardin :

The petition in the first paragraph alleges in effect that the •defendant, Marion Lewis, wrongfully took the plaintiff’s mare, and in the second paragraph that the other defendants became liable afterwards by having the mare in their possession and converting her to their use, but no joint trespass of the three defendants is alleged or proved, although there is evidence conducing to show a liability on the part of John J. Lewis under the second paragraph, and that Marion Lewis was guilty of the trespass charged in the first. It seems to us, therefore, that the second instruction given, that “If the jury believe the evidence they will find for the plaintiff against Marion Lewis and John J. Lewis the value of the mare and such damages as the plaintiff may have sustained by the wrongful taking of the same,” was erroneous in making John J. Lewis liable for the damages sustained in consequence of the original trespass, as to which there was neither allegation nor proof against him.

The instruction asked by the defendants was properly refused.

Rut for the error indicated, the judgment is reversed and the *270cause remanded for a new trial and for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

*Hazelrigg, for appellant.*

*Cooper, for appellee.*
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Tracey Allen Antone, Sr., 

Defendant.

No. CR-15-01230-PHX-DGC

DETENTION ORDER 

 On May 24, 2018, Defendant appeared before this Court on a petition for 

revocation of supervised release. The issue of detention was submitted to the Court. The 

Court considered the petition and file in determining whether Defendant should be 

released on conditions set by the Court. 

 The Court finds that Defendant, having previously been convicted and placed on 

supervised release, and having appeared before the Court in connection with a petition to 

revoke his supervised release, has failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence 

that he is not likely to flee or pose a danger to the safety of the community if released 

pursuant to Rule 46(d), and Rule 32.1(a)(6), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and 18 

U.S.C. § 3143. 

 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant be detained pending further 

proceedings. 

 Dated this 24th day of May, 2018. 

Honorable Eileen S. Willett

United States Magistrate Judge
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Eric John King, 

Petitioner, 

v.

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-98-1277-PHX-RCB

DEATH PENALTY CASE

 ORDER RE: CERTIFICATE OF 

 APPEALABILITY

 

Before the Court is Petitioner’s motion (Dkt. 104) for a certificate of appealability

concerning the denial of his motion for relief pursuant to Rule 60(b).

Rule 22(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that when an appeal

is taken by a petitioner, the district judge who rendered the judgment shall either issue a

certificate of appealability or state the reasons why such a certificate should not issue.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), a certificate of appealability may issue only when the

petitioner “has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” This

showing can be established by demonstrating that “reasonable jurists could debate whether

(or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner”

or that the issues were “adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Slack v.

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (citing Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 & n.4

(1983)). 

The Court finds, for the reasons set forth in its order of July 1, 2009 (Dkt. 102), that

reasonable jurists could not debate its application of Rule 60(b) to Petitioner’s challenges to

Case 2:98-cv-01277-RCB Document 105 Filed 08/11/09 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

the Court’s dismissal of Claim 7 on procedural grounds and that the issues involved are not

adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for a certificate of appealability

(Dkt. 104) is denied.

DATED this 10th day of August, 2009.

Case 2:98-cv-01277-RCB Document 105 Filed 08/11/09 Page 2 of 2
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"NASA Statement Regarding Oct. 28 Orbital Sciences Corp. Launch Mishap","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"ZECvIllgvD\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/nasa-statement-regarding-oct-28-orbital-sciences-corp-launch-mishap\/\">NASA Statement Regarding Oct. 28 Orbital Sciences Corp. Launch Mishap<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/nasa-statement-regarding-oct-28-orbital-sciences-corp-launch-mishap\/embed\/#?secret=ZECvIllgvD\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA Statement Regarding Oct. 28 Orbital Sciences Corp. Launch Mishap” — NASA\" data-secret=\"ZECvIllgvD\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/04\/nasa-logo.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":300}
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6324

CLIFTON BERNARD HICKEY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JOYCE K. CONLEY, Dr., Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. David A. Faber, District Judge. (CA-01-183-5) Submitted: June 13, 2002 Decided: June 18, 2002 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Clifton Bernard Hickey, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Lee Keller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Clifton Bernard Hickey appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Hickey v. Conley , No. CA-01-183-5 (S.D.W. Va. Feb. 1, 2002). 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
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"Landing Coverage Set for NASA Astronaut Chris Cassidy, Space Station Crew","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"RVJax554KJ\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/landing-coverage-set-for-nasa-astronaut-chris-cassidy-space-station-crew\/\">Landing Coverage Set for NASA Astronaut Chris Cassidy, Space Station Crew<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/landing-coverage-set-for-nasa-astronaut-chris-cassidy-space-station-crew\/embed\/#?secret=RVJax554KJ\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Landing Coverage Set for NASA Astronaut Chris Cassidy, Space Station Crew” — NASA\" data-secret=\"RVJax554KJ\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/10\/49784242052_40d3cb8fdf_k_0.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":400}
**EXHIBIT 3.1**

 

**CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT OFCERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION OFPAWNMART, INC.**

 

PawnMart, Inc. (hereinaftercalled the “Corporation”), a corporation organized and existing under and byvirtue of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware, does herebycertify:

 

1.                                       The name of the Corporation is PawnMart, Inc.

 

2.                                       The Certificate of Incorporation of theCorporation is hereby amended by striking out Article 1 thereof and bysubstituting in lieu of said Article the following new Article:

 

**“ARTICLE 1**

**NAME**

 

The name of the Corporation is Xponential, Inc.”

 

3.                                       The amendment of the Certificate ofIncorporation herein certified has been duly adopted in accordance with theprovisions of Sections 228 and 242 of the General Corporation Law of the Stateof Delaware.

 

Executed on this 28th day ofFebruary, 2003.

 

 
|   | By:    |  /s/ Robert W. Schleizer                    |
|--------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   | Robert W. Schleizer                                   |
|   |   | Executive Vice President and Chief

Financial Officer |

 

----
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"NASA, Boeing Announce Crew Changes for Starliner Crew Flight Test","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"p6tpowJxPu\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/nasa-boeing-announce-crew-changes-for-starliner-crew-flight-test\/\">NASA, Boeing Announce Crew Changes for Starliner Crew Flight Test<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/nasa-boeing-announce-crew-changes-for-starliner-crew-flight-test\/embed\/#?secret=p6tpowJxPu\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA, Boeing Announce Crew Changes for Starliner Crew Flight Test” — NASA\" data-secret=\"p6tpowJxPu\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/10\/jsc2018e098146.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":400}